One thing you'll want to make sure and look at is the file formats and standards that the name-brand packages use. Try to accomodate those users that will have been using something else by making it easy to transfer files between your package and their old one. Don't make your interface too unlike other programs, either, or else it'll be confusing when your users make the switch to your package. Also, get some friends who aren't that good with computers to test stuff out, and see how easy it is for them to use it.
I go to the University of Maryland, and I have to say the $14 dollar tax is more than reasonable, particularly if you're in CS. They've donated tons of stuff, including.NET as soon as it came out. They give heavy student discounts on their software. They hold dull presentations where they give away their software for free. For the non CS people, with the $14 dollars they've installed Office on practically all of the Windoze boxen on campus. Now, I'm as reluctant to part with my money as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is that like them or not, Microsoft is giving Maryland a LOT of software for just a $14 tax. I was against it when it was proposed, but I have to say it's worked out well.
Looks good graphically, but I was kind of disappointed that they didn't seem to have any wacky, over-the-top units, like psychics and mind-controlled squid. It gave the Red Alert games a sense of fun that I think is missing in a lot of games.
By the way, be sure to check gamespot again monday afternoon, they'll have more on Generals, including a list of some of the units!
If true, this is one of the neatest hacks i've heard off. Still, it's hard to imagine that you could get that much info, I mean, lights don't blink all that much. Still, they say they've done it. perhaps there are fluxes in the LED's too small for the naked eye to see or something?
2 reasons. First, they feel that they're setting people up for disappointment, since it wouldn't really be the same animal (no memories of the owner, for example). Secondly, there are already so many cats that need a home. It's not commonly known, but overpopulation can be something of a problem with cats. They breed like rabbits.
I haven't seen the movie, so I really don't know if Jon's comments are accurate or not. But....why is this on Slashdot? The movie isn't even remotely geeky. Why is Katz posting this here? I'm not mad about this, just confused....
I'm trying not to make this a flame, or to make it sound like I'm just bad mouthing you, Jon, but I'm not sure you yourself have really participated in the revolution that you're talking about. What do I mean? Let's take a look at this post of yours is an example:
1. You have the unequal ability to post editorials on slashdot, something none of us are able to do, preventing us from presenting different points of view or giving rebuttles that will be given as much attention.
2. We have no real means of responding to your column to you personally, as you do not seem to give out any means of contacting you, such as E-mail (Understnadable, given the flames you'd get, but still)
3. When people respond in the comments section, you rarely respond to other people's comments. For all I know, you may never even read this comment of mine.
What I'm getting at is that you're basically still producing an old media style column that is no different from the kind of features produced by, say, the NY times. There's no interactivity, or real conversation between you and your readers. In fact, there's less of a dialogue than in the print media: at least in a newspaper columnists sometimes respond to comments made by their readers.
If you are, in fact, reading this Jon, my suggestion would be that if you want a new media, you have to make it yourself. Involve yourself in open discussion instead of basically writing a magazine column.
Guys, no offense, but I'm getting a little tired of everyone saying that Americans have no cuisine. To be sure, American cooking is less well known, but I'm getting a little pissed at everyone saying "American food- what is that a hot dog?"
Jon, gamers are not necessarily artists or storytellers. SOME gamers are, when they make skins, mods, fan fiction, etc. But others simply respond to the game. This level of interactivity may be preferable to no interactivity (the TV) but it doesn't make all gamers storytellers. Like with most media, games are how you use them. Fragging a few people in quake doesn't make you an artist. But playing in a Massively Multiplayer RPG, giving it some thought, and writing a fanfic or two can.
We are not in a renaissance.
on
The Renaissance
·
· Score: 1
True, we are gaining new technology. But this does not equal a renaissance. We are not in a rennaisance for a very simple reason: intelligence. In the renaissance you saw a general rise in the education and thoughfulness of the common man. This is not the case now. Although a small minority retain independent thought, much of society blindly believes what they are told by CNN, newspapers, even on the internet. Yes, John, it's true, the internet doesn't automatically make you an intellectual. It's all in how you use it. If you use it only to go to large corporate web sites, etc, you are no more intellectual that the guy watching football on ESPN. What I'm getting at is that for a scoiety to have a true rennaisance, it's not enough for a small group of people to invent new things, members of society have to start thinking more for themselves. Tehnology CAN lead to this occuring, but it doesn't have to.
Interesting stuff. But I can't help but wonder if it's accurate. Often an idea can be theoretically perfect, but have flaws in reality. Even if the math for a theoretical network argues that the net keeps running, there may be practical difficulties with a real network.
Secondly, the paper seems to assume random crashes. Would things be different for non-random situations? Anyone know?
Maybe this is a good idea, I don't know. But to be honest, although it sounds cool, I'm not sure I'd actually want a 3d interface.
Imagine how jumbled things are in 2d. Think 3d will help? people will just clog up the extra space, It'll actually be more difficult to find things! Don't believe me? Try this. Put a pencil on a desk. You can find it again pretty easily. Now, go outside, and drop your pencil in a field. If you didn't remember where it was, how easy would it be to find it? Yes, you'll have search utilities, but I'm thinking that the process of hunting for everything you're looking for will get old fast.
It's nice to see some statistics coming out that support the real facts about the internet. But be careful not to misjudge in the opposite direction. John Katz and numerous others, instead of irrationally deriding the net often irrationally extol the wonders of the net (It'll increase the power of the people! It'll end politics! etc.) The net is neither totally wonderful nor totally awful. It's merely a reflection of the insides of society. You see there things from the real world reflected, neither for the better nor for the worse. So, when you next talk about the net, don't put it down, but don't tell everybody the net is a cure for cancer! It's no more good or bad than a telephone.
It's nice to see people looking outside the system. However, don't think that a revolutionary new 3rd candidate is necessarily good. America ia in a dangerous position right now because of the lemming nature of the voters.
Example:
A few years ago, everyone was screaming for Colin Powell to run. I've got nothing against the guy. BUT no one knew any of his positions! And when polled, many still said they would vote for him!This happened despite the fact that no one really knew anything about him.
When you get an apathetic voter population who is willing to vote for anyone outside the uninspiring 2 candidates, you have a dangerous situation. When people are desperate for a change, they do dumb things, like voting in that short guy Adolf who shouts so much. My point is that the voters' desire to change may lead them not to do something
constructive as Katz hopes, but instead something stupid that they'll live to regret....
1. If you have a point to make, you can do it quite well without insulting people.
2. It is you who do not know the facts. Greenspan plays a large role in driving the economy, but not as large as most think. Many others, including the president, determine the course of the economy. For a more detailed discussion on the president's role in an economic crisis I suggest you read some books on the dawn of the Great Depression. In short, there are a variety of ways a president affects the economy, including international trade relations, taxation and inspection policy for large businesses, and social programs involving the workforce. Alan Greenspan is NOT the sole master of the economy, despite the popular viewpoint that he is.
3. If Greenspan dies, which, given his health in the past is not unlikely, who do you think will choose his successor?
I watched the debates, and neither of the candidates sounded very knowledgable about this issue. Gore's 'parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up' sounded very confused, it was difficult to tell exactly what he was proposing. I'm not sure he knew what he was proposing. Bush was a little clearer on the subject, but still didn't seem too knowledgable. He also sounded alot like someone who had been told what to say if asked this question.
Please note: I am independant, not Democrat. I have even voted Republican at times. BUT:
1. The economy is not as stable as most think. It fluxes more and more each day, and is becoming unpredictable. A loss of confidence could cause problems, as could numerous other things.
2. If it keeps up, we might have a recession or depression, depending on the severity of the economic downturn.
3. It requires a smart man to steer a troubled economy.
The fact that politicians are saying this stuff about the media isn't surprising. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have free speech, but if tv, etc wants to KEEP free speech, people should tone some of the content down a bit. Now before you flame me, hear me out. Most people don't know it, but the media used to be uncensored, mostly. This was in the early 20's. As it got more and more lewd, violent, etc, the general public (not the geeks) got angrier, until they finally implemented a really nasty censorship program. Moral: If you don't tone stuff down, you may eventually see censorship become popular. It's not fair, but it's what will happen.
MIPS is a pretty unreliable means of measuring speed. Here are some reasons why:
1) We're measuring instructions per second. No one's saying what the instruction IS. It could be a tiny one, could be a big one. Different instructions take different lengths of time.
2) You could get around this by getting an average MIPS based on the frequency of use of the various instructions, but that would mean you couldn't compare two computers with different instructions.
3) Some types of chips use longer instructions for efficiency. Now, technically, they are doing fewer instructions. But for all we know, those instructions could each be doing much more work than 1 "normal" instruction.
Truth is, neither MIPS nor Clock Cycle are that good a judge of speed. Measurement is just plain hard.
Does it really matter that much if they can view the contents? I think most companies have better things to do that to read other's mail. They may chew you out over using email during work, but I doubt they'll be all that interested in what you are saying.(Unless the person monitoring the company email gets bored:)
Umm... A lot of the behavior that makes an animal what it is and enables it to survive is taught to it by it's mother. i.e. a cat not raised by it's mother often doesn't know how to hunt. I'm not sure quite how they'd get around that... Can a cow teach a guar to be a guar? You could try getting humans to teach the clones, it's been done before with orphaned animals, but I'm not sure how it'd be done with extinct species where we don't know enough about their behavior..
The question is, why was this book (and Katz's glowing review) written? Is it because this subject is an interesting one to study, or is it an attempt at self-justification through over studying? A few years ago, a research group announced that chocolate is good for you. Many loved the study, 'cause it told them to do what they wanted. This is the same kind of thing. By wrapping porn & etc. in an academic package, you take away the stigma, which seems to be the point of both the book and Katz.
2 things:
1. If Solaris has to be ported, I would think that it would be awhile before they can use it for the Cobalt stuff. By the time they could ship Cubes with Solaris, everyone would already have & be used to the old kind with Linux on it.
2. Given this, I suspect that Sun will eventually rethink their strategy. Probably what we'll see is users being given a choice of which OS they want installed.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing you'll want to make sure and look at is the file formats and standards that the name-brand packages use. Try to accomodate those users that will have been using something else by making it easy to transfer files between your package and their old one. Don't make your interface too unlike other programs, either, or else it'll be confusing when your users make the switch to your package. Also, get some friends who aren't that good with computers to test stuff out, and see how easy it is for them to use it.
Good Luck!
I go to the University of Maryland, and I have to say the $14 dollar tax is more than reasonable, particularly if you're in CS. They've donated tons of stuff, including .NET as soon as it came out. They give heavy student discounts on their software. They hold dull presentations where they give away their software for free. For the non CS people, with the $14 dollars they've installed Office on practically all of the Windoze boxen on campus. Now, I'm as reluctant to part with my money as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is that like them or not, Microsoft is giving Maryland a LOT of software for just a $14 tax. I was against it when it was proposed, but I have to say it's worked out well.
Looks good graphically, but I was kind of disappointed that they didn't seem to have any wacky, over-the-top units, like psychics and mind-controlled squid. It gave the Red Alert games a sense of fun that I think is missing in a lot of games.
By the way, be sure to check gamespot again monday afternoon, they'll have more on Generals, including a list of some of the units!
If true, this is one of the neatest hacks i've heard off. Still, it's hard to imagine that you could get that much info, I mean, lights don't blink all that much. Still, they say they've done it. perhaps there are fluxes in the LED's too small for the naked eye to see or something?
2 reasons. First, they feel that they're setting people up for disappointment, since it wouldn't really be the same animal (no memories of the owner, for example). Secondly, there are already so many cats that need a home. It's not commonly known, but overpopulation can be something of a problem with cats. They breed like rabbits.
I haven't seen the movie, so I really don't know if Jon's comments are accurate or not. But....why is this on Slashdot? The movie isn't even remotely geeky. Why is Katz posting this here? I'm not mad about this, just confused....
I'm trying not to make this a flame, or to make it sound like I'm just bad mouthing you, Jon, but I'm not sure you yourself have really participated in the revolution that you're talking about. What do I mean? Let's take a look at this post of yours is an example:
:)
1. You have the unequal ability to post editorials on slashdot, something none of us are able to do, preventing us from presenting different points of view or giving rebuttles that will be given as much attention.
2. We have no real means of responding to your column to you personally, as you do not seem to give out any means of contacting you, such as E-mail (Understnadable, given the flames you'd get, but still)
3. When people respond in the comments section, you rarely respond to other people's comments. For all I know, you may never even read this comment of mine.
What I'm getting at is that you're basically still producing an old media style column that is no different from the kind of features produced by, say, the NY times. There's no interactivity, or real conversation between you and your readers. In fact, there's less of a dialogue than in the print media: at least in a newspaper columnists sometimes respond to comments made by their readers.
If you are, in fact, reading this Jon, my suggestion would be that if you want a new media, you have to make it yourself. Involve yourself in open discussion instead of basically writing a magazine column.
Not a flame, just a thought
Guys, no offense, but I'm getting a little tired of everyone saying that Americans have no cuisine. To be sure, American cooking is less well known, but I'm getting a little pissed at everyone saying "American food- what is that a hot dog?"
Goldstein. Goldburg's a pro-wrestler, who, I assume, is not an evil spy. :)
Jon, gamers are not necessarily artists or storytellers. SOME gamers are, when they make skins, mods, fan fiction, etc. But others simply respond to the game. This level of interactivity may be preferable to no interactivity (the TV) but it doesn't make all gamers storytellers. Like with most media, games are how you use them. Fragging a few people in quake doesn't make you an artist. But playing in a Massively Multiplayer RPG, giving it some thought, and writing a fanfic or two can.
True, we are gaining new technology. But this does not equal a renaissance. We are not in a rennaisance for a very simple reason: intelligence. In the renaissance you saw a general rise in the education and thoughfulness of the common man. This is not the case now. Although a small minority retain independent thought, much of society blindly believes what they are told by CNN, newspapers, even on the internet. Yes, John, it's true, the internet doesn't automatically make you an intellectual. It's all in how you use it. If you use it only to go to large corporate web sites, etc, you are no more intellectual that the guy watching football on ESPN. What I'm getting at is that for a scoiety to have a true rennaisance, it's not enough for a small group of people to invent new things, members of society have to start thinking more for themselves. Tehnology CAN lead to this occuring, but it doesn't have to.
Secondly, the paper seems to assume random crashes. Would things be different for non-random situations? Anyone know?
Imagine how jumbled things are in 2d. Think 3d will help? people will just clog up the extra space, It'll actually be more difficult to find things! Don't believe me? Try this. Put a pencil on a desk. You can find it again pretty easily. Now, go outside, and drop your pencil in a field. If you didn't remember where it was, how easy would it be to find it? Yes, you'll have search utilities, but I'm thinking that the process of hunting for everything you're looking for will get old fast.
It's nice to see some statistics coming out that support the real facts about the internet. But be careful not to misjudge in the opposite direction. John Katz and numerous others, instead of irrationally deriding the net often irrationally extol the wonders of the net (It'll increase the power of the people! It'll end politics! etc.) The net is neither totally wonderful nor totally awful. It's merely a reflection of the insides of society. You see there things from the real world reflected, neither for the better nor for the worse. So, when you next talk about the net, don't put it down, but don't tell everybody the net is a cure for cancer! It's no more good or bad than a telephone.
Example:
A few years ago, everyone was screaming for Colin Powell to run. I've got nothing against the guy. BUT no one knew any of his positions! And when polled, many still said they would vote for him!This happened despite the fact that no one really knew anything about him.
When you get an apathetic voter population who is willing to vote for anyone outside the uninspiring 2 candidates, you have a dangerous situation. When people are desperate for a change, they do dumb things, like voting in that short guy Adolf who shouts so much. My point is that the voters' desire to change may lead them not to do something constructive as Katz hopes, but instead something stupid that they'll live to regret....
2. It is you who do not know the facts. Greenspan plays a large role in driving the economy, but not as large as most think. Many others, including the president, determine the course of the economy. For a more detailed discussion on the president's role in an economic crisis I suggest you read some books on the dawn of the Great Depression. In short, there are a variety of ways a president affects the economy, including international trade relations, taxation and inspection policy for large businesses, and social programs involving the workforce. Alan Greenspan is NOT the sole master of the economy, despite the popular viewpoint that he is.
3. If Greenspan dies, which, given his health in the past is not unlikely, who do you think will choose his successor?
I watched the debates, and neither of the candidates sounded very knowledgable about this issue. Gore's 'parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up' sounded very confused, it was difficult to tell exactly what he was proposing. I'm not sure he knew what he was proposing. Bush was a little clearer on the subject, but still didn't seem too knowledgable. He also sounded alot like someone who had been told what to say if asked this question.
1. The economy is not as stable as most think. It fluxes more and more each day, and is becoming unpredictable. A loss of confidence could cause problems, as could numerous other things.
2. If it keeps up, we might have a recession or depression, depending on the severity of the economic downturn.
3. It requires a smart man to steer a troubled economy.
4. Bush is not a smart man.
Any questions?
The fact that politicians are saying this stuff about the media isn't surprising. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have free speech, but if tv, etc wants to KEEP free speech, people should tone some of the content down a bit. Now before you flame me, hear me out. Most people don't know it, but the media used to be uncensored, mostly. This was in the early 20's. As it got more and more lewd, violent, etc, the general public (not the geeks) got angrier, until they finally implemented a really nasty censorship program. Moral: If you don't tone stuff down, you may eventually see censorship become popular. It's not fair, but it's what will happen.
1) We're measuring instructions per second. No one's saying what the instruction IS. It could be a tiny one, could be a big one. Different instructions take different lengths of time.
2) You could get around this by getting an average MIPS based on the frequency of use of the various instructions, but that would mean you couldn't compare two computers with different instructions.
3) Some types of chips use longer instructions for efficiency. Now, technically, they are doing fewer instructions. But for all we know, those instructions could each be doing much more work than 1 "normal" instruction.
Truth is, neither MIPS nor Clock Cycle are that good a judge of speed. Measurement is just plain hard.
Does it really matter that much if they can view the contents? I think most companies have better things to do that to read other's mail. They may chew you out over using email during work, but I doubt they'll be all that interested in what you are saying.(Unless the person monitoring the company email gets bored :)
Umm... A lot of the behavior that makes an animal what it is and enables it to survive is taught to it by it's mother. i.e. a cat not raised by it's mother often doesn't know how to hunt. I'm not sure quite how they'd get around that... Can a cow teach a guar to be a guar? You could try getting humans to teach the clones, it's been done before with orphaned animals, but I'm not sure how it'd be done with extinct species where we don't know enough about their behavior..
Makes me wonder... is it possible to have life on a planet without sunlight? What kind would it be?
The question is, why was this book (and Katz's glowing review) written? Is it because this subject is an interesting one to study, or is it an attempt at self-justification through over studying? A few years ago, a research group announced that chocolate is good for you. Many loved the study, 'cause it told them to do what they wanted. This is the same kind of thing. By wrapping porn & etc. in an academic package, you take away the stigma, which seems to be the point of both the book and Katz.
2 things: 1. If Solaris has to be ported, I would think that it would be awhile before they can use it for the Cobalt stuff. By the time they could ship Cubes with Solaris, everyone would already have & be used to the old kind with Linux on it. 2. Given this, I suspect that Sun will eventually rethink their strategy. Probably what we'll see is users being given a choice of which OS they want installed.