That a movie has been leaked is bad. The MPAA is responsible for everything that is bad. Therefore, the MPAA must be responsible for the movie being leaked. That's the logic, right?
Disregarding the original posters idea (I don't believe the MPAA would do this), I DO believe that the people who are in favor of DRM will use the fact that it was released on the 'net (read NOT leaked) to their full advantage. I don't download movies, anything I think is worth seeing I'll go see, or wait to rent it or even buy it. But this release is not anything new, and it does nothing to harm the business of the movie studios. It is a classic bootleg, distributed on the net. Big deal, ho-hum, nothing new. But they will use this as ammunition to get atrocious laws passed. That is bad bad bad.
If Microsoft really wants to compete with Linux they'll release the source to Windows.
I don't think Linux is a real threat to Microsoft yet. The only reason it is garnering any attention at all is because it is the ONLY threat they have had. Microsoft could still keep Windows closed source, and still maintain a huge market share. Right now, they are a monopoly on the desktop. If they lose 1/2 of their customers to some kind of GNU/Linux alternative, they would still have about 50% of the market! Ask any other company if they would like to have 50% of the desktop market, and see what they say.
MS has, what, 42 billion in the bank? They have no reason to open the source to Windows, they have an extremely strong foothold in the market. They would give away the OS before they would ever open the source. But I really doubt that will happen either, they didn't just magically get that 42 B in the bank, they got it from selling software. They could cut their prices in half, and still make money on it.
If the economy rebounds, uh I mean WHEN the economy rebounds;-) there will be less incentive for companies to look to OSS. Right now, people are going to it because of the cost savings. Hopefully they will stick with it, but all those companies who are Windows-centric will still be Windows-centric, and will have forgotten about the mention of OSS. It will be business as usual. I am sure MS is counting on this to happen. They have enough money to wait it out. They could operate with ZERO revenue for about 1.5 years without running out of money. That is power. They aren't worried about GNU/Linux. The good thing is, *knock wood*, it doesn't matter because there isn't anything they can do about it.
Organizations refine their marketing all the time. And incidentally, Linux and open source in general is the #1 threat to Microsoft... and also to Sun. I don't doubt there is a similar pro-Solaris, pro-SPARC, anti-Linux, anti-Intel memo within Sun's sales organization.
To state the obvious, Sun isn't Microsoft. Microsoft is a convicted, predatory monopolist. They have the money and the power to completely ruin OSS, as soon as they figure out how to do it. Don't think they aren't trying.
OSS isn't a company they can buy. It is difficult to sqaush something that is intangible and revolutionary.
This is interesting to me because I love OSS, GNU/Linux in particular. I don't want to see it go away, and I want to know what Microsoft thinks about it, and what their strategies are. I want everyone else to know this too, especially the people who are able to fight against Microsoft.
Check out this story at The Register , which basically says that "Indian Health Minister Shatrughan Sinha has lashed out at both Gates and US Ambassador Robert Blackwill, accusing them of spreading AIDS panic." Not that AIDS isn't a problem, just that they are predicting the the number of AIDS cases in 2010 as a part of scaremongering that serves no real purpose.
I am not sure I see the real point of this article though. I don't think that Gates' donation and visit would have anything to do with gaining popularity in India, but the fact that I even considered it a possibility is scary. Have I become that paranoid of the Evil Empire?
Exactly, even if the article is technically sound, factual, and clear. Management doesn't work on these principles.:-)
Seriously though, I cannot even run Linux on my desktop, because it is not "company approved software". I work for a big company, can you tell? When I even hint at anything Linux or Open Source, I get an immediate brick wall. No matter how logical or technically fantastic a solution, if it ain't "company approved", it ain't happening.
If these folks win their case, the bell tolls for the Internet as many know it. No more plug-ins mean no Java, no Flash, and probably no embedded multimedia, M$ Word docs, PDF, and so on and so forth.
Man, I wanted to moderate this discussion, but I couldn't help but respond to this one.
If you think the internet is based on browser plugins, then you are on crack. If not being able to use browser plugins would ruin your "internet experience" then you really have a problem. Embedding things into the browser was just a convenient way to use external programs from within the browser experience. That is all. This wouldn't mean that you couldn't download and use external programs. I am trying, but I can't think of how this would greatly impact ANY significant user of the internet.
Although I hate stupid patents, I have to kind of cheer about this one a little, only because it sounds like these guys might not take the payoff. I know, it is highly unlikely that they would turn down a huge settlement, but I think the article is asking the question "what if they don't?". Yeah, patent law sucks, but it ain't changing. The patents are out there, and people are getting new ones. As long as they take the payouts, the system won't change. SOMETHING needs to happen to wake people up to patent reform. If not, it will only get worse and worse. So I am kind of hoping this case will be a nightmare for everyone, for the eventual greater good.
Re:A better use of time (OK, here's mine)
on
Just One Page a Day
·
· Score: 2
1. It didn't say it had to be bug-free code.:p
2. Do you know how long it has been since I wrote any C code? I was lucky I spelled stdio correctly.
Overall, this is a good thing. For one, this is a German company, so they are kind of "testing the waters" so to speak for American companies. If it crashes and burns, then chances are the US companies won't try it. If it succeeds, then US companies will copy protect all their CDs.
How is that good? Because it will lead to the downfall of the music industry, or at least wake the public in general up to their tactics.
Personally, I don't really care anymore. I have stopped buying CDs, and I just don't care all that much. They have made me not care. If they want my business, they are going to have to win me back. I am not making any demands, I am just sick of their shit. If they fold, I am not worried - music will rise again on its own. If they succeed with copy protection, I simply won't buy any more CDs, ever. I can live without them, really. So instead of making me feel like music is important, and something that I should always have in my life, they have turned me off of it. Hopefully they will turn everyone else off, people will revolt, and the big record companies will fold. I can't wait for the day when I get to see the news story of Hilary Rosen eating out of a KFC dumpster.
Hopefully they made the joysticks better than the original ones. I think an Atari 2600 joystick is the first thing I remember taking apart. Those damn things broke ALL THE TIME. I remember when my parents got tired of replacing them, I would play by pressing the pop-up buttons on the circuit board itself.
And I am quite sure they broke from normal use, and not from being thrown.
Re:A better use of time (OK, here's mine)
on
Just One Page a Day
·
· Score: 5, Funny
If we just write one line of code a day each we'll have better OCR in no time.
I can honestly say that all of the ladies would be of no interest to me...expecially Paige. I would shoot her as soon as she opened her mouth. Now the old host...that's another matter.:)
Ahh, Alex McLeod. She was pretty hot too. But honestly, I can't stand either of them when they are talking. They just have a stupid role on the show that isn't really necessary. Take a closer look at Paige though, I noticed that she is pretty buff now. Her arms have a pretty good tone to them.
I saw the straw episode, and some of the other weird ones (like Doug's movie theater). Anymore I don't really watch it, but if I know it is on I might tune in around the end to see the before/after pictures.
I used to read both daily, but the US version wouldn't have the same stories. They would have a subset, leaving some out and offering nothing more. I took it out of my bookmarks because the *real* register offered everything.
Again, computers are complex machines, and are configurable. There is a reason there are many variations of programs out there, because none of them satisfy everyone's requirements. But yet you can't say that of, say, a telephone. Sure, they have extra features, but go to any phone in the world and the general concept of pick up, get tone, dial numbers 0-9, still pretty much works. I know people that still forget to hit "send" on the cell phone. Why? Because you never had to do that before. It's a new thing, it made the concept of dialing the phone more complex. But at the same time it added the ability to backup and correct mistakes, something most traditional phones never had.
A phone is for talking to someone else. Simple concept, simple operation (with additional features). What does a computer do? You cannot answer that with a single answer. I avoided the computer/phone analogy for that reason.
Simplicity comes when you find opportunity to say "this is the way it works. Always." People can understand that. We geeks have this Utopian vision in mind where everything at our fingertips is infinitely customizable, but where did we get that? I don't have 12 different ways of playing media on my television, but I'm not whining about it. My car's transmission comes in automatic or manual. I'm thankful for that choice, I'm not encouraging people to come up with more choices for me. Sometimes you just settle with what you're given. If it's really *that* bad, another choice will almost always surface. But if the existing choices work for most users in most cases, why keep adding new choices unless you're demonstrating that they're better?
Again, televisions are single-purpose devices. Of course the basic interface is the same. On/off , channel up/down, volume up/down. Again, what is the one thing a computer is used for? Internet appliances failed. Email stations aren't in high use. Typewriters were superceded by word processors, which were superceded by word processing software. Things are getting more and more complex, so you will not be able to come up with a simpler interface. Basic phone service is simple, but you have voicemail, call-waiting, caller-id, etc. I remember when we only had rotary dial phones. Now everything is tone dialing. So the basic operation changed a little. The use of mobile phones and messaging is HUGE it countries outside the US. We are left behind because of our stupid greedy companies who fear change.
Cars used to be manual. Then there was manual and automatic. Now there is manual, automatic, and "steptronic" style, which is a combination of the two. More complex. Records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, Digital. It is getting more complex. But complex is not bad! The learning curve of our populace is what is holding things back. I try to keep up on it, but I know people who cannot. It just isn't in them to learn new things. My point is that computers will never be stable enough for long enough to come up with a single universal interface. Nothing else has, and they have been simple devices. Why would computers, when they are more complex?
I showed my wife an article about the behind the sceens of one of those episodes and how much damage/money it costs to repair the "renovation". I believe it was either the one where the lady cried on camera or the hay on the walls. She now hates the show even more then I do.:)
But do you still watch it? I think it is a cool show. Vern has got some talent, and usually makes really cool rooms. But part of why I watch is to see how stupid they can get in their designs. If that bastard Frank drew any kittens/chickens/people on my walls I would strangle him.:-) And don't tell me Paige isn't a buff hottie, or you don't like watching Amy Wynn with the power tools, or wouldn't like to tumble with Genevieve.
The good reactions are cool, but the bad reactions are even better. They even run episodes where they highlight the people who didn't like their rooms. I think it is hilarious when people bitch and moan. Come on, the show is well known, people know what they are signing up for when they go to do the show. Keep your damn rooms white and boring if you don't want to take a chance. And boy, some of the before pictures are hideous.
I think the OS *should* be irrelevant. Awareness of it makes things complicated.
First of all, I don't think you can lump everyone together. If you are talking about the end-user of something, the OS shouldn't be a big deal. Think of PDAs or cell-phones. But to people who work on those things, the OS is very important. You can't just ignore it.
I think a lot of people consider a complex interface to be the same thing as a complicated one. Come on, people are complex creatures. It is a matter of education. 30 years ago, a computer mouse would have been considered complex to most people, as evidenced by some people who still have trouble using them, and have to look down at their hand sometimes. (I have seen several older people do this, who haven't used a computer much at all). But kids can figure out how to use it quickly. Typing is a skill that people didn't used to have, but nowadays kids are learning it young. Saying something is "complicated" is relative. An activity can be complex, but once you learn it it is quite easy. I personally don't think that interfaces to computers should be simple. They are complex machines. Now if you are talking about a single-purpose thing, then the interface can be made simple. For complex machines, I don't think you'll get there. You will still need something to interface to the OS, so you'll need something to translate complex -> simple (or maybe vice-versa).
Imagine if the rules of a Turing machine were different depending on what computer you ran it on, and on some computers its rules just didn't hold at all.
The rules of interfacing to the Turing machine are simple, but the logic behind it is not. I don't think you can just lump and OS and applications that run on it together.
Computers will be simpler when somebody can just say "Email" and not have to worry about Outlook, or POP, or any of that nonsense. That's my two bits.
Nonsense? How do you think email works? What you are describing is the interface to email. Are you suggesting a universal email program? Not everybody wants the same thing in email. I still use Pine for crying out loud. Again, computers are complex machines, and are configurable. There is a reason there are many variations of programs out there, because none of them satisfy everyone's requirements. I think THAT is the beauty of computers, they are so complex and configurable. Why would you want everything to be the same? Utopia? Hardly.
This article is just reason # 87 why I cancelled my SciAm subscription earlier this year after 15 years of subscribing. They've veered from true science and now feel the need 'preach' environment, evolution, abortion, etc. in the monthly Editor's Perspectives (and various articles).
I have subscribed for about 6 years, and I noticed that there have been more environmental articles, but I don't consider them to be preachy. They give some good environmental data, and ususally don't go into too much politics about it. I know recently there was a story on how some impoverished countries get a lot of our scrap electronics, and how they salvage metals from them. They point out how toxic this is to the people and the water supplies there. I like finding out about this stuff, because nobody else is reporting on it. We use a LOT of microchips, as do other countries. We need to know that there are dangers in this. Granted, I haven't read this article yet (I am a couple of months behind on my issues) but I'll bet that they are simply pointing out the environmental hazards of chip production, and as chip use increases, the hazards increase. Why is this such a bad thing to know? The more chips we produce, hopefully the better our processes will become, and eventually we will come up with a replacement technology that will make silicon obsolete. Hopefully this new technology will be more friendly to the environment. I'm no Moby, calling the turkey hotline to save the widdle turkeys, but I think we do need to consider our environment.
Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
Every time anybody says "Micro$oft" or the like, god shoots a baby in the head.
Charlton Heston will be thrilled to know that there are guns in Heaven.;-)
Re:We are emotional and not rational??!!!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, I read that too. But recall that they also say, "Linking this with other on-point research...". We don't have access to the other on-point research. They do. We don't know what that research says or doesn't say. It may very well be fair for them to make the conclusion that they made. We don't know.
Maybe that other mysterious research was:
Every time you read one of our new EULA's, how do you feel?
pissed off
disappointed
scared
apathetic
frustrated
confused
fucked
all of the above
If you are supportive of OSS, how does your current relationship with Microsoft make you feel?
pissed off
disappointed
scared
apathetic
frustrated
confused
fucked
all of the above
If you said that you are supportive of OSS, how would a visit from a team of our lawyers make you feel?
pissed off
disappointed
scared
apathetic
frustrated
confused
fucked
all of the above
Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
I think if you are anti-Microsoft, don't mention OSS. Don't say "Microsoft 5ux0r5, Linux rules!". It gives OSS a bad name. Bash MS all you want, I am not saying they don't deserve it. But don't do it in the name of GNU/Linux/OSS.
We are emotional and not rational??!!!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I was surprised the reviewer didn't comment on this section:
Closing, those who are familiar with OSS and Linux are favorably predisposed towards them. Linking this work with other on-point research, we can assume that in the majority of cases this reported 'favorability' is more emotional than it is rational. Given this context, we should not expect rational arguments focused on undermining support for OSS, Linux and the GPL to perform well. In the short term, then, Microsoft should avoid criticizing OSS and Linux directly, continue to develop and aim to eventually win the TCO argument, and focus on delivering positive Shared Source messages that contain transparent, audience specific proof points.
Excuse me? Because people in Microsoft's survey were supportive of OSS, that means that they were predisposed to like it, and therefore is based on emotion and not rationality?! This doesn't make any sense. What is this trying to say, that people who like OSS are simply using it to make a statement, and not becaue they legitimately prefer it? That is a pretty arrogant assessment of the FACTS if you ask me. I use OSS because I find it to be a better product, for several different practical reasons. And since when is it a rule that you can't be rational AND emotional about something?
FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
From the memo:
Messages that criticize OSS, Linux, & the GPL are NOT effective. Messaging that discusses possible Linux patent violations, pings the OSS development process for lacking accountability, attempts to call out the 'viral' aspect of the GPL, and the like are only marginally effective in driving unfavorable opinions around OSS, Linux, and the GPL, and in some cases backfire. On the other hand 'positive' OSS, Linux, and GPL messages are very effective - both across geographies and audiences.
(reviewer's comment):
{I've suspected for a while that the anti-Linux, anti-GPL FUD campaign was actually rebounding on Microsoft. This seems to confirm it.}
I think this speaks also to the fact that WE should not be anti-Microsoft, but be pro-OSS. Being positive does a lot more than being negative. I find that this is a challenge for me personally, but I am working on it.
Just think about it... if you think you're smart and your work is important, why wouldn't someone else think the same? Wouldn't you get pissed off and revert to more "childish" methods of communication and getting your way?
Actually, no, I wouldn't.
I used to think this was an age thing, because I am about to turn 33. But now I realize it has more to do with maturity, and not age. Over the last 10 years, I have grown up a lot, and gained a lot of *real* confidence in myself. (as opposed to that "I can do anything" attitude)
In my experience, people who whine are immature. For the most part, the younger you are, the more you whine, but I don't think it is a clear distinction. There are obviously exceptions. I work with someone who is my age, and nobody can stand to talk to this person because he will argue with you for hours over the littlest point, until you get so sick of him you either give in or just walk away. He is a whiner, and everyone knows it. Nobody wants to work with him, and everyone tunes him out the second he starts talking. His ratio of noise to clarity is about 95 to 5, but that 5% of the time nobody hears him.
Bottom line is, don't act mature, be mature. Don't pretend to be nice, be nice. Engineering ain't marketing or sales, we don't rely on how good something looks or sounds, we rely on how good something is.
I don't believe these nutcases. However, I recently realized that one of my arguments against them is not as strong as I thought.
Here's the argument: Tens of thousands of people were involved in the Apollo program. There were thousands of them who would unavoidably know if the moon landings were faked. Several thousand people can't keep a secret for over 30 years.
What is wrong with this argument? Bletchley Park. For about 30 years, several thousand people kept the secret that the allies hand broken most of the axis codes during World War II.
(It is still a valid argument, however - there are differences between Bletchley Park and a hypothetically faked Apollo 11.)
The problem with this is that you are trying to argue against the nuts. That is backwards. Is it plausible that NASA could have faked the landings, and kept it a secret. Sure, there is a very very remote chance that it is possible. But that doesn't mean that they did! That is the problem with nuts, they don't listen. They make statements that cannot be disproved. Prove to me there have never been aliens on this planet. What about this bigfoot photo? It looks real, it must be real. See that shimmering light in the sky? If you don't know what it is, it MUST be an alien spacecraft. Goddamn loonies, all of them.
One thing I haven't seen people mention is the Space Shuttle program. Is that faked? Is it that much harder to land someone on the moon as it is to send them into space and have them return on the same craft, and re-use that craft over and over? What, is it all based on smoke and mirrors? I would suspect that the arguement would be "sure, that is now, but back then we didn't have the technology". Well what technology is the Space Shuttle based on then? Think it just came out of a moment of clarity?
The space program used to be a thing of wonder for the whole world, now it is just another thing. Doesn't anyone else read the news about the Space Shuttle and think "Wow! That is amazing! I still can't really grasp how incredible that is". They have provided so much footage on their website, it really is something of wonder. And what about Hubble, and some of the probes that have been out there for years sending back data. All faked. F*ck off, all you loonies.
Microsoft could hand over out of date code, partial code, bugged code, and any number of other variables on the "truth" and legal guys would be none the wiser.
Please clarify the difference between real code and bugged code.:-)
And don't whine about MS-bashing - try and tell me they don't deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Disregarding the original posters idea (I don't believe the MPAA would do this), I DO believe that the people who are in favor of DRM will use the fact that it was released on the 'net (read NOT leaked) to their full advantage. I don't download movies, anything I think is worth seeing I'll go see, or wait to rent it or even buy it. But this release is not anything new, and it does nothing to harm the business of the movie studios. It is a classic bootleg, distributed on the net. Big deal, ho-hum, nothing new. But they will use this as ammunition to get atrocious laws passed. That is bad bad bad.
I don't think Linux is a real threat to Microsoft yet. The only reason it is garnering any attention at all is because it is the ONLY threat they have had. Microsoft could still keep Windows closed source, and still maintain a huge market share. Right now, they are a monopoly on the desktop. If they lose 1/2 of their customers to some kind of GNU/Linux alternative, they would still have about 50% of the market! Ask any other company if they would like to have 50% of the desktop market, and see what they say.
MS has, what, 42 billion in the bank? They have no reason to open the source to Windows, they have an extremely strong foothold in the market. They would give away the OS before they would ever open the source. But I really doubt that will happen either, they didn't just magically get that 42 B in the bank, they got it from selling software. They could cut their prices in half, and still make money on it.
If the economy rebounds, uh I mean WHEN the economy rebounds ;-) there will be less incentive for companies to look to OSS. Right now, people are going to it because of the cost savings. Hopefully they will stick with it, but all those companies who are Windows-centric will still be Windows-centric, and will have forgotten about the mention of OSS. It will be business as usual. I am sure MS is counting on this to happen. They have enough money to wait it out. They could operate with ZERO revenue for about 1.5 years without running out of money. That is power. They aren't worried about GNU/Linux. The good thing is, *knock wood*, it doesn't matter because there isn't anything they can do about it.
To state the obvious, Sun isn't Microsoft. Microsoft is a convicted, predatory monopolist. They have the money and the power to completely ruin OSS, as soon as they figure out how to do it. Don't think they aren't trying.
OSS isn't a company they can buy. It is difficult to sqaush something that is intangible and revolutionary. This is interesting to me because I love OSS, GNU/Linux in particular. I don't want to see it go away, and I want to know what Microsoft thinks about it, and what their strategies are. I want everyone else to know this too, especially the people who are able to fight against Microsoft.
I am not sure I see the real point of this article though. I don't think that Gates' donation and visit would have anything to do with gaining popularity in India, but the fact that I even considered it a possibility is scary. Have I become that paranoid of the Evil Empire?
Exactly, even if the article is technically sound, factual, and clear. Management doesn't work on these principles. :-)
Seriously though, I cannot even run Linux on my desktop, because it is not "company approved software". I work for a big company, can you tell? When I even hint at anything Linux or Open Source, I get an immediate brick wall. No matter how logical or technically fantastic a solution, if it ain't "company approved", it ain't happening.
Man, I wanted to moderate this discussion, but I couldn't help but respond to this one.
If you think the internet is based on browser plugins, then you are on crack. If not being able to use browser plugins would ruin your "internet experience" then you really have a problem. Embedding things into the browser was just a convenient way to use external programs from within the browser experience. That is all. This wouldn't mean that you couldn't download and use external programs. I am trying, but I can't think of how this would greatly impact ANY significant user of the internet.
Although I hate stupid patents, I have to kind of cheer about this one a little, only because it sounds like these guys might not take the payoff. I know, it is highly unlikely that they would turn down a huge settlement, but I think the article is asking the question "what if they don't?". Yeah, patent law sucks, but it ain't changing. The patents are out there, and people are getting new ones. As long as they take the payouts, the system won't change. SOMETHING needs to happen to wake people up to patent reform. If not, it will only get worse and worse. So I am kind of hoping this case will be a nightmare for everyone, for the eventual greater good.
2. Do you know how long it has been since I wrote any C code? I was lucky I spelled stdio correctly.
How is that good? Because it will lead to the downfall of the music industry, or at least wake the public in general up to their tactics.
Personally, I don't really care anymore. I have stopped buying CDs, and I just don't care all that much. They have made me not care. If they want my business, they are going to have to win me back. I am not making any demands, I am just sick of their shit. If they fold, I am not worried - music will rise again on its own. If they succeed with copy protection, I simply won't buy any more CDs, ever. I can live without them, really. So instead of making me feel like music is important, and something that I should always have in my life, they have turned me off of it. Hopefully they will turn everyone else off, people will revolt, and the big record companies will fold. I can't wait for the day when I get to see the news story of Hilary Rosen eating out of a KFC dumpster.
And I am quite sure they broke from normal use, and not from being thrown.
OK, here's mine:
#include stdio.h
next...
Exactly. Only further scientific research can do that.
Ahh, Alex McLeod. She was pretty hot too. But honestly, I can't stand either of them when they are talking. They just have a stupid role on the show that isn't really necessary. Take a closer look at Paige though, I noticed that she is pretty buff now. Her arms have a pretty good tone to them.
I saw the straw episode, and some of the other weird ones (like Doug's movie theater). Anymore I don't really watch it, but if I know it is on I might tune in around the end to see the before/after pictures.
I used to read both daily, but the US version wouldn't have the same stories. They would have a subset, leaving some out and offering nothing more. I took it out of my bookmarks because the *real* register offered everything.
A phone is for talking to someone else. Simple concept, simple operation (with additional features). What does a computer do? You cannot answer that with a single answer. I avoided the computer/phone analogy for that reason.
Simplicity comes when you find opportunity to say "this is the way it works. Always." People can understand that. We geeks have this Utopian vision in mind where everything at our fingertips is infinitely customizable, but where did we get that? I don't have 12 different ways of playing media on my television, but I'm not whining about it. My car's transmission comes in automatic or manual. I'm thankful for that choice, I'm not encouraging people to come up with more choices for me. Sometimes you just settle with what you're given. If it's really *that* bad, another choice will almost always surface. But if the existing choices work for most users in most cases, why keep adding new choices unless you're demonstrating that they're better?
Again, televisions are single-purpose devices. Of course the basic interface is the same. On/off , channel up/down, volume up/down. Again, what is the one thing a computer is used for? Internet appliances failed. Email stations aren't in high use. Typewriters were superceded by word processors, which were superceded by word processing software. Things are getting more and more complex, so you will not be able to come up with a simpler interface. Basic phone service is simple, but you have voicemail, call-waiting, caller-id, etc. I remember when we only had rotary dial phones. Now everything is tone dialing. So the basic operation changed a little. The use of mobile phones and messaging is HUGE it countries outside the US. We are left behind because of our stupid greedy companies who fear change.
Cars used to be manual. Then there was manual and automatic. Now there is manual, automatic, and "steptronic" style, which is a combination of the two. More complex. Records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, Digital. It is getting more complex. But complex is not bad! The learning curve of our populace is what is holding things back. I try to keep up on it, but I know people who cannot. It just isn't in them to learn new things. My point is that computers will never be stable enough for long enough to come up with a single universal interface. Nothing else has, and they have been simple devices. Why would computers, when they are more complex?
But do you still watch it? I think it is a cool show. Vern has got some talent, and usually makes really cool rooms. But part of why I watch is to see how stupid they can get in their designs. If that bastard Frank drew any kittens/chickens/people on my walls I would strangle him. :-) And don't tell me Paige isn't a buff hottie, or you don't like watching Amy Wynn with the power tools, or wouldn't like to tumble with Genevieve.
The good reactions are cool, but the bad reactions are even better. They even run episodes where they highlight the people who didn't like their rooms. I think it is hilarious when people bitch and moan. Come on, the show is well known, people know what they are signing up for when they go to do the show. Keep your damn rooms white and boring if you don't want to take a chance. And boy, some of the before pictures are hideous.
First of all, I don't think you can lump everyone together. If you are talking about the end-user of something, the OS shouldn't be a big deal. Think of PDAs or cell-phones. But to people who work on those things, the OS is very important. You can't just ignore it.
I think a lot of people consider a complex interface to be the same thing as a complicated one. Come on, people are complex creatures. It is a matter of education. 30 years ago, a computer mouse would have been considered complex to most people, as evidenced by some people who still have trouble using them, and have to look down at their hand sometimes. (I have seen several older people do this, who haven't used a computer much at all). But kids can figure out how to use it quickly. Typing is a skill that people didn't used to have, but nowadays kids are learning it young. Saying something is "complicated" is relative. An activity can be complex, but once you learn it it is quite easy. I personally don't think that interfaces to computers should be simple. They are complex machines. Now if you are talking about a single-purpose thing, then the interface can be made simple. For complex machines, I don't think you'll get there. You will still need something to interface to the OS, so you'll need something to translate complex -> simple (or maybe vice-versa).
Imagine if the rules of a Turing machine were different depending on what computer you ran it on, and on some computers its rules just didn't hold at all.
The rules of interfacing to the Turing machine are simple, but the logic behind it is not. I don't think you can just lump and OS and applications that run on it together.
Computers will be simpler when somebody can just say "Email" and not have to worry about Outlook, or POP, or any of that nonsense. That's my two bits.
Nonsense? How do you think email works? What you are describing is the interface to email. Are you suggesting a universal email program? Not everybody wants the same thing in email. I still use Pine for crying out loud. Again, computers are complex machines, and are configurable. There is a reason there are many variations of programs out there, because none of them satisfy everyone's requirements. I think THAT is the beauty of computers, they are so complex and configurable. Why would you want everything to be the same? Utopia? Hardly.
I have subscribed for about 6 years, and I noticed that there have been more environmental articles, but I don't consider them to be preachy. They give some good environmental data, and ususally don't go into too much politics about it. I know recently there was a story on how some impoverished countries get a lot of our scrap electronics, and how they salvage metals from them. They point out how toxic this is to the people and the water supplies there. I like finding out about this stuff, because nobody else is reporting on it. We use a LOT of microchips, as do other countries. We need to know that there are dangers in this. Granted, I haven't read this article yet (I am a couple of months behind on my issues) but I'll bet that they are simply pointing out the environmental hazards of chip production, and as chip use increases, the hazards increase. Why is this such a bad thing to know? The more chips we produce, hopefully the better our processes will become, and eventually we will come up with a replacement technology that will make silicon obsolete. Hopefully this new technology will be more friendly to the environment. I'm no Moby, calling the turkey hotline to save the widdle turkeys, but I think we do need to consider our environment.
Charlton Heston will be thrilled to know that there are guns in Heaven.
Maybe that other mysterious research was:
Every time you read one of our new EULA's, how do you feel?
pissed off
disappointed
scared
apathetic
frustrated
confused
fucked
all of the above
If you are supportive of OSS, how does your current relationship with Microsoft make you feel?
pissed off
disappointed
scared
apathetic
frustrated
confused
fucked
all of the above
If you said that you are supportive of OSS, how would a visit from a team of our lawyers make you feel?
pissed off
disappointed
scared
apathetic
frustrated
confused
fucked
all of the above
I think if you are anti-Microsoft, don't mention OSS. Don't say "Microsoft 5ux0r5, Linux rules!". It gives OSS a bad name. Bash MS all you want, I am not saying they don't deserve it. But don't do it in the name of GNU/Linux/OSS.
Closing, those who are familiar with OSS and Linux are favorably predisposed towards them. Linking this work with other on-point research, we can assume that in the majority of cases this reported 'favorability' is more emotional than it is rational. Given this context, we should not expect rational arguments focused on undermining support for OSS, Linux and the GPL to perform well. In the short term, then, Microsoft should avoid criticizing OSS and Linux directly, continue to develop and aim to eventually win the TCO argument, and focus on delivering positive Shared Source messages that contain transparent, audience specific proof points.
Excuse me? Because people in Microsoft's survey were supportive of OSS, that means that they were predisposed to like it, and therefore is based on emotion and not rationality?! This doesn't make any sense. What is this trying to say, that people who like OSS are simply using it to make a statement, and not becaue they legitimately prefer it? That is a pretty arrogant assessment of the FACTS if you ask me. I use OSS because I find it to be a better product, for several different practical reasons. And since when is it a rule that you can't be rational AND emotional about something?
Messages that criticize OSS, Linux, & the GPL are NOT effective. Messaging that discusses possible Linux patent violations, pings the OSS development process for lacking accountability, attempts to call out the 'viral' aspect of the GPL, and the like are only marginally effective in driving unfavorable opinions around OSS, Linux, and the GPL, and in some cases backfire. On the other hand 'positive' OSS, Linux, and GPL messages are very effective - both across geographies and audiences.
(reviewer's comment):
{I've suspected for a while that the anti-Linux, anti-GPL FUD campaign was actually rebounding on Microsoft. This seems to confirm it.}
I think this speaks also to the fact that WE should not be anti-Microsoft, but be pro-OSS. Being positive does a lot more than being negative. I find that this is a challenge for me personally, but I am working on it.
Actually, no, I wouldn't.
I used to think this was an age thing, because I am about to turn 33. But now I realize it has more to do with maturity, and not age. Over the last 10 years, I have grown up a lot, and gained a lot of *real* confidence in myself. (as opposed to that "I can do anything" attitude)
In my experience, people who whine are immature. For the most part, the younger you are, the more you whine, but I don't think it is a clear distinction. There are obviously exceptions. I work with someone who is my age, and nobody can stand to talk to this person because he will argue with you for hours over the littlest point, until you get so sick of him you either give in or just walk away. He is a whiner, and everyone knows it. Nobody wants to work with him, and everyone tunes him out the second he starts talking. His ratio of noise to clarity is about 95 to 5, but that 5% of the time nobody hears him.
Bottom line is, don't act mature, be mature. Don't pretend to be nice, be nice. Engineering ain't marketing or sales, we don't rely on how good something looks or sounds, we rely on how good something is.
The problem with this is that you are trying to argue against the nuts. That is backwards. Is it plausible that NASA could have faked the landings, and kept it a secret. Sure, there is a very very remote chance that it is possible. But that doesn't mean that they did! That is the problem with nuts, they don't listen. They make statements that cannot be disproved. Prove to me there have never been aliens on this planet. What about this bigfoot photo? It looks real, it must be real. See that shimmering light in the sky? If you don't know what it is, it MUST be an alien spacecraft. Goddamn loonies, all of them.
One thing I haven't seen people mention is the Space Shuttle program. Is that faked? Is it that much harder to land someone on the moon as it is to send them into space and have them return on the same craft, and re-use that craft over and over? What, is it all based on smoke and mirrors? I would suspect that the arguement would be "sure, that is now, but back then we didn't have the technology". Well what technology is the Space Shuttle based on then? Think it just came out of a moment of clarity?
The space program used to be a thing of wonder for the whole world, now it is just another thing. Doesn't anyone else read the news about the Space Shuttle and think "Wow! That is amazing! I still can't really grasp how incredible that is". They have provided so much footage on their website, it really is something of wonder. And what about Hubble, and some of the probes that have been out there for years sending back data. All faked. F*ck off, all you loonies.
Please clarify the difference between real code and bugged code. :-)
And don't whine about MS-bashing - try and tell me they don't deserve it.