Leisure Suit Larry games are still being released. I just rented one for my PS2, and it was so horrible, I didn't even bother making a copy. Sim City and Civilization are both series still releasing games today. I think that there are some people out there who still want something other than "twitch" games. Hell, "The Sims" is still the hottest thing out there, and that game doesn't even have a goal!
It's just simple hubris. The same kind of hubris that made people think that building a city surrounded by water, beneath the water level was a good idea because they could stop the water. That same hubris makes people think that if enough of them agree on something, then that thing becomes fact by consensus. The truth is that facts don't give a shit whether or not people agree with them. They just are. A thousand idiots agreeing on something doesn't make that thing any more or less true.
But I DO know for a fact that Wikipedia's policy of allowing ANYBODY to edit something virtually *guarantees* that a good bit of articles will be factually wrong at any one point. The "masses" coming to a "consensus" on "facts" is by definition, the very opposite of a quality, peer-reviewed academic article/paper, etc. It's the lowest common denominator, which is generally the least educated, and the least likely to have anything factually correct.
It's astonishing how willing people are to trust anything thats closed and opaque, simply out of the assumption that someone must have said it was okay.
I trust encyclopdias because I know that they were written by reputable people (look at the list of authors), I know that they have editors, I know that librarians approve and buy them, and I know that a sizeable expense was put into making them in the first place. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is largely written by anonymous people with nothing at all to lose with bad or wrong information, and it can be done at absolutely no cost. There is no reason, whatsoever, to think that Wikipedia has correct information.
(*) Okay, iPods are *way* mainstream now. Replace with whatever that pretentious rag is recommending they buy this month.
No, they're not... only in big cities where the yuppie/normal person ratio is absurdly high. iPods are still an overpriced yuppie toy (along with VW's, of course).
Actually, since I started using my sig, I've called these particular junk faxers back to see if they're feeling the heat, and one exasperated woman told me that they were! Keep up the good work Slashdotters! If we do the same thing to spammers (using something like SpamVampire), we will eventually have the same effect of hitting them where it hurts: their wallets.
I think that "neo luddite" is quite harsh. If anything, it's 1984-speak encouraging unnecessary consumerism. I happen to run very (5+ years) at home and at work because.. well... they work. This used to be the geek way... be frugal, and make it work. Now even the geeks have caved into the consumer culture... buy the newest thing, even if you don't need it (best example of this is the Apple fanatics). A Luddite was a person who was angry with the new technology and hated it. I simply see it as not needing it, and spending my hard-earned money on more useful, interesting, and fun things. If people want to buy a new OS every few years because it makes them happy... great for them. But don't call those of us who believe in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" "neo-luddites". It's insulting.
They are the only body who someone can point who are generating web standards which are widely (if not correctly) implemented. They are given that authority merely by the act of adherence to their standards. If at some point in the future some one else comes along and everyone switches to *their* standards, then you'll have argument.
From what you're describing, Microsoft is actually more of a standards creator than they are. Microsoft's web standards are more widely implemented by the W3C's by a long shot, and they adhere to their own standards exceptionally well. Considering 99.99% of all web sites, I'd wager, run fine on IE, and I'd guess 75% adhere to the W3C, I don't see how anybody could say that Microsoft is NOT making the standards.
I mean, this whole W3C thing is ridiculous. They're busy screaming, "it's not correct, it's not correct!", but nobody in the real world is listening. There are the standards-rabid developers who care (largely found on Slashdot), but the rest of the world simply ignores them. It's along the lines of Slashdotters yelling, "It's 'Cracker', not 'Hacker'" or some such nonsense. They may have been right at one time, but now, what they say is irrelevant to most people.
In both cases, we're talking about communication methods. As anybody who studies such things will tell you, communications methods, even languages, change over time due to many reasons. The W3C's version is quite outdated. It's like some linguistic expert preaching about how the word "Xerox" shouldn't be used to describe a "photocopy". Well, he can scream until he's blue in the face, but the word "Xerox" or "Xerox copy" are here to stay, regardless of the correctness. It's a word/phrase that has become the ad hoc standard because most people use it, and most people will understand what you mean when you say a "Xerox copy".
I have a feeling that the W3C and their zealots will continue to argue for their own "standards" for the forseeable future and the rest of the world will continue to ignore them.
Everything in Acid 2 is 100% standards based has has been for quite some time.
Standards according to *who*? The W3C? The W3C is completely irrelevant. If the W3C has no way to enforce their "standards", then they are essentially just another group making their own arbitary standards that have no meaning, whatsoever in the real world. I understand the W3C has smart people on it's advisory boards, but again... so what?
Good point. That's certainly true for me and my business' e-commerce site. I've overlooked several IE errors. But of course, as soon as a customer called with a "your web site isn't doing X correctly", I was fixing it IMMEDIATELY, with no consideration whatsoever as to the morality or "goodness" of using IE. Hell, I can't afford to lose any business! And with the way that web sites are these days, if there's any tiny glitch with your web site, a potential customer can just as easily go to the next vendor. Hell, I'd do the same.
Oh, for fuck's sake... You're talking to a country full of people that shop at Wal-Mart and voted in George Bush. You think anybody really gives a flying fuck about browser standards? It's so far off the radar for most people it's funny.
OK, so then it's a subset of people who know that the next Windows is code-named "Longhorn". I'm going to be generous/optimistic: OK, let's assume that 5% of the population has heard of "Longhorn". Let's say 50% of them Google it at some point. Let's say that of those people, 50% read the article. Of the people who read the article, let's say that 50% agree and attempt to "boycott". By my calculations from this fictional scenario, we have a boycott of 0.625% of the population. Wow. That's a *huge* impact.
Oh, this was a good one. this article actually made me laugh out loud. What in the hell does he really think that even developers can accomplish? That's so ridiculous it's funny. If people will use it (and rest assured, people will), then we'll develop for it. Even a large boycott by developers will have -zero- impact on the acceptance/usage of IE 7.
Agreed... We also only use parallel port printers.
Wasn't there a time when a geek's geekiness was measured by the age of his equipment? Doesn't any geek other than myself pride themselves on using "old" equipment any more? I mean, any chimp can go buy the latest and greatest at Wal-Mart, pull it out of the box, and plug it in. It takes a little bit of knowledge to keep 5+ year old machines working well. I'm proud to say that I run a $1 million+/year business using thrift shop computers, and we never have any kind of downtime.
Good point. I actually can. But it's all about functionality. These PC's work just fine (hence most of them being 5 years old+). The mouse would make life much easier on my development box. That being said, I can also get those old, clicky-click IBM all metal keyboards for $1/each. Those, to me, are much useful than any of the newer keyboards with the extra buttons that rarely get used (and squeeze out the useful keys like spacebar and backspace). It's all about functionality for me, not the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses thing.
Some of us have enough technical and/or geek expertise that we don't need to buy a new PC every few years [ahem]
I run my business and my home only with PC's bought for $25/each at the local thrift shop. There *may* be a PC with a USB port somewhere in the mix, but I doubt it.
What's up with Apple always having to be bleeding edge? No PS2 port style mouse? I saw the functionality, saw the price, and was all set to buy one before I saw... hmmm... no PS2 connectivity. Do they do this just to sell more hardware? Do all of their Consumer Zombies really buy a new machine every year or two?
And do you know what "good" software is? Is there a defintion somewhere as to what "Good" is? That's what OSS geeks don't understand... there IS NO OBJECTIVE "GOOD". Most people (myself included) think that Windows is "good" because it's easy to use and it's cheap and it just works. I don't care about bloat, I don't care about compatibility. I don't care about the quality of code. "Good" in my mind is quite different than what you may call "Good".
And the whole reason for this is that most OSS is still very obscure. There are a few that shine (Apache, VNC), but most are programs most people have never heard of. So instead of downloading 10 copies of a DVD player, with none of them working properly, I could instead look at the ratings (TuCows, Download.com, etc.) and make a slightly more informed decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Leisure Suit Larry games are still being released. I just rented one for my PS2, and it was so horrible, I didn't even bother making a copy. Sim City and Civilization are both series still releasing games today. I think that there are some people out there who still want something other than "twitch" games. Hell, "The Sims" is still the hottest thing out there, and that game doesn't even have a goal!
It's just simple hubris. The same kind of hubris that made people think that building a city surrounded by water, beneath the water level was a good idea because they could stop the water. That same hubris makes people think that if enough of them agree on something, then that thing becomes fact by consensus. The truth is that facts don't give a shit whether or not people agree with them. They just are. A thousand idiots agreeing on something doesn't make that thing any more or less true.
But I DO know for a fact that Wikipedia's policy of allowing ANYBODY to edit something virtually *guarantees* that a good bit of articles will be factually wrong at any one point. The "masses" coming to a "consensus" on "facts" is by definition, the very opposite of a quality, peer-reviewed academic article/paper, etc. It's the lowest common denominator, which is generally the least educated, and the least likely to have anything factually correct.
It's astonishing how willing people are to trust anything thats closed and opaque, simply out of the assumption that someone must have said it was okay.
I trust encyclopdias because I know that they were written by reputable people (look at the list of authors), I know that they have editors, I know that librarians approve and buy them, and I know that a sizeable expense was put into making them in the first place. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is largely written by anonymous people with nothing at all to lose with bad or wrong information, and it can be done at absolutely no cost. There is no reason, whatsoever, to think that Wikipedia has correct information.
(*) Okay, iPods are *way* mainstream now. Replace with whatever that pretentious rag is recommending they buy this month.
No, they're not... only in big cities where the yuppie/normal person ratio is absurdly high. iPods are still an overpriced yuppie toy (along with VW's, of course).
See my sig!
Actually, since I started using my sig, I've called these particular junk faxers back to see if they're feeling the heat, and one exasperated woman told me that they were! Keep up the good work Slashdotters! If we do the same thing to spammers (using something like SpamVampire), we will eventually have the same effect of hitting them where it hurts: their wallets.
Call me nuts, but I get the original keyboard for $1/apiece at my local thrift shop.
OK, I liked the first results... but they literally just changed the page 2 minutes ago. Now I like it even more! So fucking slick. Nice eye candy!
Anybody reading, posting after this... I *JUST* saw it change. 10:01 PM, EST
From what I can tell, all of the advanced functionality, and better results. Nice! It's gonna be my homepage for a week or so to test out!
I think that "neo luddite" is quite harsh. If anything, it's 1984-speak encouraging unnecessary consumerism. I happen to run very (5+ years) at home and at work because.. well... they work. This used to be the geek way... be frugal, and make it work. Now even the geeks have caved into the consumer culture... buy the newest thing, even if you don't need it (best example of this is the Apple fanatics). A Luddite was a person who was angry with the new technology and hated it. I simply see it as not needing it, and spending my hard-earned money on more useful, interesting, and fun things. If people want to buy a new OS every few years because it makes them happy... great for them. But don't call those of us who believe in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" "neo-luddites". It's insulting.
They are the only body who someone can point who are generating web standards which are widely (if not correctly) implemented. They are given that authority merely by the act of adherence to their standards. If at some point in the future some one else comes along and everyone switches to *their* standards, then you'll have argument.
From what you're describing, Microsoft is actually more of a standards creator than they are. Microsoft's web standards are more widely implemented by the W3C's by a long shot, and they adhere to their own standards exceptionally well. Considering 99.99% of all web sites, I'd wager, run fine on IE, and I'd guess 75% adhere to the W3C, I don't see how anybody could say that Microsoft is NOT making the standards.
I mean, this whole W3C thing is ridiculous. They're busy screaming, "it's not correct, it's not correct!", but nobody in the real world is listening. There are the standards-rabid developers who care (largely found on Slashdot), but the rest of the world simply ignores them. It's along the lines of Slashdotters yelling, "It's 'Cracker', not 'Hacker'" or some such nonsense. They may have been right at one time, but now, what they say is irrelevant to most people.
In both cases, we're talking about communication methods. As anybody who studies such things will tell you, communications methods, even languages, change over time due to many reasons. The W3C's version is quite outdated. It's like some linguistic expert preaching about how the word "Xerox" shouldn't be used to describe a "photocopy". Well, he can scream until he's blue in the face, but the word "Xerox" or "Xerox copy" are here to stay, regardless of the correctness. It's a word/phrase that has become the ad hoc standard because most people use it, and most people will understand what you mean when you say a "Xerox copy".
I have a feeling that the W3C and their zealots will continue to argue for their own "standards" for the forseeable future and the rest of the world will continue to ignore them.
Everything in Acid 2 is 100% standards based has has been for quite some time.
Standards according to *who*? The W3C? The W3C is completely irrelevant. If the W3C has no way to enforce their "standards", then they are essentially just another group making their own arbitary standards that have no meaning, whatsoever in the real world. I understand the W3C has smart people on it's advisory boards, but again... so what?
Good point. That's certainly true for me and my business' e-commerce site. I've overlooked several IE errors. But of course, as soon as a customer called with a "your web site isn't doing X correctly", I was fixing it IMMEDIATELY, with no consideration whatsoever as to the morality or "goodness" of using IE. Hell, I can't afford to lose any business! And with the way that web sites are these days, if there's any tiny glitch with your web site, a potential customer can just as easily go to the next vendor. Hell, I'd do the same.
Oh, for fuck's sake... You're talking to a country full of people that shop at Wal-Mart and voted in George Bush. You think anybody really gives a flying fuck about browser standards? It's so far off the radar for most people it's funny.
OK, so then it's a subset of people who know that the next Windows is code-named "Longhorn". I'm going to be generous/optimistic: OK, let's assume that 5% of the population has heard of "Longhorn". Let's say 50% of them Google it at some point. Let's say that of those people, 50% read the article. Of the people who read the article, let's say that 50% agree and attempt to "boycott". By my calculations from this fictional scenario, we have a boycott of 0.625% of the population. Wow. That's a *huge* impact.
You go right ahead and do that. Those of us poor slobs that actually pay our bills based on our web sites will be supporting IE 7, though.
What "people" exactly, are going to notice an article in a relatively obscure Windows developer website?
Oh, this was a good one. this article actually made me laugh out loud. What in the hell does he really think that even developers can accomplish? That's so ridiculous it's funny. If people will use it (and rest assured, people will), then we'll develop for it. Even a large boycott by developers will have -zero- impact on the acceptance/usage of IE 7.
Agreed... We also only use parallel port printers.
Wasn't there a time when a geek's geekiness was measured by the age of his equipment? Doesn't any geek other than myself pride themselves on using "old" equipment any more? I mean, any chimp can go buy the latest and greatest at Wal-Mart, pull it out of the box, and plug it in. It takes a little bit of knowledge to keep 5+ year old machines working well. I'm proud to say that I run a $1 million+/year business using thrift shop computers, and we never have any kind of downtime.
Whilst Windows 2000 might well run on a PC old enough not to have USB it won't run all that well.
You'd be surprised how well it can run on old hardware with just a bit of tweaking. I've got W2K on 8ish PC's that are mostly USB-free (ie: old).
Good point. I actually can. But it's all about functionality. These PC's work just fine (hence most of them being 5 years old+). The mouse would make life much easier on my development box. That being said, I can also get those old, clicky-click IBM all metal keyboards for $1/each. Those, to me, are much useful than any of the newer keyboards with the extra buttons that rarely get used (and squeeze out the useful keys like spacebar and backspace). It's all about functionality for me, not the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses thing.
Some of us have enough technical and/or geek expertise that we don't need to buy a new PC every few years [ahem]
I run my business and my home only with PC's bought for $25/each at the local thrift shop. There *may* be a PC with a USB port somewhere in the mix, but I doubt it.
What's up with Apple always having to be bleeding edge? No PS2 port style mouse? I saw the functionality, saw the price, and was all set to buy one before I saw... hmmm... no PS2 connectivity. Do they do this just to sell more hardware? Do all of their Consumer Zombies really buy a new machine every year or two?
And do you know what "good" software is? Is there a defintion somewhere as to what "Good" is? That's what OSS geeks don't understand... there IS NO OBJECTIVE "GOOD". Most people (myself included) think that Windows is "good" because it's easy to use and it's cheap and it just works. I don't care about bloat, I don't care about compatibility. I don't care about the quality of code. "Good" in my mind is quite different than what you may call "Good".
And the whole reason for this is that most OSS is still very obscure. There are a few that shine (Apache, VNC), but most are programs most people have never heard of. So instead of downloading 10 copies of a DVD player, with none of them working properly, I could instead look at the ratings (TuCows, Download.com, etc.) and make a slightly more informed decision.