I find tools like Ardour and Audacity exciting because they let me, Joe Slob With No Money, play with the kinds of sound engineering concepts that have unavailable without an actual studio (or at least, a lot of gear in the closet). LADSPA plugins are awesome and, frankly, fun. Ardour is a great multitracker, and Audacity excels at editing single tracks. (I find Audacity too clunky for mixing lots of tracks together, but the keyboard shortcuts are easy and quick to use. YMMV.)
If I may blatently self-promote for a moment, I produce a role playing game 'cast, Dice Make Bonk, that is 100% made with FOSS. I'm proud of what I've pulled off with it so far. I could not have done it without free open source. (Which may be a great counterargument, I know . ..)
The fact that I can put a fair-sounding, multilayered show like that together using the same computer I balance my checkbook on is pretty incredible to me.
I have no skill points put into Profession (Studio Engineer), so while DMB is not the most finely crafted example of what Hydrogen, Audacity, and Ardour can do, it is certainly more than I would have been able to do without buying lots of specialized equipment -- or at least a new iBook. Total equipment expenditures so far: ~$70 for the mics, another $40 for the mixer. Any more would have crushed my miniscule budget.
It's just a hobby, after all. With capable FOSS like Audacity and Ardour, though, it's a hobby I can take to a significant level of quality as I teach myself new skills.
I agree wholeheartedly with #2. #1 and #3 are problematic.
#1 fails because teachers are not completely responsible for the results they are expected to achieve. Students must want to learn in order to display testable results. Also see #2 for part of why #1 fails -- re-evaluate your "very little to do with our political climate" with respect to what the teachers are expected to teach each year. Consider that the agenda changes with each administration (all levels from school to county to local to state to federal), so it's hard to find a stable foundation from which to teach anything. Teachers can't teach what they want. They teach what they're paid to teach.
#3 fails because nobody is obliged to be the kind of parent *you* want. Too bad. Find a social structure that everyone agrees on (good luck) or form an educational institution that acknowledges different parents raise different kids.
Regardless, I think there's value in knowing *how* technology works independent of why you use it. The more convenient things become for you, the more is going on behind the scenes that can potentially screw you.
The way to keep from getting screwed is to know what's going on. The author of TFA is in danger of not knowing how the next-gen tech is going to screw him. The next-gen users are in danger of not knowing how their tech works so that they can fix it or live without if it breaks. Or even recognise a better alternative when they see it. (I guess that last one depends on your definition of "better", which is part of that generation gap thing. ..)
Maybe it's old-fashioned or apocalyptic of me, but I still see a burgeoning Morlocks vs. Eloi dystopia in the making here, especially when insubstantials are involved such as data access and communication methodology.
Having taken the time to learn GIMP, I feel weird when I have to go back to Photoshop. I love the GIMP's interface because I can stay focused on what I'm working on. I don't have to drag my eyes away to some other part of the screen to find a widget.
What you're used to has a lot to do with how you deal with an interface. Innovative (or at least 'different')interfaces suck primarily because they can't read minds, which is what experience tell me you mean by "it's not intuitive."
I love using Firefox because it gave me the web back. Blocked popups, no Flash if I don't want it, a plugin system that completely redefines the web for me as I see fit... IE can't come close.
Put this another way for George Ou: the reinvigorated romance he's trying to address is not with the browser, it's with the web itself. Firefox is to the Internet what a slinky little red number is to my wife. It accentuates the parts I'm really eager for.
. . .
Okay, so maybe that's not quite the best way to put it...
I segregate my frequent bookmarks into folders by generic type, then drag the folder to the quickbar. Then I can click on that folder and select "open all in tabs " -- within moments I've got all my day's comics and news sites tabbed up and ready to go. I rarely have to type in a URL anymore, and it's easier than navigating through embedded folders in the bookmarks drop-down menu.
I *love* this functionality. In two clicks I have my entire suite of must-read sites available for quick perusal. I can read the page mouse-free. When I'm done reading one page, CTRL-W closes the tab and brings up the next.
It's nice to see the cruft go away -- until you try to run an app that hasn't been ported since God knows when, and the source isn't avilable for recompilation.
And it's hard to know just which apps have 16 bit code in them sometimes. I hope I'm not upgrading myself into a terrible avalanche of secondary upgrades or "learn-to-live-without-it"-itis.
I want what I've got, just *faster.* What's wrong with that?
Playing Max Payne, I absolutely believe their claim that the game constantly self-adjusted to my skill level. Either that game was programmed for exactly *my* sweet spot, or they had some bad-ass AI going on behind the scenes. I never felt outclassed, and I never felt like I was breezing through. It was awesome.
The author mentions strategy guides as one source of downfall - specifically, that bumping into a puzzle that's too difficult simply inspires players to go to the guide, so there's no incentive to make tough puzzles. That may be true of puzzles that are statically designed. My question is: is there a class of puzzle where the solution must be dynamically approached, and is therefore different every time based on comprehensible mechanics?
Maybe the guide can only tell you how to approach the solution while leaving the nuts and bolts of it to the player in his particular instance.
Not like I could program such a thing myself. Just askin'.
Slashdot Mirror
What made Jack such a sociopathic misanthrope, and why don't we ban *that* instead?
You... you...
You insensitive clod! *sniff*
Why not just release your DNA under the GPL? Then, any derivative work done on it will have to be libre!
Does that include AMD breaking the 1GHz barrier first? In 2000?
I find tools like Ardour and Audacity exciting because they let me, Joe Slob With No Money, play with the kinds of sound engineering concepts that have unavailable without an actual studio (or at least, a lot of gear in the closet). LADSPA plugins are awesome and, frankly, fun. Ardour is a great multitracker, and Audacity excels at editing single tracks. (I find Audacity too clunky for mixing lots of tracks together, but the keyboard shortcuts are easy and quick to use. YMMV.)
.)
If I may blatently self-promote for a moment, I produce a role playing game 'cast, Dice Make Bonk, that is 100% made with FOSS. I'm proud of what I've pulled off with it so far. I could not have done it without free open source. (Which may be a great counterargument, I know . .
The fact that I can put a fair-sounding, multilayered show like that together using the same computer I balance my checkbook on is pretty incredible to me.
I have no skill points put into Profession (Studio Engineer), so while DMB is not the most finely crafted example of what Hydrogen, Audacity, and Ardour can do, it is certainly more than I would have been able to do without buying lots of specialized equipment -- or at least a new iBook. Total equipment expenditures so far: ~$70 for the mics, another $40 for the mixer. Any more would have crushed my miniscule budget.
It's just a hobby, after all. With capable FOSS like Audacity and Ardour, though, it's a hobby I can take to a significant level of quality as I teach myself new skills.
Hmm.
I agree wholeheartedly with #2. #1 and #3 are problematic.
#1 fails because teachers are not completely responsible for the results they are expected to achieve. Students must want to learn in order to display testable results. Also see #2 for part of why #1 fails -- re-evaluate your "very little to do with our political climate" with respect to what the teachers are expected to teach each year. Consider that the agenda changes with each administration (all levels from school to county to local to state to federal), so it's hard to find a stable foundation from which to teach anything. Teachers can't teach what they want. They teach what they're paid to teach.
#3 fails because nobody is obliged to be the kind of parent *you* want. Too bad. Find a social structure that everyone agrees on (good luck) or form an educational institution that acknowledges different parents raise different kids.
Free Kevin with purchase of Kevin of equal or lower price.
Its popularity is due mostly to the "heroic geeky kid beats the adults and saves the world" theme, much like Harry Potter.
Damnit!
What am I going to do with all these "Wesley Crusher Must Die" t-shirts???
The words of Dr. Frankenfurter come to mind: "I didn't make him for you."
Regardless, I think there's value in knowing *how* technology works independent of why you use it. The more convenient things become for you, the more is going on behind the scenes that can potentially screw you.
.)
The way to keep from getting screwed is to know what's going on. The author of TFA is in danger of not knowing how the next-gen tech is going to screw him. The next-gen users are in danger of not knowing how their tech works so that they can fix it or live without if it breaks. Or even recognise a better alternative when they see it. (I guess that last one depends on your definition of "better", which is part of that generation gap thing. .
Maybe it's old-fashioned or apocalyptic of me, but I still see a burgeoning Morlocks vs. Eloi dystopia in the making here, especially when insubstantials are involved such as data access and communication methodology.
OMG! NFW!
I like NWN, myself. ROFL LOLZY!one!
Having taken the time to learn GIMP, I feel weird when I have to go back to Photoshop. I love the GIMP's interface because I can stay focused on what I'm working on. I don't have to drag my eyes away to some other part of the screen to find a widget.
What you're used to has a lot to do with how you deal with an interface. Innovative (or at least 'different')interfaces suck primarily because they can't read minds, which is what experience tell me you mean by "it's not intuitive."
Exactly!
I love using Firefox because it gave me the web back. Blocked popups, no Flash if I don't want it, a plugin system that completely redefines the web for me as I see fit... IE can't come close.
Put this another way for George Ou: the reinvigorated romance he's trying to address is not with the browser, it's with the web itself. Firefox is to the Internet what a slinky little red number is to my wife. It accentuates the parts I'm really eager for.
. . .
Okay, so maybe that's not quite the best way to put it...
Yet another reason for the "-1, Dead Horse" moderation tag.
Love to.
Don't have the authority to refuse to help.
Find another solution or better empower your IT team.
I segregate my frequent bookmarks into folders by generic type, then drag the folder to the quickbar. Then I can click on that folder and select "open all in tabs " -- within moments I've got all my day's comics and news sites tabbed up and ready to go. I rarely have to type in a URL anymore, and it's easier than navigating through embedded folders in the bookmarks drop-down menu.
I *love* this functionality. In two clicks I have my entire suite of must-read sites available for quick perusal. I can read the page mouse-free. When I'm done reading one page, CTRL-W closes the tab and brings up the next.
It's nice to see the cruft go away -- until you try to run an app that hasn't been ported since God knows when, and the source isn't avilable for recompilation.
And it's hard to know just which apps have 16 bit code in them sometimes. I hope I'm not upgrading myself into a terrible avalanche of secondary upgrades or "learn-to-live-without-it"-itis.
I want what I've got, just *faster.* What's wrong with that?
Don't you have to get shot in order to be awarded one of those? I can't wait.
Oh, no, wait. Purple Heart. Never mind.
(Can we award one of *those* instead?)
Oh sure, we have the science, but the real question is: can we rebuild it strong, faster, and better?
Six million dollars sounds like a bargain to me!
"Interfaces suck because they don't read my mind."
That's what a college education will buy you.
That's a remarkably cogent article, having been posted by an admitted bot. I can't even see statistical errors in the Markov chains. Nice job!
Playing Max Payne, I absolutely believe their claim that the game constantly self-adjusted to my skill level. Either that game was programmed for exactly *my* sweet spot, or they had some bad-ass AI going on behind the scenes. I never felt outclassed, and I never felt like I was breezing through. It was awesome.
The author mentions strategy guides as one source of downfall - specifically, that bumping into a puzzle that's too difficult simply inspires players to go to the guide, so there's no incentive to make tough puzzles. That may be true of puzzles that are statically designed. My question is: is there a class of puzzle where the solution must be dynamically approached, and is therefore different every time based on comprehensible mechanics?
Maybe the guide can only tell you how to approach the solution while leaving the nuts and bolts of it to the player in his particular instance.
Not like I could program such a thing myself. Just askin'.
As for his gripe with RPGs: check the link below.
Huh. Aside from the fact that the article completely refutes your position, I'd agree with you.
Considering that my USB key just died yesterday after about a year of use, taking lots of yummy files with it, my heart THRILLS at this news.
Bug #1776: To resolve, stop culture process, reboot nation, replace head.