Sony also announced they are combining cell technology and a Sybian to make a phone that screws you over. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
1) the price 2) the openness 3) the stability 4) the power
With GMUI (GrandMother User Interface), you lose #4. My grandmother (and her functional equivalents) cares not a fig for #2 (since she can't program). Her computer came with an OS, so out goes #1 (since the grandmother-oriented OEMs still charge the MS tax for blank HDs).
That leaves stability as the ONLY drawing point of Linux for old Granny. But just how often does Granny's computer crash? Probably not all that much, especially if she's got a Mac (whatever else their faults, they don't crash as much as Windows). -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Form follows function. The user interface is defined by the application and the people who use it. That's why it's called an "interface".
It's also why I cringe when I see GNOME/KDE/UI of the Month (well-intentioned as they are) essentially trying to port the UI from Win95/MacOS (OS's that, IMO, are utterly powerless) to run on top of Linux. It's like covering a bandsaw in wrapping paper: it looks pretty, but now you can't use the tool.
To forestall the inevitable "what about my grandmother" arguments:
1) I'm not saying "keep it ugly and complex to keep the lusers out". I'm saying "think about the power of the tool, THEN decide on a UI." For instance, "gless" (a GNOME pager) is completely useless. How do I pipe to a graphical tool? And even if I could, does it provide me with anything I didn't already have? Does it take anything away?
2) A lot of people who take more than 5 minutes to think about UI's will respond with "but my grandmother doesn't need to run pipes and greps and stuff". OK, but that's not an argument for a simple (minded?) Linux UI--it's an argument for your grandmother to use a different OS. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Don't tell them about the Mozilla license until it's too late. That way we can sue and get the RealPlayer streaming formats....
Seriously, though, I thought the MPL was like the GPL--viral. Is it instead more like BSD? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Correct me if I'm right, but I believe one of the drawbacks to Linux on current Palms is the lack of a MMU (memory management unit). The ARM has one (?) so maybe we'll see Linux really take off here? --
I started in July. In 4 weeks (of very strict adherence to the diet) I had lost 20 pounds (yes, really 5 lbs/week). 8 more weeks (of semi-strict) lost me another 15 pounds. That's 35 lb in 3 months.
Then I moved. I lived with someone else temporarily (4 months) and so had to eat their dinner with them AND didn't have access to a scale. Afterwards I found I had gained 15-20 back. I'm now back on the semi-strict and have lost 10.
But is it easy to keep off? Yes. I don't attribute the 4 months of gain to "not sticking to the diet" but to "not weighing (and charting) myself every day". That is the absolute key.
For reference, for me "semi-strict" mean "never eat to the point where your stomach hurts" AND "take the low-cal alternative where possible (diet soft drinks, mop up the grease puddles on pizza, etc)". --
What about people without login IDs who ARE bothered by trolls?
For instance, a few weeks (months?) ago we had a interview with Woz. I forwarded the URL to my father-in-law who is a big mac fan ("big mac"? I made a funny). Later I realized he'd have to wade through scads of "first!" and "hot grits". Oops. --
From a technical perspective, Linux is great. Many programmers, many distro makers, all (mostly) independent. This mean much "natural selection" at both levels.
From a marketing perspective, though, this sucks (for us). Sure, only the Piranha package of the RedHat distro was broken. But what does the public hear: "Linux has security problems". Doh! (we got half-lucky with the above headline--only but all of RedHat is implicated
Two possible solutions:
1) Make the public understand how Linux development/distros work. This is unlikely to happen in the short term, especially while only Linux works this way. We properly blame "Microsoft" for FrontPage security problems and wonder about NT. This doesn't translate to blaming RedHat for Piranha, yet it will inevitably happen.
2) Have all the major Linux vendors get a security audit project started and keep it going (many have started, few have kept it up). Create this list as a public list anyone can consult. Then each distro maker can choose only from this list OR create a separate "server" or "secure server" distro chosen only from the list. Then (and this step, as ugly and painful as it is, is absolutely necessary) when a claimed-secure distro is found to have a security problem because it didn't follow the list denounce that distro in a very public way. They did a bad thing and they need to be punished. --
-detachable keyboard/mouse -size of legal pad -wireless networking -standards standards standards (TCP/IP, etc) -no "service committment" (i.e., just the webpad no contracts)
-under $500
I could use this to run remote X sessions from my desktop anywhere in the house. It would totally ROCK!! --
It's true that it's remarkably hard for companies selling competing products to collude to get monopoly prices...But it's not nearly as clear that firms selling complementary products--each the dominant one in its market--are unlikely to collude.
Considered in a vacuum, you are right. But when you consider the context, I think your assumption "each the dominant one in its market" falls apart. The OS company would have a commanding lead on the desktop, to be sure. But on the server? No way. The App company (think SQL Server, Exchange, etc) leaps into this gap.
However, I think you are right as a general principle--complementary collusion (to coin a phrase) would be hard to prevent for all cases. But the case of "competitors already exist when the collusion is suggested" is trivial to solve. --
The way to get someone to do what you want is to make it profitable (in whatever currency he uses) to do so. We want Microsoft to compete (rather than crush). We make that behavior profitable by breaking them up.
Some commenters have noted that this won't put MS out of business--no kidding. The point here is not to crush MS--it's to make them play fair. By making fairness more profitable (to reward the behavior we want) we also make MS money. Not much of a punishment you say--right, I say, that's why it's called a "remedy". --
"The studies show between violent and aggressive behavior and video game playing."
This "sentence" is a perfect example of why grammar and spellchecking are so very important. Show WHAT between? If Hemos meant to write "a cause-effect relationship" that would mean that one behavior (violence or vg playing) caused the other. If he meant to write "a correlation" it would mean that both behaviors usually occurred in the same people, but nothing could be said about which caused which (or IF one caused the other). Clearly these two things are very different and it matters which one is meant.
Thank you Hemos, for this excellent example of why you need to clean your act up a little. --
When I said "developers leaving in droves", I didn't mean "Microsoft employees" nor "companies who develop for Windows". I meant "individual programmers who are interested in a platform". I was WAY into MS 5 years ago (reading VB Journal and everything). Now I'm out. I see a LOT of other people doing the same. We're all sick of being jerked around. --
I see a lot of comments about "how will a breakup keep the baby bills from conspiring together?" It won't--because it won't need to. Regular old market forces will do the work for us.
For instance, let's say they break into OS, Apps, Publishing, Hardware. First move by Apps is to port Office to Linux. Countermove by OS is to remove optimizations for Office, making WordPerfect (and all the others) run equally well. OS also probably publishes API spec to lure developers back (who are leaving in droves right now). Publishing and Hardware, now free to jump on the Linux bandwagon, do so. Etc etc etc.
Sure, they could all work together--but simple game theory predicts they won't. Together they could make a killing (just like they are now), but as separate companies the lure to "defect" (break the cartel) would just be too strong. --
We all know that Microsoft maintains it's position not by superior products but by simple marketing. We also know that many other companies hold on to their (non-monopoly) positions the same way. In fact, decisions made on the basis of marketing rather than quality can be blamed for a lot of our problems, including Congress.
So I propose the following remedy: Kill the idiots. We all know several idiots. Kill them. These idiots may include your boss (who decided to use MS PPTP for the corporate VPN), your coworker (who laughs when you can't configure a winmodem, and then goes back to installing Service Pack 6), your ISP (who asks if you run a Mac or a PC "You know...Windows"). Kill them all.
Just think what a wonderful world it would be where you wouldn't have people claiming that "NT is standards compliant" or "Best viewed with [insert browser name here]". --
First of all, you MUST produce paper. Either that, or give out a free "webpad". I need to be able to take docs to the bathroom with me. That sounds funny, but I'm completely serious. I need to be able to read docs when I'm nowhere near a computer (in the car, in the bathroom, in a meeting, etc). The only thing I ever use the printer for is printing out electronic documents for later reading.
However, while paper is necessary it is not sufficient. I still need a searchable, cut-n-pastable something or other than I can access while I AM at my computer.
These requirements aren't difficult, though, unless your tech writers use pencil and paper. Just create docs in whatever software you use and produce them in book and, say, (standard, dammit) HTML formats.
If you decide to give up one format or the other, for god's sake, please spend the money saved on making the docs the best damn docs money can buy. For instance, create an index that does more than list keywords. Create a sensible table of contents. Use color illustrations where appropriate. To describe the "therbligate" button, do more than note succinctly "Press this button to therbligate". --
"Researchers at Princeton's Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab have amassed statistically significant data that says that an observer affects the new state of the observed particles."
I see. Let's think about this for a second.
First of all, I'm assuming (from the idea that IBM has supposed had) that when they say "an observer affects the new state" they mean "mentally". Clearly the surrounding environment of a particle affects it's new state--that is, if it were being bombarded by photons that might change probabilities. So the only possible new claim here is that mental action somehow affects wave function collapse.
At this point we need further information on PEAR to form any firm conclusions, but we can imagine some things to get a flavor. For instance, let's imagine their experiments were something like this: A subject is told to think "photon go left, photon go left" when a photon is released towards a double slit apparatus. As a control, they have run a series of double slit experiments on the same equipment, but without the subject. There would also have to be a control with a subject who is thinking something that isn't supposed to influence the photon (e.g. "I like ice cream, I like ice cream").
Let's further assume that PEAR has done the above experiment (or something like it) and has come out with results that indicate it works.
Thought #1: This would prove that thoughts are directly detectable outside the originating brain. This is stronger than the power of EEGs that only detect activity not content, so I can see why IBM would be excited about the possibility of thought-controlled computers. Simple electrical activity (as someone else here asked) provides only limited control.
Thought #2: Assuming the experiment were done right, mind-body duality would be (or could be) proven. If photons are only affected in the presence of minds (and not in the presence of just any sufficiently complex matter), mind-stuff must be different somehow than brain-stuff.
Thought #3: Assuming thought #2 above holds true, this would also solve the "Zombie Problem". It would be a "consciousness detector". Want to know if a cat has a mind? Put it next to a double slit experiment.
Now, since all three of these items come out of PEAR's (supposed) work, I have to express extreme skepticism about the work itself. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The only evidence we have here is one line from an anonymous coward on a known research-poor "news" site. At least provide us with a link. --
There have been a lot of Ask Slashdot's about software for molecular munging, genetic gerrymandering and physical futzing. All your questions can be answered in one location.
Do you recognize me? Many of my posts get marked as "troll" or "flamebait". Yet I moderate frequently (about once per month). I even have a near-200 Karma.
Moderation does suck, but it isn't a conspiracy. --
"...they get to customize every aspect of it and make it as secure and reliable as possible."
No! Bad company! Attempting to design and maintain your own distro is guaranteed to end in insecurity. A much better idea would be to participate in an existing "high-security" distro. --
Sure, DNA tracing will give you mathematical probabilities about where/when a hypothetical ancestor lived--but no amount of "historical research" is going to find that person. We don't have DNA samples of "third peasant from the left, Duke of Chattinghamshire's feudal fifedom".
As an example, let's say I went in. They take my DNA.
First iteration: "You have a mother." Well DUH! Second iteration: "Your mother had a mother." Interesting, I never would have guessed. 47th iteration: "You have a great-(repeat 44 times)-grandmother. Simple math (20 years/gen, 47 gens) tells us she lived 1000 years ago. 'Historical research' tells us this was the Middle Ages. Your neighbor Joe has a 83% chance of having the same ancestor." Can I get my $150 back? --
Slashdot Mirror
Sony also announced they are combining cell technology and a Sybian to make a phone that screws you over.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
The attractions of Linux is:
1) the price
2) the openness
3) the stability
4) the power
With GMUI (GrandMother User Interface), you lose #4. My grandmother (and her functional equivalents) cares not a fig for #2 (since she can't program). Her computer came with an OS, so out goes #1 (since the grandmother-oriented OEMs still charge the MS tax for blank HDs).
That leaves stability as the ONLY drawing point of Linux for old Granny. But just how often does Granny's computer crash? Probably not all that much, especially if she's got a Mac (whatever else their faults, they don't crash as much as Windows).
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
What kind of handle should a tool have?
Form follows function. The user interface is defined by the application and the people who use it. That's why it's called an "interface".
It's also why I cringe when I see GNOME/KDE/UI of the Month (well-intentioned as they are) essentially trying to port the UI from Win95/MacOS (OS's that, IMO, are utterly powerless) to run on top of Linux. It's like covering a bandsaw in wrapping paper: it looks pretty, but now you can't use the tool.
To forestall the inevitable "what about my grandmother" arguments:
1) I'm not saying "keep it ugly and complex to keep the lusers out". I'm saying "think about the power of the tool, THEN decide on a UI." For instance, "gless" (a GNOME pager) is completely useless. How do I pipe to a graphical tool? And even if I could, does it provide me with anything I didn't already have? Does it take anything away?
2) A lot of people who take more than 5 minutes to think about UI's will respond with "but my grandmother doesn't need to run pipes and greps and stuff". OK, but that's not an argument for a simple (minded?) Linux UI--it's an argument for your grandmother to use a different OS.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Don't tell them about the Mozilla license until it's too late. That way we can sue and get the RealPlayer streaming formats....
Seriously, though, I thought the MPL was like the GPL--viral. Is it instead more like BSD?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"Will it run Linux?"
Correct me if I'm right, but I believe one of the drawbacks to Linux on current Palms is the lack of a MMU (memory management unit). The ARM has one (?) so maybe we'll see Linux really take off here?
--
What symptoms would I have been experiencing?
--
OK, so they've put wrappers around calls that are known to be vulnerable. Why not:
1) Contact the glibc people with patches for those functions (assuming the problems are patchable, which not all of them are)
2) Check for bad args in the wrapper and log it so defective programs are easier to find.
--
I started in July. In 4 weeks (of very strict adherence to the diet) I had lost 20 pounds (yes, really 5 lbs/week). 8 more weeks (of semi-strict) lost me another 15 pounds. That's 35 lb in 3 months.
Then I moved. I lived with someone else temporarily (4 months) and so had to eat their dinner with them AND didn't have access to a scale. Afterwards I found I had gained 15-20 back. I'm now back on the semi-strict and have lost 10.
But is it easy to keep off? Yes. I don't attribute the 4 months of gain to "not sticking to the diet" but to "not weighing (and charting) myself every day". That is the absolute key.
For reference, for me "semi-strict" mean "never eat to the point where your stomach hurts" AND "take the low-cal alternative where possible (diet soft drinks, mop up the grease puddles on pizza, etc)".
--
NOAA forecasts rain? That can't be good....
--
What about people without login IDs who ARE bothered by trolls?
For instance, a few weeks (months?) ago we had a interview with Woz. I forwarded the URL to my father-in-law who is a big mac fan ("big mac"? I made a funny). Later I realized he'd have to wade through scads of "first!" and "hot grits". Oops.
--
"MSNBC: Red Hat open to backdoor password"
From a technical perspective, Linux is great. Many programmers, many distro makers, all (mostly) independent. This mean much "natural selection" at both levels.
From a marketing perspective, though, this sucks (for us). Sure, only the Piranha package of the RedHat distro was broken. But what does the public hear: "Linux has security problems". Doh! (we got half-lucky with the above headline--only but all of RedHat is implicated
Two possible solutions:
1) Make the public understand how Linux development/distros work. This is unlikely to happen in the short term, especially while only Linux works this way. We properly blame "Microsoft" for FrontPage security problems and wonder about NT. This doesn't translate to blaming RedHat for Piranha, yet it will inevitably happen.
2) Have all the major Linux vendors get a security audit project started and keep it going (many have started, few have kept it up). Create this list as a public list anyone can consult. Then each distro maker can choose only from this list OR create a separate "server" or "secure server" distro chosen only from the list. Then (and this step, as ugly and painful as it is, is absolutely necessary) when a claimed-secure distro is found to have a security problem because it didn't follow the list denounce that distro in a very public way. They did a bad thing and they need to be punished.
--
My dream come true would be a "webpad" with:
-detachable keyboard/mouse
-size of legal pad
-wireless networking
-standards standards standards (TCP/IP, etc)
-no "service committment" (i.e., just the webpad no contracts)
-under $500
I could use this to run remote X sessions from my desktop anywhere in the house. It would totally ROCK!!
--
It's true that it's remarkably hard for companies selling competing products to collude to get monopoly prices...But it's not nearly as clear that firms selling complementary products--each the dominant one in its market--are unlikely to collude.
Considered in a vacuum, you are right. But when you consider the context, I think your assumption "each the dominant one in its market" falls apart. The OS company would have a commanding lead on the desktop, to be sure. But on the server? No way. The App company (think SQL Server, Exchange, etc) leaps into this gap.
However, I think you are right as a general principle--complementary collusion (to coin a phrase) would be hard to prevent for all cases. But the case of "competitors already exist when the collusion is suggested" is trivial to solve.
--
Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. Those "jelly sandle" people from the late '80s should be suing Apple.
Am I the only one who thinks the iMac looks like "Barbie's Dream Computer"?
--
"Such collusion would be illegal..."
So? What they are doing NOW is illegal.
The way to get someone to do what you want is to make it profitable (in whatever currency he uses) to do so. We want Microsoft to compete (rather than crush). We make that behavior profitable by breaking them up.
Some commenters have noted that this won't put MS out of business--no kidding. The point here is not to crush MS--it's to make them play fair. By making fairness more profitable (to reward the behavior we want) we also make MS money. Not much of a punishment you say--right, I say, that's why it's called a "remedy".
--
"The studies show between violent and aggressive behavior and video game playing."
This "sentence" is a perfect example of why grammar and spellchecking are so very important. Show WHAT between? If Hemos meant to write "a cause-effect relationship" that would mean that one behavior (violence or vg playing) caused the other. If he meant to write "a correlation" it would mean that both behaviors usually occurred in the same people, but nothing could be said about which caused which (or IF one caused the other). Clearly these two things are very different and it matters which one is meant.
Thank you Hemos, for this excellent example of why you need to clean your act up a little.
--
When I said "developers leaving in droves", I didn't mean "Microsoft employees" nor "companies who develop for Windows". I meant "individual programmers who are interested in a platform". I was WAY into MS 5 years ago (reading VB Journal and everything). Now I'm out. I see a LOT of other people doing the same. We're all sick of being jerked around.
--
I see a lot of comments about "how will a breakup keep the baby bills from conspiring together?" It won't--because it won't need to. Regular old market forces will do the work for us.
For instance, let's say they break into OS, Apps, Publishing, Hardware. First move by Apps is to port Office to Linux. Countermove by OS is to remove optimizations for Office, making WordPerfect (and all the others) run equally well. OS also probably publishes API spec to lure developers back (who are leaving in droves right now). Publishing and Hardware, now free to jump on the Linux bandwagon, do so. Etc etc etc.
Sure, they could all work together--but simple game theory predicts they won't. Together they could make a killing (just like they are now), but as separate companies the lure to "defect" (break the cartel) would just be too strong.
--
We all know that Microsoft maintains it's position not by superior products but by simple marketing. We also know that many other companies hold on to their (non-monopoly) positions the same way. In fact, decisions made on the basis of marketing rather than quality can be blamed for a lot of our problems, including Congress.
So I propose the following remedy: Kill the idiots. We all know several idiots. Kill them. These idiots may include your boss (who decided to use MS PPTP for the corporate VPN), your coworker (who laughs when you can't configure a winmodem, and then goes back to installing Service Pack 6), your ISP (who asks if you run a Mac or a PC "You know...Windows"). Kill them all.
Just think what a wonderful world it would be where you wouldn't have people claiming that "NT is standards compliant" or "Best viewed with [insert browser name here]".
--
First of all, you MUST produce paper. Either that, or give out a free "webpad". I need to be able to take docs to the bathroom with me. That sounds funny, but I'm completely serious. I need to be able to read docs when I'm nowhere near a computer (in the car, in the bathroom, in a meeting, etc). The only thing I ever use the printer for is printing out electronic documents for later reading.
However, while paper is necessary it is not sufficient. I still need a searchable, cut-n-pastable something or other than I can access while I AM at my computer.
These requirements aren't difficult, though, unless your tech writers use pencil and paper. Just create docs in whatever software you use and produce them in book and, say, (standard, dammit) HTML formats.
If you decide to give up one format or the other, for god's sake, please spend the money saved on making the docs the best damn docs money can buy. For instance, create an index that does more than list keywords. Create a sensible table of contents. Use color illustrations where appropriate. To describe the "therbligate" button, do more than note succinctly "Press this button to therbligate".
--
"Researchers at Princeton's Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab have amassed statistically significant data that says that an observer affects the new state of the observed particles."
I see. Let's think about this for a second.
First of all, I'm assuming (from the idea that IBM has supposed had) that when they say "an observer affects the new state" they mean "mentally". Clearly the surrounding environment of a particle affects it's new state--that is, if it were being bombarded by photons that might change probabilities. So the only possible new claim here is that mental action somehow affects wave function collapse.
At this point we need further information on PEAR to form any firm conclusions, but we can imagine some things to get a flavor. For instance, let's imagine their experiments were something like this: A subject is told to think "photon go left, photon go left" when a photon is released towards a double slit apparatus. As a control, they have run a series of double slit experiments on the same equipment, but without the subject. There would also have to be a control with a subject who is thinking something that isn't supposed to influence the photon (e.g. "I like ice cream, I like ice cream").
Let's further assume that PEAR has done the above experiment (or something like it) and has come out with results that indicate it works.
Thought #1: This would prove that thoughts are directly detectable outside the originating brain. This is stronger than the power of EEGs that only detect activity not content, so I can see why IBM would be excited about the possibility of thought-controlled computers. Simple electrical activity (as someone else here asked) provides only limited control.
Thought #2: Assuming the experiment were done right, mind-body duality would be (or could be) proven. If photons are only affected in the presence of minds (and not in the presence of just any sufficiently complex matter), mind-stuff must be different somehow than brain-stuff.
Thought #3: Assuming thought #2 above holds true, this would also solve the "Zombie Problem". It would be a "consciousness detector". Want to know if a cat has a mind? Put it next to a double slit experiment.
Now, since all three of these items come out of PEAR's (supposed) work, I have to express extreme skepticism about the work itself. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The only evidence we have here is one line from an anonymous coward on a known research-poor "news" site. At least provide us with a link.
--
There have been a lot of Ask Slashdot's about software for molecular munging, genetic gerrymandering and physical futzing. All your questions can be answered in one location.
--
Do you recognize me? Many of my posts get marked as "troll" or "flamebait". Yet I moderate frequently (about once per month). I even have a near-200 Karma.
Moderation does suck, but it isn't a conspiracy.
--
"...they get to customize every aspect of it and make it as secure and reliable as possible."
No! Bad company! Attempting to design and maintain your own distro is guaranteed to end in insecurity. A much better idea would be to participate in an existing "high-security" distro.
--
...because it sounds pretty useless.
Sure, DNA tracing will give you mathematical probabilities about where/when a hypothetical ancestor lived--but no amount of "historical research" is going to find that person. We don't have DNA samples of "third peasant from the left, Duke of Chattinghamshire's feudal fifedom".
As an example, let's say I went in. They take my DNA.
First iteration: "You have a mother." Well DUH!
Second iteration: "Your mother had a mother." Interesting, I never would have guessed.
47th iteration: "You have a great-(repeat 44 times)-grandmother. Simple math (20 years/gen, 47 gens) tells us she lived 1000 years ago. 'Historical research' tells us this was the Middle Ages. Your neighbor Joe has a 83% chance of having the same ancestor." Can I get my $150 back?
--