It's only an "American equivalent" for those Americans too lazy to think/speak properly. I know many Americans who are appalled by "could care less" - and rightly so, because it's a stupid thing to say.
For many developers, I don't think that UI considerations are all that important. I've often spent a long time thinking about, and discussing with users, the best means of controlling a particular (web) application. In practice, though, users tend to spend a bit of time figuring out an interface -- however esoteric or poorly designed -- and then use it without complaints. They may not be using it 'optimally', but they're happy enough anyhow.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate, I know; but still, when cost/benefit analysis comes into play then there are arguably very many cases where it just doesn't matter how much effort goes into user design: even with the simplest, most elegant interface, users will take some time to figure out how to do things - and besides, many users are now trained into using Microsoft-style interfaces, meaning that they _are_ the 'most usable' format to follow irrespective of classical design/HCI principles.
Finally, I think that there's a marked difference between having something "look nice" and "be usable". And I think that many developers *are* adept at designing systems that are usable; it's the "prettiness factor" which is more elusive - and which most users tend to care and think about.
Yes, solipsism - insomuch as most of the responses I heard to the first movie took the film's idea that we might all be plugged into a machine, and took that idealism to its logical conclusion: that all we can know is that we exist, and that all we experience may very well be our own invention. As I said, there was other mumbo-jumbo mixed in there, too, but the main takeaway for most people seemed to be this particular philosophy.
At any rate, I'm not trying to be pretentious, and I couldn't give a rat's arse what you think I know (although it's generally useful to be able to make a point without recourse to the dictionary) - but the movie was very pretentious, and quite laughable.
Twelve Monkeys, on the other hand, was a lot of fun, well acted, and interesting. But I'm not sure what you think it had to do with solipsism.
They're both pseudo-intellectual claptrap -- and they can't even decide on what particular vein of claptrap they're trying to be. The first movie was at least only really guilty of solipsism; the second tries so much harder to be clever, and winds up a mishmash of strange loops, subjective idealism, religious imagery - all told by someone who clearly has no real idea as to what they're doing or of how to carry it off.
Of course, that's largely because the movie was written *for* an audience for whom solipsism was clearly some revolutionary new concept; at any rate, though, it's no intellectual work - heck, it's barely intelligible. As the grandparent post suggests, it should have stuck with being a comic book/kung fu hybrid, and quit while it was ahead on trying to be an art flick.
I suppose that since there's no good way to read peoples' minds to determine if they would have purchased the software, this is the best they can come up with.
This seems to suggest that research should be conducted into precisely these issues: open discourse with the 'pirates', without threat of litigation, to determine how many of their downloads they believed they would otherwise have purchased. Conduct polls on the likes of Kazaa along similar lines. Perform statistical analysis of software sales, comparing baselines statistics with those after a major 'bust'. There are numerous measures that might be taken - and it would be interesting, too, to research how many people genuinely *do* buy a piece of software after playing a pirated copy; whether indeed piracy can sometimes serve as a valuable marketing method.
At any rate, the numbers being bandied around are clearly ludicrous, and shouldn't really be used *at all* as a means of determining sentencing, and especially not with the ancilliary consideration of how many "other pirates" were facilitated to download the software -- which suggests by analogue that a murderer should be tried for the actions of copycat-killers.
This isn't an easy issue - and few, even amongst the pirates, would say that what they're doing is "right". But the punishment needs to fit the crime, and locking up socially-challenged, technically proficient kids who transfer data from one machine to another as a means of gaining 'respect', often without even using or caring about the software itself - this isn't fair, intelligent, or good for society.
Given that from a legal standpoint (and, many would argue, an ethical one) there is a distinction between "copyright infringement"/IP violation and "theft", what views do you have on the regular and incorrect/misleading application of the latter term by such people as the RIAA and law enforcement? Such misuse of language seems disingenuous, and taints the arguments of those who might otherwise have valid points to make about the morality of misuse of intellectual property rights.
It seems that if there are ethical arguments against piracy and other forms of copyright misuse, those arguments can and should be made on their own merits without the introduction of psychological wordplay apparently designed to confuse the public and cloud the debate. Accordingly, what steps are being taken to clarify the correct terminology and to avoid jingoistic use of words like 'theft', 'thieves' and 'stealing' amongst law enforcement and elsewhere?
While I understand what you're saying, I would suggest to we're arguing different issues. I'm not trying to suggest that a complete single-mindedness is necessarily a good thing, and I would certainly agree that there's a need for balance in one's activities. But, see, you "don't regret anything you did" because at the time at which you did it, it was the right thing for you. It's easy -- and false, I think -- to look back on high school days as halcyon, and especially to look at them as though "who we were then" is the same as "who we are now". I would suggest that you made the decisions you did at 17 because they were the right decisions for you then; and before that, you lived as was likewise appropriate to what you wanted to do.
My contention is with the idea that kids "shouldn't do what they enjoy doing" if it involves computing or other geek activity simply because they should "get a life" and because they'll "always be able to do it". Childhood years are formative, and while I would agree that it's important to avoid burnout I would say that if you truly "enjoy" working on computers etc. then nobody should criticize you for that or suggest that your time would be better spent on the football field or chatting up girls. To each their own, and in their own time. As you say, what works for you won't necessarily work for others - but everyone should be able to decide for themselves what their best path might be.
All of the posts along the lines of "go out and enjoy yourself while you can" miss the point that many of us *enjoy* dealing with computers, hacking code, etc. The whole "go out and kick a ball around" attitude seems fairly obnoxious, to me - it's precisely the attitude of the "jocks" and of overzealous parents for whom "childhood" can only mean "competitive outdoor activity".
It may well be that these kids will spend the rest of their lives in front of computers -- but it also may well be that they'll enjoy doing it. Or, perhaps, that their formative experiences will give them an insight into technology that will serve them admirably in later life.
I'd spin the "go out and enjoy yourself while you have time" notion on its head, and say "go out and push yourself, intellectually, while you can". Far from being intellectually stimulating, work for *many* people is stifling and dull - and leaves little energy for personal pursuits at the end of the day. The opportunities for 'fun' as an adult are, by contrast, almost endless, the only limited resource being people with whom to do it -- and, without wishing to get into "friendless geek" caricatures, it's probably easier for the adult to find people with common interests than it is for anyone of school-going age. We have cars, we have money, we have a greater understanding of ourselves and of who we'd like to spend time with.
So, push yourself while you can -- set up your club, and weather any ridicule that may come your way. On that note, though, one warning: do endeavour to be humble and kind, difficult though that may seem. I recently sent an email to an old enemy of mine from school; he replied to apologise for his antagonism of me, and to tell me that his school years had been difficult for him thanks to his parents' divorce. It's a cliche, I know -- and besides, some kids are genuinely just nasty little bastards -- but do try to avoid treating your less technically/intellectually able peers with scorn.
But don't listen to those who would tell you that they know better than you do how you should spend your time, or how you should live your life. If a computer club seems like a worthwhile pursuit for you, then by all means pursue it. If free software advocacy does it for you, then similarly - go for broke. You'll have plenty of time for buggering around with a football later in life -- and, if you're a "geek" in the traditional sense, you'll probably enjoy it more in later life when everyone else has started to develop a beer-gut or burned out.
Numerous sites have been doing this kind of thing for a long time. I doubt it's especially effective, and I doubt that it'll be too popular -- but it's certainly nothing new. And there's nothing all that insidious about it, either: if a particular web site wants to go down this route, that's clearly their right -- and their audience will react accordingly.
Still, there are cases where I really don't consider it a big deal. gamespot.com, for example, puts up adverts for non-paying readers which hold them up for a few seconds. Which is fair enough, really: it's their content, and they've a right to do with it what they will. Of course it gets a little more dodgy when people start using scripting and the like to force their windows to behave in a modal fashion (which is, I suspect, what these people are *really* getting towards) -- but, hey, that's the technology we're dealing with, and anything that leads to technical improvements will likely only be a good thing in the long run.
I don't think the sky's falling to anywhere near the extent that Slashdot is implying (but hey, what's new there?) There's nothing to really see, here.. the only remotely surprising idea would be that anyone would consider this new technology or pay a premium for its implementation - you'd figure it was something any web monkey could put together in five minutes..
Uh, well - the electoral system isn't supposed to only serve the "intelligent", but rather the populace as a whole. So, while you and I might find it bizarre that some Floridians, say, are unable to figure out the ballot, that's no excuse for saying "screw 'em if they're too dumb to figure it out". For that way lies fascism.
"goal: to teach you enough about all the LAMP (Linux, Apache, Perl/Mod_Perl/PHP) technologies "
.. you'd think that if the book was so good it would've left the reviewer with the knowledge that LAMP stands for "Linux Apache MySQL Perl". But there we go.
Christians have had any number of prophecies which can be interpreted in any number of ways. Perhaps that justifies the application of any one of those prophecies to any subject that might be discussed on/., but it strikes me as a rather absurd approach.
Incidentally, I'm using "reactionary" in the sense of "being conservative" -- such references to the Bible, a book which though beautifully written is nonetheless a difficult source for either moral or intellectual discussion, smack of hysteria. Having a "very real concern" doesn't really mean anything -- I might be worried that aliens are employing these ids to catalogue us all and thus find appropriate mates for their martian daughters, but it doesn't make it my views any better considered.
I've nothing against biblical references, so long as there's any kind of real point or basis to them. But to start implying that the End is Nigh on the basis of nothing more than a silly government plan is, frankly, ridiculous.
Dear me -- and this got modded up to 'insightful'? This same religious nuttery that gets brought up every time *any* kind of identification method is introduced? At least with bar codes the identification made some sense. The battle for our rights will be better fought with intelligent discourse than with reactionary bible-thumping, I think.
Mind you, anything that prompts a reference to the masterful Naked can't be all bad..
You seem to be determining what "the right tool for the job" is after the job is already complete.
The point of these studies (which are, admittedly, of marginal usefulness) is to help people make the decision as to what OS to plump for *before* they get to the point where the time, money and other resources have already been spent on developing proprietary software on proprietary software. And the fact that your company would find it "far more costly" to switch to Linux is an indication of the hidden costs inherent in proprietary development.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only an "American equivalent" for those Americans too lazy to think/speak properly. I know many Americans who are appalled by "could care less" - and rightly so, because it's a stupid thing to say.
For many developers, I don't think that UI considerations are all that important. I've often spent a long time thinking about, and discussing with users, the best means of controlling a particular (web) application. In practice, though, users tend to spend a bit of time figuring out an interface -- however esoteric or poorly designed -- and then use it without complaints. They may not be using it 'optimally', but they're happy enough anyhow.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate, I know; but still, when cost/benefit analysis comes into play then there are arguably very many cases where it just doesn't matter how much effort goes into user design: even with the simplest, most elegant interface, users will take some time to figure out how to do things - and besides, many users are now trained into using Microsoft-style interfaces, meaning that they _are_ the 'most usable' format to follow irrespective of classical design/HCI principles.
Finally, I think that there's a marked difference between having something "look nice" and "be usable". And I think that many developers *are* adept at designing systems that are usable; it's the "prettiness factor" which is more elusive - and which most users tend to care and think about.
I was alluding to the review. But thanks for making the effort.
.. many developers set out quite deliberately to test the theory that the users "could care less".
English: it's not *that* difficult a language...
Yes, solipsism - insomuch as most of the responses I heard to the first movie took the film's idea that we might all be plugged into a machine, and took that idealism to its logical conclusion: that all we can know is that we exist, and that all we experience may very well be our own invention. As I said, there was other mumbo-jumbo mixed in there, too, but the main takeaway for most people seemed to be this particular philosophy.
At any rate, I'm not trying to be pretentious, and I couldn't give a rat's arse what you think I know (although it's generally useful to be able to make a point without recourse to the dictionary) - but the movie was very pretentious, and quite laughable.
Twelve Monkeys, on the other hand, was a lot of fun, well acted, and interesting. But I'm not sure what you think it had to do with solipsism.
They're both pseudo-intellectual claptrap -- and they can't even decide on what particular vein of claptrap they're trying to be. The first movie was at least only really guilty of solipsism; the second tries so much harder to be clever, and winds up a mishmash of strange loops, subjective idealism, religious imagery - all told by someone who clearly has no real idea as to what they're doing or of how to carry it off.
Of course, that's largely because the movie was written *for* an audience for whom solipsism was clearly some revolutionary new concept; at any rate, though, it's no intellectual work - heck, it's barely intelligible. As the grandparent post suggests, it should have stuck with being a comic book/kung fu hybrid, and quit while it was ahead on trying to be an art flick.
This seems to suggest that research should be conducted into precisely these issues: open discourse with the 'pirates', without threat of litigation, to determine how many of their downloads they believed they would otherwise have purchased. Conduct polls on the likes of Kazaa along similar lines. Perform statistical analysis of software sales, comparing baselines statistics with those after a major 'bust'. There are numerous measures that might be taken - and it would be interesting, too, to research how many people genuinely *do* buy a piece of software after playing a pirated copy; whether indeed piracy can sometimes serve as a valuable marketing method.
At any rate, the numbers being bandied around are clearly ludicrous, and shouldn't really be used *at all* as a means of determining sentencing, and especially not with the ancilliary consideration of how many "other pirates" were facilitated to download the software -- which suggests by analogue that a murderer should be tried for the actions of copycat-killers.
This isn't an easy issue - and few, even amongst the pirates, would say that what they're doing is "right". But the punishment needs to fit the crime, and locking up socially-challenged, technically proficient kids who transfer data from one machine to another as a means of gaining 'respect', often without even using or caring about the software itself - this isn't fair, intelligent, or good for society.
You're quite right, of course. I'm not sure what the word I was after was, but there we go...
Given that from a legal standpoint (and, many would argue, an ethical one) there is a distinction between "copyright infringement"/IP violation and "theft", what views do you have on the regular and incorrect/misleading application of the latter term by such people as the RIAA and law enforcement? Such misuse of language seems disingenuous, and taints the arguments of those who might otherwise have valid points to make about the morality of misuse of intellectual property rights.
It seems that if there are ethical arguments against piracy and other forms of copyright misuse, those arguments can and should be made on their own merits without the introduction of psychological wordplay apparently designed to confuse the public and cloud the debate. Accordingly, what steps are being taken to clarify the correct terminology and to avoid jingoistic use of words like 'theft', 'thieves' and 'stealing' amongst law enforcement and elsewhere?
Er, the still life is in the apple. Should've previewed...
doh doh!
... the apple is in the still life.
Doh!
While I understand what you're saying, I would suggest to we're arguing different issues. I'm not trying to suggest that a complete single-mindedness is necessarily a good thing, and I would certainly agree that there's a need for balance in one's activities. But, see, you "don't regret anything you did" because at the time at which you did it, it was the right thing for you. It's easy -- and false, I think -- to look back on high school days as halcyon, and especially to look at them as though "who we were then" is the same as "who we are now". I would suggest that you made the decisions you did at 17 because they were the right decisions for you then; and before that, you lived as was likewise appropriate to what you wanted to do.
My contention is with the idea that kids "shouldn't do what they enjoy doing" if it involves computing or other geek activity simply because they should "get a life" and because they'll "always be able to do it". Childhood years are formative, and while I would agree that it's important to avoid burnout I would say that if you truly "enjoy" working on computers etc. then nobody should criticize you for that or suggest that your time would be better spent on the football field or chatting up girls. To each their own, and in their own time. As you say, what works for you won't necessarily work for others - but everyone should be able to decide for themselves what their best path might be.
All of the posts along the lines of "go out and enjoy yourself while you can" miss the point that many of us *enjoy* dealing with computers, hacking code, etc. The whole "go out and kick a ball around" attitude seems fairly obnoxious, to me - it's precisely the attitude of the "jocks" and of overzealous parents for whom "childhood" can only mean "competitive outdoor activity".
It may well be that these kids will spend the rest of their lives in front of computers -- but it also may well be that they'll enjoy doing it. Or, perhaps, that their formative experiences will give them an insight into technology that will serve them admirably in later life.
I'd spin the "go out and enjoy yourself while you have time" notion on its head, and say "go out and push yourself, intellectually, while you can". Far from being intellectually stimulating, work for *many* people is stifling and dull - and leaves little energy for personal pursuits at the end of the day. The opportunities for 'fun' as an adult are, by contrast, almost endless, the only limited resource being people with whom to do it -- and, without wishing to get into "friendless geek" caricatures, it's probably easier for the adult to find people with common interests than it is for anyone of school-going age. We have cars, we have money, we have a greater understanding of ourselves and of who we'd like to spend time with.
So, push yourself while you can -- set up your club, and weather any ridicule that may come your way. On that note, though, one warning: do endeavour to be humble and kind, difficult though that may seem. I recently sent an email to an old enemy of mine from school; he replied to apologise for his antagonism of me, and to tell me that his school years had been difficult for him thanks to his parents' divorce. It's a cliche, I know -- and besides, some kids are genuinely just nasty little bastards -- but do try to avoid treating your less technically/intellectually able peers with scorn.
But don't listen to those who would tell you that they know better than you do how you should spend your time, or how you should live your life. If a computer club seems like a worthwhile pursuit for you, then by all means pursue it. If free software advocacy does it for you, then similarly - go for broke. You'll have plenty of time for buggering around with a football later in life -- and, if you're a "geek" in the traditional sense, you'll probably enjoy it more in later life when everyone else has started to develop a beer-gut or burned out.
Numerous sites have been doing this kind of thing for a long time. I doubt it's especially effective, and I doubt that it'll be too popular -- but it's certainly nothing new. And there's nothing all that insidious about it, either: if a particular web site wants to go down this route, that's clearly their right -- and their audience will react accordingly.
Still, there are cases where I really don't consider it a big deal. gamespot.com, for example, puts up adverts for non-paying readers which hold them up for a few seconds. Which is fair enough, really: it's their content, and they've a right to do with it what they will. Of course it gets a little more dodgy when people start using scripting and the like to force their windows to behave in a modal fashion (which is, I suspect, what these people are *really* getting towards) -- but, hey, that's the technology we're dealing with, and anything that leads to technical improvements will likely only be a good thing in the long run.
I don't think the sky's falling to anywhere near the extent that Slashdot is implying (but hey, what's new there?) There's nothing to really see, here.. the only remotely surprising idea would be that anyone would consider this new technology or pay a premium for its implementation - you'd figure it was something any web monkey could put together in five minutes..
Uh, well - the electoral system isn't supposed to only serve the "intelligent", but rather the populace as a whole. So, while you and I might find it bizarre that some Floridians, say, are unable to figure out the ballot, that's no excuse for saying "screw 'em if they're too dumb to figure it out". For that way lies fascism.
Erm, did you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Symbolic though it is, the question certainly can be answered - because there is indeed a John Galt.
(or, er, PHP, or whatever. You know what I meant. But then, of course, I knew what he meant..)
Aha! A glitch in the Matrix!
.. there is no Special Edition.
Erm, than a person that has none. *sigh*
No.. a person with a lottery ticket has *one* more chance of winning than a person that has one.
Q.E.D.
Christians have had any number of prophecies which can be interpreted in any number of ways. Perhaps that justifies the application of any one of those prophecies to any subject that might be discussed on /., but it strikes me as a rather absurd approach.
Incidentally, I'm using "reactionary" in the sense of "being conservative" -- such references to the Bible, a book which though beautifully written is nonetheless a difficult source for either moral or intellectual discussion, smack of hysteria. Having a "very real concern" doesn't really mean anything -- I might be worried that aliens are employing these ids to catalogue us all and thus find appropriate mates for their martian daughters, but it doesn't make it my views any better considered.
I've nothing against biblical references, so long as there's any kind of real point or basis to them. But to start implying that the End is Nigh on the basis of nothing more than a silly government plan is, frankly, ridiculous.
Dear me -- and this got modded up to 'insightful'? This same religious nuttery that gets brought up every time *any* kind of identification method is introduced?
At least with bar codes the identification made some sense. The battle for our rights will be better fought with intelligent discourse than with reactionary bible-thumping, I think.
Mind you, anything that prompts a reference to the masterful Naked can't be all bad..
You seem to be determining what "the right tool for the job" is after the job is already complete.
The point of these studies (which are, admittedly, of marginal usefulness) is to help people make the decision as to what OS to plump for *before* they get to the point where the time, money and other resources have already been spent on developing proprietary software on proprietary software. And the fact that your company would find it "far more costly" to switch to Linux is an indication of the hidden costs inherent in proprietary development.