Have you considered the possibility that this could be the point?
I don't want to sound like a complete waco but... Microsoft puts a lot of time and effort into discrediting the open source movement and one of the most important tenants of their FUD is "If it's free you can't trust it." It really doesn't seem too far-fetched to image that they would go to quite a bit of trouble to encourage this. And by running FreeBSD servers they also discredit a competetor as well.
I disagree. If you sit as close to your TV as you do to your monitor you will definitely notice the pixelation. However this lower resolution comes with the benefit that for your dollar you can get a much larger TV.
NO, the Windoze way of "plug it in and watch the installer scribble on your hard drive as it makes educated guesses as to your hardware config" approach isn't the kind of flexibility we want for ourselves, but if Linux is ever gonna Dominate The World, we've gotta stop designing for ourselves and start designing for the guys who don't know whether they've got video cards or not.
There are always a couple of quotes like this every time one of the Robs posts one of these articles about Linux being hard to install. Are you sure that this is what you want? I am not sure I can see any reason for the Linux community to be so worked up about "World Domination" Why do we need everyone and their grandmother to be able to use Linux.
Right now we have an operating system that a slightly above average user can install and use with a little bit of work. Want to play with the GIMP for FREE!! (and legally no less). Take the time or find someone to help you learn what a video card is. This acts as a reward system for those who have the desire to go the extra mile.
I had Robbie Jr. And he didn't have the tape deck. He was remote controled but if you played with him for too long. Are he picked up interference form the TV or somthing he go out of control and say things like "You can't catch me" Kind of a primitive version of the AI they are using for the dog.
Interesting story, crappy article. I am amazed that any one would allow that to go out with their name on it. The guy talks to 3 different people all of who say they doubt that the toy is a trick to break into the market, yet he still writes an article about Sony doing just that. Maybe it was supposed to be funny. Too bad it wasn't.
By the way I think that the release of the toy is actually quite interesting. I just wish there had been more content about what it is capable of. What are the capabilities? Does it bark? Does it recognize voice commands?
There seems to be an obvious double standard in the media's coverage of Hackers/Crackers. They are portraying hackers as both supervillions who could rule the world, if not for the work of a few hard working FBI agents. And as dumb kids who are more of a nuisance than a real thereat. Both portrayals are equally inaccurate. There are capable hackers and scripts kiddies and coverage which paints sweeping generalities about the "Hacker Mentality" only serve to decrease they likelihood of any effective method of protecting our information
I know that most/. readers consider there to be a difference between Hackers and Crackers, but many journalists, and everyone else doesn't.
My point is does it make sense to try to chage the publics conception of what a "Hacker" is? Between the movies and the recent news coverage, the term "Hacker" has become synonymous with a person who uses his computer knowledge for evil. Is it posible to redifine this word in the publics eye. Even if it is wouldn't it just be easier to adopt the deffinitions that everyone else is using?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you considered the possibility that this could be the point?
I don't want to sound like a complete waco but... Microsoft puts a lot of time and effort into discrediting the open source movement and one of the most important tenants of their FUD is "If it's free you can't trust it." It really doesn't seem too far-fetched to image that they would go to quite a bit of trouble to encourage this. And by running FreeBSD servers they also discredit a competetor as well.
I disagree. If you sit as close to your TV as you do to your monitor you will definitely notice the pixelation. However this lower resolution comes with the benefit that for your dollar you can get a much larger TV.
Right now we have an operating system that a slightly above average user can install and use with a little bit of work. Want to play with the GIMP for FREE!! (and legally no less). Take the time or find someone to help you learn what a video card is. This acts as a reward system for those who have the desire to go the extra mile.
I had Robbie Jr. And he didn't have the tape deck. He was remote controled but if you played with him for too long. Are he picked up interference form the TV or somthing he go out of control and say things like "You can't catch me" Kind of a primitive version of the AI they are using for the dog.
Interesting story, crappy article. I am amazed that any one would allow that to go out with their name on it. The guy talks to 3 different people all of who say they doubt that the toy is a trick to break into the market, yet he still writes an article about Sony doing just that. Maybe it was supposed to be funny. Too bad it wasn't.
By the way I think that the release of the toy is actually quite interesting. I just wish there had been more content about what it is capable of. What are the capabilities? Does it bark? Does it recognize voice commands?
There seems to be an obvious double standard in the media's coverage of Hackers/Crackers. They are portraying hackers as both supervillions who could rule the world, if not for the work of a few hard working FBI agents. And as dumb kids who are more of a nuisance than a real thereat. Both portrayals are equally inaccurate. There are capable hackers and scripts kiddies and coverage which paints sweeping generalities about the "Hacker Mentality" only serve to decrease they likelihood of any effective method of protecting our information
I agree this seems like a good way to continue to use the terminology we want, with out it being corrupted by outsiders misinterpretations.
I was under the impresion that the strengh of the Palm was that it didn't try to do any thing other then the few tasks it is so good at.
I know that most /. readers consider there to be a difference between Hackers and Crackers, but many journalists, and everyone else doesn't.
My point is does it make sense to try to chage the publics conception of what a "Hacker" is? Between the movies and the recent news coverage, the term "Hacker" has become synonymous with a person who uses his computer knowledge for evil. Is it posible to redifine this word in the publics eye. Even if it is wouldn't it just be easier to adopt the deffinitions that everyone else is using?
Will /. be sued for the Bill/Borg icon now?