Slashdot. One of the few places on earth where it's an outrage (Outrage!) that a company would dare to introduce a product that isn't perfectly tailored to their needs.
That's like being given a table saw and complaining that it's not a dremel tool -- fine if you're going to complete your uber case mod, but it's going to suck trying to a build a fence with it.
For building a fence, you'd most likely want a chop saw or even a compound miter saw instead of a table saw.
To clarify, it actually seems as though this is a bad summary. The MioNET service that WD packages with the networked drives is responsible for the rights of users via the network. There are a few (obvious) ways to get around that. A bad summary? Written by Cory Doctorow? How could that be?
Seriously, Cory's penchant for breathless & misleading headlines puts slashdot (and pretty much every other media outlet) to shame. By consistently writing such misleading summaries, he does himself and boingboing a gross disservice. On top of that, he makes it far too easy for ordinary non-tech types to completely dismiss him as a raving DRM-hating nutjob, and that does everyone who cares about free information a disservice.
Cory has single-handedly set back the anti-DRM cause by several years, in my estimation.
]I assume they mean those with a roaming agreement No, that's not what they meant. What they mean is that you can put an AT&T SIM card into just about any GSM phone and, assuming the frequencies line up, you can use that phone on the AT&T network. I've used many GSM phones on my AT&T account, using my AT&T (ne Cingular ne PacBell Wireless) SIM card, and they just work, regardless of whether AT&T sold the phone or certified the phone.
If the frequencies don't line up, you're out of luck, but that's a hardware issue. And AT&T obviously isn't obligated to support phones they didn't sell, but if they work, they're not going to stop you from using them.
This is easily one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on slashdot. The author is so delusional that one wonders whether they've actually even [i]used[/i] Vista, or merely imagined the entire thing in an opium-fueled dream.
What you don't seem to understand is that both views are perfectly valid.
No, I understand the arbitrary origin concept perfectly well, and I got your point the first time. You've missed my point, though, which is that there was a period where everyone who was anyone was convinced that the sun revolved around the earth, which is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. We know that today, obviously, but that hasn't always been the case.
ridiculously false eh. Care to back up your claims?
You first, buddy boy. Besides, what could a bunch of rants in a thread on ArsTechnica (or Slashdot, for that matter) possibly prove? Do you really expect to convince anybody of something as hotly contested as the supposed miracles of some dirty hippy 2000 years ago by simply pointing to a thread and then demanding that I cave to your questionable faith?
Our time on this earth is too precious to fritter away contemplating what's in store for us in the next life.
While I'm usually the very last person to defend quantum theory, I must object to your sullying the (sometimes) good name of QM by comparing it to something as ridiculously false as the gospel.
The word you're looking for is intuitive, not transparent.
Nope. Intuitive is just a stepping stone along the way toward transparent. It's today's immediate goal, not a forward-thinking future goal. I didn't say anyone had achieved tranparancy, or is even close, just that it was a long-standing CS goal.
Here is an article that talks about the quest for transparent computing. From the article:
"A good interface," says Shumin Zhai, a member of the user systems ergonomic research (USER) group at Almaden, "is one that's transparent. That means it is so good you don't notice it, allowing you to fully concentrate on the task at hand.
Here's another article that talks about it. From the article;
Transparent computing is a characteristic of pervasive computing, the possible future state in which we will be surrounded by computers everywhere in the environment that respond to our needs without our conscious use.
I didn't make this up. It's probably taught in every CS program in the world. Really, if you're in the CS field, you should have been aware of this already. Further, if you think it can't be done, then you won't be able to do it.
You can't drive a car without training; why should a computer be different?
This statement, to me, is representative of everything that is wrong with Linux. Or, at least, Linux on the desktop. It's this very attitude ("If you can't use a computer, you shouldn't be using a computer") that will effectively prevent Linux on the desktop from succeeding.
The ultimate goal in CS (why yes, I am quite certain) is to make the computer transparent. Not transparent in the Jony Ive kind of way, but transparent in that anyone can use it with minimal fuss and no experience. Apple has pursued this goal for many years, but I would stop well short of saying they've achieved it. Microsoft realized much later that they should be pursuing this goal as well, and have made some attempts in that direction, although these efforts seem to have mostly resulted in making their system more vulnerable to remote exploits.
The computer industry has definitely not achieved this goal yet, and they may never actually get there. However, as long as Linux developers continue to write code targeted at other Linux developers, or otherwise look down their noses at non-developers as uneducated peons, Linux will fall well behind in the race to make computers easy for everyone.
Change your attitude or face irrelevance. Seriously.
The only time I have seen US CS majors gain immediate value is when they go abroad
That's crap. There are many many (mostly smaller) software companies in the US doing interesting things. There's also a few hardware companies that require a full complement of software engineers (ever hear of Apple?). Then there's the odd entertainment company (Pixar comes immediately to mind) who are doing way cool stuff.
If you're having trouble finding someplace to exercise your CS skills, perhaps it's not the industry that's to blame... perhaps it's you.
Usually scientists try to achieve things that are one or two steps above where they are now.
Indeed, mediocre, garden-variety scientists do try to look only a step or two ahead. And that, I think, precisely illustrates why Newton was (and is) truly a giant in the world of science.
Progress in science is generally slow and tedious. Occasionally, someone like Newton or Einstein comes along and turns everything on it's head, precisely because they were thinking many steps outside the box. Sure, they were off in crackpot territory, but they came back with something useful that dramatically advanced the scientific domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh.
I run a moderately large forum, and the kind of entitlement you're displaying here reminds me of why I frequently want to shut my own site down.
In the end, it's usually not any one thing: it's a combination of factors that, when they all converge, convince you to just give up and walk away.
And someone is always there to bitch about it, instead of thanking their hosts for all their hard work.
Yes! One of my all-time favorites.
The C++ Programming Language, 3rd Edition is pretty excellent.
Ugh. He may have invented the language, but that book is as long as it is awful. There are *much* better (and more accessible) texts on C++.
This is all part of Comcast's new Public Hearing Shaping technology.
I found a close (albeit symbolic) solution: I tagged the article as "stupid" via the Firehose.
If I had mod points, could I mod the entire article down?
Slashdot. One of the few places on earth where it's an outrage (Outrage!) that a company would dare to introduce a product that isn't perfectly tailored to their needs.
Farking freetards.
That's like being given a table saw and complaining that it's not a dremel tool -- fine if you're going to complete your uber case mod, but it's going to suck trying to a build a fence with it.
For building a fence, you'd most likely want a chop saw or even a compound miter saw instead of a table saw.
Just sayin'.
To clarify, it actually seems as though this is a bad summary. The MioNET service that WD packages with the networked drives is responsible for the rights of users via the network. There are a few (obvious) ways to get around that.
A bad summary? Written by Cory Doctorow? How could that be?
Seriously, Cory's penchant for breathless & misleading headlines puts slashdot (and pretty much every other media outlet) to shame. By consistently writing such misleading summaries, he does himself and boingboing a gross disservice. On top of that, he makes it far too easy for ordinary non-tech types to completely dismiss him as a raving DRM-hating nutjob, and that does everyone who cares about free information a disservice.
Cory has single-handedly set back the anti-DRM cause by several years, in my estimation.
]I assume they mean those with a roaming agreement
No, that's not what they meant. What they mean is that you can put an AT&T SIM card into just about any GSM phone and, assuming the frequencies line up, you can use that phone on the AT&T network. I've used many GSM phones on my AT&T account, using my AT&T (ne Cingular ne PacBell Wireless) SIM card, and they just work, regardless of whether AT&T sold the phone or certified the phone.
If the frequencies don't line up, you're out of luck, but that's a hardware issue. And AT&T obviously isn't obligated to support phones they didn't sell, but if they work, they're not going to stop you from using them.
This is easily one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on slashdot. The author is so delusional that one wonders whether they've actually even [i]used[/i] Vista, or merely imagined the entire thing in an opium-fueled dream.
Apple us totally and completely incompetent when it comes to Windows programming.
Almost as incompetent as Microsoft themselves.
And AmigaOS.
It is true. You just have to take the Earth as your fixed point.
Uh huh. Keep deluding yourself. I swear, slashdot comment moderation needs a "Pedantic" setting.
What you don't seem to understand is that both views are perfectly valid.
No, I understand the arbitrary origin concept perfectly well, and I got your point the first time. You've missed my point, though, which is that there was a period where everyone who was anyone was convinced that the sun revolved around the earth, which is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. We know that today, obviously, but that hasn't always been the case.
Here's a page on Galileo Galilei that details the conflict Galileo stirred up. From TFA:
The geocentric model was generally accepted at the time, as it had been since philosophers first considered the heavens.
By my reckoning, if everyone who had ever thought about it thought the sun revolved around the earth, it was considered fact.
ridiculously false eh. Care to back up your claims?
You first, buddy boy. Besides, what could a bunch of rants in a thread on ArsTechnica (or Slashdot, for that matter) possibly prove? Do you really expect to convince anybody of something as hotly contested as the supposed miracles of some dirty hippy 2000 years ago by simply pointing to a thread and then demanding that I cave to your questionable faith?
Our time on this earth is too precious to fritter away contemplating what's in store for us in the next life.
pedantic adj : marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects
Never let it be said that slashdotters are capable of recognizing humor when there are hairs to be split and unimportant points to be made.
There was never a "theory of the Earth being the centre of the universe"
You're absolutely correct. It was considered fact at the time.
You're taking quantum *theory* as gospel.
While I'm usually the very last person to defend quantum theory, I must object to your sullying the (sometimes) good name of QM by comparing it to something as ridiculously false as the gospel.
Nope. Intuitive is just a stepping stone along the way toward transparent. It's today's immediate goal, not a forward-thinking future goal. I didn't say anyone had achieved tranparancy, or is even close, just that it was a long-standing CS goal.
Here is an article that talks about the quest for transparent computing. From the article:
Here's another article that talks about it. From the article;
I didn't make this up. It's probably taught in every CS program in the world. Really, if you're in the CS field, you should have been aware of this already. Further, if you think it can't be done, then you won't be able to do it.
You can't drive a car without training; why should a computer be different?
This statement, to me, is representative of everything that is wrong with Linux. Or, at least, Linux on the desktop. It's this very attitude ("If you can't use a computer, you shouldn't be using a computer") that will effectively prevent Linux on the desktop from succeeding.
The ultimate goal in CS (why yes, I am quite certain) is to make the computer transparent. Not transparent in the Jony Ive kind of way, but transparent in that anyone can use it with minimal fuss and no experience. Apple has pursued this goal for many years, but I would stop well short of saying they've achieved it. Microsoft realized much later that they should be pursuing this goal as well, and have made some attempts in that direction, although these efforts seem to have mostly resulted in making their system more vulnerable to remote exploits.
The computer industry has definitely not achieved this goal yet, and they may never actually get there. However, as long as Linux developers continue to write code targeted at other Linux developers, or otherwise look down their noses at non-developers as uneducated peons, Linux will fall well behind in the race to make computers easy for everyone.
Change your attitude or face irrelevance. Seriously.
The only time I have seen US CS majors gain immediate value is when they go abroad
That's crap. There are many many (mostly smaller) software companies in the US doing interesting things. There's also a few hardware companies that require a full complement of software engineers (ever hear of Apple?). Then there's the odd entertainment company (Pixar comes immediately to mind) who are doing way cool stuff.
If you're having trouble finding someplace to exercise your CS skills, perhaps it's not the industry that's to blame... perhaps it's you.
Usually scientists try to achieve things that are one or two steps above where they are now.
Indeed, mediocre, garden-variety scientists do try to look only a step or two ahead. And that, I think, precisely illustrates why Newton was (and is) truly a giant in the world of science.
Progress in science is generally slow and tedious. Occasionally, someone like Newton or Einstein comes along and turns everything on it's head, precisely because they were thinking many steps outside the box. Sure, they were off in crackpot territory, but they came back with something useful that dramatically advanced the scientific domain.
I already owned the phone I wanted, I could not continue to use it because it's not compatible after the service change.
Like I said, sucks to be you.