First, Bush's name is not even mentioned in the CNN article, as many people have pointed out. There is a FOX article that says Bush intentionally STAYED OUT OF THE DECISION, and the BBC article says the Bush ADMINISTRATION. All evidence I have read that Bush made the decision is pure subjecture. You people have no evidence that Bush made the call, but you're sure willing to blame him. The only "evidence" is in the articles and none that I have read said Bush made the decision. The Fox article DOES say he intentionally STAYED OUT of it and left Ashcroft to make the decisions. So if you're gonna be pissed at anyone, but pissed at Ashcroft. You could be pissed at Bush for appointing Ashcroft, but if that's the case you need to focus your anger more. Don't blame the man for something he didn't do.
Secondly, how many people really thought A) The breakup would happen and B) that it would solve anything? Do you people REALLY think the gov't would be able to stop MS? From the start of the case, I had a feeling it wouldn't effect anything and it looks like it won't. MS is too slimy in and out of the courtroom to be brought down. They're masters at coming out on top. The public was against a breakup and sanctions will work as well as they did before. This has been a waste of taxpayer money. I would like to see MS brought down, but I don't think the gov't can/will do it regardless of who is in office.
I honestly don't know what the solution is, but something must be done. Unfortunately, I'm at a complete loss as to a plan of action.
I have a feeling I'm going to get flamed badly for this, but I agree to some extent. While most everyone who has responded to this is carrying on about how the company is making so much money, I think this is almost a thinning of the herd so to speak. How many YEARS have we known about AIDS? How many YEARS have countries preached against spreading it and how to avoid doing so? If people aren't intelligent enough to take the appropriate actions, why should we save their lives? Why go through all of this arguing because people are too stupid or immature to take responsibility for their actions? It's not like this isn't known to these people. If it's still spreading, that's the people's fault and they should take responsibility. I'm not one who enjoys hearing about a person's death, but where do we draw the line? At some point, we need to stop trying to save every stupid person and let natural selection take it's course. This is not a cold that you get accidentally, it's something you can avoid.
Now, I will be the first to admit there are extrenuating circumstances to all rules, even this one. A blood transfusion (or even simplier things) can give a person AIDS, but if things like this were the sole cause of the spread of AIDS, you'd think the rate would be decreasing. It's a horrible disease to have, and I find it hard to believe that people could be clueless about how to prevent it's spread.
As always, I am not an expert in this area and welcome intelligent responses to this post. I can not for the life of me find a reason for AIDS to spread and be this bad except for people's own stupidity and lack of responsibility. So why save them?
Why is everyone fighting this so hard? I'm not saying he's right, but as far as I know (which isn't much) he could be right or atleast have a point. Why aren't people admitting this and looking into it? The facts are that MS is pushing hard for.NET. Who knows weather it will succeed or not (GOD I hope not), but why lock the community into supporting MS? Why not support all variations of this topic and/or create our own? Who's to say that the open source people have their finger on all aspects of business? I'm not saying the guy is correct or anything, but it can't hurt to look into it. If Linux did create a.NET type architecture, it would sure hurt MS's future plans and can only help Linux. So why not atleast look into some of this?
I could be way off base here, but turning your backs on all critics and all alternative directions could end up with the OSS community being run around. I for one would hate to see that.
I agree, for the most part. I could never justify the cost of a PDA for a number of reasons. First, organizers are significantly cheaper, but you do have to buy one each year. The things I'd use a PDA for (meetings, phone numbers, etc) can be done just as well on a pad of paper or in my watch for far cheaper. Being a cheapsake, this is attractive to me.:)
I'd still consider getting one if they were more reliable though. I have yet to have heard of someone who hasn't had to buy a new Palm (or Handspring) within 3 years of buying their previous one. The screen usually goes bad and stops working. I know someone who got a new Palm III and the screen came broken. If Palms lasted as long as computers, or I didn't have to buy one every 3 years, they'd be more attractive. If I have to buy one every three years, there's not much advantage a PDA has over an organizer. The cheapsake in me will stay with an organizer in this case.
Has anyone had a PDA last longer than 3 years without problems?
Everytime your card is empty, you buy a new one, call a number and you go. Ease of use and cheapness. Here at the University we got phones for free from the University, with a subscription plan that is the cheapest I know. Sorry, you're argument is faulty.
How is this relevant to the US situation again? Such a situation does not exist in the US. I said the US consumers aren't willing to pay for the higher technology. As such, there isn't the economics of scale to get the prices down to free. Take an econ course for peats sake. The US's free economy isn't a mystery. The situation is completely understandable if you understand the economy, which you apparantly don't. You seem to have a lack of understanding as to what drives corporrations and consumers. Until there are people willing to pay higher prices for better service, the situation you explain in Europe will not happen quickly in the US.
Sorry not true. We pay for local calls contrary to the US
Not true. I have to pay per fscking call here in the US, so your logic is flawed. My point was that line phone lines are a mess in Europe when compared to the US.
Sorry to say, but it seems that even though you're working in the industry, you don't know about the way it works here in Europe.
Let me get this straight. I work in the a large company in the industry and deal with these issues, and you an average person who does NOT work in the industry has a position to tell me I'm wrong? Maybe if you were in the industry you'd have some credibility, but right now your like a lot of people on slashdot. Blowing a bunch of hot air about a subject you think you know about but have no experience with.
I work for a company that produces cell phones and mobile phone solutions, and the main problem hasn't even been listed here. Yes, the US is behind in cell phone technology because of geography and possibly even because of lack of gov't mandates, but the two biggest reasons haven't even been mentioned.
First off American consumers don't want to pay for 2.5G or 3G celluar. That's the biggest reason the US is behind. The technology is there, but consumers are used to getting free phones or cheap phones with their service and aren't willing to pay more. They don't really care about the fact that 3G and 2.5G will give them better signal quality. They want a cheap phone to talk to people. Rolling out 3G and 2.5G equipment is also very expensive on the service provider's part, so if the demand is low (as is currently is) then it won't get rolled out quickly. No one can force the market to want better technology. I can't speak for how things have happened/are happening in Europe and other parts of the world, but in the US the market is driving cell phone technology and right now, the conusmers aren't willing to pay for it. You need proof? Look at Motorola. Part of the reason they are in trouble is they bet on 2.5G and 3G technology, but it's not selling well.
Another point to be made is that in Europe, lane phone lines are hideously expensive. It makes more sense to use a cell phone there since it is cheaper (or close to it), but in the US this isn't true. Land phone lines are much cheaper in the US than Europe, so way would consumers pay a lot for their cell phones that aren't used as much as land phones? The economics there doesn't work out. Cell phones play different roles in the US and in Europe.
I first learned how to program in PASCAL, which is a largely worthless language for the world of work today but a very good teaching one. It has protection built in but not garbage collecting. For the most part, I didn't have to even worry about such things until much later (like at work). After you've learned a functional lanuage, picking up OOP is pretty simple but people do have to change their mentalities or you end up writting crappy OO code. I've always thought teaching a functional language was better for a first time programming course.
A far BETTER thing is to get away from windows and go back to fscking UNIX for teaching. For one, it's MUCH closer to the OS and much more helpful when learning programming. I learned PASCAL on a UNIX system. 30 students or so were all telneted into 1 server and developing their projects. 2nd year programming moved to C. Since dividing my 0 can take down the entire development system (at this time anyway), it wasn't taught until you had a good idea of the basic concepts of programming. My college switched from UNIX to NT as a programming environment for the introductory programming course and, as a TA of the course, the students didn't appear to learn nearly as much. At times, I wonder whether the development environment is as important as the lanuage taught. Regardless, I've always felt you get a better understanding of programming when taught a functional programming language. If taught correctly, you can teach OOP concepts in a functional lanuage to make moving to C++/Java even easier.
I would tend to disagree with you that an open platform is destined to fail simply because it is open. Sony's PS had many games written for them, but most of them were bad (in my opinion). The important part of that statement is "in my opinion". It seems to me that all most gamers need is ONE reason to buy a system. 1 great game, great graphics, great sound, etc. I am not a heavy gamer so I don't buy systems quickly and when I do, it's because there's a multitude of games I want. However, I have a number of friends who are heavy gamers and they buy systems for 1 game. They'll buy more later, but they buy the system and get interested in the system for 1 single game. Therefore, I would argue that an open system would have a BETTER chance of succeeding simply because could be more games that could be the 1 reason a gamer buys the system. The quality of the game is completely subjective.
I'm not saying this system will succeed at all, but it appears to be the first one of the open system type with some serious financial backing. Of course, success is measured differently by different people. I wouldn't expect this system to gain a huge market share (although it can happen. Sony is proof), but it could be profitable. That's my definition of success. Only time will tell what happens though. In theory, it could very well succeed. Theory is a great place to live. I gotta get me a house there.
On another note, any idea why all these companies are suddenly jumping into the console market? Seems rather odd to have all these big players suddenly decide to get into a cut-throat low-margin market.
Good.. please come to my house and explain that to my mozilla launcher that isn't working at this VERY moment. I had to switch to Konqueror just to get a browser running.. I would be VERY happy if you would tell this mozilla launcher that it should be working fine.
Well, I don't know what version of Mozilla you are using but I've never had this problem. I've had mozilla crash on a few web sites, but have never not been able to launch it. I'd check to make sure there isn't a mozilla-bin already running that's causing issues (just like netscape). Still, this is odd behavior.
I completely understand this.. My point is that to the linux newbie this is transparent, he couldn't care less how long your uptime has been, he really doesn't care if your applications work.. he wants his computer to work seamlessly.. and he will choose the platform that makes his computer work as seamlessly as possible.
Agreed.
2 things here.. 1st.. the average user does judge how stable the entire platform is based on how stable the application he wants to run is.
Again, agreed.
however, I'm not the average user, and my point is that the GUIs in linux need to make quite a bit of progress before they are ready for the average user
To some extent I agree, but what I don't agree with is that the WINDOW-MANAGERS are the problem. Saying that windows' window-manager needs to be improved because Word is crashing alot is just as wrong. The applications need to be improved, not the GUI. I agree an average user will judge the stability of the system based upon how the apps work, but to improve Linux's image the apps need to be improved not the WM. There is nothing the WM can do if an app wants to crash every time you start it.
I think stability IS an issue
Again, I said I agreed with this. However, stability of the WM isn't the problem, it's the stability of apps. If the WM was crashing and taking down the system, I would agree. It doesn't though. Instead, apps crash, just as they do in windows. The average user may judge the OS based upon the stability of the apps, but telling the WM to fix the problem isn't going to solve anything. You're telling the wrong developers to improve their apps.
that the average user must be able to do EVERYTHING he can do in windows without once opening xterm.. until that happens linux is not ready for the average user..
How long has it been since you've used Gnome or KDE? I used KDE back when it was 1.1.1 and later switched to Gnome which I've been running for about 2 years now and I've not had the window managers crash once. Not even Enlightenment. I switched to Gnome after gmc stopped being a graphical front end to SIGSEGV (ever try deleting a core file with it about 2 yrs ago? That was funny). KDE and Gnome are both extremely stable window-managers, more so than my experience with any windows product. That argument can go on at nausia, but I fail to see how anyone can say the Linux WINDOW-MANAGERS aren't as stable as windows. That's just not true.
The problems you describe have NOTHING to do with the window manager, but the products themselves. In Linux, many programs only allow one instance of themselves to be running at a time, or have issues when a particular instance on them goes nuts (see netscape). The only instance I know of where Launchers stop working is when netscape has gone berserk and you can't load another netscape. Mozilla doesn't have this problem. In fact, mozilla acts like Netscape in windows in that you can load it as many times as you like. (You can do this with netscape too I realize).
Browsers and applications dying, once again, are the fault of the application NOT the window-manager. If you judge window managers based on applications, then windows is the worst window manager on earth because apps that run on it crash all the time.
I agree that Linux needs to focus on the GUI platform, but stability isn't the problem. The applications in Linux could use improvement but the GUI's, as far as I can tell, are just as solid as the windows GUI if not more so.
On an interesting side note, I've run into an interesting issue on Linux and Windows where the screen will freeze and I can only move the mouse and not click on anything. It's only happened once or twice though. In Windows, I had to reboot but in Linux it recovered after a short time. From this anecdote I'd say Linux's GUI is more stable.
I kinda think your a bit paranoid about things. First off, we're NOT in a recession. A recession is defined as a number of periods of negative growth (2 if I remember correctly) and we have had 0 periods of negative growth. We are experiencing a slowed period of growth. IE, we're growing slower than we were before. The ironic thing is that companies are treating it like a recession, which makes me wonder what will happen if we go into a recession. The layoffs are hurting consumer confidence, which in turn is hurting the economy. You want to talk about Recursion, how's this:
1. economy slows.
2. companies see thinning profits and lay people off.
3. consumers lose confidence in market and tighten belts because of layoffs.
4. companies see thinning profits/losses and lay more people off.
5. See step 3.
Economic Depression/Recession
It's rather ironic that business' knee-jerk reaction to situations like this hurts their chances of making more money in the long run. Most decisions seem to be for the short term however. Anyway, I don't see a global conspiracy to muck with the economy to someone can look good. The possible exception would be the President, but in no way would he want to make it look bad. Unless he only wants 1 term that is.
I hate to say this, but you're way off. Easy of use and understanding of the GUI has nothing to do with who uses it. Windows is neither either to use nor easy to understand. Ask any computer illiterate person and he'll tell you so. Windows' interface is more known and people are more exposed to it. That is the sole reason people think it is easier to use. If Windows is on your machine when you buy it, that's what people will use. You want people to start using Linux more? Get it the same mind space and exposure that Windows has. That's all that is required. At this point, Linux UI's are no more difficult than Windows'. They're just different. You are correct that the more people use Linux, the more companies will write for it though.
Am I missing something here? Why did Hitachi sign licensing agreements with RAMBUS? I thought they were fighting RAMBUS and with this favorable finding, I'd think they definately wouldn't sign. With most of the companies signing with RAMBUS, what's the guarantee any of the ones fighting RAMBUS will stick with it long enough to come to a proper resolution instead of signing these licensing agreements?
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but you do of course realize that we don't need TV. As such, if HDTV is forced down people's throats like it is trying to be, all TV's could disappear. Not many people who can afford to are willing to pay the $3000 to buy a new TV. I know I'm not. If I can't watch TV because of it, then I won't have TV. What is trying to be done with HDTV is acinine and will not succeed if they try to obsolete all current TVs. They couldn't obsolete TVs when color came out and they can't do it now. Notice how the FCC mandate moved from it's original date (2000) because it wasn't going to be possible? The FCC date will continue to move back if they try to force the switch to HDTV. Yes, all the TV companies want to see more TVs, but they also don't want to sell NO TVs. If they try to force HDTV, they could very well be selling close to no TVs. If HDTV is going to make it, something like this will have to be adopted. The current plan will never work.
I hate to toot a horn here, but why not use Debian? The article points out quite well that all the problems you just described with RPMs don't exist with Debian/dpkg. I run Debian exclusively and I rarely have to do such hunting. It takes care of all dependencies for me. The only time I have had to search for dependencies was when using (surprise, surprise) the unstable branch. Even then it was fixed in a few days.
If you want your system to "just work", why would you use an RPM based system? Or, alternatively, why would you ever upgrade or install new packages? Given those two questions, it seems a no brainer to run a.deb based system since just about all Linux users know you're going to want install packages not in a base distribution.
Unfortunately, I think the poster of this may be correct. Many people have said that the DeCSS case is a strong case, and for the most part I believe that. However, is it a strong case that will likely be ruled so? Probably not. As much as I hate to say it, I don't see Corley ever winning this case. Now it the gov't and big business against the little guy trying to get a law declared Unconstitutional and I don't think he has a prayer. The judges of these cases either don't understand the technology, are running scared because of the possible wrong uses, or flat out don't want to rule against big business. I would love to be wrong about this and if anyone can shoot me down please do so, but from what I see, Corley will lose all his appeals and this will set a legal precendence. I have yet to see the lightest bit of evidence that any judge has an understanding of the real issues involved in the case. So, in that regard, it doesn't seem the DeCSS case is a strong one in the sense he can win.
Someone please convince me otherwise as I'd really like to believe, but the more I read the more disheartened I become.
But science does require a leap of faith at the get go. All the things we (as scientists) believe in is an extraction of a leap of faith. When a child continually asks why about something, inevitably the answer becomes "Just because" or "I don't know". This is because science is basing it's findings off of core elements it can't explain or understand. It takes them as fact without knowing WHY. I can believe that light travels at a certain speed, but science can't tell me WHY it travels at that speed. All science can say is "just because". Now, religion will say "because god made it so", and while this answer is boring and unexplanative it is still an answer. An answer to a question that science can't answer I remind you. I'm not sayig science is bad, or that it should be given up on. Nor am I saying religion is bad and should be given up on. I officially don't have a position on the matter because I've stopped caring. All I'm saying is that science takes faith to believe in also and therefore religion and science really aren't that different from each other. Their applications are far different however.
When will people realize that science and religion work together to the same ends? There's little difference between them (I'll get flamed for that statement I'm sure). Anyway, no matter how much science "proves", it can never under-mine creationism. So we evolved, but where did the first protiens come from that started the process?
Religion's answer: God
Science's answer: From the Big Bang.
Science says the Big Bang (or some other theory of the creation of the universe) is where the particles came from. Ok, in the case of the Big Bang, where did the one big mass that exploded come from?
Religion's answer: God
Science's answer: Um, we don't know
No matter what, all beliefs, whether it be science or religion, breaks down to some point where there's a leap of faith. Science can't explain the existence of some things that they "know" as law. Why do light and sound travel at the speeds they do and not some other speed? How many times as "science" said one thing, only to be found wrong a century later? When looked at this way, it almost seems like religion's answer is more credible because at least it is consistent. There's no guarantee that anything science has said up to this point will remain true later.
I am not a religious person mind you, but I can't say science is more factual than any religion.
I've always found that the better the plot, the better the game. Flashy graphics and neat special effects are nothing when compared to a game with a good plot IMO. It also has to be a game of the right length. I look back at some of the best games I've played and they had a very detailed and enrapturing plot. Metal Gear Solid, FF2, Silver, etc. I played FF2 (Final Fantasy 2) on my SNES countless times because the story was good and the game was short (I could be it in about 8-9 hrs). FF III's story was good until about half way through, when it lost cohesion. As such, I don't want to play the game anymore. The plot also has to have a good ending, or you feel like you've wasted time. Half-Life had a good plot, but the ending was a cop-out. If you're playing a game for plot, it has to have a good ending leaving you with closure and a sense that playing the game was worth it. I get bored with games that have no plot and/or bad endings. If you're not playing a game for plot, the ending doesn't matter. Sadly, this seems to be the track most games are taking instead of an enticing plot. It's sad to see, IMO.
I also have a bit of a problem understanding how this sort of thing is good. The RIAA (as much as I dislike them) is a business and they can sell music however they like. We, as consumers, don't have to buy it. The RIAA is just about a monopoly though, so it's a bit tough to figure out where to land on this issue. Still, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think the artists own their music once they sign with a record label, and as such don't get to choose how their music is sold. If the artist retains control of their music, I agree with you. If the record company gets to choose how it's distributed it becomes a grey area (IMO). Maybe Congress should be looking at a way to allow artists to keep the rights to their music instead?
"Unfortunately, replicating the earth's climate would take a lab the size of the earth and a lot of time."
I'm not saying replicate the earth's atmosphere. Scientists are saying that O3 (ozone) is being broken down by harmful poplutants, yet they can't replicate this in a lab? The same goes for testing for global warming. Who says you have to replicate the earth's atmosphere? All they have to do is prove that the more CO2 in a given environment causes more heat to be trapped. That's not that hard to accomplish and is an important step in proving the correlation. So why hasn't it been done? They can pretty easily make a model of earth's atmosphere and test their theories but they aren't doing so. Such reckless abandonment is what worries me. As I have said many times, we could very well be causing the temperature increase but we have no evidence because the "experts" aren't bothering to prove it via experiments. I don't know how you think, but that's a pretty important step in proving a theory to me. It might take some time, but they'd also a better understanding of what their dealing with.
Why is it so hard to see that we can't just go try to fix things without finding the cause? Especially since it isn't that hard (relatively speaking) to simulate. I'm all for saving the planet, but I'm not for trying methods to save the planet that have no scientific testing behind them.
Luckily, most of the efforts have been directed towards preventing more pollution which is a good thing. What happens when they turn their attentions towards trying to clean up the mess already up there? Not saying they will, but who's to say they won't? If we don't start questioning their data and demanding scientific proof now, why would they feel the need to do it later? Scientists are supposed to be about proof, not speculation. At this point, all we have is strong speculation. No proof.
No, I'm not saying this proposal is necessarily bad in anyway. In fact, I can see no harm coming from this except for a possible mutation of the bacteria but that would at most hurt the factory.
All I'm saying is that we really have no proof we're causing anything. I agree the trend is faster than what we have studied from the past, but we've (as a species) also never been alive during one of these temperature cycles. There could be other reasons why the temperature is rising so fast besides CO2. As I said, if we were actually causing the problem, why hasn't a single scientist tried to reproduce this same scenario in a lab? There have been no experiments to prove anything. All we have proven is that the earth is heating up faster. So what? That's meaningless without some kind of evidence as to the cause. We are throwing out proposals to solve problems we don't know the cause of. This particular solution doesn't appear to have an ill-effects, but what happens when we come up with one that might? The save the planet mentality is a bit out of hand. Yes we should try to save it, but let's find the cause before we find a solution.
And I know how dangerous a line we are walking. I'm a bit of an astronomy buff and it's rather scary to know how a relatively small temperature increase will end up turning Earth in Venus. As such, I would like to see proof of cause before we fix something. Otherwise, our fixes might end up doing what we fear the damage is currently doing.
''We can build a better product than Linux,'' he said. ''There is always something enamoring about thinking you can get something for free.''
So why haven't they? If MS can create a better product than Linux, what's stopping them? It's rather obivous they haven't, or they wouldn't be running scared like that are and it's obivous they fear Linux. Why would they fear Linux if they create a better product? Hrmmmm....
You're wrong. Global warming A) doesn't exist and B) what we see is natural. There is actually no scientific proof we are causing the increase in temperature. Just because the trend is larger than any in history does not mean we are causing it. The earth has gone through numerous heating and cooling phases in its life (heard of the ice age?), and this looks to be no different. Remember the stink that was raised about the hole in the ozone layer? Hrm, it's closing. Lookie there. The fact is, people are releasing "facts" about the atmosphere that aren't facts at all. We have no proof we're causing any damage. The POSSIBILITY of damage is there, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate, but it DOES mean we shouldn't do anything about it unless we can prove we're doing something. We're worrying about screwing up the planet, but our solutions (since we have no proof we're causing anything) could be just as dangerous (or more so) than what we think is causing the problems.
I almost agree with you 100% percent, but there is one thing I think you leave out in your argument. What if WE are causing the increase/decrease in temperature? What if our emissions are causing this temperature change? The odd thing about this is there is NO proof we are causing any damage whatsoever. Reports that are released are opinions and not scientic fact. It's amazing how people will rally around jibberish like that. Still, there is still the question of whether or not we are causing it. If we are, I should think we'd be able to reproduce what we see (and our potential soultions) in a controlled laboratory. It's odd that we haven't been able to or haven't tried. This makes us look like we're running around without a clue. I would like to see some real evidence that we're causing any of the problems were seeing (with the temperature anyway). Unless that is proved, finding a way to solve the problem is a waste of time, money, and is dangerous (if implemented).
Still, I think this bacteria is not going up into the atmosphere but into manufacturing plants, and I see no problems in reducing our pollution even if we aren't causing global warming/cooling.
Slashdot Mirror
First, Bush's name is not even mentioned in the CNN article, as many people have pointed out. There is a FOX article that says Bush intentionally STAYED OUT OF THE DECISION, and the BBC article says the Bush ADMINISTRATION. All evidence I have read that Bush made the decision is pure subjecture. You people have no evidence that Bush made the call, but you're sure willing to blame him. The only "evidence" is in the articles and none that I have read said Bush made the decision. The Fox article DOES say he intentionally STAYED OUT of it and left Ashcroft to make the decisions. So if you're gonna be pissed at anyone, but pissed at Ashcroft. You could be pissed at Bush for appointing Ashcroft, but if that's the case you need to focus your anger more. Don't blame the man for something he didn't do.
Secondly, how many people really thought A) The breakup would happen and B) that it would solve anything? Do you people REALLY think the gov't would be able to stop MS? From the start of the case, I had a feeling it wouldn't effect anything and it looks like it won't. MS is too slimy in and out of the courtroom to be brought down. They're masters at coming out on top. The public was against a breakup and sanctions will work as well as they did before. This has been a waste of taxpayer money. I would like to see MS brought down, but I don't think the gov't can/will do it regardless of who is in office.
I honestly don't know what the solution is, but something must be done. Unfortunately, I'm at a complete loss as to a plan of action.
Khyron
I have a feeling I'm going to get flamed badly for this, but I agree to some extent. While most everyone who has responded to this is carrying on about how the company is making so much money, I think this is almost a thinning of the herd so to speak. How many YEARS have we known about AIDS? How many YEARS have countries preached against spreading it and how to avoid doing so? If people aren't intelligent enough to take the appropriate actions, why should we save their lives? Why go through all of this arguing because people are too stupid or immature to take responsibility for their actions? It's not like this isn't known to these people. If it's still spreading, that's the people's fault and they should take responsibility. I'm not one who enjoys hearing about a person's death, but where do we draw the line? At some point, we need to stop trying to save every stupid person and let natural selection take it's course. This is not a cold that you get accidentally, it's something you can avoid.
Now, I will be the first to admit there are extrenuating circumstances to all rules, even this one. A blood transfusion (or even simplier things) can give a person AIDS, but if things like this were the sole cause of the spread of AIDS, you'd think the rate would be decreasing. It's a horrible disease to have, and I find it hard to believe that people could be clueless about how to prevent it's spread.
As always, I am not an expert in this area and welcome intelligent responses to this post. I can not for the life of me find a reason for AIDS to spread and be this bad except for people's own stupidity and lack of responsibility. So why save them?
Khyron
Why is everyone fighting this so hard? I'm not saying he's right, but as far as I know (which isn't much) he could be right or atleast have a point. Why aren't people admitting this and looking into it? The facts are that MS is pushing hard for .NET. Who knows weather it will succeed or not (GOD I hope not), but why lock the community into supporting MS? Why not support all variations of this topic and/or create our own? Who's to say that the open source people have their finger on all aspects of business? I'm not saying the guy is correct or anything, but it can't hurt to look into it. If Linux did create a .NET type architecture, it would sure hurt MS's future plans and can only help Linux. So why not atleast look into some of this?
I could be way off base here, but turning your backs on all critics and all alternative directions could end up with the OSS community being run around. I for one would hate to see that.
Khyron
I agree, for the most part. I could never justify the cost of a PDA for a number of reasons. First, organizers are significantly cheaper, but you do have to buy one each year. The things I'd use a PDA for (meetings, phone numbers, etc) can be done just as well on a pad of paper or in my watch for far cheaper. Being a cheapsake, this is attractive to me. :)
I'd still consider getting one if they were more reliable though. I have yet to have heard of someone who hasn't had to buy a new Palm (or Handspring) within 3 years of buying their previous one. The screen usually goes bad and stops working. I know someone who got a new Palm III and the screen came broken. If Palms lasted as long as computers, or I didn't have to buy one every 3 years, they'd be more attractive. If I have to buy one every three years, there's not much advantage a PDA has over an organizer. The cheapsake in me will stay with an organizer in this case.
Has anyone had a PDA last longer than 3 years without problems?
Khyron
Everytime your card is empty, you buy a new one, call a number and you go. Ease of use and cheapness. Here at the University we got phones for free from the University, with a subscription plan that is the cheapest I know. Sorry, you're argument is faulty.
How is this relevant to the US situation again? Such a situation does not exist in the US. I said the US consumers aren't willing to pay for the higher technology. As such, there isn't the economics of scale to get the prices down to free. Take an econ course for peats sake. The US's free economy isn't a mystery. The situation is completely understandable if you understand the economy, which you apparantly don't. You seem to have a lack of understanding as to what drives corporrations and consumers. Until there are people willing to pay higher prices for better service, the situation you explain in Europe will not happen quickly in the US.
Sorry not true. We pay for local calls contrary to the US
Not true. I have to pay per fscking call here in the US, so your logic is flawed. My point was that line phone lines are a mess in Europe when compared to the US.
Sorry to say, but it seems that even though you're working in the industry, you don't know about the way it works here in Europe.
Let me get this straight. I work in the a large company in the industry and deal with these issues, and you an average person who does NOT work in the industry has a position to tell me I'm wrong? Maybe if you were in the industry you'd have some credibility, but right now your like a lot of people on slashdot. Blowing a bunch of hot air about a subject you think you know about but have no experience with.
Khyron
I work for a company that produces cell phones and mobile phone solutions, and the main problem hasn't even been listed here. Yes, the US is behind in cell phone technology because of geography and possibly even because of lack of gov't mandates, but the two biggest reasons haven't even been mentioned.
First off American consumers don't want to pay for 2.5G or 3G celluar. That's the biggest reason the US is behind. The technology is there, but consumers are used to getting free phones or cheap phones with their service and aren't willing to pay more. They don't really care about the fact that 3G and 2.5G will give them better signal quality. They want a cheap phone to talk to people. Rolling out 3G and 2.5G equipment is also very expensive on the service provider's part, so if the demand is low (as is currently is) then it won't get rolled out quickly. No one can force the market to want better technology. I can't speak for how things have happened/are happening in Europe and other parts of the world, but in the US the market is driving cell phone technology and right now, the conusmers aren't willing to pay for it. You need proof? Look at Motorola. Part of the reason they are in trouble is they bet on 2.5G and 3G technology, but it's not selling well.
Another point to be made is that in Europe, lane phone lines are hideously expensive. It makes more sense to use a cell phone there since it is cheaper (or close to it), but in the US this isn't true. Land phone lines are much cheaper in the US than Europe, so way would consumers pay a lot for their cell phones that aren't used as much as land phones? The economics there doesn't work out. Cell phones play different roles in the US and in Europe.
Khyron
I first learned how to program in PASCAL, which is a largely worthless language for the world of work today but a very good teaching one. It has protection built in but not garbage collecting. For the most part, I didn't have to even worry about such things until much later (like at work). After you've learned a functional lanuage, picking up OOP is pretty simple but people do have to change their mentalities or you end up writting crappy OO code. I've always thought teaching a functional language was better for a first time programming course.
A far BETTER thing is to get away from windows and go back to fscking UNIX for teaching. For one, it's MUCH closer to the OS and much more helpful when learning programming. I learned PASCAL on a UNIX system. 30 students or so were all telneted into 1 server and developing their projects. 2nd year programming moved to C. Since dividing my 0 can take down the entire development system (at this time anyway), it wasn't taught until you had a good idea of the basic concepts of programming. My college switched from UNIX to NT as a programming environment for the introductory programming course and, as a TA of the course, the students didn't appear to learn nearly as much. At times, I wonder whether the development environment is as important as the lanuage taught. Regardless, I've always felt you get a better understanding of programming when taught a functional programming language. If taught correctly, you can teach OOP concepts in a functional lanuage to make moving to C++/Java even easier.
Khyron
I would tend to disagree with you that an open platform is destined to fail simply because it is open. Sony's PS had many games written for them, but most of them were bad (in my opinion). The important part of that statement is "in my opinion". It seems to me that all most gamers need is ONE reason to buy a system. 1 great game, great graphics, great sound, etc. I am not a heavy gamer so I don't buy systems quickly and when I do, it's because there's a multitude of games I want. However, I have a number of friends who are heavy gamers and they buy systems for 1 game. They'll buy more later, but they buy the system and get interested in the system for 1 single game. Therefore, I would argue that an open system would have a BETTER chance of succeeding simply because could be more games that could be the 1 reason a gamer buys the system. The quality of the game is completely subjective.
I'm not saying this system will succeed at all, but it appears to be the first one of the open system type with some serious financial backing. Of course, success is measured differently by different people. I wouldn't expect this system to gain a huge market share (although it can happen. Sony is proof), but it could be profitable. That's my definition of success. Only time will tell what happens though. In theory, it could very well succeed. Theory is a great place to live. I gotta get me a house there.
On another note, any idea why all these companies are suddenly jumping into the console market? Seems rather odd to have all these big players suddenly decide to get into a cut-throat low-margin market.
Khyron
Good.. please come to my house and explain that to my mozilla launcher that isn't working at this VERY moment. I had to switch to Konqueror just to get a browser running.. I would be VERY happy if you would tell this mozilla launcher that it should be working fine.
Well, I don't know what version of Mozilla you are using but I've never had this problem. I've had mozilla crash on a few web sites, but have never not been able to launch it. I'd check to make sure there isn't a mozilla-bin already running that's causing issues (just like netscape). Still, this is odd behavior.
I completely understand this.. My point is that to the linux newbie this is transparent, he couldn't care less how long your uptime has been, he really doesn't care if your applications work.. he wants his computer to work seamlessly.. and he will choose the platform that makes his computer work as seamlessly as possible.
Agreed.
2 things here.. 1st.. the average user does judge how stable the entire platform is based on how stable the application he wants to run is.
Again, agreed.
however, I'm not the average user, and my point is that the GUIs in linux need to make quite a bit of progress before they are ready for the average user
To some extent I agree, but what I don't agree with is that the WINDOW-MANAGERS are the problem. Saying that windows' window-manager needs to be improved because Word is crashing alot is just as wrong. The applications need to be improved, not the GUI. I agree an average user will judge the stability of the system based upon how the apps work, but to improve Linux's image the apps need to be improved not the WM. There is nothing the WM can do if an app wants to crash every time you start it.
I think stability IS an issue
Again, I said I agreed with this. However, stability of the WM isn't the problem, it's the stability of apps. If the WM was crashing and taking down the system, I would agree. It doesn't though. Instead, apps crash, just as they do in windows. The average user may judge the OS based upon the stability of the apps, but telling the WM to fix the problem isn't going to solve anything. You're telling the wrong developers to improve their apps.
that the average user must be able to do EVERYTHING he can do in windows without once opening xterm.. until that happens linux is not ready for the average user..
Agreed.
Khyron
How long has it been since you've used Gnome or KDE? I used KDE back when it was 1.1.1 and later switched to Gnome which I've been running for about 2 years now and I've not had the window managers crash once. Not even Enlightenment. I switched to Gnome after gmc stopped being a graphical front end to SIGSEGV (ever try deleting a core file with it about 2 yrs ago? That was funny). KDE and Gnome are both extremely stable window-managers, more so than my experience with any windows product. That argument can go on at nausia, but I fail to see how anyone can say the Linux WINDOW-MANAGERS aren't as stable as windows. That's just not true.
The problems you describe have NOTHING to do with the window manager, but the products themselves. In Linux, many programs only allow one instance of themselves to be running at a time, or have issues when a particular instance on them goes nuts (see netscape). The only instance I know of where Launchers stop working is when netscape has gone berserk and you can't load another netscape. Mozilla doesn't have this problem. In fact, mozilla acts like Netscape in windows in that you can load it as many times as you like. (You can do this with netscape too I realize).
Browsers and applications dying, once again, are the fault of the application NOT the window-manager. If you judge window managers based on applications, then windows is the worst window manager on earth because apps that run on it crash all the time.
I agree that Linux needs to focus on the GUI platform, but stability isn't the problem. The applications in Linux could use improvement but the GUI's, as far as I can tell, are just as solid as the windows GUI if not more so.
On an interesting side note, I've run into an interesting issue on Linux and Windows where the screen will freeze and I can only move the mouse and not click on anything. It's only happened once or twice though. In Windows, I had to reboot but in Linux it recovered after a short time. From this anecdote I'd say Linux's GUI is more stable.
Khyron
I kinda think your a bit paranoid about things. First off, we're NOT in a recession. A recession is defined as a number of periods of negative growth (2 if I remember correctly) and we have had 0 periods of negative growth. We are experiencing a slowed period of growth. IE, we're growing slower than we were before. The ironic thing is that companies are treating it like a recession, which makes me wonder what will happen if we go into a recession. The layoffs are hurting consumer confidence, which in turn is hurting the economy. You want to talk about Recursion, how's this:
1. economy slows.
2. companies see thinning profits and lay people off.
3. consumers lose confidence in market and tighten belts because of layoffs.
4. companies see thinning profits/losses and lay more people off.
5. See step 3.
Economic Depression/Recession
It's rather ironic that business' knee-jerk reaction to situations like this hurts their chances of making more money in the long run. Most decisions seem to be for the short term however. Anyway, I don't see a global conspiracy to muck with the economy to someone can look good. The possible exception would be the President, but in no way would he want to make it look bad. Unless he only wants 1 term that is.
Khyron
I hate to say this, but you're way off. Easy of use and understanding of the GUI has nothing to do with who uses it. Windows is neither either to use nor easy to understand. Ask any computer illiterate person and he'll tell you so. Windows' interface is more known and people are more exposed to it. That is the sole reason people think it is easier to use. If Windows is on your machine when you buy it, that's what people will use. You want people to start using Linux more? Get it the same mind space and exposure that Windows has. That's all that is required. At this point, Linux UI's are no more difficult than Windows'. They're just different. You are correct that the more people use Linux, the more companies will write for it though.
Khyron
Am I missing something here? Why did Hitachi sign licensing agreements with RAMBUS? I thought they were fighting RAMBUS and with this favorable finding, I'd think they definately wouldn't sign. With most of the companies signing with RAMBUS, what's the guarantee any of the ones fighting RAMBUS will stick with it long enough to come to a proper resolution instead of signing these licensing agreements?
Khyron
I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but you do of course realize that we don't need TV. As such, if HDTV is forced down people's throats like it is trying to be, all TV's could disappear. Not many people who can afford to are willing to pay the $3000 to buy a new TV. I know I'm not. If I can't watch TV because of it, then I won't have TV. What is trying to be done with HDTV is acinine and will not succeed if they try to obsolete all current TVs. They couldn't obsolete TVs when color came out and they can't do it now. Notice how the FCC mandate moved from it's original date (2000) because it wasn't going to be possible? The FCC date will continue to move back if they try to force the switch to HDTV. Yes, all the TV companies want to see more TVs, but they also don't want to sell NO TVs. If they try to force HDTV, they could very well be selling close to no TVs. If HDTV is going to make it, something like this will have to be adopted. The current plan will never work.
I've been wrong before though.
Khyron
I hate to toot a horn here, but why not use Debian? The article points out quite well that all the problems you just described with RPMs don't exist with Debian/dpkg. I run Debian exclusively and I rarely have to do such hunting. It takes care of all dependencies for me. The only time I have had to search for dependencies was when using (surprise, surprise) the unstable branch. Even then it was fixed in a few days.
.deb based system since just about all Linux users know you're going to want install packages not in a base distribution.
If you want your system to "just work", why would you use an RPM based system? Or, alternatively, why would you ever upgrade or install new packages? Given those two questions, it seems a no brainer to run a
Khyron
Unfortunately, I think the poster of this may be correct. Many people have said that the DeCSS case is a strong case, and for the most part I believe that. However, is it a strong case that will likely be ruled so? Probably not. As much as I hate to say it, I don't see Corley ever winning this case. Now it the gov't and big business against the little guy trying to get a law declared Unconstitutional and I don't think he has a prayer. The judges of these cases either don't understand the technology, are running scared because of the possible wrong uses, or flat out don't want to rule against big business. I would love to be wrong about this and if anyone can shoot me down please do so, but from what I see, Corley will lose all his appeals and this will set a legal precendence. I have yet to see the lightest bit of evidence that any judge has an understanding of the real issues involved in the case. So, in that regard, it doesn't seem the DeCSS case is a strong one in the sense he can win.
Someone please convince me otherwise as I'd really like to believe, but the more I read the more disheartened I become.
Khyron
But science does require a leap of faith at the get go. All the things we (as scientists) believe in is an extraction of a leap of faith. When a child continually asks why about something, inevitably the answer becomes "Just because" or "I don't know". This is because science is basing it's findings off of core elements it can't explain or understand. It takes them as fact without knowing WHY. I can believe that light travels at a certain speed, but science can't tell me WHY it travels at that speed. All science can say is "just because". Now, religion will say "because god made it so", and while this answer is boring and unexplanative it is still an answer. An answer to a question that science can't answer I remind you. I'm not sayig science is bad, or that it should be given up on. Nor am I saying religion is bad and should be given up on. I officially don't have a position on the matter because I've stopped caring. All I'm saying is that science takes faith to believe in also and therefore religion and science really aren't that different from each other. Their applications are far different however.
Khyron
When will people realize that science and religion work together to the same ends? There's little difference between them (I'll get flamed for that statement I'm sure). Anyway, no matter how much science "proves", it can never under-mine creationism. So we evolved, but where did the first protiens come from that started the process?
Religion's answer: God
Science's answer: From the Big Bang.
Science says the Big Bang (or some other theory of the creation of the universe) is where the particles came from. Ok, in the case of the Big Bang, where did the one big mass that exploded come from?
Religion's answer: God
Science's answer: Um, we don't know
No matter what, all beliefs, whether it be science or religion, breaks down to some point where there's a leap of faith. Science can't explain the existence of some things that they "know" as law. Why do light and sound travel at the speeds they do and not some other speed? How many times as "science" said one thing, only to be found wrong a century later? When looked at this way, it almost seems like religion's answer is more credible because at least it is consistent. There's no guarantee that anything science has said up to this point will remain true later.
I am not a religious person mind you, but I can't say science is more factual than any religion.
Khyron
I've always found that the better the plot, the better the game. Flashy graphics and neat special effects are nothing when compared to a game with a good plot IMO. It also has to be a game of the right length. I look back at some of the best games I've played and they had a very detailed and enrapturing plot. Metal Gear Solid, FF2, Silver, etc. I played FF2 (Final Fantasy 2) on my SNES countless times because the story was good and the game was short (I could be it in about 8-9 hrs). FF III's story was good until about half way through, when it lost cohesion. As such, I don't want to play the game anymore. The plot also has to have a good ending, or you feel like you've wasted time. Half-Life had a good plot, but the ending was a cop-out. If you're playing a game for plot, it has to have a good ending leaving you with closure and a sense that playing the game was worth it. I get bored with games that have no plot and/or bad endings. If you're not playing a game for plot, the ending doesn't matter. Sadly, this seems to be the track most games are taking instead of an enticing plot. It's sad to see, IMO.
Khyron
I also have a bit of a problem understanding how this sort of thing is good. The RIAA (as much as I dislike them) is a business and they can sell music however they like. We, as consumers, don't have to buy it. The RIAA is just about a monopoly though, so it's a bit tough to figure out where to land on this issue. Still, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think the artists own their music once they sign with a record label, and as such don't get to choose how their music is sold. If the artist retains control of their music, I agree with you. If the record company gets to choose how it's distributed it becomes a grey area (IMO). Maybe Congress should be looking at a way to allow artists to keep the rights to their music instead?
Khyron
"Unfortunately, replicating the earth's climate would take a lab the size of the earth and a lot of time."
I'm not saying replicate the earth's atmosphere. Scientists are saying that O3 (ozone) is being broken down by harmful poplutants, yet they can't replicate this in a lab? The same goes for testing for global warming. Who says you have to replicate the earth's atmosphere? All they have to do is prove that the more CO2 in a given environment causes more heat to be trapped. That's not that hard to accomplish and is an important step in proving the correlation. So why hasn't it been done? They can pretty easily make a model of earth's atmosphere and test their theories but they aren't doing so. Such reckless abandonment is what worries me. As I have said many times, we could very well be causing the temperature increase but we have no evidence because the "experts" aren't bothering to prove it via experiments. I don't know how you think, but that's a pretty important step in proving a theory to me. It might take some time, but they'd also a better understanding of what their dealing with.
Why is it so hard to see that we can't just go try to fix things without finding the cause? Especially since it isn't that hard (relatively speaking) to simulate. I'm all for saving the planet, but I'm not for trying methods to save the planet that have no scientific testing behind them.
Luckily, most of the efforts have been directed towards preventing more pollution which is a good thing. What happens when they turn their attentions towards trying to clean up the mess already up there? Not saying they will, but who's to say they won't? If we don't start questioning their data and demanding scientific proof now, why would they feel the need to do it later? Scientists are supposed to be about proof, not speculation. At this point, all we have is strong speculation. No proof.
Khyron
No, I'm not saying this proposal is necessarily bad in anyway. In fact, I can see no harm coming from this except for a possible mutation of the bacteria but that would at most hurt the factory.
All I'm saying is that we really have no proof we're causing anything. I agree the trend is faster than what we have studied from the past, but we've (as a species) also never been alive during one of these temperature cycles. There could be other reasons why the temperature is rising so fast besides CO2. As I said, if we were actually causing the problem, why hasn't a single scientist tried to reproduce this same scenario in a lab? There have been no experiments to prove anything. All we have proven is that the earth is heating up faster. So what? That's meaningless without some kind of evidence as to the cause. We are throwing out proposals to solve problems we don't know the cause of. This particular solution doesn't appear to have an ill-effects, but what happens when we come up with one that might? The save the planet mentality is a bit out of hand. Yes we should try to save it, but let's find the cause before we find a solution.
And I know how dangerous a line we are walking. I'm a bit of an astronomy buff and it's rather scary to know how a relatively small temperature increase will end up turning Earth in Venus. As such, I would like to see proof of cause before we fix something. Otherwise, our fixes might end up doing what we fear the damage is currently doing.
Khyron
''We can build a better product than Linux,'' he said. ''There is always something enamoring about thinking you can get something for free.''
So why haven't they? If MS can create a better product than Linux, what's stopping them? It's rather obivous they haven't, or they wouldn't be running scared like that are and it's obivous they fear Linux. Why would they fear Linux if they create a better product? Hrmmmm....
Sounds like more FUD to me. What a surprise.
Khyron
You're wrong. Global warming A) doesn't exist and B) what we see is natural. There is actually no scientific proof we are causing the increase in temperature. Just because the trend is larger than any in history does not mean we are causing it. The earth has gone through numerous heating and cooling phases in its life (heard of the ice age?), and this looks to be no different. Remember the stink that was raised about the hole in the ozone layer? Hrm, it's closing. Lookie there. The fact is, people are releasing "facts" about the atmosphere that aren't facts at all. We have no proof we're causing any damage. The POSSIBILITY of damage is there, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate, but it DOES mean we shouldn't do anything about it unless we can prove we're doing something. We're worrying about screwing up the planet, but our solutions (since we have no proof we're causing anything) could be just as dangerous (or more so) than what we think is causing the problems.
Khyron
I almost agree with you 100% percent, but there is one thing I think you leave out in your argument. What if WE are causing the increase/decrease in temperature? What if our emissions are causing this temperature change? The odd thing about this is there is NO proof we are causing any damage whatsoever. Reports that are released are opinions and not scientic fact. It's amazing how people will rally around jibberish like that. Still, there is still the question of whether or not we are causing it. If we are, I should think we'd be able to reproduce what we see (and our potential soultions) in a controlled laboratory. It's odd that we haven't been able to or haven't tried. This makes us look like we're running around without a clue. I would like to see some real evidence that we're causing any of the problems were seeing (with the temperature anyway). Unless that is proved, finding a way to solve the problem is a waste of time, money, and is dangerous (if implemented).
Still, I think this bacteria is not going up into the atmosphere but into manufacturing plants, and I see no problems in reducing our pollution even if we aren't causing global warming/cooling.
Khyron