Is it time to pay more attention to end-users?(who aren't geeks).
It depends - are they willing to compensate us for meeting their special needs? If not, then no.
I think Jamie Zawinski had it right when he said "[Open Source] is only free if your time is worth nothing." I used to hate that quote, mostly because it implied that closed source, proprietary software was any easier to use. I've since learned to look at it in a different light. That is, it implies that while open source is free as in speech, it is not necessarily free as in time.
If you want to see a feature in a piece of open source software, the fastest way to see it is to implement it yourself or pay someone else to do it. Don't expect someone else to do it for you just because you ask nicely (which most people don't). You should be grateful that the programmer was kind enough to release software that is useful to you. He could have just scratched his itch and kept it to himself.
Basically, I'm not trying to discourage improvements in user friendliness. I'm actually trying to encourage people to get involved in open source software projects. Because until you've contributed (or compensated), you have no right to bitch. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is a form of contribution . ..
are changes to the Linux open source development model needed to incorporate contributions from the legal side, checking patents and verifying that source is safe to include in a project
In a word: no. In a couple of words: HELL NO! Even if the idea of considering the legal aspects every time I sat down to write software wasn't anathema to me (I got into programming to PROGRAM, not be a lawyer), I would still say that change really needs to go in the other direction: laws and governments (and corporations!) exist to serve a society. Those that do not are bad laws, bad governments and bad corporations, and they should be dismantled.
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\E xp lorer\Advanced, make entry EnableBalloonTips, set REG_DWORD to 0
Windows is user friendly! Windows is ready for the average user! Windows is easier than Linux!
(yes, I'm making fun of this anonymous troll. Mod me down if you will, at least I'm logged in.).
There's a Simple Solution to This . . .
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 1
Just Say NO!
I already tell people who ask for computer help that I don't do Windows, or Mac; call Microsoft or Apple for help, that's what you're paying them for. Now if it's Linux, I'll be more than happy to help in exchange for a home cooked meal or beer.
For those interested in encouraging women to become involved in Linux (and computer science), there is an interesting HOWTO.
I knew one of the writers of this HOWTO. She was very intelligent and an excellent computer scientist. I've been telling people for years that they need to read this document. And read it again. And again, and again, until they get it through their thick skulls that there are problems with sexism in computer science that really shouldn't be there, especially considering that we are supposed to be _scientists_.
As for me, I don't think I've ever had these problems. Maybe I'm wrong, but I treat everyone equally, to the best of my ability (I can't help it; I'm an egalitarian). The one thing I do is take the keyboard away, but I do that to men and women alike, and that's mostly a problem of my own impatience. I'm not a good teacher, but I'm a good fixer, so people ask me for help a lot. Since I don't want to spend all my time fumbling with telling someone how to do something, I show them how. It's something I need to work on, but then I wouldn't have any time to get other work done, and my job description is not "teacher".
So go read this document. Don't laugh at it; it's one of the few things in life that should be taken seriously. And don't be cynical about it (ie "this speaks VOLUMES about why there are not more women involved in IT"); try to learn from it and stop being a pompous know it all for a change.
Fire bullets. What that bullet hits is entirely the responsibility of the person firing the gun.
Yes, I know originally guns were designed to kill (for hunting, mainly), but clubs were probably originally "designed" to kill (or harm) as well. Yet you wouldn't object to someone owning a hammer and using it to hammer nails, would you?
Also, whether or not guns were designed to kill, they don't *have* to be used. There is something empowering in owning a device that tells others not to violate your rights unless they want a fairly large hole in them. It gives freedom to individuals, and draws a line in the sand most will not cross.
With relay blacklisting, you don't have bounces to deal with because the MTA rejects the connection before validating the headers.
The problem with relay blacklists which I've run into is that they are not validated. I've gotten bounces with some bullshit about how my server is an open relay, or "not allowed to send email", when it is clearly the MX and the SPF server, not to mention it's the _only_ server that has ever been allowed to send email claiming it's from my domains. Relay blacklists are just as "broken" as SPF; they can be useful, but only if used intelligently.
I am unconvinced this scheme will make much of a difference in the spam epidemic.
So am I, but I'm sick and fucking tired of getting double bounces because some scumbag spammer is using random strings @ mydomain.com as the reply-to or from address. If more email admins got their act together and implemented SPF, maybe they'd realize that "hey, look, this IP address isn't allowed to send email for this domain, I'll just drop it instead of bouncing a zillion fucking emails because the spammer's lists are full of bogus email addresses."
It's not a silver bullet, but it is another effective tool in fighting spam, and combined with other tools, it works very well.
OTOH, I'm tempted to install the qmail patch that just tears down the connection as soon as it sees that the email address doesn't exist (=no more double bounces).
And who decides what the government's job is but the governed? Maybe these people should try a little self-regulation and responsibility. Not everything has to be mandated by the government, and maybe life would be a little better if it wasn't.
I mean, if they are being anticompetive and won't stop when asked, fine go ahead and fix the problem through force (government intervention). But if Ted Turner, one of the richest, most powerful and influential men in the business is not satisfied, why doesn't he do something about it himself? Talk is cheap.
NO This is like Bill Gates saying "Microsoft should be broken up to prevent it's detrimental impact on the software market that sifles small business growth." I, for one, would stand up and cheer if Bill Gates said that, but we all know he's not man enough to do the right thing.
Talk is cheap. If Ted is so pissed, why doesn't he do something about it? He certainly has the power to.
BTW, just FYI, but I would not cheer Gates saying that; I would cheer when Gates actually did it. Again, talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, etc.
Why can't he just be a very smart old man, who knows more about this topic than probably any of us, and is pissed because his industry is going to hell?
While I admire Ted's honesty, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them". In this case, it's even easier to talk about principles than to fight for them. If Mr. Turner is unhappy about big media, why doesn't he do something about it? He certainly has the power to. By most people's definitions, he owns and controls a lot of big media. There's a lot to be said about self-regulation and responsibility.
On the other hand, he might just be saying this to look good or win over public opinion.
Commercials are so irritating and so redundant (and such depressing unrealistic commentaries on wanton consumerism) that it is exhausting to try and listen to the radio or watch television.
Which is why I don't watch television or listen to the radio. There are much better alternatives: make your own CD's, surf slashdot (with adblocking), or watch a movie at home (with an unrestricted player), or even (*gasp*) read a book!
ads make the world go around. No ads. No Slashdot.
BULLSHIT. How long have you been here? I remember when I first heard about slashdot in late 1996/early 1997, there were no ads on slashdot.
Ads don't make the world go round. They turn it into a festering pool of shit that's not worth the time to try to discover. The world would be (and was!) a much better place without ads.
Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions
on
3D Mouse
·
· Score: 1
Q: what will it take to get people to use [3d mice]?
Yes, yes, I know all about 9/11 and the horrible tragedy that was inflicted on American then. I am not American myself, so I cannot begin to imagine what it must feel like.
I'm an American and I can tell you what it felt like to me:
TV: (WTC smoking) Me: Shit! Well, more people die every year from natural causes, and more damage is done by tornadoes and floods. I just hope they catch the fuckers responsible and give them a fair trial.
(couple of months later)
Me: WTF?! These idiots in charge *knew* about this, didn't prevent it, and yet they want to take away our rights "to better protect America"?! We gotta get these fuckers out of power!
(Today)
Me: Hmm, now I know how the Romans must have felt in the final days of the empire.
So there you have it. Some may call me "unpatriotic". Others may even want to "detain" me so I don't "cause any harm". Thankfully, I'm not the only one in this country who feels the way I do. But it sure feels like it.
they assume Mac OS X users think that the operating system has 0 to few exploits
Sadly, I've found this to be true. Mac users seem to be so blinded by their zealotry and love of all things Apple that they think that Apple can do no wrong (including having security flaws in their software).
Even though I love Linux, I'll admit it's not perfect, and when I see a complaint about open source software, I generally try to find out if it is valid, then see how it might be fixed. At least in the case of open source software I *can* fix it. I don't have that option with Apple.
Why do we despise ads on the web but not in a magazine that we paid for?
Who is this "we" you speak of? I myself hate any and all advertising and would rather just be left alone to decide on what *I* need and want without other people "informing" me.
Until just recently, I didn't have a television and I don't listen to the radio. Now I'm married to a wife likes to watch TV. Some sacrifices are necessary in any relationship;)
I am reminded of a comment I saw earlier on slashdot, though:
i say: kill all the advertisers. content will then come from two sources: individuals and communities who are truly passionate about their subject matter, and those with content that is actually worth paying for. i favor this for web, TV, radio - all of it. i want to just pay for my . . . content and get it free of all the time-wasting, soul-destroying, mind-manipulating, insulting, humiliating [stuff] that drips from the lobotomy scars in advertisers' foreheads.
It's a double-edged sword. Sometimes we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
And I don't care what anyone says, my liberty trumps your sense of security (not necessarily your *safety*, but rather your misguided *sense* of safety).
Janet, in a lame attempt at publicity, forced her nudity on the television audience even though the act was NOT in the specs provided to the network who, under their agreements with the FCC, should have prevented it.
Do you have any proof whatsoever that it was intentional? Did you not know that you were watching a LIVE broadcast, which essentially means that mistakes (like a "wardrobe malfunction") will be unedited? Sure, I'm all for freedom of choice, but I'm NOT for people bitching when they won't take responsibility for their choices. If you wanted to see it edited, see it edited. Don't watch it live and then bitch because it's not edited.
I didn't get the choice of screening Ms. Janet's chest.
Yes You DID! What did you think you were watching? A previously recorded, edited broadcast? No! It was LIVE. That means anything can happen, including "wardrobe malfunctions", and it won't be edited. Either accept your choices, or choose differently (ie, watch a later edited version).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't pass the INDUCE act. There, that's my alternative. Can I have a cookie?
If you mean that C# will probably burn down your company's building someday, then you are probably right.
It depends - are they willing to compensate us for meeting their special needs? If not, then no.
I think Jamie Zawinski had it right when he said "[Open Source] is only free if your time is worth nothing." I used to hate that quote, mostly because it implied that closed source, proprietary software was any easier to use. I've since learned to look at it in a different light. That is, it implies that while open source is free as in speech, it is not necessarily free as in time.
If you want to see a feature in a piece of open source software, the fastest way to see it is to implement it yourself or pay someone else to do it. Don't expect someone else to do it for you just because you ask nicely (which most people don't). You should be grateful that the programmer was kind enough to release software that is useful to you. He could have just scratched his itch and kept it to himself.
Basically, I'm not trying to discourage improvements in user friendliness. I'm actually trying to encourage people to get involved in open source software projects. Because until you've contributed (or compensated), you have no right to bitch. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is a form of contribution . .
In a word: no. In a couple of words: HELL NO! Even if the idea of considering the legal aspects every time I sat down to write software wasn't anathema to me (I got into programming to PROGRAM, not be a lawyer), I would still say that change really needs to go in the other direction: laws and governments (and corporations!) exist to serve a society. Those that do not are bad laws, bad governments and bad corporations, and they should be dismantled.
Windows is user friendly! Windows is ready for the average user! Windows is easier than Linux!
(yes, I'm making fun of this anonymous troll. Mod me down if you will, at least I'm logged in.).
I already tell people who ask for computer help that I don't do Windows, or Mac; call Microsoft or Apple for help, that's what you're paying them for. Now if it's Linux, I'll be more than happy to help in exchange for a home cooked meal or beer.
I knew one of the writers of this HOWTO. She was very intelligent and an excellent computer scientist. I've been telling people for years that they need to read this document. And read it again. And again, and again, until they get it through their thick skulls that there are problems with sexism in computer science that really shouldn't be there, especially considering that we are supposed to be _scientists_.
As for me, I don't think I've ever had these problems. Maybe I'm wrong, but I treat everyone equally, to the best of my ability (I can't help it; I'm an egalitarian). The one thing I do is take the keyboard away, but I do that to men and women alike, and that's mostly a problem of my own impatience. I'm not a good teacher, but I'm a good fixer, so people ask me for help a lot. Since I don't want to spend all my time fumbling with telling someone how to do something, I show them how. It's something I need to work on, but then I wouldn't have any time to get other work done, and my job description is not "teacher".
So go read this document. Don't laugh at it; it's one of the few things in life that should be taken seriously. And don't be cynical about it (ie "this speaks VOLUMES about why there are not more women involved in IT"); try to learn from it and stop being a pompous know it all for a change.
Fire bullets. What that bullet hits is entirely the responsibility of the person firing the gun.
Yes, I know originally guns were designed to kill (for hunting, mainly), but clubs were probably originally "designed" to kill (or harm) as well. Yet you wouldn't object to someone owning a hammer and using it to hammer nails, would you?
Also, whether or not guns were designed to kill, they don't *have* to be used. There is something empowering in owning a device that tells others not to violate your rights unless they want a fairly large hole in them. It gives freedom to individuals, and draws a line in the sand most will not cross.
The problem with relay blacklists which I've run into is that they are not validated. I've gotten bounces with some bullshit about how my server is an open relay, or "not allowed to send email", when it is clearly the MX and the SPF server, not to mention it's the _only_ server that has ever been allowed to send email claiming it's from my domains. Relay blacklists are just as "broken" as SPF; they can be useful, but only if used intelligently.
So am I, but I'm sick and fucking tired of getting double bounces because some scumbag spammer is using random strings @ mydomain.com as the reply-to or from address. If more email admins got their act together and implemented SPF, maybe they'd realize that "hey, look, this IP address isn't allowed to send email for this domain, I'll just drop it instead of bouncing a zillion fucking emails because the spammer's lists are full of bogus email addresses."
It's not a silver bullet, but it is another effective tool in fighting spam, and combined with other tools, it works very well.
OTOH, I'm tempted to install the qmail patch that just tears down the connection as soon as it sees that the email address doesn't exist (=no more double bounces).
And who decides what the government's job is but the governed? Maybe these people should try a little self-regulation and responsibility. Not everything has to be mandated by the government, and maybe life would be a little better if it wasn't.
I mean, if they are being anticompetive and won't stop when asked, fine go ahead and fix the problem through force (government intervention). But if Ted Turner, one of the richest, most powerful and influential men in the business is not satisfied, why doesn't he do something about it himself? Talk is cheap.
Talk is cheap. If Ted is so pissed, why doesn't he do something about it? He certainly has the power to.
BTW, just FYI, but I would not cheer Gates saying that; I would cheer when Gates actually did it. Again, talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, etc.
While I admire Ted's honesty, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them". In this case, it's even easier to talk about principles than to fight for them. If Mr. Turner is unhappy about big media, why doesn't he do something about it? He certainly has the power to. By most people's definitions, he owns and controls a lot of big media. There's a lot to be said about self-regulation and responsibility.
On the other hand, he might just be saying this to look good or win over public opinion.
Which is why I don't watch television or listen to the radio. There are much better alternatives: make your own CD's, surf slashdot (with adblocking), or watch a movie at home (with an unrestricted player), or even (*gasp*) read a book!
BULLSHIT. How long have you been here? I remember when I first heard about slashdot in late 1996/early 1997, there were no ads on slashdot.
Ads don't make the world go round. They turn it into a festering pool of shit that's not worth the time to try to discover. The world would be (and was!) a much better place without ads.
A: Less than $1,850.00 price tags. Next question.
There are somethings in this universe that you just can't control; copying is one of them.
I'm an American and I can tell you what it felt like to me:
So there you have it. Some may call me "unpatriotic". Others may even want to "detain" me so I don't "cause any harm". Thankfully, I'm not the only one in this country who feels the way I do. But it sure feels like it.
The sad thing is, in 50-100 years people will be saying that Bill Gates was our generation's Edison, and they will be right for the wrong reasons.
Sadly, I've found this to be true. Mac users seem to be so blinded by their zealotry and love of all things Apple that they think that Apple can do no wrong (including having security flaws in their software).
Even though I love Linux, I'll admit it's not perfect, and when I see a complaint about open source software, I generally try to find out if it is valid, then see how it might be fixed. At least in the case of open source software I *can* fix it. I don't have that option with Apple.
Who is this "we" you speak of? I myself hate any and all advertising and would rather just be left alone to decide on what *I* need and want without other people "informing" me.
Until just recently, I didn't have a television and I don't listen to the radio. Now I'm married to a wife likes to watch TV. Some sacrifices are necessary in any relationship
I am reminded of a comment I saw earlier on slashdot, though:
. . . but even a master carpenter cannot build a house out of rotten wood.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
And I don't care what anyone says, my liberty trumps your sense of security (not necessarily your *safety*, but rather your misguided *sense* of safety).
Do you have any proof whatsoever that it was intentional? Did you not know that you were watching a LIVE broadcast, which essentially means that mistakes (like a "wardrobe malfunction") will be unedited? Sure, I'm all for freedom of choice, but I'm NOT for people bitching when they won't take responsibility for their choices. If you wanted to see it edited, see it edited. Don't watch it live and then bitch because it's not edited.
Yes You DID ! What did you think you were watching? A previously recorded, edited broadcast? No! It was LIVE. That means anything can happen, including "wardrobe malfunctions", and it won't be edited. Either accept your choices, or choose differently (ie, watch a later edited version).