This describes what they want the Internet to be, not what it is or what it will be.
No, I think they pretty accurately describe what the Internet is. Just because *you* want it to be something else doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right.
The characteristics of the Internet they describe will change based on who uses it, as it molds itself to suit the people to use it as a TOOL.
Yes, and . . . ? For some reason, I'm failing to understand how this is not true.
So Bill Gates is a blockhead with a will of iron now?
I think that sums him up quite accurately. I mean, his will of iron is what makes Microsoft a success and his blockheadedness is what makes Microsoft such a pain in the ass.
Hey, the democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, and usually aren't that different. I've always had the sick and twisted idea of locking a pro-choice anti-gun liberal in a room with an anti-choice pro-gun conservative and start off a discussion with something similar to the following:
"Discuss why it is an inherant contradiction to be in favor of murder after death (death penalty) but not before (abortion), or vice versa (pro-choice versus anti-gun)."
I suspect their heads would explode within about five minutes of contemplating that, if they could manage to think outside of the boxes they have put themselves in.
THe people don't vote for the president in the US.
Funny, I could have sworn that in the last election there was a section on the ballot labeled "President". Granted, our votes don't make a lick of difference (the electoral college votes do), but that's what I said, isn't it?
In America, we don't even get the president we vote for!
And, BTW, I read the constitution (and the bill of rights) at least once a week, because my job requires that I uphold them both.
I can say that meetings are good for keeping everyone up-to-date with policies, procedures, informing them of important deadlines
And all of those things can be accomplished via email, memos or other forms of more efficient communication. Why do people think that their information is so important they need to waste hours of other people's time on it?
encouraging everyone to work as a team to meet common goals
That I can see, although if you are looking to improve morale and teamwork, wouldn't actual morale builders (ie, not meetings) and teamwork (ie, working in teams) be better?
discuss areas for improvement
Now that seems to be the only valid reason for a meeting: "conflict resolution" as Rands put it.
Man, the list of countries the people of the US have to apologize to because we can't keep our stupid Government in it's own backyard keeps growning and growning...
Maybe it's time we took our government back? Because it's definitely not for the people or by the people anymore.
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing . ..
-- Thomas Jefferson
In this country we do not so much vote for an Australian Government to govern us, as vote for a regional outpost of the United States administration who we hope will interpret American interests and policies in our favour.
You think that's bad? In America, we don't even get the president we vote for! And of course, in Soviet Russia, the government votes FOR YOU (to go to a gulag, or something).
if one was used as much as Windows is, I could be sure there would be many more viruses than currently exist, for say, Linux, currently.
That, sir, is a fallacy. There is no hard evidence to support that claim, and there probably never will be. As a counterpoint, however, consider how many web servers run Linux and Apache versus how many run Windows and IIS. Then consider how many worms and security holes there are for those respective platforms.
I do not 'work'. I have people who pay me to do my hobbies in a timely fashion.
-- unknown
The master in the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which; he simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.
-- Zen Buddhist Text
The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work.
-- Richard Bach, "Illusions"
Most home computers SHOULD be glorified applainces.
No, because then it's no longer a computer, it's a glorified appliance.
The average user doesn't need all of the complexity of the current generation of computers and really shouldn't have to deal with it.
Then maybe they shouldn't use a computer.
It is not the fault of the user that they know so little about systems so easily broken.
Considering that no one has ever been "taught" but humans inherently have to put effort into learning, then, yes, it is their fault.
Not everyone has the time, energy or desire to learn about all of the ways in which Windows can self-immolate.
In which case, they shouldn't use it (I don't for that very reason).
The problem is that computers are designed by geeks for geeks. They need to be designed by skilled industrial designers for complete morons.
No, "skilled industrial designers" need to design appliances and other tools with relatively few functions for complete morons. The rest of us are perfectly happy with our computers that have infinite uses and possibilities.
And for us gearheads there should be the option to buy complex and tempramental computers/OSes, just like people can still buy cars with manual transmissions.
Hmm, and yet to drive a car with an automatic transmission, you must still have a drivers license and training. Maybe we should have a license required to use a computer before you can get on the net, just like you have to have a license to use a car on publicly funded roads.
The age of "you must be a computer nerd" are over and it's time that software designers recognized that fact.
No, it's obviously NOT over because there is still a need for computer nerds, and there are still computer nerds. Software designers need realize nothing other than what their users requirements are: ie, if the are developing a general purpose operating system, it should be able to do what a general purpose operating system can do; if they are designing an MP3 player, it should play MP3s, no more, no less.
Re:Privacy invasion OK as long as it's for sales?
on
The Trouble with RFID
·
· Score: 1
Let's suppose--implausible, of course, but suppose--that you could somehow guarantee that RFID tags, and all the information that companies gather on you in all sorts of ways, could be freely exchanged by companies for the purposes of selling you stuff, but could be perfectly secured against any other kind of use whatsoever.
Would that be all right, or not?
No, it would not be "all right" (sic). One, they don't have my permission, two if I want to buy their product, I'll contact them. What's so hard to understand about opt-in? If I want it, I'll go looking for it, and anyone who tries to force it to be the other way around will lose my patronage, permanently.
I like the way Christopher locke put it in "The Cluetrain Manifesto":
we are not seats or eyeballs or end users or consumers. we are human beings and our reach exceeds your grasp. deal with it.
Compared to today's digital timepieces, old-fashioned, sweep-hand watches are pathetic one-trick ponies. Digital-watch wearers can check temperature, altitude, and the time in Tokyo, play tunes and games, and send messages.
Yes, but what happens when your batteries run out?
(btw, my watch batteries don't "run out"; I have a pocket watch that I wind; yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
It's been my experience that most people crying for anonymity on the internet are not big believers in freedom of expression. They are believers in freedom to not get punched in the mouth.
What, and you think you have a right to punch them in the mouth just because you don't agree with what they have to say? Well, excuse me, but fuck you. No one should have the right to harm others. And everyone should have the right to express their opinions without retribution, mouth-punching or otherwise.
have devoted their lives to proving they can out-think, out-program, and out-hack anyone with vision.
Why only those with vision? Seems awfully prejudiced to me. Or maybe they're just saying that to provoke a reaction. To be perfectly honest, I highly doubt they can out-program or "out-hack", oh say, Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond or Linus Torvalds.
Don't get me wrong; I'm glad to see people rising above their limitations, no matter what it is. It's just that statement could have been just as true and not so inflammatory if it had read thusly:
have devoted their lives to proving they can out-think, out-program, and out-hack anyone
Still, that's a rather bold statement, putting it politely. Putting it bluntly, someone needs to deflate their egos.
Do you honestly know how to disassemble and repair your car
Not yet, but I'm working on it, and I know how to *use* my car properly (ie not damaging other people or property).
or perform surgery?
No, but I know not to jab a pencil in my eye because someone tells me to. I also know to use a condom when having a one night stand.
Look, what you construe to be "elitism" about knowing how to work computers is really just people asking that others know how to just basically use computers. We're not elitist and we're not asking for people to be able to decode viruses in a hex editor - we're asking that people take responsibility for their actions and not bitch when the consequences of their actions bite them in the butt.
I'll leave you with a few choice quotes:
Think of computer security like power tools. The day you think you are totally safe is the day you end up hurt.
-- Alan Cox, in an email to the Linux-Kernel mailing list
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for computing than it is for other tools (e.g. automobiles, airplanes, guns, power saws).
-- Doug Gwyn
Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we ourselves possess.
-- Gandalf the Grey [J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the Rings"]
I want filesystem priorities. A background task that is grinding the hard drive, should only do so when a high priority task isn't using the drive, or when its data is adjacent to the high priority data the head is next to anyway.
Seriously, though, I don't make anywhere near $60/hour (and never have). Of course, I've only been out of school three years and I currently work for the government. But my last job with a startup didn't pay much more than my current one.
Funny, Apple's Unix runs on it. Linux can use it (probably no Grub support yet).
Funny, Apple's "UNIX" resembles UNIX about as closely as it resembles Mach and microkernels or MacOS9. And just because Linux can use it doesn't mean it's a UNIX filesystem. Linux can use FAT.
Unless you mean to differentiate UNIX (tm) from Unix (philosophy)?
That is also a valid point, in that HFS+ definitely does not follow the UNIX philosophy.
All forms of socialization over the internet seem to start out with loads of potential, but in the end, they all suffer from the scum that tends to surface.
Just like real life! Hmm, perhaps this isn't a problem with the technology, but a problem with the society? Or perhaps it's a problem with humanity itself?
NTFS uses Unicode for pathnams and was AFAIK the first filesystem to do so.
I doubt it. Although I can't find any evidence, I'm willing to bet that HPFS supported Unicode. And HPFS was around before NTFS. NTFS is supposedly derived from HPFS.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think they pretty accurately describe what the Internet is. Just because *you* want it to be something else doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right.
Yes, and . . . ? For some reason, I'm failing to understand how this is not true.
I think that sums him up quite accurately. I mean, his will of iron is what makes Microsoft a success and his blockheadedness is what makes Microsoft such a pain in the ass.
Actually, the moment you put something on a publicly accessible web server, you are opting in to having it on the Internet.
Hey, the democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, and usually aren't that different. I've always had the sick and twisted idea of locking a pro-choice anti-gun liberal in a room with an anti-choice pro-gun conservative and start off a discussion with something similar to the following:
I suspect their heads would explode within about five minutes of contemplating that, if they could manage to think outside of the boxes they have put themselves in.
Funny, I could have sworn that in the last election there was a section on the ballot labeled "President". Granted, our votes don't make a lick of difference (the electoral college votes do), but that's what I said, isn't it?
And, BTW, I read the constitution (and the bill of rights) at least once a week, because my job requires that I uphold them both.
And all of those things can be accomplished via email, memos or other forms of more efficient communication. Why do people think that their information is so important they need to waste hours of other people's time on it?
That I can see, although if you are looking to improve morale and teamwork, wouldn't actual morale builders (ie, not meetings) and teamwork (ie, working in teams) be better?
Now that seems to be the only valid reason for a meeting: "conflict resolution" as Rands put it.
Maybe it's time we took our government back? Because it's definitely not for the people or by the people anymore.
That, sir, is a fallacy. There is no hard evidence to support that claim, and there probably never will be. As a counterpoint, however, consider how many web servers run Linux and Apache versus how many run Windows and IIS. Then consider how many worms and security holes there are for those respective platforms.
No, because then it's no longer a computer, it's a glorified appliance.
Then maybe they shouldn't use a computer.
Considering that no one has ever been "taught" but humans inherently have to put effort into learning, then, yes, it is their fault.
In which case, they shouldn't use it (I don't for that very reason).
No, "skilled industrial designers" need to design appliances and other tools with relatively few functions for complete morons. The rest of us are perfectly happy with our computers that have infinite uses and possibilities.
Hmm, and yet to drive a car with an automatic transmission, you must still have a drivers license and training. Maybe we should have a license required to use a computer before you can get on the net, just like you have to have a license to use a car on publicly funded roads.
No, it's obviously NOT over because there is still a need for computer nerds, and there are still computer nerds. Software designers need realize nothing other than what their users requirements are: ie, if the are developing a general purpose operating system, it should be able to do what a general purpose operating system can do; if they are designing an MP3 player, it should play MP3s, no more, no less.
No, it would not be "all right" (sic). One, they don't have my permission, two if I want to buy their product, I'll contact them. What's so hard to understand about opt-in? If I want it, I'll go looking for it, and anyone who tries to force it to be the other way around will lose my patronage, permanently.
I like the way Christopher locke put it in "The Cluetrain Manifesto":
A: Tea. Next question.
Yes, but what happens when your batteries run out?
(btw, my watch batteries don't "run out"; I have a pocket watch that I wind; yes, I'm that old-fashioned)
What, and you think you have a right to punch them in the mouth just because you don't agree with what they have to say? Well, excuse me, but fuck you. No one should have the right to harm others. And everyone should have the right to express their opinions without retribution, mouth-punching or otherwise.
Why only those with vision? Seems awfully prejudiced to me. Or maybe they're just saying that to provoke a reaction. To be perfectly honest, I highly doubt they can out-program or "out-hack", oh say, Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond or Linus Torvalds.
Don't get me wrong; I'm glad to see people rising above their limitations, no matter what it is. It's just that statement could have been just as true and not so inflammatory if it had read thusly:
Still, that's a rather bold statement, putting it politely. Putting it bluntly, someone needs to deflate their egos.
Not yet, but I'm working on it, and I know how to *use* my car properly (ie not damaging other people or property).
or perform surgery?
No, but I know not to jab a pencil in my eye because someone tells me to. I also know to use a condom when having a one night stand.
Look, what you construe to be "elitism" about knowing how to work computers is really just people asking that others know how to just basically use computers. We're not elitist and we're not asking for people to be able to decode viruses in a hex editor - we're asking that people take responsibility for their actions and not bitch when the consequences of their actions bite them in the butt.
I'll leave you with a few choice quotes:
It's already there. It's called nice(1).
A: No. Next question.
Seriously, though, I don't make anywhere near $60/hour (and never have). Of course, I've only been out of school three years and I currently work for the government. But my last job with a startup didn't pay much more than my current one.
Funny, Apple's "UNIX" resembles UNIX about as closely as it resembles Mach and microkernels or MacOS9. And just because Linux can use it doesn't mean it's a UNIX filesystem. Linux can use FAT.
Unless you mean to differentiate UNIX (tm) from Unix (philosophy)?
That is also a valid point, in that HFS+ definitely does not follow the UNIX philosophy.
Just like real life! Hmm, perhaps this isn't a problem with the technology, but a problem with the society? Or perhaps it's a problem with humanity itself?
No, it shows how flexible a language C is. I dare you to try doing the same thing with Python or Java (or Scheme, or LISP, or . . . ).
I doubt it. Although I can't find any evidence, I'm willing to bet that HPFS supported Unicode. And HPFS was around before NTFS. NTFS is supposedly derived from HPFS.
HFS+ is not a UNIX filesystem.
Shit, that can be a pretty kickass system. Don't forget the minimum requirements for Linux are still a 386 with 4MB of RAM.