Does it appear somewhat suspicious to anyone else that the two predominant candidates are a) both weak candidates, (and, at least with the case of Kerry, not the one with the highest popularity during primaries amongst his party), b) corporately motivated, c) seemingly both with few (if any!) stances that differ from the current status quo which is pissing off so many Americans in so many different ways?
gee, then maybe they should've have made him an ex-employee if he's so valueable to the viability of their products.
just because he's working for another company doesn't mean that he's going to use the same knowledge to help that company. it's quite possible that he doesn't even remember specifics, and that the knowledge he used to design seagates stuff is still resident - ie, it would essentially be an independent implimentation.
I know hardware is quite different, but I personally can't remember what code I wrote 6 months ago looks like, let alone anything beyond that. Might my impimentation look the same now? I doubt it.
I'm sorry, no. Just because a field of study uses the scientific method does not make it a science. My your definition, I am a "writing scientist" as I apply the "scientific method" to my writing process. No.
You will have to use the "scientific method" in almost every field out there today, in the loosest sense of the phrase (which is, I believe, the only sense that you could realistically apply it to economics). That does not make every field out there a strict science. Another name for the "scientific method" is deductie reasoning, or logic. These are quite desireable traits
No, calling everything a "science" in today's world is greatly overdone. Computer scientists are not scientists - they're computer engineers, programmers, or what have you, for the most part. Yes, there are some computer scientists, but not many.
I guess it really comes down how you define 'science'. On one hand, I don't see how an economist is much better than a glorified statician. On the other, I do notice the merit of economics as a science, as it analyses a social complex social structure and tries to draw conclusions based off of precidence. To me, it seems to be a bullshit science overall, just as grads of schools such as ITT Tech or DeVry are mostly bullshit "computer scientists".
The irony here is that programming requires decision making and analysis, even if you're a medicocre programmer. On the other hand, a mediocre businessman will be able to ask other people for advice.
Reasoning and analysis, as you put it (also called logic and deduction) are pinacle traits of programming. They are not even generally considered necessary skills for most run-of-the-mill business people, and there-in lies the problem: business folks fuck things up for everyone else.
The only reason programmers are at the bottom of the food chain is because they're socially inept (ie, very low social intelligence), more often than not, and thus they've not realized that they need to network with people to retain viability in a social environment.
It's interesting how drastically different the Windows and Linux culture (or maybe I should say mindset) is amongst professionals. (Don't mark me as a flame/troll, hear me out...)
When Windows comes out with a new releases (Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.), people tend to 'hold back' and wait to see if it breaks things. Even with point releases (SP1, SP2, etc.) there seems to be a fair amount of trepidation when considering to upgrade even a personal machine - after all, not only do you need to reinstall Windows, you also have to reinstall every fucking application, and likely delete or move files around that are in the wrong part of the fs tree that you want saved, or what have you. It can take a long, long time to do all this, particularly if the machine is a personal machine and hasn't been reinstalled in years.
Linux is quite the opposite, for the most part. New beta release? People hit the download servers like a rugby player hits the after-game party. Some folks (debian stable fans) might hold back a bit, but it seems like, for the majority of desktop users, they want the latest, greatest thing. Installing all the applications is, for the most part, trivial: set everything up to install, and click "Next", then come back an hour later and you're ready to go (once again, for the most part). The time investment is significantly lower to get the needed software installed (knowledge of how to do it not withstanding).
I recently had to reinstall a Windows desktop machine from scratch (full format). The whole process, from the insertion of the Windows disk into the drive, to the "fuck, I'm finally done. I need (another) drink," took nearly 4 hours due to having to constantly insert various software disks, continual reboots for software updates and driver finickyness, and this was a fairly modern machine (installing win2k, axp 2000+, 512M, 7200rpm 80G).
IMO, the best thing MS could do for Longhorn, now that they've supposedly fixed their security underpinning problems, would be to make a 'universal' install mechanism so that reinstallation of a system would be relatively trivial. Make a 'network install' wizard which would install the core OS, and then query a server on the network (or a local disk) which would contain directories (or disk images, I guess) of applications or games - whatever. It would then install the software without prompting for the serial, name, or what have you.
As a result, I would imagine that all software written for longhorn would then be required to use a specific 'installation api', so MS could have more control over security and other such things, in addition to simply being able to install it via this method. This whole process would, IMO, make reinstallation of Windows much, much more geek friendly, more friendly for repair shops (copy all the CDs the person has to the drive, enter their registration codes into a text file in the root 'software-to-install' dir, reboot the system and wait for it to come back up after a dozen or so reboots with a fully functional OS), or even corporations. It'd probably take a healthy chunk out of the reimaging software markets, as well as the 3rd party installation software (Install Shield or what have you), but IMO, it would be worth it if it makes windows somewhat less shitty in the useability dept.
I've got a Windows machine that I've got to fix this weekend - seemably broken by a virus which is possibly still resident, but none of the virus scanning packages are able to find it. Copy/paste doesn't work, a lot of control panel applets don't work, etc. I don't relish having to do each item independently.
Test boxes exist to install questionable software on . Their existence is to break if there are problems - you want them to do this. If not, you end up having problems in production.
Er, where do you work again?/me rushes off to ready yet another resume for the mail
While I completely understand the logic behind having a torch attached to the gun, or being able to hold the gun in one hand and the pistol in the other , I'd have to say that I think this is a dumb mod - at least for single player.
The whole apeal of the game is ruined if you're able to have the flashlight on all the time. Less things 'jump out' at you. The game would be much less suspenseful, and, IMO, less entertaining as a result of such a mod. Doom 3 doesn't offer much gameplay value (not to be confused with graphic quality or the engine, oh ye pedantics) without the creepyness/darkness, IMO, as FPS games are truly pretty run-of-the-mill now, and Doom 3 doesn't bring anything to that table in terms of gameplay. Removing the suspense that arrives from having to switch back and forth from a gun and the flashlight in a dark room in order to see what you're shooting at is foolish - even though it would be realistic in real life to be able to shoot and hold a light, it is not practical for the game. Suspension of disbelief is key in this game, just as it would be in film.
Hell, if anyone complains about the 'default' game state with the claim of "reality", step back from your monitor and brain yourself with your keyboard. You're on Mars killing demons in a scientific lab which has, essentially, created an entropy engine/infinite supply of energy, FFS. Oh, and of course, there's the whole "portal to hell" bit.
Multiplayer is another story entirely. Doom 3 has introduced an entirely new form of camping - the "stand in the dark spot in the middle of the hall and just shoot" camp. It necessitates that a person turn on the barrel flare and projectile light features in DoomConfig.cfg - without doing so, you can't even see the person shooting you.
He's write - not one of those things are hindering linux desktop adoption. It's a combination of all three, combined with the spectre of an unfamiliar environment.
Linux isn't difficult to use as a desktop, for 90% of business operations, I'd say. It's that other 10%, in addition to the home market that makes it difficult to use, and that is holding Linux back - home acceptance will lead to widespread business acceptance. Installation isn't difficult - it's easier than Windows - but again, 90% or more of people would never even consider installing Windows on their own, let alone Linux. Some people simply don't like to learn (thank systematic 'education' for that).
The app claim is partially correct. There are plenty of applications for linux - more than for Windows - there just aren't the right ones, and there just isn't the compatibility with their current applications. MS document compatibility is probably one of the biggest, but there are a lot of people that use things like "Kodak Photo Center" or such, which certainly won't work with linux, and that's what they prefer as of now: familiarity. There sure as hell isn't a comparable application for most of the main 'creative' tools, which are largely used in professional capacity (and at home): Photoshop, Macromedia products, publishing software, and the like. Things like the GIMP don't even begin to cut it, as they're both lacking features and a sane - let alone familiar - interface. Unstable operating system claims don't tend to be enough to pull people over anymore, as Windows is pretty damned stable. Malware and dislike for MS are likely the two main "getting rid of Windows" reasons now.
I'd say the biggest thing that is slowing adoption of linux right now is: games. There simply isn't that many of them, and the ones that are available tend to either be linux only (can't play with friends), fairly shitty, or released weeks/months after their Windows counterpart. The installation learning curve is also a bit of a problem there, as even many folks that use linux (or Windows, really) don't even begin to understand dependencies, and it's much easier to figure out "DirectX 9.0b is installed" than, "glibc version x.x, XFree 4.3 or newer, kernel 2.6" or what have you.
I'm sorry, Linux isn't "there" yet. It won't be for some time - if it ever is. I thank God for this, and I use Linux daily in various capacities. All the idiots are accustomed to Windows now. Please don't try to change the paragidm again. It would be like gradually changing the US road system over to have people drive on the left: people wouldn't know which way to drive on specific streets, things would always appear different, you'd have many, many people that would cause traffic problems, and you'd simply have people getting frustrated and crashing/breaking shit because they're unfamiliar with it.
Technically, a person can become addicted to anything.
There are two kinds of addiction. One is psychological, and the other is physiological. In other words, you can have a direct mental (emotional, whatever) dependence on something, or your body can be dependant on something. Sometimes a psychological addiction can cause physical withdrawl symptoms, too, and just because you're psychologically addicted doesn't mean there isn't a physical side effect/benefit.
People allow addictions to continue in their lives because they're an escape from the mundane details and unpleasant things about life that they don't like. Caffine, the Internet, sex, routine, alcohol, spending money, being dumb, smoking, singleness - people get addicted to all these things, because they help the person avoid having to think about the real issues of life.
re: 1 - The hardware isn't the issue with IBM. Their 'default' hardware configuration is mostly supported from what I've seen, or is in short order, it's just that ordering directly from IBM is prohibitively expensive unless you're a reseller or buying in bulk.
I know that I should be "grateful for what I have", but I've got a couple gripes about "linux on laptops". Keep in mind, however, that I own an IBM Thinkpad X30, and I do run single-boot debian sid on it.
1) IBM needs to get their act together and offer Linux support, at the very least, for their laptop line. Their hardware is mostly supported already, but it shouldn't be necessary for me to pay the extra amount for a licensed copy of Windows XP, which I'll never use just to get a well-built laptop. What's more, they're advertising linux for enterprise use, and enterprises use laptops. I don't see how moving to linux couldn't be anything but good for them now, overall - or at least moving in and helping linux laptop development, so that it is soon mature enough for IBM to start offering it at a corporate level on laptops. 2) It would be nice to start getting a little bit better kernel and X support for things like suspend and power ACPI. At the very least a listing somewhere on manufacturer's sites saying, "hey, our hardware needs this specific version of software to work properly if you run Linux" - it's often difficult to find definitive information on such topics, and people will often get things working when others are not able to for odd reasons. Personally, hard or soft suspend do not currently work for me w/ kernel 2.6 and X 4.3 running the dri-trunk debs - on current sid - on my X30. Returning from suspend results in X being borked, requiring a reboot to fix. (Anyone that has information as to why this is occuring, or what the fix might be, and I'd appreciate hearing from you...) 3) Wireless support. I'm not talking solely about drivers, as those have improved significantly* and are on the right road, but wireless tools for useland. As far as I know, it's currently fairly difficult (via waproamd, the only thing I've seen to do this) to get a wireless card to 'roam' from network to network as you go from, say, home or work. There needs to be a good userland tool for this. 4) * The wireless drivers in the kernel itself are still pretty shitty and minimal, and wlan-ng sucks horribly. The hostap 2.x drivers are a significant improvement over the other two in every regard (as far as I've seen), but actual support in the kernel really should be improved.:-/ (Anyone know why hostap stuff hasn't been brought into the main kernel tree?) 5) power management tools don't seem to work too well. It's quite possible that I'm simply ignorant on the matter, but tools such as cpudyn and cpufreqd do not scale the processor's speed dynamically when losing AC power, or gaining it again. In my experience, the daemons need to be restarted manually.
Why would we want to have Linux be a certified Unix?
When Saturn came around, or Asian cars came to the US, did they try and advertise themselves as "Ford-compatible" or did they try and make a name for themselves?
This might have been a good idea a good 3, 4 years ago, but not now. 3, 4 years ago, Linux didn't have a market to speak of, and was not much more than an industry-wide toy. Now, it has major backing from IBM and Novell, and even people like my mom (technophobe nurse) is beginning to hear about Linux as the next-best thing. Linux currently offers, for the most part, much more than the Unix offerings. That couldn't have be said 5 years ago.
The last thing the Linux community needs now is to have Linux associated with an old, outdated 'standard' that is Unix.
When half-life too comes out in a couple months, such a system will be completely inadequate. Namely, due to the fact that it'll need a rip-your-ass-out expensive video card in order to play nicely.
Then explain to me why the cost of internet access is so high in the US in comparision? We've got most of the internet infrastructure over here - at least that's viewed by Americans, what with us being ignorant single-language speakers and all.
The US could easily scale to much higher levels of bandwidth - at least for those that already have broadband. The main thing you'd need different from Korea is more cable, I'd imagine, due to distance. Other than that, I'd thinkthere'd be a lower entry standard set for the US 'high bandwidth' broadband, as there are less people, and thus non-cable infrastructure needed.
Anyone else remember when pulling down 1MB/s wasn't uncommon in the early days of cable networks, with just as much upload bandwidth? Surely most of you can remember when there was at least synchronous bandwidth for upload and download. Now, everyone's capped at a pathetic 15KBps up or so, and roughly 150KBps down. I don't accept "but there isn't enough frequency space in the current systems for those rates anymore" unless you give me some sound (ie, factual and scientific) reason as to why not - bandwidth is cheap now, it wasn't then, and the various routing products are vastly more powerful than they were then.
Note how "US executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the disparity. There's more than one way to look at it. Given the trend in the US, I'm more apt to look at it as "yes, we'd rather have miniscule bandwidth and 40/month cable bills, than actually provide a competitive service - because, afterall, who's left to compete against us?" How is comcast able to provide nice bandwidth in Canada, hrm? They've got a much, much lower population density there, even if you don't count all the extremely rural/uninhabited areas.
Wouldn't it have been just as easy to say something like, "We view these actions as an afront to our business, and an obvious violation of US law."? Oh, but no - that wouldn't have had the same ring to it, now would it?
Half the posts on slashdot are talking about technology thta already exists as if it were fictional. Hello, people! RTFA, it was right there: Sony's Librie! It:
it is apparently available now
it uses something called e-ink, which is an interesting technology.
it uses hardly any battery power
It's readable in the sun
it takes no battery power to actually run, just change state
Etc.
Pay attention! The only thing that I don't know that it has is the ability to be backed up properly, lack of DRM, etc. as I've not yet seen one myself.
the newer ebook readers have paper-like screens - they only change state when you flip a page, use precious little batteries, and are readable in the same light that books are. pdas aren't even close to analogous.
i imagine they have page numbers, etc. just as books do, as well.
it wouldn't be that hard to do ebooks justice. the technology is available.
Ever pay attention to the LCD on the cashier's checkout till? It will sometimes say something like "CTTN SHIRT" - similar to what the receipt says.
What's to stop someone from relabeling an expensive stereo setup for significantly less? Someone might notice, yes, but it's easier to do that and claim ignorance than it is to simply walk out of the store with it.
That's an easy answer. It's the same answer for any medium's success: a low cost/value ratio.
At the time being, there's little value, and high cost. $250+ for a reader, which uses batteries, for a reader which can only read proprietary book formats is not a reasonable proposition for most people - particularly when you consider that the ebooks themselves cost as much as paperbacks, and sometimes hardcover versions of the novel.
Another thing that hinders the adoption is the lack of a quantifiable physical item when ebooks are purchased. You just get a data file which is easily deleted, lost, or damaged. This isn't appealing to many geeks, let alone the general populace.
No, I don't view ebooks and their readers gaining much acceptance at all, as most people do not read nowadays. They would gain popularity if the media were significantly cheaper (dimes on the dollar), and the media was not provided with a restricted license, I'm sure. Ditto for being able to use the ebook reader to read, say, saved web pages, text files, PDFs, and various other 'standard' file formats - or at least a provision for importing them to the ebook reader format in a non-restrictive manner.
Really, I think the best chance ebook readers have of becoming common, or even popular, is for the ebook reader companies to start talking to course book publishers. These publishers make many, many books which are in publication for a year or two, and then discontinued, only to release a new version with one or two spelling changes, a couple pretty graphs, and a new cover. The old books? They largely get disposed of, I'd imagine. Students are left with a shitty text book and no means by which to get rid of it for reasonable reimbursement.
If I could have an ebook reader which cost me $200ish, and then spend $150-250 a quarter on books (as opposed to the 300-400 I spend now), and possibly get a discount at the end of the quarter for not copying the data off the device (20%, say) on the next quarter's books, I'd do it in a heartbeat, provided the ebook reader was technically mine (not some lease from the school), and I could use it to store any variety of my own books as well (technical documents, novels, etc.).
Granted, I'd only have the ebooks for the quarter, but I'd wager that 90% of the course books out there have little reuse value for the student, let alone for the next person that come along, as there'll likely be another version available. I imagine publishers would like this scenario - a lot - as I can imagine they would save a LOT of money by not having publishing, transport, storage, etc. costs for the millions of text books they make.
Schools (public schools, at least) would also likely benefit, as they could get a license for a book, and use it indefinately, provided they had the readers. If the readers were made of similar sturdyness to an AlphaSmart, i don't see this as being too unlikely a scenario. Battery cost would be negligible, as most students probably don't use their books enough to drain a single AAA battery half way, so there'd not be much recurrent costs. Students could get their work done more quickly (due to search features), and everyone would benefit. (Well, at least in theory - it depends on what the actual purpose of our school system is, I guess.)
At any rate, I'd like an ebook to replace the multiple text books I've got to lug about, personally. I'd be willing to pay roughly the same amount for the ebook reader and the ebooks as I pay for my text books, provided I could add my own data (PDF, txt, whatever) without restrictions. Is anyone out there listening? Market research, hello?
Slashdot Mirror
Does it appear somewhat suspicious to anyone else that the two predominant candidates are a) both weak candidates, (and, at least with the case of Kerry, not the one with the highest popularity during primaries amongst his party), b) corporately motivated, c) seemingly both with few (if any!) stances that differ from the current status quo which is pissing off so many Americans in so many different ways?
gee, then maybe they should've have made him an ex-employee if he's so valueable to the viability of their products.
just because he's working for another company doesn't mean that he's going to use the same knowledge to help that company. it's quite possible that he doesn't even remember specifics, and that the knowledge he used to design seagates stuff is still resident - ie, it would essentially be an independent implimentation.
I know hardware is quite different, but I personally can't remember what code I wrote 6 months ago looks like, let alone anything beyond that. Might my impimentation look the same now? I doubt it.
I'm sorry, no. Just because a field of study uses the scientific method does not make it a science. My your definition, I am a "writing scientist" as I apply the "scientific method" to my writing process. No.
You will have to use the "scientific method" in almost every field out there today, in the loosest sense of the phrase (which is, I believe, the only sense that you could realistically apply it to economics). That does not make every field out there a strict science. Another name for the "scientific method" is deductie reasoning, or logic. These are quite desireable traits
No, calling everything a "science" in today's world is greatly overdone. Computer scientists are not scientists - they're computer engineers, programmers, or what have you, for the most part. Yes, there are some computer scientists, but not many.
I guess it really comes down how you define 'science'. On one hand, I don't see how an economist is much better than a glorified statician. On the other, I do notice the merit of economics as a science, as it analyses a social complex social structure and tries to draw conclusions based off of precidence. To me, it seems to be a bullshit science overall, just as grads of schools such as ITT Tech or DeVry are mostly bullshit "computer scientists".
The irony here is that programming requires decision making and analysis, even if you're a medicocre programmer. On the other hand, a mediocre businessman will be able to ask other people for advice.
Reasoning and analysis, as you put it (also called logic and deduction) are pinacle traits of programming. They are not even generally considered necessary skills for most run-of-the-mill business people, and there-in lies the problem: business folks fuck things up for everyone else.
The only reason programmers are at the bottom of the food chain is because they're socially inept (ie, very low social intelligence), more often than not, and thus they've not realized that they need to network with people to retain viability in a social environment.
where does this get enabled?
I predict that Evolution will soon fork. Seems like a bit of corporate over-extension, to me: they want to have the cake and eat it too.
To me, this doesn't seem to mesh with the GPL, but I'm not intimately familiar with the GPL, so I can't make a definate say.
It's interesting how drastically different the Windows and Linux culture (or maybe I should say mindset) is amongst professionals. (Don't mark me as a flame/troll, hear me out...)
When Windows comes out with a new releases (Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.), people tend to 'hold back' and wait to see if it breaks things. Even with point releases (SP1, SP2, etc.) there seems to be a fair amount of trepidation when considering to upgrade even a personal machine - after all, not only do you need to reinstall Windows, you also have to reinstall every fucking application, and likely delete or move files around that are in the wrong part of the fs tree that you want saved, or what have you. It can take a long, long time to do all this, particularly if the machine is a personal machine and hasn't been reinstalled in years.
Linux is quite the opposite, for the most part. New beta release? People hit the download servers like a rugby player hits the after-game party. Some folks (debian stable fans) might hold back a bit, but it seems like, for the majority of desktop users, they want the latest, greatest thing. Installing all the applications is, for the most part, trivial: set everything up to install, and click "Next", then come back an hour later and you're ready to go (once again, for the most part). The time investment is significantly lower to get the needed software installed (knowledge of how to do it not withstanding).
I recently had to reinstall a Windows desktop machine from scratch (full format). The whole process, from the insertion of the Windows disk into the drive, to the "fuck, I'm finally done. I need (another) drink," took nearly 4 hours due to having to constantly insert various software disks, continual reboots for software updates and driver finickyness, and this was a fairly modern machine (installing win2k, axp 2000+, 512M, 7200rpm 80G).
IMO, the best thing MS could do for Longhorn, now that they've supposedly fixed their security underpinning problems, would be to make a 'universal' install mechanism so that reinstallation of a system would be relatively trivial. Make a 'network install' wizard which would install the core OS, and then query a server on the network (or a local disk) which would contain directories (or disk images, I guess) of applications or games - whatever. It would then install the software without prompting for the serial, name, or what have you.
As a result, I would imagine that all software written for longhorn would then be required to use a specific 'installation api', so MS could have more control over security and other such things, in addition to simply being able to install it via this method. This whole process would, IMO, make reinstallation of Windows much, much more geek friendly, more friendly for repair shops (copy all the CDs the person has to the drive, enter their registration codes into a text file in the root 'software-to-install' dir, reboot the system and wait for it to come back up after a dozen or so reboots with a fully functional OS), or even corporations. It'd probably take a healthy chunk out of the reimaging software markets, as well as the 3rd party installation software (Install Shield or what have you), but IMO, it would be worth it if it makes windows somewhat less shitty in the useability dept.
I've got a Windows machine that I've got to fix this weekend - seemably broken by a virus which is possibly still resident, but none of the virus scanning packages are able to find it. Copy/paste doesn't work, a lot of control panel applets don't work, etc. I don't relish having to do each item independently.
Test boxes exist to install questionable software on . Their existence is to break if there are problems - you want them to do this. If not, you end up having problems in production.
/me rushes off to ready yet another resume for the mail
Er, where do you work again?
While I completely understand the logic behind having a torch attached to the gun, or being able to hold the gun in one hand and the pistol in the other , I'd have to say that I think this is a dumb mod - at least for single player.
The whole apeal of the game is ruined if you're able to have the flashlight on all the time. Less things 'jump out' at you. The game would be much less suspenseful, and, IMO, less entertaining as a result of such a mod. Doom 3 doesn't offer much gameplay value (not to be confused with graphic quality or the engine, oh ye pedantics) without the creepyness/darkness, IMO, as FPS games are truly pretty run-of-the-mill now, and Doom 3 doesn't bring anything to that table in terms of gameplay. Removing the suspense that arrives from having to switch back and forth from a gun and the flashlight in a dark room in order to see what you're shooting at is foolish - even though it would be realistic in real life to be able to shoot and hold a light, it is not practical for the game. Suspension of disbelief is key in this game, just as it would be in film.
Hell, if anyone complains about the 'default' game state with the claim of "reality", step back from your monitor and brain yourself with your keyboard. You're on Mars killing demons in a scientific lab which has, essentially, created an entropy engine/infinite supply of energy, FFS. Oh, and of course, there's the whole "portal to hell" bit.
Multiplayer is another story entirely. Doom 3 has introduced an entirely new form of camping - the "stand in the dark spot in the middle of the hall and just shoot" camp. It necessitates that a person turn on the barrel flare and projectile light features in DoomConfig.cfg - without doing so, you can't even see the person shooting you.
he's "write", eh? What a fucking idiot.
Oh wait. He's me.
-- needs more sleep
He's write - not one of those things are hindering linux desktop adoption. It's a combination of all three, combined with the spectre of an unfamiliar environment.
Linux isn't difficult to use as a desktop, for 90% of business operations, I'd say. It's that other 10%, in addition to the home market that makes it difficult to use, and that is holding Linux back - home acceptance will lead to widespread business acceptance. Installation isn't difficult - it's easier than Windows - but again, 90% or more of people would never even consider installing Windows on their own, let alone Linux. Some people simply don't like to learn (thank systematic 'education' for that).
The app claim is partially correct. There are plenty of applications for linux - more than for Windows - there just aren't the right ones, and there just isn't the compatibility with their current applications. MS document compatibility is probably one of the biggest, but there are a lot of people that use things like "Kodak Photo Center" or such, which certainly won't work with linux, and that's what they prefer as of now: familiarity. There sure as hell isn't a comparable application for most of the main 'creative' tools, which are largely used in professional capacity (and at home): Photoshop, Macromedia products, publishing software, and the like. Things like the GIMP don't even begin to cut it, as they're both lacking features and a sane - let alone familiar - interface. Unstable operating system claims don't tend to be enough to pull people over anymore, as Windows is pretty damned stable. Malware and dislike for MS are likely the two main "getting rid of Windows" reasons now.
I'd say the biggest thing that is slowing adoption of linux right now is: games. There simply isn't that many of them, and the ones that are available tend to either be linux only (can't play with friends), fairly shitty, or released weeks/months after their Windows counterpart. The installation learning curve is also a bit of a problem there, as even many folks that use linux (or Windows, really) don't even begin to understand dependencies, and it's much easier to figure out "DirectX 9.0b is installed" than, "glibc version x.x, XFree 4.3 or newer, kernel 2.6" or what have you.
I'm sorry, Linux isn't "there" yet. It won't be for some time - if it ever is. I thank God for this, and I use Linux daily in various capacities. All the idiots are accustomed to Windows now. Please don't try to change the paragidm again. It would be like gradually changing the US road system over to have people drive on the left: people wouldn't know which way to drive on specific streets, things would always appear different, you'd have many, many people that would cause traffic problems, and you'd simply have people getting frustrated and crashing/breaking shit because they're unfamiliar with it.
Technically, a person can become addicted to anything.
There are two kinds of addiction. One is psychological, and the other is physiological. In other words, you can have a direct mental (emotional, whatever) dependence on something, or your body can be dependant on something. Sometimes a psychological addiction can cause physical withdrawl symptoms, too, and just because you're psychologically addicted doesn't mean there isn't a physical side effect/benefit.
People allow addictions to continue in their lives because they're an escape from the mundane details and unpleasant things about life that they don't like. Caffine, the Internet, sex, routine, alcohol, spending money, being dumb, smoking, singleness - people get addicted to all these things, because they help the person avoid having to think about the real issues of life.
re: 1 - The hardware isn't the issue with IBM. Their 'default' hardware configuration is mostly supported from what I've seen, or is in short order, it's just that ordering directly from IBM is prohibitively expensive unless you're a reseller or buying in bulk.
I know that I should be "grateful for what I have", but I've got a couple gripes about "linux on laptops". Keep in mind, however, that I own an IBM Thinkpad X30, and I do run single-boot debian sid on it.
:-/ (Anyone know why hostap stuff hasn't been brought into the main kernel tree?)
1) IBM needs to get their act together and offer Linux support, at the very least, for their laptop line. Their hardware is mostly supported already, but it shouldn't be necessary for me to pay the extra amount for a licensed copy of Windows XP, which I'll never use just to get a well-built laptop. What's more, they're advertising linux for enterprise use, and enterprises use laptops. I don't see how moving to linux couldn't be anything but good for them now, overall - or at least moving in and helping linux laptop development, so that it is soon mature enough for IBM to start offering it at a corporate level on laptops.
2) It would be nice to start getting a little bit better kernel and X support for things like suspend and power ACPI. At the very least a listing somewhere on manufacturer's sites saying, "hey, our hardware needs this specific version of software to work properly if you run Linux" - it's often difficult to find definitive information on such topics, and people will often get things working when others are not able to for odd reasons. Personally, hard or soft suspend do not currently work for me w/ kernel 2.6 and X 4.3 running the dri-trunk debs - on current sid - on my X30. Returning from suspend results in X being borked, requiring a reboot to fix. (Anyone that has information as to why this is occuring, or what the fix might be, and I'd appreciate hearing from you...)
3) Wireless support. I'm not talking solely about drivers, as those have improved significantly* and are on the right road, but wireless tools for useland. As far as I know, it's currently fairly difficult (via waproamd, the only thing I've seen to do this) to get a wireless card to 'roam' from network to network as you go from, say, home or work. There needs to be a good userland tool for this.
4) * The wireless drivers in the kernel itself are still pretty shitty and minimal, and wlan-ng sucks horribly. The hostap 2.x drivers are a significant improvement over the other two in every regard (as far as I've seen), but actual support in the kernel really should be improved.
5) power management tools don't seem to work too well. It's quite possible that I'm simply ignorant on the matter, but tools such as cpudyn and cpufreqd do not scale the processor's speed dynamically when losing AC power, or gaining it again. In my experience, the daemons need to be restarted manually.
Why would we want to have Linux be a certified Unix?
When Saturn came around, or Asian cars came to the US, did they try and advertise themselves as "Ford-compatible" or did they try and make a name for themselves?
This might have been a good idea a good 3, 4 years ago, but not now. 3, 4 years ago, Linux didn't have a market to speak of, and was not much more than an industry-wide toy. Now, it has major backing from IBM and Novell, and even people like my mom (technophobe nurse) is beginning to hear about Linux as the next-best thing. Linux currently offers, for the most part, much more than the Unix offerings. That couldn't have be said 5 years ago.
The last thing the Linux community needs now is to have Linux associated with an old, outdated 'standard' that is Unix.
When half-life too comes out in a couple months, such a system will be completely inadequate. Namely, due to the fact that it'll need a rip-your-ass-out expensive video card in order to play nicely.
The first thing that comes to mind when I think of "what good is a pulse?" is: blood pressure.
no more heart-pounding orgasms :(
Then explain to me why the cost of internet access is so high in the US in comparision? We've got most of the internet infrastructure over here - at least that's viewed by Americans, what with us being ignorant single-language speakers and all.
No, it wouldn't.
The US could easily scale to much higher levels of bandwidth - at least for those that already have broadband. The main thing you'd need different from Korea is more cable, I'd imagine, due to distance. Other than that, I'd thinkthere'd be a lower entry standard set for the US 'high bandwidth' broadband, as there are less people, and thus non-cable infrastructure needed.
Anyone else remember when pulling down 1MB/s wasn't uncommon in the early days of cable networks, with just as much upload bandwidth? Surely most of you can remember when there was at least synchronous bandwidth for upload and download. Now, everyone's capped at a pathetic 15KBps up or so, and roughly 150KBps down. I don't accept "but there isn't enough frequency space in the current systems for those rates anymore" unless you give me some sound (ie, factual and scientific) reason as to why not - bandwidth is cheap now, it wasn't then, and the various routing products are vastly more powerful than they were then.
Note how "US executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the disparity. There's more than one way to look at it. Given the trend in the US, I'm more apt to look at it as "yes, we'd rather have miniscule bandwidth and 40/month cable bills, than actually provide a competitive service - because, afterall, who's left to compete against us?" How is comcast able to provide nice bandwidth in Canada, hrm? They've got a much, much lower population density there, even if you don't count all the extremely rural/uninhabited areas.
Wouldn't it have been just as easy to say something like, "We view these actions as an afront to our business, and an obvious violation of US law."? Oh, but no - that wouldn't have had the same ring to it, now would it?
it is apparently available now
it uses something called e-ink, which is an interesting technology.
it uses hardly any battery power
It's readable in the sun
it takes no battery power to actually run, just change state
Etc.
Pay attention! The only thing that I don't know that it has is the ability to be backed up properly, lack of DRM, etc. as I've not yet seen one myself.
the newer ebook readers have paper-like screens - they only change state when you flip a page, use precious little batteries, and are readable in the same light that books are. pdas aren't even close to analogous.
i imagine they have page numbers, etc. just as books do, as well.
it wouldn't be that hard to do ebooks justice. the technology is available.
Ever pay attention to the LCD on the cashier's checkout till? It will sometimes say something like "CTTN SHIRT" - similar to what the receipt says.
What's to stop someone from relabeling an expensive stereo setup for significantly less? Someone might notice, yes, but it's easier to do that and claim ignorance than it is to simply walk out of the store with it.
That's an easy answer. It's the same answer for any medium's success: a low cost/value ratio.
At the time being, there's little value, and high cost. $250+ for a reader, which uses batteries, for a reader which can only read proprietary book formats is not a reasonable proposition for most people - particularly when you consider that the ebooks themselves cost as much as paperbacks, and sometimes hardcover versions of the novel.
Another thing that hinders the adoption is the lack of a quantifiable physical item when ebooks are purchased. You just get a data file which is easily deleted, lost, or damaged. This isn't appealing to many geeks, let alone the general populace.
No, I don't view ebooks and their readers gaining much acceptance at all, as most people do not read nowadays. They would gain popularity if the media were significantly cheaper (dimes on the dollar), and the media was not provided with a restricted license, I'm sure. Ditto for being able to use the ebook reader to read, say, saved web pages, text files, PDFs, and various other 'standard' file formats - or at least a provision for importing them to the ebook reader format in a non-restrictive manner.
Really, I think the best chance ebook readers have of becoming common, or even popular, is for the ebook reader companies to start talking to course book publishers. These publishers make many, many books which are in publication for a year or two, and then discontinued, only to release a new version with one or two spelling changes, a couple pretty graphs, and a new cover. The old books? They largely get disposed of, I'd imagine. Students are left with a shitty text book and no means by which to get rid of it for reasonable reimbursement.
If I could have an ebook reader which cost me $200ish, and then spend $150-250 a quarter on books (as opposed to the 300-400 I spend now), and possibly get a discount at the end of the quarter for not copying the data off the device (20%, say) on the next quarter's books, I'd do it in a heartbeat, provided the ebook reader was technically mine (not some lease from the school), and I could use it to store any variety of my own books as well (technical documents, novels, etc.).
Granted, I'd only have the ebooks for the quarter, but I'd wager that 90% of the course books out there have little reuse value for the student, let alone for the next person that come along, as there'll likely be another version available. I imagine publishers would like this scenario - a lot - as I can imagine they would save a LOT of money by not having publishing, transport, storage, etc. costs for the millions of text books they make.
Schools (public schools, at least) would also likely benefit, as they could get a license for a book, and use it indefinately, provided they had the readers. If the readers were made of similar sturdyness to an AlphaSmart, i don't see this as being too unlikely a scenario. Battery cost would be negligible, as most students probably don't use their books enough to drain a single AAA battery half way, so there'd not be much recurrent costs. Students could get their work done more quickly (due to search features), and everyone would benefit. (Well, at least in theory - it depends on what the actual purpose of our school system is, I guess.)
At any rate, I'd like an ebook to replace the multiple text books I've got to lug about, personally. I'd be willing to pay roughly the same amount for the ebook reader and the ebooks as I pay for my text books, provided I could add my own data (PDF, txt, whatever) without restrictions. Is anyone out there listening? Market research, hello?