Everyone's brain works differently. A person who can't spell worth a damn can be a damn smart person.
Well they're not very smart at spelling are they?
Some people can do physics all day in and out but can't cook worth a damn. Some cooks can't do physics to save their life. followed by:
AN APPLE IS NOT AN ORANGE
You're the one comparing apples and oranges. I'm comparing Granny Smith apples and Red Delicious. The comparison, while not perfect, does work in many ways.
If you want a different comparisson, how can you meter the homework given between the two fields? What if all CS teachers give all of their students twice as much homework as civil engineers? What if it were the other way around? What if CS students spend so much time on homework because nobody teaches computer science well?
What if computer science is in general just plain harder than civil engineering? That explanation is just as valid as your claims with no basis. Take a look at the rate of college students who convert from CS to CivEng as compared to those who convert to CS. The difference is vast. Take a look at the average SAT scores of CS grads as compared to CivEng grads. There are a lot of unbiased methods of measuring the difficulty of the two fields.
The argument isn't about the difficulty of cooking compared to CS, it is about CV compared to CS. Cooking takes an entirely different skill set than CS. On the other hand CS and CV take nearly the same skill set. Namely, Math, and Logical thinking.
No it isn't. That is the kind of thing that your kindergarten teacher told you when you couldn't stay in the lines. You want to live in a happy happy world where everyone is appreciated equally. Well guess what bucko, some people are smarter than other people, some people are stronger, some people are faster, some people are more creative, and some people have no redeeming qualities.
I know you *want* to live in a world where everyone is good at something even if they don't know it, but the truth is that some people just can't do as much as other people.
Also, why is it that CS majors consistently spend twice as much time on their homework as CivEng majors do? This has been shown.
There is a lot of complicated math involved in civil engineering; I believe the knowledge required is much more than the knowledge required to program a computer.
I work with Civil Engineers. They're not that smart. Sorry, Civil Engineering is easy compared to Computer Science. I quote my old boss who had a double major in CS and CivEng, "I originally started in Civil Engineering. The CS degree was supposed to be a side-thing. I was going to be a Civil Engineer. Well, CS is about 10 times harder than Civil Engineering. I'd almost forget to do my Civil Engineering homework because I was spending so much time on CS. Civil Engineering is easy."
Re:For every action, there is an equal and opposit
on
Quicktime In Linux
·
· Score: 1
Why isn't this modded as -1 : Offtopic?
Yes, we all know of the problems with Linux. However, the story really has nothing to do with Apple creating quicktime on Linux and especially not the reasons that they are not doing so. The story is about "Guys get quicktime working in Netscape on Linux"
Please don't use this space for your rant about the "State of Linux".
For me, it's always just "type1inst" for type1 fonts, and there's some tool to create fonts.dir out of TrueType fonts too (ttmkfontdir? mkfontdir-ttf? Can't remember the name right now, been a while since I did this)...
Wouldn't this be great? An OS that was easy to use as well as being stable and easy to upgrade would be great!
Sorry, I just spent a LAN party, not playing games, but trying to get my network card working in Windows. Crash, crash, crash. Perhaps if I had more options than just 'Upgrade my driver', I would have been able to get things working.
Problem is, computers are complicated. Sometimes things go wrong and you have to muck in the dirt. Linux at least recognizes this and gives the tools and power to find the *real* problem and fix it. The marketroids at Microsoft have decided that exposing all the complexity of a computer to the user is bad press. So they put a fake 'simple' interface so the press gives them good reviews.
Your OS is a dream, and does not exist in reality.
Any piece of software is a device to process data.
No it isn't. A device can't be copied without the expenditure of resources which are themselves property. Software can be copied at minimal cost, or even kept in one's brain. It can be broadcast through speach. It can be broadcast over the air waves.
Surely a patent for a device should contain details on the processing it performs, rather than just saying "this thing does stuff".
The difference is that software IS the description of the details on the processing it performs.
Property is something that there is a finite amount of (land, ore, etc.) While property can be created (cars, houses), it is created from other property. Copies of software does not require the usage of other property.
Compare: Adam breaks into my server and steals confidential data. I trace the attack back to Adam, infiltrate his workstation, and perform a destructive format of all of his hard drives.
This scenario doesn't really make sense as an analogy to the *physical* scenario. If Adam stole your stereo, you have no right to go break into his house and take the stereo back. Once the stuff is stolen, you have to go to the police. Only when you are in imminent danger does the law apply.
On the other hand, if you saw Adam break into your server and he is about to delete all your files, then you have every right to kick him off your system, even if in the process, you harm his system in some way as long as the methods you use are reasonable and don't do more harm than is necessary. Since kicking him off your system probably won't harm him at all, these laws don't apply very well.
Once the attack is over, you go to the police. In our society, normal citizens are only allowed to use force that would otherwise be illegal, when the police are out reasonable reach...Like when you have shotgun in your face.
They're not so get used to it. Words mean what people think they mean, not what some techie has decided they mean. If the message is understood, then who cares? Nobody but you and a few other people with nothing better to do.
People are always going to have the wrong meaning for "hacker" in their brain. Well, if 90% of the speakers have one meaning in their head, who are you to challenge it?
"The thing that fascinates me is how Sun sees itself as a big competitor to MS. Prior to Star Office, what software products did Sun sell and market for the PC?"
Well, no products for the PC, but you might remember that they also make an OS called Windows that competes directly with the Sun model of Hardware+OS(Solaris) for servers. They definitely compete with MS in the OS market.
There are going to be a lot of posts like, "What lusers! They need to RTFM so that they know that 'terminal emulator' actually means command line prompt!"
This is not what you should take away from a user interface study. This *is* what the users see when first presented with the program. It really doesn't matter what the programmers/designers of GNOME think. If the user doesn't like it, then he doesn't like it! If he can't understand, then he can't understand.
A long time tenet of communication is that if there is miscommunication, then it is usually the fault of the communicator who hasn't adequately taken into account the audience. If we as programmers/designers aren't using the interface to *communicate* then it is *we* who are failing to communucate, not the audience who is failing to understand.
Why do you think that MS has slowly moved to simpler and simpler language? People don't need techo-speak to understand what is going on with the computer. Understanding phrases like "illegal operation" requires a bit of underlying knowledge about why such an analogy is being used. So why use it. Just say, "your computer just crashed, but it's okay. Just press that little button on the front of the computer so it can restart. Have a nice day!".
So is the reason that Sun won't let you put the JRE on your machines, or that your company won't put competing software on the machines? Could you please make this clear? You company doesn't directly compete with Sun in the virtual-machine market and would lose no buisness if you included the JRE.
So you've made the choice that you are going to use your position in the market to keep a perfectly good technology from being accepted. Not only that, your action is diminishing the consumer's benefit for buying your product.
You just made the same decision that MS did. Maybe the Justice Department should sue you for unfair buisness practices.
Here is the Toshiba page for the same item. It is also interesting to note (if you read the article), that they've had a 2G version of this card around for a year.
Why would it make more sense to send old machines? They have a tendency to break down. They don't output to a television. And if these people have electricity, they have a television (what would you buy?). The cost of rounding up all these "older" machines is actually more than you think. It takes the time of a knowledgable tech to make most older machines usable, and this is very expensive. Their time would be better spent making the already cheap PS2 into something that these people can really use. It's cheaper and more cost-effective to make a million new PS2s than to try to resurect a million old 486s!
And so what if it is "gimmicky"? If it gets people the information they need to make their lives better, how bad can it be? What else can Sony do that would be so helpful? So what if it makes them look like the good guys. That's because what they are doing is a "good thing"!
Maybe we should solve all the problems in the world before we start trying to solve all the other problems in the world. Sound silly? Well that is what you're saying.
Not all third world countries are as backward as you seem to think. A lot of countries are looking to find cheap ways of bridging the digital divide. A lot of the people that this program is targeted towards have "decent" water and food production systems, but could use vast improvements.
I don't think that anyone is thinking that plopping a PS2 in front of kid bloated from hunger is going to make him happier. But the entire third world isn't this bad.
Back in the early days of the web, HTML was simple and the format of web pages was determined by the user./.ers from around the world still scream at yell when a web site tries to overcome the default formatting that user has set up. "HTML is a guideline for formatting and rendering." Your page will be rendered in whatever format the user chooses. It doesn't matter if the default is crappy. (Times Roman? For a compter monitor?) If the user doesn't change it, it is what the user wants.
When I designed my page with images, lynx has no right to display my pages if it can't display those images the way I intended. Well, that's just stupid. Lynx can display pages anyway it pleases. Why should IE be any different?
No, it wasn't. It was a school where we spent our time learning things. Not wasting our time dumping everything we could find on the computer into the trash.
No, everything you drag to the trash sits in the trash, just like the real world.
Ok, since you like using the real world as model for a computer system, let's go with that analogy. I have "files" on my disk. Therefore, a disk is a way of collecting files into a single thing, the disk. Except I can't look at those files without a special machine, the computer. What is this like in the real world? Perhaps a microfilm reader would be a good example. So I take my microfilm and put it in the machine. When I am done, I need to take the microfilm back to the shelf. So I put it in the trash? At which point, the trash can automatically unloads the microfilm from the machine. Doesn't this seem a little backward to you?
Another point, you say...sits in the trash.... However, when I put my disk in the trash and go look in the trash, it isn't there! "Oh no! It erased my disk and ejected it!" By your logic, I should be able to go to the trash and "uneject" my disk by copying it back to the desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you ARE comparing apples to oranges.
I think you need to read this
Everyone's brain works differently. A person who can't spell worth a damn can be a damn smart person.
Well they're not very smart at spelling are they?
Some people can do physics all day in and out but can't cook worth a damn. Some cooks can't do physics to save their life.
followed by:
AN APPLE IS NOT AN ORANGE
You're the one comparing apples and oranges. I'm comparing Granny Smith apples and Red Delicious. The comparison, while not perfect, does work in many ways.
If you want a different comparisson, how can you meter the homework given between the two fields? What if all CS teachers give all of their students twice as much homework as civil engineers? What if it were the other way around? What if CS students spend so much time on homework because nobody teaches computer science well?
What if computer science is in general just plain harder than civil engineering? That explanation is just as valid as your claims with no basis. Take a look at the rate of college students who convert from CS to CivEng as compared to those who convert to CS. The difference is vast. Take a look at the average SAT scores of CS grads as compared to CivEng grads. There are a lot of unbiased methods of measuring the difficulty of the two fields.
The argument isn't about the difficulty of cooking compared to CS, it is about CV compared to CS. Cooking takes an entirely different skill set than CS. On the other hand CS and CV take nearly the same skill set. Namely, Math, and Logical thinking.
"Difficulty" is relative.
No it isn't. That is the kind of thing that your kindergarten teacher told you when you couldn't stay in the lines. You want to live in a happy happy world where everyone is appreciated equally. Well guess what bucko, some people are smarter than other people, some people are stronger, some people are faster, some people are more creative, and some people have no redeeming qualities.
I know you *want* to live in a world where everyone is good at something even if they don't know it, but the truth is that some people just can't do as much as other people.
Also, why is it that CS majors consistently spend twice as much time on their homework as CivEng majors do? This has been shown.
There is a lot of complicated math involved in civil engineering; I believe the knowledge required is much more than the knowledge required to program a computer.
I work with Civil Engineers. They're not that smart. Sorry, Civil Engineering is easy compared to Computer Science. I quote my old boss who had a double major in CS and CivEng, "I originally started in Civil Engineering. The CS degree was supposed to be a side-thing. I was going to be a Civil Engineer. Well, CS is about 10 times harder than Civil Engineering. I'd almost forget to do my Civil Engineering homework because I was spending so much time on CS. Civil Engineering is easy."
Why isn't this modded as -1 : Offtopic?
Yes, we all know of the problems with Linux. However, the story really has nothing to do with Apple creating quicktime on Linux and especially not the reasons that they are not doing so. The story is about "Guys get quicktime working in Netscape on Linux"
Please don't use this space for your rant about the "State of Linux".
For me, it's always just "type1inst" for type1 fonts, and there's some tool to create fonts.dir out of TrueType fonts too (ttmkfontdir? mkfontdir-ttf? Can't remember the name right now, been a while since I did this)...
Exactly his point.
Wouldn't this be great? An OS that was easy to use as well as being stable and easy to upgrade would be great!
Sorry, I just spent a LAN party, not playing games, but trying to get my network card working in Windows. Crash, crash, crash. Perhaps if I had more options than just 'Upgrade my driver', I would have been able to get things working.
Problem is, computers are complicated. Sometimes things go wrong and you have to muck in the dirt. Linux at least recognizes this and gives the tools and power to find the *real* problem and fix it. The marketroids at Microsoft have decided that exposing all the complexity of a computer to the user is bad press. So they put a fake 'simple' interface so the press gives them good reviews.
Your OS is a dream, and does not exist in reality.
Any piece of software is a device to process data.
No it isn't. A device can't be copied without the expenditure of resources which are themselves property. Software can be copied at minimal cost, or even kept in one's brain. It can be broadcast through speach. It can be broadcast over the air waves.
Surely a patent for a device should contain details on the processing it performs, rather than just saying "this thing does stuff".
The difference is that software IS the description of the details on the processing it performs.
Property is something that there is a finite amount of (land, ore, etc.) While property can be created (cars, houses), it is created from other property. Copies of software does not require the usage of other property.
Software is not property.
Ideas are not property.
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." -- Thomas Jefferson
Compare: Adam breaks into my server and steals confidential data. I trace the attack back to Adam, infiltrate his workstation, and perform a destructive format of all of his hard drives.
This scenario doesn't really make sense as an analogy to the *physical* scenario. If Adam stole your stereo, you have no right to go break into his house and take the stereo back. Once the stuff is stolen, you have to go to the police. Only when you are in imminent danger does the law apply.
On the other hand, if you saw Adam break into your server and he is about to delete all your files, then you have every right to kick him off your system, even if in the process, you harm his system in some way as long as the methods you use are reasonable and don't do more harm than is necessary. Since kicking him off your system probably won't harm him at all, these laws don't apply very well.
Once the attack is over, you go to the police. In our society, normal citizens are only allowed to use force that would otherwise be illegal, when the police are out reasonable reach...Like when you have shotgun in your face.
When will they stop twisting the jargon!?
They're not so get used to it. Words mean what people think they mean, not what some techie has decided they mean. If the message is understood, then who cares? Nobody but you and a few other people with nothing better to do.
People are always going to have the wrong meaning for "hacker" in their brain. Well, if 90% of the speakers have one meaning in their head, who are you to challenge it?
Why would they even ask for it in the first place?
This of course would make it so easy to find you, that my blind grandmother could do it while baking cookies.
"The thing that fascinates me is how Sun sees itself as a big competitor to MS. Prior to Star Office, what software products did Sun sell and market for the PC?"
Well, no products for the PC, but you might remember that they also make an OS called Windows that competes directly with the Sun model of Hardware+OS(Solaris) for servers. They definitely compete with MS in the OS market.
There are going to be a lot of posts like, "What lusers! They need to RTFM so that they know that 'terminal emulator' actually means command line prompt!"
This is not what you should take away from a user interface study. This *is* what the users see when first presented with the program. It really doesn't matter what the programmers/designers of GNOME think. If the user doesn't like it, then he doesn't like it! If he can't understand, then he can't understand.
A long time tenet of communication is that if there is miscommunication, then it is usually the fault of the communicator who hasn't adequately taken into account the audience. If we as programmers/designers aren't using the interface to *communicate* then it is *we* who are failing to communucate, not the audience who is failing to understand.
Why do you think that MS has slowly moved to simpler and simpler language? People don't need techo-speak to understand what is going on with the computer. Understanding phrases like "illegal operation" requires a bit of underlying knowledge about why such an analogy is being used. So why use it. Just say, "your computer just crashed, but it's okay. Just press that little button on the front of the computer so it can restart. Have a nice day!".
So is the reason that Sun won't let you put the JRE on your machines, or that your company won't put competing software on the machines? Could you please make this clear? You company doesn't directly compete with Sun in the virtual-machine market and would lose no buisness if you included the JRE.
So you've made the choice that you are going to use your position in the market to keep a perfectly good technology from being accepted. Not only that, your action is diminishing the consumer's benefit for buying your product.
You just made the same decision that MS did. Maybe the Justice Department should sue you for unfair buisness practices.
Well they included it with Windows which wasn't free. It cost ~$100.
Kinda goes against their claim that IE was an integral part of the operating system.
Mike
Here is the Toshiba page for the same item. It is also interesting to note (if you read the article), that they've had a 2G version of this card around for a year.
Why would it make more sense to send old machines? They have a tendency to break down. They don't output to a television. And if these people have electricity, they have a television (what would you buy?). The cost of rounding up all these "older" machines is actually more than you think. It takes the time of a knowledgable tech to make most older machines usable, and this is very expensive. Their time would be better spent making the already cheap PS2 into something that these people can really use. It's cheaper and more cost-effective to make a million new PS2s than to try to resurect a million old 486s!
And so what if it is "gimmicky"? If it gets people the information they need to make their lives better, how bad can it be? What else can Sony do that would be so helpful? So what if it makes them look like the good guys. That's because what they are doing is a "good thing"!
Oh please.
Maybe we should solve all the problems in the world before we start trying to solve all the other problems in the world. Sound silly? Well that is what you're saying.
Not all third world countries are as backward as you seem to think. A lot of countries are looking to find cheap ways of bridging the digital divide. A lot of the people that this program is targeted towards have "decent" water and food production systems, but could use vast improvements.
I don't think that anyone is thinking that plopping a PS2 in front of kid bloated from hunger is going to make him happier. But the entire third world isn't this bad.
This isn't new. The idea has been around awhile. It would have been nice if the author had talked about recent developments.
Back in the early days of the web, HTML was simple and the format of web pages was determined by the user. /.ers from around the world still scream at yell when a web site tries to overcome the default formatting that user has set up. "HTML is a guideline for formatting and rendering." Your page will be rendered in whatever format the user chooses. It doesn't matter if the default is crappy. (Times Roman? For a compter monitor?) If the user doesn't change it, it is what the user wants.
When I designed my page with images, lynx has no right to display my pages if it can't display those images the way I intended. Well, that's just stupid. Lynx can display pages anyway it pleases. Why should IE be any different?
No, it wasn't. It was a school where we spent our time learning things. Not wasting our time dumping everything we could find on the computer into the trash.
No, I drag your grandma's recipes to the trash.
No, everything you drag to the trash sits in the trash, just like the real world.
...sits in the trash.... However, when I put my disk in the trash and go look in the trash, it isn't there! "Oh no! It erased my disk and ejected it!" By your logic, I should be able to go to the trash and "uneject" my disk by copying it back to the desktop.
Ok, since you like using the real world as model for a computer system, let's go with that analogy. I have "files" on my disk. Therefore, a disk is a way of collecting files into a single thing, the disk. Except I can't look at those files without a special machine, the computer. What is this like in the real world? Perhaps a microfilm reader would be a good example. So I take my microfilm and put it in the machine. When I am done, I need to take the microfilm back to the shelf. So I put it in the trash? At which point, the trash can automatically unloads the microfilm from the machine. Doesn't this seem a little backward to you?
Another point, you say