Games are not the only type of software for which this is true. Unless you're dealing with a very very small software company, chances are that you have: * A code development team * Artists * application designers * Project managers * Executive staff
I would say that the application designers are in charge of figuring out how the program is supposed to work; artists are in charge of providing graphical work and models; coders are in charge of implementing the vision presented by the designers; and the project managers and executive staff are there to keep everything flowing nicely within the big picture. There's more people invovled usually (QA teams, for example), but let's keep it simple.
If you wanted to hold someone responsible for making bad software, I would divide responsibility pretty evenly between the executive staff and the application designers. Coders write code, and should be responsible for as much but not more. And it doesn't matter whether they make games, spreadsheet programs, or database systems. Games are basically another type of application, so this would be true for games as well.
If they make shitty code and the program crashes all the time, that's a coder issue. If the software isn't exactly useful or interesting, don't blame the coder. Blame the designer, and blame his bosses for letting shit end up on the store shelf.
Oh - I haven't bought a game in 3 years. Nothing out there that I like at all. Sad, really. I stick to Freecell.
I lived in another state for 4 years (College). Never did I sit in the car and wait endlessly for an attendant to come pump my gas, but I did do this: One day, I started pumping gas. Then I went into the store, did an ATM withdrawal, paid the clerk, maybe bought a sandwich or something, looked at the newspaper, walked out of the store, got in the car, and drove off...
SNAP!
Good thing that gas pumps actually have a connector that's designed to snap off in case an idiot like me drives off with the nozzle STILL IN THE TANK. I replaced the nozzle on the pump, kinda coiled up the hose next to it, and sped off.
Luckily, this was about a month before I moved back, so I never really had to use that gas station again. Of course, I drove past it a few times, and as far as I know it took at least a month to fix. And now, in Jersey, sometimes I get out of the car to pump gas, and everyone wonders what the hell I'm doing...
A polarizing figure? How about insanely stubborn and unreasonable? Not to mention absolutely huge.
One of the things I learned in school is that there's a certain level of overall presentability required to be an effective teacher. Either you have to be good looking enough to offset how dumb you are, or you have to be smart enough to offset how ugly you are... and actual teaching skills are part of the mix, so you can't be intelligent, handsome, and a crappy teacher and be effective.
I've seen professors who are dumb as shit, I've seen professors that have wet circles under their armpits all the time, and I've seen professors that couldn't teach their way out of a wet paper bag. Surprisingly enough, one of the professors I had who possessed just AWFUL B.O. turned out to be one of my best professors ever. And that I'll remember for the rest of my life - along with everything he taught in class.
Of course, anyone can be a teacher. But from what I've seen, being effective is not always a requirement. And I don't think RMS would be effective. Sorry.
DRM has the nasty side effect of being able to enact restrictions on consumers in favor of big evil content producing companies. Unfortunately, big evil companies have the right to do this as granted under law. Microsoft must think that they could make some sort of money through DRM, but I suppose that they should do "the right thing" and drop the whole idea altogether. You know, continue to make it easy for people to share content even if it's completely illegal.
I don't know what to think here, but I don't think MS is the bad guy. If a company can provide a technology that would allow me to purchase the products I want in a way that keeps the copyright holders at ease, then I'm all for it. However, if I don't like the copyright holders, that's not the fault of software makers who try to create content protection systems... then again, I'm speaking as a heretic here, since MS makes such an easy villian in these parts...
Re:Blame college tuitions, not the dot-coms....
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 2
You know what the problem is?
High school educations are no longer sufficient for decent jobs in the workforce nowadays. The original solution: now everyone must go to college to get a decent job, and grad school to get a really good one.
You know where the problem in that thinking is? High schools suck! They're not meeting the requirements for the workforce anymore. This is considered acceptable - let everyone get into college now to get a real job! (Let them eat cake!) This gives high schools an excuse to not have great standards, to not keep up with the times. Hey, you can't get a real job with just a high school diploma, so why bother to try and meet those standards? You can just go to college and learn there!
This drags down the stats of all the universities out there and increases the cost of education drastically for all current and future pupils. Is it enough that my parents pay outrageous school taxes? NO! Gotta send each kid to a 4 year college as well. And in most of those cases, at least half of what was taught at the college level could have been learned in high school. This raises the cost of tuition, because no university dares to lower the quality of its graduating students, yet they all see substantially unprepared or unsuitable students enrolling more and more and must make up for the education gap.
I think it's about time we expected high schools to meet the standards of today's common job market. I mean, how much is it really to ask to teach basic Excel and decent math, writing, and communication skills? I'm not saying it's easy (oh hell no it's not), but this is far more worth it for taxpayers than simply letting everyone slide through high school just by showing up. And then, we can let college truly be the higher standard that it was supposed to be... yea, it costs money, but not as much as if all the remedial kids were there too, and it IS supposed to be the high road to a better education.
Note that this all started in the 60's when so many Boomers wanted to be hippies. Well, they got their wish and now a large chunk of college students - their kids - are losers wasting their parents' money. This is money that could have gone somewhere else. Anywhere else, except buying kegs of beer for Bluto. Think of the possibilities if 1/4 of the households paying an average of $7000 a year on college PER CHILD on top of school taxes put that money into AIDS or cancer research instead. Or if that money went to creating decent living opportunities for the poor or the disabled. Or hell, if it just went into security costs for airports. Or if only 1/4 of that went into HIGH SCHOOL BUDGETS.
(doesn't it make sense? Also, doesn't it seem like something that would never happen anyway unless people were held at gunpoint to do it?)
Huh? How'd you find a way to slip the DMCA into your argument? I think that, along the same lines, closed source software is also degrading the quality of life in this country... (haha)
But seriously... if you don't like it here, then do something about it (other than post to/. cause here everyone's talking and no one's listening, including me). Either find an effective forum for your views, or move somewhere that you can tolerate.
The last thing a true American can stand to hear is another "citizen" threatening to pack their bags and move to Canada. Oh puh-leeze. That's for draft dodgers and wanted felons. This is still a very good country to live in - not perfect, but not bad at all. And this isn't my patriotism talking. People in other countries sometimes genuinely have it really bad. I don't feel sorry for them, but I don't dare feel sorry for myself standing where I am.
Yes, this article is bullshit. This economy is bullshit. This country is bullshit. This world is bullshit. But you have to work past the bullshit to nurture and protect the things you truly care about. And I guarantee that if you move to Canada, in 6 months we'll be hearing someone on here saying how much Canada sucks. (well, that might have happened regardless... ba-dum-ching)
(Answer is probably not. Training and early experience are expenses, not a potential source of quality work. In this era of shareholders-first, bringing new blood to the job force is an absolute no-no.
I won't gripe too loudly, cause I graduated 2001 and I have a job. But not in computers...)
1. A share in stock is a shareholder vote. Hence you can change a company's evil ways by owning a piece of them.
2. MS is not evil. They're a corporation, a business. They do things that businesses do, even if they're somewhat aggressive. I just think everyone on here takes it too personally. You want to see evil, look at what those execs from Tyco did... Worldcom, Enron, et cetera et cetera. What those guys did was immoral. MS doesn't even come close.
If you don't like a company for whatever reason, that's your right... but that doesn't give you license to call people who side with the company "immoral".
In any case, your response is certainly not mature. If you don't think I should have MS stock, recommend a company that makes money in a way you agree with. That's what I would do.
... but a wildly successful beginners guide is another thing altogether.
You know that if all the movie critics in the world give props to this year's hot indie film, almost no one will go see it. Put it in wide release, and get some hype behind it, and you've got yourself a blockbuster.
I think it's about time we got a "desktop distro" that nears the foolproof quality of Windows, has a tremendous user guide, and has easy to use dumbed down setup tools involved. It's about time everyday people started recommending Linux because "it's easy" and "its better than Windows".
We knew this already, though. Just repeating it for emphasis, cause I feel that strongly about it.
It doesn't seem to be tied to an event, but why complain? It seems more sincere and provoking this way. It's not one of those "Let's kick them while they're down" kind of things, as if MS just lost a big client or case decision today. No, just as an everyday thing, Linux was given props by the NY Times.
Besides, if you're a Linux proponent, why complain? This is a great thing to see published. Hell, I think it's a hell of an endorsement and I'm glad they did it... and I'm even a Microsoft shareholder too! (I don't see Linux as the defeat of Microsoft, rather as a challenge for ascension. Of course, I'm rooting for Linux ideaologically as well, but that doesn't mean MS can't make even more money doing their thing ad infinitum)
OMG - yes, all along I've thought that Hugh Grant was the perfect... perhaps the ONLY Arthur Dent. He is the only person with the acting chops and the comic timing to play the part.
Picture Arthur. He's in his mid thirties, he's somewhat meek, he's very British in character, and he screws himself up at times. Very much an antihero. He cannot be played as a thoroughly handsome person, but a handsome person playing an unattractive person will do. The part needs comic timing more than anything. Also, the part needs someone who can play a really unnoticable everyday joe caught in bizarre situations.
I know that I'm American and I don't quite know the full range of British actors, but I can say that I know no one better to play the part. Watch "Mickey Blue Eyes" and you can see what I'm talking about. He can do the comic timing, and he's quite believable in most roles that he plays. I don't think Rowan Atkinson can do it - he might be well suited to another role, but not this one.
Now who's gonna play:
Ford - ehhh, I don't see Jeff Goldblum. He needs to sound British. You might need someone like John Cleese or Robin Williams, only younger and more handsome. Tough call.
Zaphod - nearly uncastable. Early thirties, highly ridiculous, cocky, fairly handsome (remember, he's the galactic president), and you need to do the second head in a believable way. Could get away with an American in the role. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon can't do it by themselves, but together it would be a hoot. Then again, a better acting experience would come from Brad Pitt... Hey, get the guy from "Scream" and "Scooby Doo" maybe...
Trillian - also could get away with an American in the role. Mid-twenties, and somewhat attractive but believably intelligent. Who can play the galactic newscaster type? Maybe Sandra Bullock, and that's based from her work in Demolition Man. This is NOT an Angelina Jolie role. This is NOT a Jennifer Lopez role. And please, not Cameron Diaz, Kirsten Dunst, or Amanda Peet. And if you give this role to Denise Richards, please just kill me.
Slartiblartfast - This might be easy to cast. Ian McKellen may be too busy, though, and definitely overused. Can Donald Sutherland play it very aloof and ditzy? Hmmmm...
Finally... as a cost cutting move, if you want Vogon costumes, look in the leftovers from "The Fifth Element". Those aliens sure were ugly...
Yowza! The audio god is here - kicking ass and taking names!
Your audio knowledge is quite impressive. I'm curious as to what you do for a living/hobby from which you have learned all of this very in-depth knowledge about audio and formats. (The easy answer is that you're an audio engineer in a studio, but you may be in another field altogether...)
You misread my quote. I believe that there's an accidental elitism for Linux because most of the common programs are so damn hard and complicated to use. Additionally, virtually all Unix-based applications for mass-market uses are always playing catchup in functionality to Windows and Mac applications. Virtue and stability alone do not make for a great computing experience.
I know these generalizations are pretty crummy, but these sentiments are shared by a lot of intelligent people that have seen and tried a little bit of Linux, only to abandon it for the solutions that, in the end, get the job done more frequently.
Yea, I have to restart Windows sometimes when I don't want to, but I'd rather restart to a set of programs that I find comfortable and useful rather than have a rock-solid stable system that feels like a pain in the ass to use. This is because of comparatively anemic hardware support, because commercial developers choose to write great programs on other systems only (leaving it to amateur programmers to play catch up), because user interfaces for many Unix programs in general are downright unfriendly, etc. Whatever the reasons, you end up with the same results.
I have tried Linux before, and I admire it for the fact that it tries to bring change to the software world. But I have yet to find a distro that makes me love Linux more than miss Windows.
The parent author did not say that free software was not sufficient for certain tasks... rather, the author stated that better software for certain tasks is only available on Windows and not at all available on Linux.
This is a major problem with Linux. Many people can learn how to use the OS, but they can't deal with the fact that much, if not most, of the software written for Linux is not as functional or user-friendly as Windows and Mac equivalents - in a very general sense.
Basically, the elitism is on the Linux side when it comes to programs that work well for most people. That "elitism" may be purely unintentional (well, some people think that's the way it should be, but I digress) but it still presents the problem that Linux cannot become popular for merely being reliable, virtuous, and free. A screwy metaphor: Condoms are generally reliable, virtuous, and free (through some outlets) - it doesn't mean that people prefer using them in all situations.
... and I'm thinking about all these drunk people never going home, and some Guinness world records being set for party length and alcohol consumption.
People fail to read the manual not because people have a deep-rooted tendency to eschew assistance - people fail to read manuals because manuals are poorly written.
When I put together a computer, I rely heavily on the manual, to avoid making any ass-backward assumption that would turn my Steve Wozniak into a Wile E. Coyote. Over the years as I've read manuals, I've seen good, I've seen bad, and I've seen 100% Chinese.
From experience dealing (coping, struggling, arguing, pleading) with users and with being a user myself, people like manuals that:
* are written clearly and comprehensively * are organized sensibly * contain relevant and necessary information * do not tell the life story and history of the product line or the industry in question (marketing, bah) * use diagrams, topic headings, and paragraph organization effectively * assume that the reader is neither excessively stupid or impressively intelligent
There are other things that people like to see in manuals, but if a manual is written along those general guidelines, people will be satisfied with it. You just have to feel out the target audience. Some people are fairly intelligent but are starting from scratch and need clear instructions to step through most of the process. Others are mostly or entirely familiar with the product and its functionality, yet may need to reference specific information or use a troubleshooter.
The target audience SHOULD not include people who are inept and clueless - information is wasted on them because they cannot handle it and they should not be using the product in question without personal technical assistance. Sounds elitist, yet I wouldn't let a 5-year-old operate a microwave or an electric drill even WITH the manuals. And some thirty-somethings out there know just as much about, say, stereo equipment and automobiles as 5-year-olds do.
Finally, remember that people do have a tendency to proceed as far as they confidently can without a manual, but it doesn't mean that they refuse to read it at all. Regardless of whether or not this is a good idea in any case, a manual should be designed with the idea that someone might jump in on any random page to find one thing that they're looking for. If they find what they're looking for, and the manual happens to be delightful reading, they just might get sucked into reading the whole thing. Any manual that can do this is indeed powerful and effective, and this should be a goal for all technical writers out there.
This has already happened. Many really major, really spontaneous news events are now caught by amateur photographers, tourists, or anyone who happened to be in range of any kind of camera as a news event was breaking nearby.
I think of the Concorde crash in France, for which most of the really spectacular (albeit morbid) images of the event were captured by people passing by in cars. By the time the professionals got there, they managed to capture the "huge blackened crater" shots that are all we see from most plane crashes. (I do not mean to minimalize the loss of life from this event - plane crashes are very tragic and horrific in nature. I know, because I had to attend a closed casket funeral for a personal role model as a result of one)
The World Trade Center disaster pretty much cemented this phenomenon. As a direct witness of that horror, I think it was very important that there were hundreds of thousands of still and video images taken from countless angles of the destruction of the Twin Towers. This was a disaster affecting many people, and it was quite symbolic that the disaster was witnessed, captured, and expressed by common people through modern photography - alongside the shots that the major news groups and nearby professionals obtained.
Photography is expression, and group expression can be a powerful thing. The proliferation of cameras throughout the world - with all combinations of small, cheap, fast, disposable, easy to use, flexible, high quality, and accurate - is something that contributes to humanity much in the way the printing press did. Or as we hope the Internet does.
There will still be room for professionals. For one thing, we don't want random tourists in the White House or at the Kremlin to take pictures of important meetings and speeches. Also, we don't want the only pics of someone's 74th home run coming from a 640x480 cellphone shot. Finally, future brides-to-be will probably not let you cheap out and have Uncle Mort take the wedding pics.
(I can see Rob Malda talking in a whiny voice: "But Kathleen, honey, it's a 4 megapixel! And it has a timer! Please?")
My only concern with the hard drive solution is that if you hit a little bit of turbulence, you just knocked 50,000 drive arms out of place, ruining 25% of your data. DVD-RWs would be less fragile, and are probably the happy medium to all this.
We should save this page, because who knows who might use this kind of transfer someday... after all, the main transoceanic cable laying company (Tyco) is having some problems right now, so who knows what kind of wacky desperate solutions people might come up with in a future bandwidth crunch?
Capacity of 1 CD - 650,000,000 bytes # of CDs that will fit into 1 cu ft comfortably - 400 Cargo space on a 747 - 6,190 cu ft
plus - you'll have enough CD-ROM drives available on either end to write 2.5 million CDs in 1 hour, and read 2.5 million CDs in 1/2 hour (about 125,000 drives - not an impossible number)
plus - the CDs on the shipping end are packed as they are burned, adding little or no time to the process of loading - same goes for receiving end. This assumes you have about 25,000 hard workers.
The flight time from Paris to New York is 6 1/2 hours. Writing/packing is 1 hour. Reading/unloading is 1/2 hour. Total time 8 hours. Total bits transfered is 12,875,200,000,000,000 bits, or 12,875 terabits (1,609 terabytes). Total time for transfer, 8 hours.
Resulting bandwidth: 447 Gb/sec, or 56 GB/sec.
New York to Miami would be 894 Gb/sec, or 112 GB/sec.
Sounds impressive, but you might want to reconsider laying fiber considering the impossible costs and logistics...
Slashdot Mirror
Games are not the only type of software for which this is true. Unless you're dealing with a very very small software company, chances are that you have:
* A code development team
* Artists
* application designers
* Project managers
* Executive staff
I would say that the application designers are in charge of figuring out how the program is supposed to work; artists are in charge of providing graphical work and models; coders are in charge of implementing the vision presented by the designers; and the project managers and executive staff are there to keep everything flowing nicely within the big picture. There's more people invovled usually (QA teams, for example), but let's keep it simple.
If you wanted to hold someone responsible for making bad software, I would divide responsibility pretty evenly between the executive staff and the application designers. Coders write code, and should be responsible for as much but not more. And it doesn't matter whether they make games, spreadsheet programs, or database systems. Games are basically another type of application, so this would be true for games as well.
If they make shitty code and the program crashes all the time, that's a coder issue. If the software isn't exactly useful or interesting, don't blame the coder. Blame the designer, and blame his bosses for letting shit end up on the store shelf.
Oh - I haven't bought a game in 3 years. Nothing out there that I like at all. Sad, really. I stick to Freecell.
... she also lost the chance to get a low interest mortgage, purchase cheap airline tickets, and enlarge her penis!
I live in New Jersey. Answer: no.
I lived in another state for 4 years (College). Never did I sit in the car and wait endlessly for an attendant to come pump my gas, but I did do this: One day, I started pumping gas. Then I went into the store, did an ATM withdrawal, paid the clerk, maybe bought a sandwich or something, looked at the newspaper, walked out of the store, got in the car, and drove off...
SNAP!
Good thing that gas pumps actually have a connector that's designed to snap off in case an idiot like me drives off with the nozzle STILL IN THE TANK. I replaced the nozzle on the pump, kinda coiled up the hose next to it, and sped off.
Luckily, this was about a month before I moved back, so I never really had to use that gas station again. Of course, I drove past it a few times, and as far as I know it took at least a month to fix. And now, in Jersey, sometimes I get out of the car to pump gas, and everyone wonders what the hell I'm doing...
A polarizing figure? How about insanely stubborn and unreasonable? Not to mention absolutely huge.
One of the things I learned in school is that there's a certain level of overall presentability required to be an effective teacher. Either you have to be good looking enough to offset how dumb you are, or you have to be smart enough to offset how ugly you are... and actual teaching skills are part of the mix, so you can't be intelligent, handsome, and a crappy teacher and be effective.
I've seen professors who are dumb as shit, I've seen professors that have wet circles under their armpits all the time, and I've seen professors that couldn't teach their way out of a wet paper bag. Surprisingly enough, one of the professors I had who possessed just AWFUL B.O. turned out to be one of my best professors ever. And that I'll remember for the rest of my life - along with everything he taught in class.
Of course, anyone can be a teacher. But from what I've seen, being effective is not always a requirement. And I don't think RMS would be effective. Sorry.
DRM has the nasty side effect of being able to enact restrictions on consumers in favor of big evil content producing companies. Unfortunately, big evil companies have the right to do this as granted under law. Microsoft must think that they could make some sort of money through DRM, but I suppose that they should do "the right thing" and drop the whole idea altogether. You know, continue to make it easy for people to share content even if it's completely illegal.
I don't know what to think here, but I don't think MS is the bad guy. If a company can provide a technology that would allow me to purchase the products I want in a way that keeps the copyright holders at ease, then I'm all for it. However, if I don't like the copyright holders, that's not the fault of software makers who try to create content protection systems... then again, I'm speaking as a heretic here, since MS makes such an easy villian in these parts...
You know what the problem is?
High school educations are no longer sufficient for decent jobs in the workforce nowadays. The original solution: now everyone must go to college to get a decent job, and grad school to get a really good one.
You know where the problem in that thinking is? High schools suck! They're not meeting the requirements for the workforce anymore. This is considered acceptable - let everyone get into college now to get a real job! (Let them eat cake!) This gives high schools an excuse to not have great standards, to not keep up with the times. Hey, you can't get a real job with just a high school diploma, so why bother to try and meet those standards? You can just go to college and learn there!
This drags down the stats of all the universities out there and increases the cost of education drastically for all current and future pupils. Is it enough that my parents pay outrageous school taxes? NO! Gotta send each kid to a 4 year college as well. And in most of those cases, at least half of what was taught at the college level could have been learned in high school. This raises the cost of tuition, because no university dares to lower the quality of its graduating students, yet they all see substantially unprepared or unsuitable students enrolling more and more and must make up for the education gap.
I think it's about time we expected high schools to meet the standards of today's common job market. I mean, how much is it really to ask to teach basic Excel and decent math, writing, and communication skills? I'm not saying it's easy (oh hell no it's not), but this is far more worth it for taxpayers than simply letting everyone slide through high school just by showing up. And then, we can let college truly be the higher standard that it was supposed to be... yea, it costs money, but not as much as if all the remedial kids were there too, and it IS supposed to be the high road to a better education.
Note that this all started in the 60's when so many Boomers wanted to be hippies. Well, they got their wish and now a large chunk of college students - their kids - are losers wasting their parents' money. This is money that could have gone somewhere else. Anywhere else, except buying kegs of beer for Bluto. Think of the possibilities if 1/4 of the households paying an average of $7000 a year on college PER CHILD on top of school taxes put that money into AIDS or cancer research instead. Or if that money went to creating decent living opportunities for the poor or the disabled. Or hell, if it just went into security costs for airports. Or if only 1/4 of that went into HIGH SCHOOL BUDGETS.
(doesn't it make sense? Also, doesn't it seem like something that would never happen anyway unless people were held at gunpoint to do it?)
Huh? How'd you find a way to slip the DMCA into your argument? I think that, along the same lines, closed source software is also degrading the quality of life in this country... (haha)
/. cause here everyone's talking and no one's listening, including me). Either find an effective forum for your views, or move somewhere that you can tolerate.
But seriously... if you don't like it here, then do something about it (other than post to
The last thing a true American can stand to hear is another "citizen" threatening to pack their bags and move to Canada. Oh puh-leeze. That's for draft dodgers and wanted felons. This is still a very good country to live in - not perfect, but not bad at all. And this isn't my patriotism talking. People in other countries sometimes genuinely have it really bad. I don't feel sorry for them, but I don't dare feel sorry for myself standing where I am.
Yes, this article is bullshit. This economy is bullshit. This country is bullshit. This world is bullshit. But you have to work past the bullshit to nurture and protect the things you truly care about. And I guarantee that if you move to Canada, in 6 months we'll be hearing someone on here saying how much Canada sucks. (well, that might have happened regardless... ba-dum-ching)
Well, what if the following changes were made:
Objectives: Assistant Programmer
Salary Expectations: $30k (dollars not pounds)
Then would you hire?
(Answer is probably not. Training and early experience are expenses, not a potential source of quality work. In this era of shareholders-first, bringing new blood to the job force is an absolute no-no.
I won't gripe too loudly, cause I graduated 2001 and I have a job. But not in computers...)
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
(snicker)
Microsoft has $60 billion in cash reserves, or something like that. $200 x 10,000 is 2 million dollars (evil pinky finger to lips).
Microsoft is well known for throwing lots of money at lost causes until either:
1. They know for sure no one will ever want what they're trying to sell
2. They finally get it right and it takes off like wildfire
Most of the time, the result is #2. (I'm using Internet Explorer right now, as a matter of fact.)
... on an honor system for collecting royalties/payments on really cheesy patents.
(and if you mod me down, I just might get a trademark on the Slashdot cheesy patent logo. Muhahaha!)
And you got modded up. How ironic. (in the Alanis Morrisette kind of way)
Two ideas:
1. A share in stock is a shareholder vote. Hence you can change a company's evil ways by owning a piece of them.
2. MS is not evil. They're a corporation, a business. They do things that businesses do, even if they're somewhat aggressive. I just think everyone on here takes it too personally. You want to see evil, look at what those execs from Tyco did... Worldcom, Enron, et cetera et cetera. What those guys did was immoral. MS doesn't even come close.
If you don't like a company for whatever reason, that's your right... but that doesn't give you license to call people who side with the company "immoral".
In any case, your response is certainly not mature. If you don't think I should have MS stock, recommend a company that makes money in a way you agree with. That's what I would do.
... but a wildly successful beginners guide is another thing altogether.
You know that if all the movie critics in the world give props to this year's hot indie film, almost no one will go see it. Put it in wide release, and get some hype behind it, and you've got yourself a blockbuster.
I think it's about time we got a "desktop distro" that nears the foolproof quality of Windows, has a tremendous user guide, and has easy to use dumbed down setup tools involved. It's about time everyday people started recommending Linux because "it's easy" and "its better than Windows".
We knew this already, though. Just repeating it for emphasis, cause I feel that strongly about it.
It doesn't seem to be tied to an event, but why complain? It seems more sincere and provoking this way. It's not one of those "Let's kick them while they're down" kind of things, as if MS just lost a big client or case decision today. No, just as an everyday thing, Linux was given props by the NY Times.
Besides, if you're a Linux proponent, why complain? This is a great thing to see published. Hell, I think it's a hell of an endorsement and I'm glad they did it... and I'm even a Microsoft shareholder too! (I don't see Linux as the defeat of Microsoft, rather as a challenge for ascension. Of course, I'm rooting for Linux ideaologically as well, but that doesn't mean MS can't make even more money doing their thing ad infinitum)
OMG - yes, all along I've thought that Hugh Grant was the perfect... perhaps the ONLY Arthur Dent. He is the only person with the acting chops and the comic timing to play the part.
Picture Arthur. He's in his mid thirties, he's somewhat meek, he's very British in character, and he screws himself up at times. Very much an antihero. He cannot be played as a thoroughly handsome person, but a handsome person playing an unattractive person will do. The part needs comic timing more than anything. Also, the part needs someone who can play a really unnoticable everyday joe caught in bizarre situations.
I know that I'm American and I don't quite know the full range of British actors, but I can say that I know no one better to play the part. Watch "Mickey Blue Eyes" and you can see what I'm talking about. He can do the comic timing, and he's quite believable in most roles that he plays. I don't think Rowan Atkinson can do it - he might be well suited to another role, but not this one.
Now who's gonna play:
Ford - ehhh, I don't see Jeff Goldblum. He needs to sound British. You might need someone like John Cleese or Robin Williams, only younger and more handsome. Tough call.
Zaphod - nearly uncastable. Early thirties, highly ridiculous, cocky, fairly handsome (remember, he's the galactic president), and you need to do the second head in a believable way. Could get away with an American in the role. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon can't do it by themselves, but together it would be a hoot. Then again, a better acting experience would come from Brad Pitt... Hey, get the guy from "Scream" and "Scooby Doo" maybe...
Trillian - also could get away with an American in the role. Mid-twenties, and somewhat attractive but believably intelligent. Who can play the galactic newscaster type? Maybe Sandra Bullock, and that's based from her work in Demolition Man. This is NOT an Angelina Jolie role. This is NOT a Jennifer Lopez role. And please, not Cameron Diaz, Kirsten Dunst, or Amanda Peet. And if you give this role to Denise Richards, please just kill me.
Slartiblartfast - This might be easy to cast. Ian McKellen may be too busy, though, and definitely overused. Can Donald Sutherland play it very aloof and ditzy? Hmmmm...
Finally... as a cost cutting move, if you want Vogon costumes, look in the leftovers from "The Fifth Element". Those aliens sure were ugly...
I'd go on, but I'm drunk.
Yowza! The audio god is here - kicking ass and taking names!
Your audio knowledge is quite impressive. I'm curious as to what you do for a living/hobby from which you have learned all of this very in-depth knowledge about audio and formats. (The easy answer is that you're an audio engineer in a studio, but you may be in another field altogether...)
You misread my quote. I believe that there's an accidental elitism for Linux because most of the common programs are so damn hard and complicated to use. Additionally, virtually all Unix-based applications for mass-market uses are always playing catchup in functionality to Windows and Mac applications. Virtue and stability alone do not make for a great computing experience.
I know these generalizations are pretty crummy, but these sentiments are shared by a lot of intelligent people that have seen and tried a little bit of Linux, only to abandon it for the solutions that, in the end, get the job done more frequently.
Yea, I have to restart Windows sometimes when I don't want to, but I'd rather restart to a set of programs that I find comfortable and useful rather than have a rock-solid stable system that feels like a pain in the ass to use. This is because of comparatively anemic hardware support, because commercial developers choose to write great programs on other systems only (leaving it to amateur programmers to play catch up), because user interfaces for many Unix programs in general are downright unfriendly, etc. Whatever the reasons, you end up with the same results.
I have tried Linux before, and I admire it for the fact that it tries to bring change to the software world. But I have yet to find a distro that makes me love Linux more than miss Windows.
The parent author did not say that free software was not sufficient for certain tasks... rather, the author stated that better software for certain tasks is only available on Windows and not at all available on Linux.
This is a major problem with Linux. Many people can learn how to use the OS, but they can't deal with the fact that much, if not most, of the software written for Linux is not as functional or user-friendly as Windows and Mac equivalents - in a very general sense.
Basically, the elitism is on the Linux side when it comes to programs that work well for most people. That "elitism" may be purely unintentional (well, some people think that's the way it should be, but I digress) but it still presents the problem that Linux cannot become popular for merely being reliable, virtuous, and free. A screwy metaphor: Condoms are generally reliable, virtuous, and free (through some outlets) - it doesn't mean that people prefer using them in all situations.
... and I'm thinking about all these drunk people never going home, and some Guinness world records being set for party length and alcohol consumption.
They need to have this.
People fail to read the manual not because people have a deep-rooted tendency to eschew assistance - people fail to read manuals because manuals are poorly written.
When I put together a computer, I rely heavily on the manual, to avoid making any ass-backward assumption that would turn my Steve Wozniak into a Wile E. Coyote. Over the years as I've read manuals, I've seen good, I've seen bad, and I've seen 100% Chinese.
From experience dealing (coping, struggling, arguing, pleading) with users and with being a user myself, people like manuals that:
* are written clearly and comprehensively
* are organized sensibly
* contain relevant and necessary information
* do not tell the life story and history of the product line or the industry in question (marketing, bah)
* use diagrams, topic headings, and paragraph organization effectively
* assume that the reader is neither excessively stupid or impressively intelligent
There are other things that people like to see in manuals, but if a manual is written along those general guidelines, people will be satisfied with it. You just have to feel out the target audience. Some people are fairly intelligent but are starting from scratch and need clear instructions to step through most of the process. Others are mostly or entirely familiar with the product and its functionality, yet may need to reference specific information or use a troubleshooter.
The target audience SHOULD not include people who are inept and clueless - information is wasted on them because they cannot handle it and they should not be using the product in question without personal technical assistance. Sounds elitist, yet I wouldn't let a 5-year-old operate a microwave or an electric drill even WITH the manuals. And some thirty-somethings out there know just as much about, say, stereo equipment and automobiles as 5-year-olds do.
Finally, remember that people do have a tendency to proceed as far as they confidently can without a manual, but it doesn't mean that they refuse to read it at all. Regardless of whether or not this is a good idea in any case, a manual should be designed with the idea that someone might jump in on any random page to find one thing that they're looking for. If they find what they're looking for, and the manual happens to be delightful reading, they just might get sucked into reading the whole thing. Any manual that can do this is indeed powerful and effective, and this should be a goal for all technical writers out there.
This has already happened. Many really major, really spontaneous news events are now caught by amateur photographers, tourists, or anyone who happened to be in range of any kind of camera as a news event was breaking nearby.
I think of the Concorde crash in France, for which most of the really spectacular (albeit morbid) images of the event were captured by people passing by in cars. By the time the professionals got there, they managed to capture the "huge blackened crater" shots that are all we see from most plane crashes. (I do not mean to minimalize the loss of life from this event - plane crashes are very tragic and horrific in nature. I know, because I had to attend a closed casket funeral for a personal role model as a result of one)
The World Trade Center disaster pretty much cemented this phenomenon. As a direct witness of that horror, I think it was very important that there were hundreds of thousands of still and video images taken from countless angles of the destruction of the Twin Towers. This was a disaster affecting many people, and it was quite symbolic that the disaster was witnessed, captured, and expressed by common people through modern photography - alongside the shots that the major news groups and nearby professionals obtained.
Photography is expression, and group expression can be a powerful thing. The proliferation of cameras throughout the world - with all combinations of small, cheap, fast, disposable, easy to use, flexible, high quality, and accurate - is something that contributes to humanity much in the way the printing press did. Or as we hope the Internet does.
There will still be room for professionals. For one thing, we don't want random tourists in the White House or at the Kremlin to take pictures of important meetings and speeches. Also, we don't want the only pics of someone's 74th home run coming from a 640x480 cellphone shot. Finally, future brides-to-be will probably not let you cheap out and have Uncle Mort take the wedding pics.
(I can see Rob Malda talking in a whiny voice: "But Kathleen, honey, it's a 4 megapixel! And it has a timer! Please?")
I beg to differ.
That picture of Cowboy Neal and the penguin hat is perfectly safe for your computer system.
Your eyes, however, may not survive a prolonged viewing.
Nice addition to the original post.
My only concern with the hard drive solution is that if you hit a little bit of turbulence, you just knocked 50,000 drive arms out of place, ruining 25% of your data. DVD-RWs would be less fragile, and are probably the happy medium to all this.
We should save this page, because who knows who might use this kind of transfer someday... after all, the main transoceanic cable laying company (Tyco) is having some problems right now, so who knows what kind of wacky desperate solutions people might come up with in a future bandwidth crunch?
This piqued my curiosity.
Assumptions:
Capacity of 1 CD - 650,000,000 bytes
# of CDs that will fit into 1 cu ft comfortably - 400
Cargo space on a 747 - 6,190 cu ft
plus - you'll have enough CD-ROM drives available on either end to write 2.5 million CDs in 1 hour, and read 2.5 million CDs in 1/2 hour (about 125,000 drives - not an impossible number)
plus - the CDs on the shipping end are packed as they are burned, adding little or no time to the process of loading - same goes for receiving end. This assumes you have about 25,000 hard workers.
The flight time from Paris to New York is 6 1/2 hours. Writing/packing is 1 hour. Reading/unloading is 1/2 hour. Total time 8 hours. Total bits transfered is 12,875,200,000,000,000 bits, or 12,875 terabits (1,609 terabytes). Total time for transfer, 8 hours.
Resulting bandwidth: 447 Gb/sec, or 56 GB/sec.
New York to Miami would be 894 Gb/sec, or 112 GB/sec.
Sounds impressive, but you might want to reconsider laying fiber considering the impossible costs and logistics...