the average computer user knows nothing about linux
Most average computer users can do minor tweaks of their Windows or MacOS box without requiring any help.
That's the point. The 'average' computer user who has access to technical support *shouldn't* fsck with their computer. Most of the time, esp. w/ Windows, they end up doing more harm than good.
On the average Linux desktop in the typical office, the user should have access to maybe three or four apps that they use and nothing else.
The point of tech support isn't to teach everyone how to install games or viruses or whatnot. It's to make sure that critical applications are available 24/7. The only way to do that is to guarantee that endusers can't mess with things.
You're assuming that it has to be treated as a liquid fuel like gasoline. There is no transporting Hydrogen; it can be produced on-site from water and electricity. There is a test system already setup at the Munich airport.
I'll admit that Hydrogen probably is more expensive than *whatever* fuel the airlines get tax free. I can't see how it would be that much more expensive, though, since it can basically be created from anything from natural gas to ethanol using relatively efficient processes. Besides, surely the airlines would pay a premium to use an engine like this that would operate at supersonic speeds?
I can honestly say I don't know how to respond to any of the rest of your post. Your milk analogy is completely incomprehensible.
The ones that don't trip over their rifles and kill themselves (there are some) end up better-off for the experience, sure. They come back with the will and discipline to, I don't know, manage a Taco Bell or something. I guess that's better than having them spend four years committing crimes back in the states. That I really don't care about.
Meanwhile, though, anyone who's smart enough *not* to join the imperial guard gets put into 'weapons design'. That's what pisses me off. We have more advanced weaponry than anyone on the face of the earth, yet not enough manufacturing capacity or energy reserves to last more than a couple of years, and all of our research capacity goes towards designing new weapons. We leave the energy production to the Middle East and the manufacturing to the Far East and resign ourselves to being the world's policemen. News flash: real wars aren't won without steel and oil.
If the US were cut off from the rest of the world economically, we would all just stand around with our 'rail guns' in our hands wondering what to do with them. That's not a good thing. That means that, like it or not, we sit atop an 'empire' that keeps us dependent upon the fruits of the entire world's labor and resources. In the coming decades, we will be forced to maintain that empire at all costs or give up the lifestyle that it provides and to which we have become accustomed.
Maybe a few hundred thousand dollars gets thrown into subsidies for solar panels or research into some new windmill technology that would be absolutely *crushed* by cheap oil prices if it ever made it to market. Meanwhile, billions of dollars goes into design of weapons that we couldn't even use without the oil provided by those we point them at.
I mean, what does the US produce other than power, or at least the perception of it? Of course, that's the reason terrorism is such a threat. That's why bin Laden spends all his time calling the US a 'paper tiger' and goading Arab leaders into fighting with the US instead of cooperating with it. He's betting that we're simultaneously stupid enough to try to fight the entire world and too lazy to give up our position as the recipients of the world's productive capacity.
Seriously, let's say you could give a damn about the environment or who we have to bribe, threaten, or kill to get cheap gas prices and want nothing more than to drive your SUV and buy cheap electronics and fill your house with little plastic trinkets 'till you die. Terrorism should make you wet yourself. History has shown that armies do not defeat terrorists. Even if we bugged the entire planet and tracked people 24/7, the cost would be much more than a simple, sane policy of self-sufficiency.
If we really set out to do so, we could have the entire country automated and isolated in sight of a decade. I'm talking robots mowing yards and growing crops and stamping out cheaply-made crap powered by sustainable, renewable energy and everyone sitting around on sofas surfing for porn eating soy-burgers (it's all going to be soy pretty soon anyways). That's really the goal we should be setting for ourselves; not "to be the world's target for terrorism".
After that's done, maybe we can go about trying to clean up the rest of the world. That would be a noble way to spend our time if we didn't have alterior motives for controlling every politico from here to Bangkok. Besides, everybody knows that the whole 'information economy' thing is a load of shit. Any self-respecting towel-head isn't going to pay for a legitimate copy of The Matrix or Windows Me anyways. We need to give up the whole "look at us, we're productive" myth and stop playing GI-Joe long enough to accept the facts and get to fixing things.
Metal Hydrides can store Hydrogen at densities greater than even solid Hydrogen. Of course, the hydride weighs 10x the amount of Hydrogen it can store, so I don't know if it would be practical for use on airplanes, but it's definitely space-efficient and safe.
I don't know why people think creating Hydrogen is expensive, either. Electrolyzers can be made anywhere from 80 to 90% efficient. Of course, electricity isn't as cheap as gasoline, but Hydrogen could be produced during off-peak times. I'm sure it would be comparable to or cheaper than highly-refined jet fuel.
This course description gives a decent overview of the basic probabilistic nature of quantum physics. I just found it because I'd recommend reading the course book, Quantum Mechanics and Experience, for an excellent description of the 'problem' of quantum interpretation.
Interestingly, it is a philosophy course. Most physicists have long since resigned themselves to the empiricist view that interpretation of quantum effects doesn't matter (see my sig). If it can't be directly seen and measured, it doesn't exist. The problem with that view is that what 'does' exist cannot be explained other than as quantum 'randomness'.
As for hidden variables, I'm inclined to agree with Einstein on this matter, too. If physicists throughout time had resigned themselves to thoughtlessly measuring and manipulating obvious variables, they would instead be called "chemists". It's obvious that there is more to quantum effects than is presently measurable.
what possible advance is this above say, those stupid camera's on light posts?
Heh, this is just 'stupid cameras on light posts'. It's typical of gov't funded science, really. During the cold war, they developed and deployed radiation-detecting satellites under the guise of 'looking for sunspots' or whatever, when really the satellites were all pointed at the USSR to detect nuclear weapons tests.
Now they'll be 'inventing' all sorts of new 'super-aware' networks of cameras and tracking systems that are supposedly for 'exploring other planets', when really they'll just be put on lightposts and pointed at us.
Science follows politics, not the other way around. They won't be interested in exploring the solar system until there's something out there worth spying upon.
Why is it any of your concern if someone can't/or doesn't want to set their VCR?
I can't say exactly. I guess I see Linux as a cheaper, more advanced version of Windows that requires a little fiddling to get working. If you had said "I use W2K for games" or whatnot, I wouldn't blink twice. But you didn't say "Windows is better for what I use it for." You said "I don't have the inclination/knowledge to learn/use Linux, oh, and btw, I work in IT." I can't seem to reconcile those statements.
Somehow I expect people with technical interest or proficiency to *want* to spend the extra time to fiddle with something that is better instead of settling for whatever is easier to use.
I mean, maybe you were expressing the motivations of the 'typical Windows user', but you use yourself as an example and you specifically mention that you're an IT professional. So, you know, which is it? From your posts, all I can gather is that you're an IT professional that is also a 'typical Windows user'. That seems antithetical.
Personally, I can't comprehend this idea that 'Linux documentation sucks'.
I mean, sure, there aren't any 'Idiot's Guide to Linux' books that show you where to click and whatnot. But, it's not like it's that hard. Windows did just fine for, what, like almost a decade before *any* documentation existed beyond the Help File. I don't know about you, but I remember those sucking huge ass.
Are you, like, an administrator or just an end-user or do you want to learn how to program for Linux or what? Where exactly is Linux documentation lacking?
I sometimes think that slashdotters think that the rest of the worlds users should learn to program and understand their computers like a geek. Most people don't have the time, patience, or inclination to delve into it so deeply.
I do wish that people would take a little time to learn how to use their computers more effectively.
I know, however, that that isn't going to happen any time soon.
I also know that a group of volunteers isn't going to appear out of nowhere and suddenly 'target' this group of users who is simultaneously 'too busy' to learn how to use text configuration files and 'too important' to do without the ability to re-arrange their desktop icons in some fascinating new way.
The answer to this 'false dichotomy' problem is and has always been 'for-pay Linux distributions'. RedHat and Mandrake are the only ones who are sufficiently motivated to target this user base.
I humbly suggest that all further requests of this kind be sent to them.
Re:False user experience level dichotomy
on
Worst Linux Annoyances?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Why can't GUIs and command-line commands be at least somewhat targeted to the users who generally know what they're doing but aren't programmers and can't remember all of the command line options for hundreds of programs?
Let me make sure I understand your complaint: Gnome is too easy/featureless. Most CLI commands are too hard/feature-filled.
You want to make the easy things harder and the hard things easier.
You basically want Linux to target the "Middle 50%" of users that Microsoft writes their software for.
Sure, I understand that you have hobbies and enjoy your free time.
I would think that you would have a natural advantage over the typical computer user when it comes to configuring Linux, that's all. There's no need to spend 4 hours installing a printer, even under Linux, if you really are an IT professional.
I wouldn't expect a mechanic to send his car to the dealer every time it needed some work.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting, but I know people with Physics degrees that don't know how to replace the water pump on their cars and graduates of Ivy League schools that don't know what a manual can-opener looks like.
It really just baffles me that people think their technical knowledge or position in life is so advanced that they can't be bothered to fiddle with the settings on their VCR.
Ayn Rand would die of hunger in the Open Source world.
You seem to have missed the point of Objectivism and the reality of Open Source. Ayn Rand would do just fine with Linux. She was *very* intelligent. She wouldn't be here complaining that 'Linux doesn't look like Windows'; she would be fixing it herself and keeping her changes:)
This thing has hold, transfer, forward, and speakerphone; and it can be completely configured to use whatever SIP service you want.
Businesses should be drooling all over this. I think I'm going to order a couple and add it to a Linux server to make a phone system. Now all I need is a salesman...
the antenna was designed the night before the contest, its component parts were purchased for $98 at Home Depot, and the next day it was built completely from scratch in the desert, on the side of the mountain, in the rain.
This, and watching the US team whip the Brits on Junkyard Wars, is the reason that I'm proud to be an American.
Sure, that works. Go to Open H.323 for an overview. What you want is called a gateway.
Of course, the real innovation would be to create a Gnutella-like network of people interested in maintaining a local phone line to donate to such a cause. That's an idea I had a couple of years ago. I decided it would be limited to businesses, because the person would pretty much have to have a *spare* phone line. Also, the system would probably attract a lot of leeches, so making sure that each node contributes would be a problem.
seems pretty expensive That's nowhere near 'expensive'. You can't find *any* other IP phone for less than $200.
probably aren't too many of. There are tens of thousands of SIP phone systems already deployed all over the world with hundreds of thousands of phones.
I tried looking but couldn't find it; there was an old sci-fi book or movie or something that contained children who had been genetically modified to produce chlorophyll in their skin, giving them a green tint.
I think it said that it didn't provide anything more than a supplement to their normal diet. Obviously, we couldn't really be 'solar-powered' because of the huge amounts of energy required to sustain ourselves.
When it becomes, as you say, more than 10%, it might be a subsidy. Today, it is, as the grandparent said, a way to reduce peak demand, when used with solar panels, at least.
It's not like all of the net metering will be done with solar panels, though. A lot (most) of it would be things like wind and commercial and (soon) residential cogeneration. That makes it worthwhile by itself to deregulate the power industry this way.
Don't cry for the power companies. They've made a fuss about net metering for everything from technical difficulties, which have been worked out, to prices, which, in most places, are now less than wholesale cost. Fifteen years ago, they bitched about 'peak demand' and wanted subsidies to build new plants. Now they're really just crying about being cut out of the gas->electricity equation by cogeneration, which is much more efficient than miles of power lines ever could be.
In other countries [than the American colonies], the people . . . judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.
-- Edmund Burke, On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies, Speech to Parliament, Mar. 22, 1775.
Slashdot Mirror
the average computer user knows nothing about linux
Most average computer users can do minor tweaks of their Windows or MacOS box without requiring any help.
That's the point. The 'average' computer user who has access to technical support *shouldn't* fsck with their computer. Most of the time, esp. w/ Windows, they end up doing more harm than good.
On the average Linux desktop in the typical office, the user should have access to maybe three or four apps that they use and nothing else.
The point of tech support isn't to teach everyone how to install games or viruses or whatnot. It's to make sure that critical applications are available 24/7. The only way to do that is to guarantee that endusers can't mess with things.
You're assuming that it has to be treated as a liquid fuel like gasoline. There is no transporting Hydrogen; it can be produced on-site from water and electricity. There is a test system already setup at the Munich airport.
I'll admit that Hydrogen probably is more expensive than *whatever* fuel the airlines get tax free. I can't see how it would be that much more expensive, though, since it can basically be created from anything from natural gas to ethanol using relatively efficient processes. Besides, surely the airlines would pay a premium to use an engine like this that would operate at supersonic speeds?
I can honestly say I don't know how to respond to any of the rest of your post. Your milk analogy is completely incomprehensible.
The ones that don't trip over their rifles and kill themselves (there are some) end up better-off for the experience, sure. They come back with the will and discipline to, I don't know, manage a Taco Bell or something. I guess that's better than having them spend four years committing crimes back in the states. That I really don't care about.
Meanwhile, though, anyone who's smart enough *not* to join the imperial guard gets put into 'weapons design'. That's what pisses me off. We have more advanced weaponry than anyone on the face of the earth, yet not enough manufacturing capacity or energy reserves to last more than a couple of years, and all of our research capacity goes towards designing new weapons. We leave the energy production to the Middle East and the manufacturing to the Far East and resign ourselves to being the world's policemen. News flash: real wars aren't won without steel and oil.
If the US were cut off from the rest of the world economically, we would all just stand around with our 'rail guns' in our hands wondering what to do with them. That's not a good thing. That means that, like it or not, we sit atop an 'empire' that keeps us dependent upon the fruits of the entire world's labor and resources. In the coming decades, we will be forced to maintain that empire at all costs or give up the lifestyle that it provides and to which we have become accustomed.
Maybe a few hundred thousand dollars gets thrown into subsidies for solar panels or research into some new windmill technology that would be absolutely *crushed* by cheap oil prices if it ever made it to market. Meanwhile, billions of dollars goes into design of weapons that we couldn't even use without the oil provided by those we point them at.
I mean, what does the US produce other than power, or at least the perception of it? Of course, that's the reason terrorism is such a threat. That's why bin Laden spends all his time calling the US a 'paper tiger' and goading Arab leaders into fighting with the US instead of cooperating with it. He's betting that we're simultaneously stupid enough to try to fight the entire world and too lazy to give up our position as the recipients of the world's productive capacity.
Seriously, let's say you could give a damn about the environment or who we have to bribe, threaten, or kill to get cheap gas prices and want nothing more than to drive your SUV and buy cheap electronics and fill your house with little plastic trinkets 'till you die. Terrorism should make you wet yourself. History has shown that armies do not defeat terrorists. Even if we bugged the entire planet and tracked people 24/7, the cost would be much more than a simple, sane policy of self-sufficiency.
If we really set out to do so, we could have the entire country automated and isolated in sight of a decade. I'm talking robots mowing yards and growing crops and stamping out cheaply-made crap powered by sustainable, renewable energy and everyone sitting around on sofas surfing for porn eating soy-burgers (it's all going to be soy pretty soon anyways). That's really the goal we should be setting for ourselves; not "to be the world's target for terrorism".
After that's done, maybe we can go about trying to clean up the rest of the world. That would be a noble way to spend our time if we didn't have alterior motives for controlling every politico from here to Bangkok. Besides, everybody knows that the whole 'information economy' thing is a load of shit. Any self-respecting towel-head isn't going to pay for a legitimate copy of The Matrix or Windows Me anyways. We need to give up the whole "look at us, we're productive" myth and stop playing GI-Joe long enough to accept the facts and get to fixing things.
Metal Hydrides can store Hydrogen at densities greater than even solid Hydrogen. Of course, the hydride weighs 10x the amount of Hydrogen it can store, so I don't know if it would be practical for use on airplanes, but it's definitely space-efficient and safe.
I don't know why people think creating Hydrogen is expensive, either. Electrolyzers can be made anywhere from 80 to 90% efficient. Of course, electricity isn't as cheap as gasoline, but Hydrogen could be produced during off-peak times. I'm sure it would be comparable to or cheaper than highly-refined jet fuel.
This course description gives a decent overview of the basic probabilistic nature of quantum physics. I just found it because I'd recommend reading the course book, Quantum Mechanics and Experience, for an excellent description of the 'problem' of quantum interpretation.
Interestingly, it is a philosophy course. Most physicists have long since resigned themselves to the empiricist view that interpretation of quantum effects doesn't matter (see my sig). If it can't be directly seen and measured, it doesn't exist. The problem with that view is that what 'does' exist cannot be explained other than as quantum 'randomness'.
As for hidden variables, I'm inclined to agree with Einstein on this matter, too. If physicists throughout time had resigned themselves to thoughtlessly measuring and manipulating obvious variables, they would instead be called "chemists". It's obvious that there is more to quantum effects than is presently measurable.
We'll be getting subpoenaed for distributing MP3's into an infinite number of other universes.
what possible advance is this above say, those stupid camera's on light posts?
Heh, this is just 'stupid cameras on light posts'. It's typical of gov't funded science, really. During the cold war, they developed and deployed radiation-detecting satellites under the guise of 'looking for sunspots' or whatever, when really the satellites were all pointed at the USSR to detect nuclear weapons tests.
Now they'll be 'inventing' all sorts of new 'super-aware' networks of cameras and tracking systems that are supposedly for 'exploring other planets', when really they'll just be put on lightposts and pointed at us.
Science follows politics, not the other way around. They won't be interested in exploring the solar system until there's something out there worth spying upon.
Why is it any of your concern if someone can't/or doesn't want to set their VCR?
I can't say exactly. I guess I see Linux as a cheaper, more advanced version of Windows that requires a little fiddling to get working. If you had said "I use W2K for games" or whatnot, I wouldn't blink twice. But you didn't say "Windows is better for what I use it for." You said "I don't have the inclination/knowledge to learn/use Linux, oh, and btw, I work in IT." I can't seem to reconcile those statements.
Somehow I expect people with technical interest or proficiency to *want* to spend the extra time to fiddle with something that is better instead of settling for whatever is easier to use.
I mean, maybe you were expressing the motivations of the 'typical Windows user', but you use yourself as an example and you specifically mention that you're an IT professional. So, you know, which is it? From your posts, all I can gather is that you're an IT professional that is also a 'typical Windows user'. That seems antithetical.
What other documentation is there?
Personally, I can't comprehend this idea that 'Linux documentation sucks'.
I mean, sure, there aren't any 'Idiot's Guide to Linux' books that show you where to click and whatnot. But, it's not like it's that hard. Windows did just fine for, what, like almost a decade before *any* documentation existed beyond the Help File. I don't know about you, but I remember those sucking huge ass.
Are you, like, an administrator or just an end-user or do you want to learn how to program for Linux or what? Where exactly is Linux documentation lacking?
I sometimes think that slashdotters think that the rest of the worlds users should learn to program and understand their computers like a geek. Most people don't have the time, patience, or inclination to delve into it so deeply.
I do wish that people would take a little time to learn how to use their computers more effectively.
I know, however, that that isn't going to happen any time soon.
I also know that a group of volunteers isn't going to appear out of nowhere and suddenly 'target' this group of users who is simultaneously 'too busy' to learn how to use text configuration files and 'too important' to do without the ability to re-arrange their desktop icons in some fascinating new way.
The answer to this 'false dichotomy' problem is and has always been 'for-pay Linux distributions'. RedHat and Mandrake are the only ones who are sufficiently motivated to target this user base.
I humbly suggest that all further requests of this kind be sent to them.
Why can't GUIs and command-line commands be at least somewhat targeted to the users who generally know what they're doing but aren't programmers and can't remember all of the command line options for hundreds of programs?
Let me make sure I understand your complaint: Gnome is too easy/featureless. Most CLI commands are too hard/feature-filled.
You want to make the easy things harder and the hard things easier.
You basically want Linux to target the "Middle 50%" of users that Microsoft writes their software for.
This will make Linux better?
Absolutely.
'Move X to Y' is intuitive.
'Link to Y from X' is nonsense.
Westerners think from Left to Right. Lots of Linux commands are backwards in that respect.
Sure, I understand that you have hobbies and enjoy your free time.
I would think that you would have a natural advantage over the typical computer user when it comes to configuring Linux, that's all. There's no need to spend 4 hours installing a printer, even under Linux, if you really are an IT professional.
I wouldn't expect a mechanic to send his car to the dealer every time it needed some work.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting, but I know people with Physics degrees that don't know how to replace the water pump on their cars and graduates of Ivy League schools that don't know what a manual can-opener looks like.
It really just baffles me that people think their technical knowledge or position in life is so advanced that they can't be bothered to fiddle with the settings on their VCR.
Ayn Rand would die of hunger in the Open Source world.
:)
You seem to have missed the point of Objectivism and the reality of Open Source. Ayn Rand would do just fine with Linux. She was *very* intelligent. She wouldn't be here complaining that 'Linux doesn't look like Windows'; she would be fixing it herself and keeping her changes
Dude, you are tech support. You can't be bothered to fiddle with your computer at home yet you get paid to do it all day?
bah! That's just an analog adapter.
This thing has hold, transfer, forward, and speakerphone; and it can be completely configured to use whatever SIP service you want.
Businesses should be drooling all over this. I think I'm going to order a couple and add it to a Linux server to make a phone system. Now all I need is a salesman...
the antenna was designed the night before the contest, its component parts were purchased for $98 at Home Depot, and the next day it was built completely from scratch in the desert, on the side of the mountain, in the rain.
This, and watching the US team whip the Brits on Junkyard Wars, is the reason that I'm proud to be an American.
I think I'm about to cry...
Sure, that works. Go to Open H.323 for an overview. What you want is called a gateway.
Of course, the real innovation would be to create a Gnutella-like network of people interested in maintaining a local phone line to donate to such a cause. That's an idea I had a couple of years ago. I decided it would be limited to businesses, because the person would pretty much have to have a *spare* phone line. Also, the system would probably attract a lot of leeches, so making sure that each node contributes would be a problem.
Here you go.
Can you say Open Standard?
seems pretty expensive
That's nowhere near 'expensive'. You can't find *any* other IP phone for less than $200.
probably aren't too many of.
There are tens of thousands of SIP phone systems already deployed all over the world with hundreds of thousands of phones.
I tried looking but couldn't find it; there was an old sci-fi book or movie or something that contained children who had been genetically modified to produce chlorophyll in their skin, giving them a green tint.
I think it said that it didn't provide anything more than a supplement to their normal diet. Obviously, we couldn't really be 'solar-powered' because of the huge amounts of energy required to sustain ourselves.
When it becomes, as you say, more than 10%, it might be a subsidy. Today, it is, as the grandparent said, a way to reduce peak demand, when used with solar panels, at least.
It's not like all of the net metering will be done with solar panels, though. A lot (most) of it would be things like wind and commercial and (soon) residential cogeneration. That makes it worthwhile by itself to deregulate the power industry this way.
Don't cry for the power companies. They've made a fuss about net metering for everything from technical difficulties, which have been worked out, to prices, which, in most places, are now less than wholesale cost. Fifteen years ago, they bitched about 'peak demand' and wanted subsidies to build new plants. Now they're really just crying about being cut out of the gas->electricity equation by cogeneration, which is much more efficient than miles of power lines ever could be.
I think that would be about the dumbest possible way to fund terrorism.