As often is the case- I'm forming 'new' ideas that are really quite old.
That's why I liked the article myself. It just got some switches in my head to connect and I found a new way to look at some things.
It'll be mulling about in my head for a while and who knows? Maybe I'll get a tumor in my head that makes me a super genius and I'll get the code figured out before I die.
Tailoring a computer experience should be left to the user who needs the tailoring, not to some dude who doesn't even know the user.
I couldn't agree w/you more. Personally as I've been reading this thread and thinking it over- I believe much of the key lies in making that tailoring very easy to do. Usually ease of use is found by limiting options. How about a system that has huge numbers of options- but customizing the system in powerful ways is a trivial matter? That is something I would go out of my way to get.
I think that you've brought some assumptions to the table that I didn't see in the article.
use all the CPU cycles on the machine just to make the machine look pretty and active
Who would think this? I don't think anyone would.
Linux, Apple and Windows (to name a few of the big players) are all trying to look and feel like each other.
I'd hazard that the idea put forth here is the reason it hasn't happened is a lack of innovation as opposed to a lack of need.
I think there is always a danger of saying "this is good enough and noone does it differently so don't try". I'm not satisfied w/the way Linux works as a desktop box. Why look to MS to remove that dissatisfaction? Why not look to new ideas that may surpass anything that currently exists. The beauty of open source is you don't need to buy into his ideas. Some people will and they will go out and try. If they succeed you still benefit. If they fail they've done nothing but waste some of their own time.
but rather the larger fact that all open source projects are structurally based on existing products
Why must one reinvent the wheel to have real innovation?
OSS doesn't seem to able to effect ground-up changes the way a small group of motivated, creative people are (Be, etc)
I would think that much of Be was built using existing projects. OSS allows small groups of people to take existing frameworks and mold it in new ways. This seems to me to be more condusive to innovation.
I don't think he 'misses the boat' I just think that the ideas are so broad that if one comes to them w/any presuppositions- the ideas will fit in and take on a slant that does not exist there. He is saying that people want something that is interactive and increases productivity. (At least that's what I saw.) I think many here agree that those gains in productivity come w/customization. I agree w/you that OSS can give those things to the user- but I don't think that for Joe Blow (and I'm including myself as a bit of a novice w/Linux) 'ease' in the customization has yet to arrive on the linux desktop. I'm not talking about screen savers and wall paper in KDE- I'm talking about being able to make your system really 'fit' your personal work style w/out having to learn pearl, shell scripting and whatever else you may need to throw in there.
I was trying to get at this in a post of my own- but I didn't say it nearly as well.
To get what the article talks about you need something that is very, very configurable. That currently implies complexity. And people don't want complex.
What would be great in my opinion is all that ability to customize w/out the learning curve.
I wish there were some more concrete ideas on what this 'new' interface might look like.
I would think it would need to be very maleable. An active interface that is heavenly to one user may drive another nuts. I wouldn't mind 'interacting' with my computer but only at a level and in a fashion that was comfortable to me. I'm willing to bet that what makes me comfortable would be distinctly horrific to many others.
Good broad ideas - I would love to see some implementation.
Also- I don't buy that it such a new thing would so easily knock off windows. He underrates how many have grown very locked in to that way of doing things. It is what they 'know' and it is not real easy to move folks from that.
But by their numbers EVERYONE steals their content if given the opportunity.
If everyone is a thief and they have more than zero customers then they must consider their customers thieves. They have very clearly stated that they think (if not everyone) the vast majority of people will steal their products unless they are legally and physically restricted from being able to do so.
You can't have that kind of disdain and animosity for the people you depend upon to pay you. They will sense it and lash out at you. Maybe its not right but its reality.
"Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."
To public show such contempt for your customers is so telling. Their arrogance is just unbelievable.
Anyone who bites the hand that feeds them this regularly will eventually starve to death. You can take that to the bank.
You've been modded as a troll but you have a valid opinion.
I agree anyway.
I really have not seen a single post that validates objecting to having something like this in your car. In fact a lot of the arguments against it are really for it in my mind.
Someone said "It violates the 5th amendment- your own car can testify against you"
Ignoring how really wrong that statment is legally- the flipside is what I like about these systems. In the case of an accident we can have FACTS as opposed to conjecture.
Some have said this wont stop accidents or save lives. (I disagree but it doesn't matter.) That's not the point. The point is knowing what happened- so that blame is not put upon the wrong person.
What valid activity or freedom could be hindered by this? I would like to hear some rational scenarios where this kind of thing could limit your 'rights'.
We know you are a 45 year old man who sits in his cube and giggles quietly every time he wonders what others would think if they new he ordered his under-wear from Fredericks.
But I would also think you then need to take into account what kind of job you are willing to have. If you choose a job that requires that type of travel- then it looks like you need to factor in having some kind of picture i.d. And I'm not sure why it should be illegal that this be so.
The government having unwritten, ever changing directives is something that I do agree should not be allowed. But if the airlines keep this as their own policy- I am not sure why they must be forced to operate their business differently.
I don't see any business motive to change such a policy as I would guess that the vast majority of travelers agree with the policy. (I could be wrong- that's just my guess)
The general dissatisfaction voiced in threads about I.D. being required is somewhat silly in my mind. I.D. for the most part has been 'required' for a normal life in this country for a long time. On many levels it just makes sense.
Could it be abused? Of course but the potential for misuse does not mean it should be banned (peer to peer anyone) It just needs to be used correctly.
I'm not arguing against the guy I'm just trying to think this through and I'd love to hear opinions.
You can move about the country pretty easily w/out using an airliner. (Though now that I think about it you need a drivers license (i.d.) to drive).
The airlines are private businesses so why can't they require whatever they want from customers? If people don't like the policy they wont fly. Market forces will dictate the companies direction.
I personally would not fly on an airline that does not require I.D. from passengers and other safegaurds as well. If certain types of people are of the opinion that they can get away w/hijacking an aircraft they will try.
I don't see how being allowed access to vehicles that have the potential to be used as weapons is an inalienable right. Not governing such access would be foolhardy.
I think we'll see some policies change soon. They will have to do something because these things will only get worse.
I get fire wood up off the rim every year. It's a fun trip for me and the kids.
Montini (I don't agree w/him often but I think he had some good points on this) ran an article in the column showing how the politicians were trying to use this.
Nova (i think it was them) ran an excellent show on forest fires- the history of national policy on fighting them and the challenges that exist now in getting ourselves out of the fix we're in.
I wouldn't leave the environmentalists to walk away w/out blame but I think the problem started long before they were even involved in the debate. I'm not too sympathetic w/those folks as I think their fundamental view of reality is flawed. But I wouldn't drop all this at their feet.
Our place wasn't in any danger w/the Rodeo and Chediski fires but as dry as it is up there I will be somewhat surprised if we make it through this summer.
Earlier today I was flopping back and forth between 50 and Excellent.
Now it looks like Excellent again.
I guess it doesn't really matter much but I would like to know what the new rules of the game are. (it is a game to me and I like playing- why take that away?)
You're taking my statement out of context. I'm not taking armed people anywhere.
I don't really care about NASA's budget very much either.
I'm much more interested in the discussion as it pertains to people's perceptions of their personal involvement in how society works.
On a side note- I have a cabin on the Mogollon rim. I live in Phoenix. I'm no tree hugger. I hunt, fish and generally just enjoy the AZ outdoors.
A lot of the comments aimed at blaming the fire on nature groups was pure unfounded rhetoric used for political gain. When people like Kyle were called on the things they said, to back them up w/facts they back pedaled quickly.
The forests all over this country are in the shape they are in because of Forest Service Policies that have existed for over 100 years. (just recently they started figuring out that the 'no burn' policy was impossible and a mistake) There is no simple solution. There are things that can be done but they will be costly and you can be that there will be some real fights over all that.
Spotted owls don't live up there.
The people that lost homes will use insurance money to rebuild. If you live in a forest- sometimes there will be fires. People who counted on that and cleared trees and other fuel from around there homes had their property undamaged.
Well - I've gotta go. But if you want respond and I'll try and get back to you w/some more info because I don't think you've been given all the correct facts. I could be wrong- maybe you have and you just have different ideas than I do but I've got a sneaking suspicion that you are unaware of what has gone on up there.
Money has nothing to do w/any of this. I don't know why you think it does.
What peacful action can the people take that will make a difference?
You limit yourself a lot there since peaceful action just isn't as effective as violence in settling things- but even with that restriction in place- in the U.S. you have many peaceful actions. Primarily voting. If independant candidates had enough grass roots support and leveraged the internet they could get around the mainstream media.
But it would take lots of people. I don't think many people are listening to me here (big surprise). If you get enough people you can do whatever you want. Whether your current government is democratic or not is irrelevant. Here it is, so there are less obstacles to overcome.
Bush has a high approval rating because a lot of people like what they hear and see. It's that simple. A lot of people agree w/him on many issues. It's not that they don't have a voice.
This really bothers you because you would rather not believe that most people don't share in your views. You probably believe (like many here) that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, uninformed or brainwashed. This is simply not the case. They have the same facts as you do but they have reached a different conclusion. Unfortunately most of the/. community simply cannot accept that.
You are thinking in a narrow box. Let's say I showed up on the steps of the capital tomorrow with a billion armed people. Lets say I also garnered the support of the joint chiefs of staff and had the military backing me up. You don't think that would be effective? Then what would?
People- human beings together decide what kind of world this is. When people decide not to make choices or act- they are actively deciding to let someone else do it for them.
The current state of affairs is not due to some little group of evil men who have pulled the wool over the world's eyes. It is because collectively people just do not care enough to get up off their asses and do something about it.
I would not be involved in political action organized around this community. There are a few reasons.
One- I am active locally much more than nationally or globally.
Two- This community has too many factions to act in an effective way.
Three- I strongly disagree w/quite a few opinions that are pretty strong around here.
'Faith' in people is not what is driving what I am saying here. I am just stating what I believe are facts about what people can do. The government is made up of people just like us.
It is fear that leads individuals to blame unseen intities for their woes. Don't like the way things are - move to change them. If enough people agree and move with you- it will change.
If all the citizens of Red China silmultaneously rose up in rebellion and decided that China's govt. was going to change- it would have to change.
Human beings decide how they will live. Other than brainwashing this cannot be circumvented. (I'm not talking about T.V. adds- I'm talking about what I imagine could be possible w/drugs and other means)
America is more free than just about any other country in the history of the world.
If enough people in the US took action they could change the way things are done.
All this whining about 'them' making the decisions and and taking the power away from the people is FUD- pure and simple. From people who are too afraid to stand up and determine the outcome of their existence.
How many people voted for Gore is irrelevant. At one point in time the people who had decision making power put the electoral college into place. If the enough Americans want to remove the electoral college it can be done. And then we would have a President elected by a simple majority.
The single largest obstacle in this is the apathy of the public at large. If 20 million people marched on Washington what would the govt. do? It would listen. They would have no choice.
This is much more fundamental than politics in America. People can decide their own political fate if they just move to do so- anywhere.
Advances in communication have altered the landscape and the only thing holding back Joe Schmoe from holding office is apathy and/or satisfaction with the current system.
Everything you discuss above could be changed if enough people wanted it to change.
Slashdot Mirror
As often is the case- I'm forming 'new' ideas that are really quite old.
That's why I liked the article myself. It just got some switches in my head to connect and I found a new way to look at some things.
It'll be mulling about in my head for a while and who knows? Maybe I'll get a tumor in my head that makes me a super genius and I'll get the code figured out before I die.
.
Tailoring a computer experience should be left to the user who needs the tailoring, not to some dude who doesn't even know the user.
I couldn't agree w/you more. Personally as I've been reading this thread and thinking it over- I believe much of the key lies in making that tailoring very easy to do. Usually ease of use is found by limiting options. How about a system that has huge numbers of options- but customizing the system in powerful ways is a trivial matter? That is something I would go out of my way to get.
.
I think that you've brought some assumptions to the table that I didn't see in the article.
use all the CPU cycles on the machine just to make the machine look pretty and active
Who would think this? I don't think anyone would.
Linux, Apple and Windows (to name a few of the big players) are all trying to look and feel like each other.
I'd hazard that the idea put forth here is the reason it hasn't happened is a lack of innovation as opposed to a lack of need.
I think there is always a danger of saying "this is good enough and noone does it differently so don't try". I'm not satisfied w/the way Linux works as a desktop box. Why look to MS to remove that dissatisfaction? Why not look to new ideas that may surpass anything that currently exists. The beauty of open source is you don't need to buy into his ideas. Some people will and they will go out and try. If they succeed you still benefit. If they fail they've done nothing but waste some of their own time.
but rather the larger fact that all open source projects are structurally based on existing products
Why must one reinvent the wheel to have real innovation?
OSS doesn't seem to able to effect ground-up changes the way a small group of motivated, creative people are (Be, etc)
I would think that much of Be was built using existing projects. OSS allows small groups of people to take existing frameworks and mold it in new ways. This seems to me to be more condusive to innovation.
I don't think he 'misses the boat' I just think that the ideas are so broad that if one comes to them w/any presuppositions- the ideas will fit in and take on a slant that does not exist there. He is saying that people want something that is interactive and increases productivity. (At least that's what I saw.) I think many here agree that those gains in productivity come w/customization. I agree w/you that OSS can give those things to the user- but I don't think that for Joe Blow (and I'm including myself as a bit of a novice w/Linux) 'ease' in the customization has yet to arrive on the linux desktop. I'm not talking about screen savers and wall paper in KDE- I'm talking about being able to make your system really 'fit' your personal work style w/out having to learn pearl, shell scripting and whatever else you may need to throw in there.
EXACTLY!
I was trying to get at this in a post of my own- but I didn't say it nearly as well.
To get what the article talks about you need something that is very, very configurable. That currently implies complexity. And people don't want complex.
What would be great in my opinion is all that ability to customize w/out the learning curve.
.
I don't buy into it 100% but I am intrigued.
I wish there were some more concrete ideas on what this 'new' interface might look like.
I would think it would need to be very maleable. An active interface that is heavenly to one user may drive another nuts. I wouldn't mind 'interacting' with my computer but only at a level and in a fashion that was comfortable to me. I'm willing to bet that what makes me comfortable would be distinctly horrific to many others.
Good broad ideas - I would love to see some implementation.
Also- I don't buy that it such a new thing would so easily knock off windows. He underrates how many have grown very locked in to that way of doing things. It is what they 'know' and it is not real easy to move folks from that.
.
But by their numbers EVERYONE steals their content if given the opportunity.
If everyone is a thief and they have more than zero customers then they must consider their customers thieves. They have very clearly stated that they think (if not everyone) the vast majority of people will steal their products unless they are legally and physically restricted from being able to do so.
You can't have that kind of disdain and animosity for the people you depend upon to pay you. They will sense it and lash out at you. Maybe its not right but its reality.
.
"Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."
To public show such contempt for your customers is so telling. Their arrogance is just unbelievable.
Anyone who bites the hand that feeds them this regularly will eventually starve to death. You can take that to the bank.
that's very funny.
I only eat at Blimpies so i'm immune.
.
Oh yes it does.
.
Which is why I like this.
Because I gaurantee you it will be my lawyer making sure some loser doesn't get away w/endangering me or my family.
Very nice.
.
You aren't answering the question.
What is the problem w/having one in your car?
.
You've been modded as a troll but you have a valid opinion.
I agree anyway.
I really have not seen a single post that validates objecting to having something like this in your car. In fact a lot of the arguments against it are really for it in my mind.
Someone said "It violates the 5th amendment- your own car can testify against you"
Ignoring how really wrong that statment is legally- the flipside is what I like about these systems. In the case of an accident we can have FACTS as opposed to conjecture.
Some have said this wont stop accidents or save lives. (I disagree but it doesn't matter.) That's not the point. The point is knowing what happened- so that blame is not put upon the wrong person.
What valid activity or freedom could be hindered by this? I would like to hear some rational scenarios where this kind of thing could limit your 'rights'.
.
Dude,
We know you are a 45 year old man who sits in his cube and giggles quietly every time he wonders what others would think if they new he ordered his under-wear from Fredericks.
Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes.
.
How many people did Intel just lay off?
I think it was like 4,000.
A smaller percentage but still significant.
.
West to East coast you are right. (or vice versa)
But I would also think you then need to take into account what kind of job you are willing to have. If you choose a job that requires that type of travel- then it looks like you need to factor in having some kind of picture i.d. And I'm not sure why it should be illegal that this be so.
The government having unwritten, ever changing directives is something that I do agree should not be allowed. But if the airlines keep this as their own policy- I am not sure why they must be forced to operate their business differently.
I don't see any business motive to change such a policy as I would guess that the vast majority of travelers agree with the policy. (I could be wrong- that's just my guess)
The general dissatisfaction voiced in threads about I.D. being required is somewhat silly in my mind. I.D. for the most part has been 'required' for a normal life in this country for a long time. On many levels it just makes sense.
Could it be abused? Of course but the potential for misuse does not mean it should be banned (peer to peer anyone) It just needs to be used correctly.
.
I'm not arguing against the guy I'm just trying to think this through and I'd love to hear opinions.
You can move about the country pretty easily w/out using an airliner. (Though now that I think about it you need a drivers license (i.d.) to drive).
The airlines are private businesses so why can't they require whatever they want from customers? If people don't like the policy they wont fly. Market forces will dictate the companies direction.
I personally would not fly on an airline that does not require I.D. from passengers and other safegaurds as well. If certain types of people are of the opinion that they can get away w/hijacking an aircraft they will try.
I don't see how being allowed access to vehicles that have the potential to be used as weapons is an inalienable right. Not governing such access would be foolhardy.
.
I think we'll see some policies change soon. They will have to do something because these things will only get worse.
I get fire wood up off the rim every year. It's a fun trip for me and the kids.
Montini (I don't agree w/him often but I think he had some good points on this) ran an article in the column showing how the politicians were trying to use this.
Nova (i think it was them) ran an excellent show on forest fires- the history of national policy on fighting them and the challenges that exist now in getting ourselves out of the fix we're in.
I wouldn't leave the environmentalists to walk away w/out blame but I think the problem started long before they were even involved in the debate. I'm not too sympathetic w/those folks as I think their fundamental view of reality is flawed. But I wouldn't drop all this at their feet.
Our place wasn't in any danger w/the Rodeo and Chediski fires but as dry as it is up there I will be somewhat surprised if we make it through this summer.
.
Earlier today I was flopping back and forth between 50 and Excellent.
Now it looks like Excellent again.
I guess it doesn't really matter much but I would like to know what the new rules of the game are. (it is a game to me and I like playing- why take that away?)
.
You're taking my statement out of context. I'm not taking armed people anywhere.
I don't really care about NASA's budget very much either.
I'm much more interested in the discussion as it pertains to people's perceptions of their personal involvement in how society works.
On a side note- I have a cabin on the Mogollon rim. I live in Phoenix. I'm no tree hugger. I hunt, fish and generally just enjoy the AZ outdoors.
A lot of the comments aimed at blaming the fire on nature groups was pure unfounded rhetoric used for political gain. When people like Kyle were called on the things they said, to back them up w/facts they back pedaled quickly.
The forests all over this country are in the shape they are in because of Forest Service Policies that have existed for over 100 years. (just recently they started figuring out that the 'no burn' policy was impossible and a mistake) There is no simple solution. There are things that can be done but they will be costly and you can be that there will be some real fights over all that.
Spotted owls don't live up there.
The people that lost homes will use insurance money to rebuild. If you live in a forest- sometimes there will be fires. People who counted on that and cleared trees and other fuel from around there homes had their property undamaged.
Well - I've gotta go. But if you want respond and I'll try and get back to you w/some more info because I don't think you've been given all the correct facts. I could be wrong- maybe you have and you just have different ideas than I do but I've got a sneaking suspicion that you are unaware of what has gone on up there.
.
Define free? How much does geoverment cost.
/. community simply cannot accept that.
Money has nothing to do w/any of this. I don't know why you think it does.
What peacful action can the people take that will make a difference?
You limit yourself a lot there since peaceful action just isn't as effective as violence in settling things- but even with that restriction in place- in the U.S. you have many peaceful actions. Primarily voting. If independant candidates had enough grass roots support and leveraged the internet they could get around the mainstream media.
But it would take lots of people. I don't think many people are listening to me here (big surprise). If you get enough people you can do whatever you want. Whether your current government is democratic or not is irrelevant. Here it is, so there are less obstacles to overcome.
Bush has a high approval rating because a lot of people like what they hear and see. It's that simple. A lot of people agree w/him on many issues. It's not that they don't have a voice.
This really bothers you because you would rather not believe that most people don't share in your views. You probably believe (like many here) that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, uninformed or brainwashed. This is simply not the case. They have the same facts as you do but they have reached a different conclusion. Unfortunately most of the
wow, they sure got you brain washed.
It's the other way around.
You are thinking in a narrow box. Let's say I showed up on the steps of the capital tomorrow with a billion armed people. Lets say I also garnered the support of the joint chiefs of staff and had the military backing me up. You don't think that would be effective? Then what would?
People- human beings together decide what kind of world this is. When people decide not to make choices or act- they are actively deciding to let someone else do it for them.
The current state of affairs is not due to some little group of evil men who have pulled the wool over the world's eyes. It is because collectively people just do not care enough to get up off their asses and do something about it.
I would not be involved in political action organized around this community. There are a few reasons.
One- I am active locally much more than nationally or globally.
Two- This community has too many factions to act in an effective way.
Three- I strongly disagree w/quite a few opinions that are pretty strong around here.
'Faith' in people is not what is driving what I am saying here. I am just stating what I believe are facts about what people can do. The government is made up of people just like us.
It is fear that leads individuals to blame unseen intities for their woes. Don't like the way things are - move to change them. If enough people agree and move with you- it will change.
If all the citizens of Red China silmultaneously rose up in rebellion and decided that China's govt. was going to change- it would have to change.
that's all I'm saying.
.
What I am trying to get at is this-
Human beings decide how they will live. Other than brainwashing this cannot be circumvented. (I'm not talking about T.V. adds- I'm talking about what I imagine could be possible w/drugs and other means)
America is more free than just about any other country in the history of the world.
If enough people in the US took action they could change the way things are done.
All this whining about 'them' making the decisions and and taking the power away from the people is FUD- pure and simple. From people who are too afraid to stand up and determine the outcome of their existence.
How many people voted for Gore is irrelevant. At one point in time the people who had decision making power put the electoral college into place. If the enough Americans want to remove the electoral college it can be done. And then we would have a President elected by a simple majority.
The single largest obstacle in this is the apathy of the public at large. If 20 million people marched on Washington what would the govt. do? It would listen. They would have no choice.
This is much more fundamental than politics in America. People can decide their own political fate if they just move to do so- anywhere.
.
Advances in communication have altered the landscape and the only thing holding back Joe Schmoe from holding office is apathy and/or satisfaction with the current system.
Everything you discuss above could be changed if enough people wanted it to change.
.