As much as I can understand your argument about the 'realness' of theater actors, I don't think theater performance gives you a visceral and intimate experience.
One reason is distance in a theater, because actors and viewers are usually quite a few meters away and that is no good for intimacy. Stage actors almost always have to *yell* so the audience can hear what they say. This creates quite unnatural situations.
Theater has another "problem": suspense of disbelief. Movies (CGI or no) create stunningly real scenarios you can feel totally immersed in. Theater play always reminds you that aou are in a theater and those are actors on a stage that has obviously been painted and glued together. You could even say that theater concentrates/relies solely on the spoken content, just because it lacks the power of illusion.
So you might argue that the movies and theaters are profoundly different with regards to their audience's expectations and experience, it is very difficult to compare them.
It almost doesn't matter what happens at the MS booth, the result will be good for those guys.
As has been pointed out in earlier posts: open source zealots attacking the booth will help MS to discredit the whole community and Linux as an operating system.
Maybe MS will even announce some.NET-based interoperability features and the goodness of XML. That will certainly reduce MS' tainted image of being a monopolist, they might even be starting a new niceguy campaign!
Perhaps the most stupid thing they could do is trying to sabotage the Expo with deconstructive criticism and blatant WindowsXP demos. The resulting uproar would bring them in on the frontpage of most internet news pages and make for some great indirect advertizing.
So there is not much that could turn out negative for MS at this. Maybe the best from a Linux point of view would be some sort of support by MS (e.g. Office suite), even though it is unlikely to happen. Anyway let's just hope the community won't embarass itself out there!
No, the problem here is not so much lazyness (which occurs frequently enough in other areas) as the plain old fact that "The Client Is In The Hand Of The Enemy". And it's going to be very difficult to implement a unique phone id on the "server"-side for this. So in the end it is something like your TAX ID or the number on your house. You can't change them, because in doing so you would effectively slip out of the system and damage it's functionality.
Yeah right, exactly! And users shouldn't have to know XUL to appreciate and application. They should be able to judge software purely on what it actually does for them. And if they think there are usability problems, then maybe THERE ARE. What is going on?
The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL. You're joking, right? XUL is an interface/component application based on XML allright. But that has nothing to with the cited usability problems. The Open Source community simply has to stop saying things like 'yeah the user interface is bad, but if you complain about it openly it shows that you don't really understand the XYZWhatever+ architecture!' Stop accepting things like they are, change the world (of software) now!
Not really, because those things are design flaws - not small and simple coding mistakes. And even if they were, given the million lines of badly documented code, you wouldn't stand a chance of finding them. No way. Current systems (esp. Windows) are designed to rot.
This is suspicious, the website is really short on information. Instead of facts they constructed a bulky flash movie that is really no good and the only reason for it's existence is to blow the very small content up beyond proportions. The site wants to be hip but it isn't. There is no time table, (almost) no tech specs, no pricing info, no ordering,... do I need to go on? It has, however, a category for Investor Relations. These guys just had a nice idea, now they need some money and we'll probably never hear from them again.
so what if linux sucks for desktop? cant ppl realize it isnt meant for that and shouldnt be. linux is and should be an OS in development for developers. thats what it is.
So for whom exactly do developers write applications? What you are implying is that Linux should be a platform where developers write apps for themselves and leave it at that? And if you want to run a certain app somebody else wrote you have to earn your right to use it by overcoming the nasty traps set to ward off "Joe User"? No. I think we all agree that Linux has far to much potential to be left in the murky grounds of development hell. Some weeks ago BillG announced his infamous trustworthy computing campaign, a large focus shift for MS, since security and reliability haven't been top priorities up until then. They looked around and acknowledged the need for action. Because users expected them to do so. Perhaps it's not unreasonable for the Linux community to make a focus shift towards "user friendly computing", likewise.
In tech support, we see it all the time...the magic box syndrom. It should work. Period. Make my magic box work.
Damn right it should work. Magic Box syndrom has nothing to do with it. It IS POSSIBLE to make a user friendly OS, you know. It IS POSSIBLE to run a box that is not wasting your time with clogged configurability nightmares. People have proven that, these systems do exist out there. Why not learn a thing or two from them?
So far no substancial part of MS desktop customers jumped off because of security concerns. And I can't see that happen for a long while.
Anyway security is by far not the only reason why MS shouldn't have complete control over our systems: - There are huge privacy/anonymity concerns no matter how secure everything is - The MS dependence is already overwhelming these days. With Palladium and the laws behind it this dependence will only increase and eventually make MS the sole dictator in charge of our daily lives and our money.
That's paranoid today but people will call it normal and neccesary tomorrow. It's already happening.
Yeah I do dual boot. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm a MS whore, you know. You see it doesn't matter as long as I accepted the EULA and use the system.
Java? Big, big security hole there for DRM applications. Hell, interpreted languages pose a big risk:
No, Java will actually not be supported on future MS operating systems anymore. That's official. MS doesn't care what Sun would like or not, they crossed MS in court and now they're out of the game. As simple as that. As for other interpreted languages (.NET), those 'applets' or 'classes' will all have to be signed to be allowed to run on a certified (trusted) environment. And that's not only entirely technically possible but also a certainty with Palladium.
I'm writing this posting on a WinXP machine. Before I had Win95, I used 98, then 2000 and now XP. With nearly every upgrade or patch our freedom as users has been decreased ever so slightly. As it is a gradual process, no one will really notice (no,./ geeks don't account for a substantial amount of Win users) and it is really hard to draw the line. When is enough enough? The big pro in MS products is their usability. As long as the UI stays ahead of the rest users WILL accept the gradual decay of their freedom without so much noticing it.
Maybe I can't speak for the majority of Slashdot users out there, but with every Windows version I owned I thought: 'This is going to be my last Windows version. I'll make the switch after that. This new crap has crossed the line.' And EVERY time I went back and bought the new crap because I could get my apps running easier, because I could play my favorite games, or simply because the UI allowed me to be more productive.
As long as MS leads the industry they WILL shove this stuff down our throats and we WILL swallow it. I can imagine EXACTLY what this future will look like. The bad thing is that the public will see nothing bad in it. And if someone objects just label him as a terrorist...
the kernel has nothing to do with this
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
The kernel in it's current state surpasses the winNT-kernel's capabilities in most areas. For your mom and most other users it won't make a difference what kernel they use! What's hampering Linux takeoff in the desktop area is actually two things, as we all know, concerning the GUI:
1. compatiblity (with the huge base of existing win32 applications) 2. user interface issues (it may look pretty but usability is a nightmare, starting with clipboard support)
The kernel doesn't make a difference (mostly) in the way that KDE or GNOME behave. They are quite advanced but not quite there - yet.
As part of the program, the Austrian government is allowed access to the Windows XP source code. Program benefits, according to Microsoft, include better understanding of the technical underpinnings of the operating system, better protection against security vulnerabilities and a resource for writing custom applications.
And yet within other context they say that publishing source code (e.g. as in Open Source) is a huge security risk!
And aren't all three points originally part of the Open Source agenda? And didn't they say that while based on closed source the Windows API is supposed to be so very comprehensive and well documented that it's allegedly no problem for other software vendors to develop their own products (antitrust trial)?
OMG man, these days you can really get the jewish guys going at you if you're making an islam statement within the same context as their holy script.
ISLAM=Quran JUDAISM=Talmud
Anyway, (non-orthodox) jewish religion is pretty open-minded, much more so than most christian or islamic groups. Jewish teaching has no problem with technology.
Yes, besides 15 wavelengths just doesn't cut it. You just can't get a precise spectral fingerprint of stuff like clorophyl, not with 15 wavelengths, not under these conditions. So all they have is some erroneous pixel colors. Not very substantial. This isn't news, this is just bad science. Maybe they are desperate to pump more funding out of the Bush administration (which would be a good thing), but this isn't the stuff that's going to get them very far.
Re:Explanation for SETI Failure?
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Imagine instead that the reason for the silence is that advcanced intelligences learn time travel and their citizenry empty out of this universe into other, parallel time lines where they can be free to happily manipulate the past/future to their own liking?
No, that's because the whole SETI thing is built on a very weak assumption. More likely advanced civilzations wouldn't use radio signals because they are relatively slow compared to interstellar distances. Makes no sense using radio if you got causality-defeating-whatever-space-particles to do the job. The other thing is that if this "emptying out" would really take place, the advanced intelligences you mentioned would most likely all live in different realities, each one by itself which is rather boring. Doesn't seem to be the right thing to do if you're an advanced intelligence.
Automated expiry is stupid. Software devlopment (and companies) is unreliable. You're absolutely right, products can cease to be supported any time. Even with Open Source.
Another obvious reason is that you should not include self-destruct functionality for software that is going to be used in a production environment. I know some people will disagree but I think a badly patched server is still better than a dead server. (Hell, some equipment is only accessible via remote network tools. So what if the network code or the remote control software expires. This is irresponsible.)
A much better way would be to automatically NOTIFY the admin when a product is out of date.
If you want to take that one step further there could even be an automated update daemon - i don't know - but that's very likely going to have security issues by itself.
Code that deactivates a running production system without admin input is definetely not an option. (Well maybe on a MS server, but that's another story entirely.)
These terrorist bastards attacked my countrymen in my country. All that is left is to hunt them down and kill them. The rest is politics to enable to do this one thing.
But you DO realize that revenge won't bring those back that died, don't you? I think you do. All you want is your ego back. Doesn't matter who exactly is going to pay for this, right?
Also it's kind of scary how you think of the role of politics. Scary but sadly accurate.
We not only should, we must make the punishment far worse than the crime.
Yes, that's very civilized and intelligent of you. How exactly do you actually do something that is WORSE THAN A HATE-CRIME (like terrorism)? So that's your personal concept of justice, eh?
We need to say that by attacking us, you have forfeited your right to exist. Period. Full stop.
What if a Palestinian terrorist attacks an Israeli civilian? What if one of those african countries invades another and tens of thousands of lives are lost? I see, this is not the same category, right? So basically you're implying that American life is infinitely more important than any other life.
THAT is what it means to live in the real world.
No that's just what you think of as the real world, if you were brought up in a country where everyone tells you day by day how superior you are.
This whole thing has hardly anything to do with Globalism. Globalism is not synonymous with the American Way. Anyway I think this 9/11 reference is getting a bit weak to use in every single political discussion. Leave topics where they belong.
The main bogus part about the claim is that there is no theory to back up the supposed effect.
Many famous discoveries started with a simple observation that lead to a theory to explain it _afterwards_! While it's probably true that Podkletnov's experiment is entirely flawed you just cannot simply assume that a discovery is not valid because there's no theoretical basis to support it. But the fact that Mr. Podkletnov doesn't like others to review his setup is very suspicious, indeed. Got to keep an open mind, though!
Good point, this is what I've been thinking - mod this up! In my opinion Open Source can never be a business model, because the very concept is based on a different system (much different from capitalism). Although there are some cases where Open Source and capitalism work well together, these are generally rare occasions where we get to see some sort of chimera form.
I'd like to adress this message to all newbies and programmers who embarked on tasks that are laughed at by others:
So what if there would be thousands of projects like that? What harm is there? Every day people start out to create new projects, not just RPG ones but anything. There's no estimating the number of hobbyist projects, let's just say there is an entire 'ocean' of software out there. Does the author of this article imply it is harmful to have this kind of diversity? Every programmer starts out as a newbie. It's just that some day you decide to improve your IT skills beyond those of a mere user. This is a change of mindset where you have the desire to CREATE something instead of just USING stuff that other people cooked for you. Being a newbie isn't a bad thing per se, so we should stop looking down upon and discouraging newbies from doing stuff that they like to do. I've been working as a developer for almost 10 years now and I feel a bit like a newbie every day because every day there is something new to be learned. Few software projects encourage as much fantasy and creativity as roleplaying games - maybe because your goal is to literally create an entire world of your own, you can have anything you like! I would argue that most people who do this don't want to create the next everquest or anything (well, there's always hope of course) they just want to do something cool that is fun for them. A simple truth in software development is that a majority of all projects (be it commercial or hobbyist) don't ever get finished. That's not a big deal, because maybe by the time the project finally dies the (level 0) newbie who created it turned into a (level 1) Developer.
Experience is what makes us better programmers. Experience can only be acquired by learning. Learning can only be done while being motivated. The kind of motivation you get by creating something of your own is immense. Don't ever let nay-sayers discourage you from creating things!
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I can understand your argument about the 'realness' of theater actors, I don't think theater performance gives you a visceral and intimate experience.
One reason is distance in a theater, because actors and viewers are usually quite a few meters away and that is no good for intimacy. Stage actors almost always have to *yell* so the audience can hear what they say. This creates quite unnatural situations.
Theater has another "problem": suspense of disbelief. Movies (CGI or no) create stunningly real scenarios you can feel totally immersed in. Theater play always reminds you that aou are in a theater and those are actors on a stage that has obviously been painted and glued together. You could even say that theater concentrates/relies solely on the spoken content, just because it lacks the power of illusion.
So you might argue that the movies and theaters are profoundly different with regards to their audience's expectations and experience, it is very difficult to compare them.
It almost doesn't matter what happens at the MS booth, the result will be good for those guys.
.NET-based interoperability features and the goodness of XML. That will certainly reduce MS' tainted image of being a monopolist, they might even be starting a new niceguy campaign!
As has been pointed out in earlier posts: open source zealots attacking the booth will help MS to discredit the whole community and Linux as an operating system.
Maybe MS will even announce some
Perhaps the most stupid thing they could do is trying to sabotage the Expo with deconstructive criticism and blatant WindowsXP demos. The resulting uproar would bring them in on the frontpage of most internet news pages and make for some great indirect advertizing.
So there is not much that could turn out negative for MS at this. Maybe the best from a Linux point of view would be some sort of support by MS (e.g. Office suite), even though it is unlikely to happen. Anyway let's just hope the community won't embarass itself out there!
No, the problem here is not so much lazyness (which occurs frequently enough in other areas) as the plain old fact that "The Client Is In The Hand Of The Enemy". And it's going to be very difficult to implement a unique phone id on the "server"-side for this. So in the end it is something like your TAX ID or the number on your house. You can't change them, because in doing so you would effectively slip out of the system and damage it's functionality.
Yeah right, exactly! And users shouldn't have to know XUL to appreciate and application. They should be able to judge software purely on what it actually does for them. And if they think there are usability problems, then maybe THERE ARE. What is going on?
The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL.
You're joking, right? XUL is an interface/component application based on XML allright. But that has nothing to with the cited usability problems. The Open Source community simply has to stop saying things like 'yeah the user interface is bad, but if you complain about it openly it shows that you don't really understand the XYZWhatever+ architecture!' Stop accepting things like they are, change the world (of software) now!
Not really, because those things are design flaws - not small and simple coding mistakes. And even if they were, given the million lines of badly documented code, you wouldn't stand a chance of finding them. No way. Current systems (esp. Windows) are designed to rot.
This is suspicious, the website is really short on information. Instead of facts they constructed a bulky flash movie that is really no good and the only reason for it's existence is to blow the very small content up beyond proportions. The site wants to be hip but it isn't.
There is no time table, (almost) no tech specs, no pricing info, no ordering,... do I need to go on? It has, however, a category for Investor Relations. These guys just had a nice idea, now they need some money and we'll probably never hear from them again.
so what if linux sucks for desktop? cant ppl realize it isnt meant for that and shouldnt be. linux is and should be an OS in development for developers. thats what it is.
So for whom exactly do developers write applications? What you are implying is that Linux should be a platform where developers write apps for themselves and leave it at that? And if you want to run a certain app somebody else wrote you have to earn your right to use it by overcoming the nasty traps set to ward off "Joe User"?
No. I think we all agree that Linux has far to much potential to be left in the murky grounds of development hell.
Some weeks ago BillG announced his infamous trustworthy computing campaign, a large focus shift for MS, since security and reliability haven't been top priorities up until then. They looked around and acknowledged the need for action. Because users expected them to do so. Perhaps it's not unreasonable for the Linux community to make a focus shift towards "user friendly computing", likewise.
In tech support, we see it all the time...the magic box syndrom. It should work. Period. Make my magic box work.
Damn right it should work. Magic Box syndrom has nothing to do with it. It IS POSSIBLE to make a user friendly OS, you know. It IS POSSIBLE to run a box that is not wasting your time with clogged configurability nightmares. People have proven that, these systems do exist out there. Why not learn a thing or two from them?
So far no substancial part of MS desktop customers jumped off because of security concerns. And I can't see that happen for a long while.
Anyway security is by far not the only reason why MS shouldn't have complete control over our systems:
- There are huge privacy/anonymity concerns no matter how secure everything is
- The MS dependence is already overwhelming these days. With Palladium and the laws behind it this dependence will only increase and eventually make MS the sole dictator in charge of our daily lives and our money.
That's paranoid today but people will call it normal and neccesary tomorrow. It's already happening.
Yeah I do dual boot. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm a MS whore, you know. You see it doesn't matter as long as I accepted the EULA and use the system.
Java? Big, big security hole there for DRM applications. Hell, interpreted languages pose a big risk:
No, Java will actually not be supported on future MS operating systems anymore. That's official. MS doesn't care what Sun would like or not, they crossed MS in court and now they're out of the game. As simple as that.
As for other interpreted languages (.NET), those 'applets' or 'classes' will all have to be signed to be allowed to run on a certified (trusted) environment. And that's not only entirely technically possible but also a certainty with Palladium.
I'm writing this posting on a WinXP machine. Before I had Win95, I used 98, then 2000 and now XP. With nearly every upgrade or patch our freedom as users has been decreased ever so slightly. As it is a gradual process, no one will really notice (no, ./ geeks don't account for a substantial amount of Win users) and it is really hard to draw the line. When is enough enough? The big pro in MS products is their usability. As long as the UI stays ahead of the rest users WILL accept the gradual decay of their freedom without so much noticing it.
Maybe I can't speak for the majority of Slashdot users out there, but with every Windows version I owned I thought: 'This is going to be my last Windows version. I'll make the switch after that. This new crap has crossed the line.' And EVERY time I went back and bought the new crap because I could get my apps running easier, because I could play my favorite games, or simply because the UI allowed me to be more productive.
As long as MS leads the industry they WILL shove this stuff down our throats and we WILL swallow it. I can imagine EXACTLY what this future will look like. The bad thing is that the public will see nothing bad in it. And if someone objects just label him as a terrorist...
The kernel in it's current state surpasses the winNT-kernel's capabilities in most areas. For your mom and most other users it won't make a difference what kernel they use!
What's hampering Linux takeoff in the desktop area is actually two things, as we all know, concerning the GUI:
1. compatiblity (with the huge base of existing win32 applications)
2. user interface issues (it may look pretty but usability is a nightmare, starting with clipboard support)
The kernel doesn't make a difference (mostly) in the way that KDE or GNOME behave. They are quite advanced but not quite there - yet.
As part of the program, the Austrian government is allowed access to the Windows XP source code. Program benefits, according to Microsoft, include better understanding of the technical underpinnings of the operating system, better protection against security vulnerabilities and a resource for writing custom applications.
And yet within other context they say that publishing source code (e.g. as in Open Source) is a huge security risk!
And aren't all three points originally part of the Open Source agenda? And didn't they say that while based on closed source the Windows API is supposed to be so very comprehensive and well documented that it's allegedly no problem for other software vendors to develop their own products (antitrust trial)?
OMG man, these days you can really get the jewish guys going at you if you're making an islam statement within the same context as their holy script.
ISLAM=Quran
JUDAISM=Talmud
Anyway, (non-orthodox) jewish religion is pretty open-minded, much more so than most christian or islamic groups. Jewish teaching has no problem with technology.
Yes, besides 15 wavelengths just doesn't cut it. You just can't get a precise spectral fingerprint of stuff like clorophyl, not with 15 wavelengths, not under these conditions. So all they have is some erroneous pixel colors. Not very substantial. This isn't news, this is just bad science. Maybe they are desperate to pump more funding out of the Bush administration (which would be a good thing), but this isn't the stuff that's going to get them very far.
Imagine instead that the reason for the silence is that advcanced intelligences learn time travel and their citizenry empty out of this universe into other, parallel time lines where they can be free to happily manipulate the past/future to their own liking?
No, that's because the whole SETI thing is built on a very weak assumption. More likely advanced civilzations wouldn't use radio signals because they are relatively slow compared to interstellar distances. Makes no sense using radio if you got causality-defeating-whatever-space-particles to do the job.
The other thing is that if this "emptying out" would really take place, the advanced intelligences you mentioned would most likely all live in different realities, each one by itself which is rather boring. Doesn't seem to be the right thing to do if you're an advanced intelligence.
Automated expiry is stupid. Software devlopment (and companies) is unreliable. You're absolutely right, products can cease to be supported any time. Even with Open Source.
Another obvious reason is that you should not include self-destruct functionality for software that is going to be used in a production environment. I know some people will disagree but I think a badly patched server is still better than a dead server. (Hell, some equipment is only accessible via remote network tools. So what if the network code or the remote control software expires. This is irresponsible.)
A much better way would be to automatically NOTIFY the admin when a product is out of date.
If you want to take that one step further there could even be an automated update daemon - i don't know - but that's very likely going to have security issues by itself.
Code that deactivates a running production system without admin input is definetely not an option. (Well maybe on a MS server, but that's another story entirely.)
I don't care about these other starving people.
That tells us a lot about you.
These terrorist bastards attacked my countrymen in my country. All that is left is to hunt them down and kill them. The rest is politics to enable to do this one thing.
But you DO realize that revenge won't bring those back that died, don't you? I think you do. All you want is your ego back. Doesn't matter who exactly is going to pay for this, right?
Also it's kind of scary how you think of the role of politics. Scary but sadly accurate.
We not only should, we must make the punishment far worse than the crime.
Yes, that's very civilized and intelligent of you. How exactly do you actually do something that is WORSE THAN A HATE-CRIME (like terrorism)? So that's your personal concept of justice, eh?
We need to say that by attacking us, you have forfeited your right to exist. Period. Full stop.
What if a Palestinian terrorist attacks an Israeli civilian? What if one of those african countries invades another and tens of thousands of lives are lost? I see, this is not the same category, right? So basically you're implying that American life is infinitely more important than any other life.
THAT is what it means to live in the real world.
No that's just what you think of as the real world, if you were brought up in a country where everyone tells you day by day how superior you are.
This whole thing has hardly anything to do with Globalism. Globalism is not synonymous with the American Way. Anyway I think this 9/11 reference is getting a bit weak to use in every single political discussion. Leave topics where they belong.
The main bogus part about the claim is that there is no theory to back up the supposed effect.
Many famous discoveries started with a simple observation that lead to a theory to explain it _afterwards_! While it's probably true that Podkletnov's experiment is entirely flawed you just cannot simply assume that a discovery is not valid because there's no theoretical basis to support it.
But the fact that Mr. Podkletnov doesn't like others to review his setup is very suspicious, indeed. Got to keep an open mind, though!
Good point, this is what I've been thinking - mod this up! In my opinion Open Source can never be a business model, because the very concept is based on a different system (much different from capitalism). Although there are some cases where Open Source and capitalism work well together, these are generally rare occasions where we get to see some sort of chimera form.
I'd like to adress this message to all newbies and programmers who embarked on tasks that are laughed at by others:
So what if there would be thousands of projects like that? What harm is there?
Every day people start out to create new projects, not just RPG ones but anything. There's no estimating the number of hobbyist projects, let's just say there is an entire 'ocean' of software out there. Does the author of this article imply it is harmful to have this kind of diversity?
Every programmer starts out as a newbie. It's just that some day you decide to improve your IT skills beyond those of a mere user. This is a change of mindset where you have the desire to CREATE something instead of just USING stuff that other people cooked for you. Being a newbie isn't a bad thing per se, so we should stop looking down upon and discouraging newbies from doing stuff that they like to do.
I've been working as a developer for almost 10 years now and I feel a bit like a newbie every day because every day there is something new to be learned.
Few software projects encourage as much fantasy and creativity as roleplaying games - maybe because your goal is to literally create an entire world of your own, you can have anything you like! I would argue that most people who do this don't want to create the next everquest or anything (well, there's always hope of course) they just want to do something cool that is fun for them. A simple truth in software development is that a majority of all projects (be it commercial or hobbyist) don't ever get finished. That's not a big deal, because maybe by the time the project finally dies the (level 0) newbie who created it turned into a (level 1) Developer.
Experience is what makes us better programmers. Experience can only be acquired by learning. Learning can only be done while being motivated. The kind of motivation you get by creating something of your own is immense. Don't ever let nay-sayers discourage you from creating things!