what is the probability of hollywood trashing this?
Quite high, I expect.
I mean, when hollywood can fuck up making a movie of Starsky and Hutch for flipsake, what chance have they got with this?
I do hope they get the point of Arthur Dent in the story and don't try to make him funny. Like Brian in the Life of Brian, the comedy revolves around him and his situation. If they try to make Arthur into a comic character it won't work so well.
Having said that, I think they have chosen the right actor for Arthur.
God is a scientific fact. What proof is there? I exist.
If there has to be a creator for you to exist, then surely the creator must have a creator? Or does your logic only extend as far as proving what you want to prove? Who made god?
We can explain the existance of man without having to resort to a creator.
Do you really think that what I said is so original that I couldn't have thought of it myself? The fact that someone else has also said it is irrelevant.
Of course, there's exactly as much solid scientific evidence for extraterrestrial life as there is for the existence of God, which is to say there's absolutely none.
I would disagree with this. Although we do not have any evidence for extraterrestrial life, we do know what we are looking for, and have a reasonable idea where to look.
However, religious people don't even know what "god" is. Many of them - if you press them about it - don't even seem to have thought about it that much, which I find amazing since they claim "god" is central to their lives. Or they try to dismiss the question, or work around it - "god" is incomprehensible to us mere mortals. How can we have evidence for something if we don't even know what it is?
So, although we have no proof of extraterrestrial life, there's a much better chance of us finding it that finding god.
however the fact that both exist and compete for resources is in my mind one of the main causes behind the failure of Linux on the desktop.
I agree absolutely. I think we've gone beyond the stage of it being useful having two competing desktops.
In fact I seem to recall that Bill Gates himself (or Ballamer) said that he was very pleased that Linux had two competing desktops. That should be a wake-up call if nothing else.
Another option - why not just sell the Linux version online? Nearly all current Linux-types are techies who are going to have big bandwidth connections. Might reduce the cost of suppling the Linux version and increase the business case for it?
but unfortunately it doesn't look like a strong business case can be made for it
Time for us Linux fans to put our money where our mouths are. You want to see widespread use of Linux on the desktop? Buy Doom3. I'm serious - if there were significant sales on Linux it might persuade other software companies to start coming out with stuff for Linux too.
Re:Quick, someone send...
on
The Face Detector
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, that raises an important point. This system can identify a face, but does it identify only human faces? After all, chimpansees have many of the same facial characteristics as some humans.
In the good fight with Microsoft, we must use every advantage we have. Coverting OSS packages to work on windows is a killer because Microsoft can't do it without aiding us! If we have applications that work across a variety of platforms, then we have a selling point that Microsoft doesn't. However, if they tried to do the same thing - for instance, porting Office to Linx - that would only benefit us anyway. So it's win/win for us and lose/lose for MS.
Give that man a beer! You've hit the nail on the head!
If we want to beat Microsoft, we have to offer something they don't, and that they can't without aiding us. That thing is cross-platform ability. If we tie ourselves into MS technologies we are actually just aiding Microsoft.
Big Chief Billyboy Gates, him say "Embrace and extend your enemies technologies only once they have become successful. If you embrace them before they are successful, you will only aid their success".
You might argue that an email client isn't the place for such features but no-one's going to drop their client that offers them in favour of Thunderbird when no other app is available to offer the missing feature set.
Yes, I would argue that a web browser is a much better interface for all those things. So try to persuade your company to do that stuff in the web browser, convert to mozilla, then you'll be able to drop outlook.
Taking your attitude means that your organisation will never move to Linux on the desktop. Ever.
In many companies, a much easier battle is to get the company to move, say, for Microsoft Outlook to Thunderbird, or IE to Mozilla. Also of course MS Office to OpenOffice. I think this is a much better battle to try to fight than trying to get the whole desktop moved to Linux. Once the company has moved the desktop applications over to open source ones, then it is time to move to Linux.
Trying to get companies to move to Linux by moving MS Office to Linux is nuts.
It's not so much that they are illogical, but we jump to conclusions about what they are trying to communicate and conclude that they're being illogical.
You should read "men are from Mars,...". It helped me understand women better, and now I have fewer arguments with my wife.
Seriously. I can't be the only one that finds it really annoying when my Windows XP machine modifies the way it behaves because it is guessing what I want to do. It's damn irritating. Or when it suggests I might want to clean icons off my desktop, or whatever.
I do not want my robot to start cleaning things I haven't told it to clean. Or comment on the fact that it's a nice day. Or try to be funny or cute. Just do as I say. You're a frickin' machine.
The RIAA is going out of there way to correct a royalty problem that may/may not have entirely been their fault.
The RIAA was collecting money on behalf of the artists. If they kept it without making much effort to track down the rightful owners, then that's theft as far as I'm concerned. Especially if they insist on calling 12yr old children thieves for swapping mp3s.
It would be too easy for a newbie to come to the conclusion that Linux is insanely limited
It just depends how you sell it, and who you aim it at. Phrases that come to mind "it just works", "it does what it says on the tin", "no fills", "easy to use".
I know lots of "newbies" (that will always be newbies) who would love a machine like that.
If you don't need much more than websurfing and wordprocessing functionality, it doesn't make much sense to keep up with the Joneses running Windows.
That's about all 80% of PC users actually do need, if you add in a spreadsheet and email and a few other bits.
What I really want someone to come up with is a really simplified version of desktop linux - a kind of minimal installation with all the basics and locked-down so that it's difficult to break. In fact, what these guys have come up with. This is the type of set-up they should be selling in Walmart.
Slashdot Mirror
what is the probability of hollywood trashing this?
Quite high, I expect.
I mean, when hollywood can fuck up making a movie of Starsky and Hutch for flipsake, what chance have they got with this?
I do hope they get the point of Arthur Dent in the story and don't try to make him funny. Like Brian in the Life of Brian, the comedy revolves around him and his situation. If they try to make Arthur into a comic character it won't work so well.
Having said that, I think they have chosen the right actor for Arthur.
God is a scientific fact. What proof is there? I exist.
If there has to be a creator for you to exist, then surely the creator must have a creator? Or does your logic only extend as far as proving what you want to prove? Who made god?
We can explain the existance of man without having to resort to a creator.
I've never heard of George Carlin.
Do you really think that what I said is so original that I couldn't have thought of it myself? The fact that someone else has also said it is irrelevant.
Of course, there's exactly as much solid scientific evidence for extraterrestrial life as there is for the existence of God, which is to say there's absolutely none.
I would disagree with this. Although we do not have any evidence for extraterrestrial life, we do know what we are looking for, and have a reasonable idea where to look.
However, religious people don't even know what "god" is. Many of them - if you press them about it - don't even seem to have thought about it that much, which I find amazing since they claim "god" is central to their lives. Or they try to dismiss the question, or work around it - "god" is incomprehensible to us mere mortals. How can we have evidence for something if we don't even know what it is?
So, although we have no proof of extraterrestrial life, there's a much better chance of us finding it that finding god.
I'm sure that to those who do not beleive in any of the Bible, or in God, or Jesus, this sounds like nonsense.
You're right. To those of us who don't believe that there is an invisible man in the sky we can talk to, this does sound like nonsense.
however the fact that both exist and compete for resources is in my mind one of the main causes behind the failure of Linux on the desktop.
I agree absolutely. I think we've gone beyond the stage of it being useful having two competing desktops.
In fact I seem to recall that Bill Gates himself (or Ballamer) said that he was very pleased that Linux had two competing desktops. That should be a wake-up call if nothing else.
Our options from here are [...]
Another option - why not just sell the Linux version online? Nearly all current Linux-types are techies who are going to have big bandwidth connections. Might reduce the cost of suppling the Linux version and increase the business case for it?
but unfortunately it doesn't look like a strong business case can be made for it
Time for us Linux fans to put our money where our mouths are. You want to see widespread use of Linux on the desktop? Buy Doom3. I'm serious - if there were significant sales on Linux it might persuade other software companies to start coming out with stuff for Linux too.
Actually, that raises an important point. This system can identify a face, but does it identify only human faces? After all, chimpansees have many of the same facial characteristics as some humans.
Absolutely.
In the good fight with Microsoft, we must use every advantage we have. Coverting OSS packages to work on windows is a killer because Microsoft can't do it without aiding us! If we have applications that work across a variety of platforms, then we have a selling point that Microsoft doesn't. However, if they tried to do the same thing - for instance, porting Office to Linx - that would only benefit us anyway. So it's win/win for us and lose/lose for MS.
Give that man a beer! You've hit the nail on the head!
If we want to beat Microsoft, we have to offer something they don't, and that they can't without aiding us. That thing is cross-platform ability. If we tie ourselves into MS technologies we are actually just aiding Microsoft.
Embrace, extend...
Big Chief Billyboy Gates, him say "Embrace and extend your enemies technologies only once they have become successful. If you embrace them before they are successful, you will only aid their success".
I agree with you absolutely.
Of course, we need to help people migrate. But that's different to copying Windows. I wish more people in the OSS world would think like you!
You might argue that an email client isn't the place for such features but no-one's going to drop their client that offers them in favour of Thunderbird when no other app is available to offer the missing feature set.
Yes, I would argue that a web browser is a much better interface for all those things. So try to persuade your company to do that stuff in the web browser, convert to mozilla, then you'll be able to drop outlook.
Taking your attitude means that your organisation will never move to Linux on the desktop. Ever.
In many companies, a much easier battle is to get the company to move, say, for Microsoft Outlook to Thunderbird, or IE to Mozilla. Also of course MS Office to OpenOffice. I think this is a much better battle to try to fight than trying to get the whole desktop moved to Linux. Once the company has moved the desktop applications over to open source ones, then it is time to move to Linux.
Trying to get companies to move to Linux by moving MS Office to Linux is nuts.
That's what I thought when I read the article.
I bet a normal person would do considerably worse trying to find those answers on the phone than a professional journalist.
It's not so much that they are illogical, but we jump to conclusions about what they are trying to communicate and conclude that they're being illogical.
You should read "men are from Mars,...". It helped me understand women better, and now I have fewer arguments with my wife.
I want my robot to be... robotic
Seriously. I can't be the only one that finds it really annoying when my Windows XP machine modifies the way it behaves because it is guessing what I want to do. It's damn irritating. Or when it suggests I might want to clean icons off my desktop, or whatever.
I do not want my robot to start cleaning things I haven't told it to clean. Or comment on the fact that it's a nice day. Or try to be funny or cute. Just do as I say. You're a frickin' machine.
The RIAA is going out of there way to correct a royalty problem that may/may not have entirely been their fault.
The RIAA was collecting money on behalf of the artists. If they kept it without making much effort to track down the rightful owners, then that's theft as far as I'm concerned. Especially if they insist on calling 12yr old children thieves for swapping mp3s.
I hate frickin' DVD "regions".
Several times I've wanted to rent an imported video from my local rental shop and I haven't been able to rent it because it won't play on my DVD.
Deliberately making a product that some people can't use! What the hell is that about!??
This is America, we're supposed to have the best of everything
You don't have the best of everything. We've got stuff here in Europe you don't:
1) Yummy chocolate.
2) Castles! Real ones! We've got lots of them!
And, erm. That's it. But isn't that enough?
Bet you're jealous about the castles...
A anti-geek as it may sound, I really can't see a need for 100% wireless coverage of any country large or small.
Well, if you have 100% coverage, in theory you wouldn't need mobile phones, you could do voice over ip. Free mobile phone calls - neat!
Your question is full of assumptions that are incorrect.
1) I don't think many people do make a "concious decision" to blah blah blah.
2) Finns are Europeans.
3) South Americans are Americans.
It would be too easy for a newbie to come to the conclusion that Linux is insanely limited
It just depends how you sell it, and who you aim it at. Phrases that come to mind "it just works", "it does what it says on the tin", "no fills", "easy to use".
I know lots of "newbies" (that will always be newbies) who would love a machine like that.
If you don't need much more than websurfing and wordprocessing functionality, it doesn't make much sense to keep up with the Joneses running Windows.
That's about all 80% of PC users actually do need, if you add in a spreadsheet and email and a few other bits.
What I really want someone to come up with is a really simplified version of desktop linux - a kind of minimal installation with all the basics and locked-down so that it's difficult to break. In fact, what these guys have come up with. This is the type of set-up they should be selling in Walmart.