While I don't think 'dumbing down' linux is a bad thing necessarily (you can always use a different distro) it would definitely saturate the community with a lot of annoying/clueless users. On the other hand, we already have a lot of them. (see troll posts below) For those that want to learn though, this could give rise to many more self-help sites. Linux.com's tune-up pages are a good example.
Windows userbase had the same problem when the Win95 interface came out too. You had those who were used to 3.1, and those who had never used a computer before. But if a Windows novice were to pick up a Windows magazine, they'd learn quite a bit on things they want to know. Now, a novice could ask any other novice about how to use the start menu, and they don't have to bother support.
Does this let Linux be used to it's full potential? No
Does this deliver a cheap/fast/more stable way to use a computer? Yes
A friend of mine has a Thinkpad and I have a VAIO. So far, he hates his (battery problems) and I love mine. Haven't had any problems with it over the last six months.
The moral of the story: Everyone's experience is different.
Not that I use it. ok, I used it once, about 4 years ago. But besides that...
The thing is, AOL for Linux opens the Linux door to countless people who need a stable computer, but don't know how or even want to know how to grep,vi,etc.
I have a friend who uses AOL and he hates his computer's stability. So I'd love to put him on a Linux system. Of course, that hasn't been possible. But the fact is, AOLites are a huge population. If a few of them start running Linux, they'll eventually want other Linux programs that they're used to. This paves the way for more apps/games/et al in the future.
The point is, the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns. Scream "Hot Coffee" all you want, that does not mean that someone should expect third degree burns. (btw, McDonald's cups didn't have the warning before the case.)
And what's this term 'stupid'? How dare anyone call another person stupid because of a perfectly common accident.
And your theories rest on the lack of existence of a god. woohoo. You may not want to admit it, but everything you're saying is admitting it for you.
I've spent my life working in science, and I've come to believe the way I do. You seem to be accepting (rather religiously, I might add) something that many scientists tell you. You've furnished no proofs, only conjecture. So that leads me to believe that you are severely biased in one direction and won't easily be swayed. That's fine. Like I said to begin with, I don't want to debate. This type of conversation quickly becomes a contest to see who can get the 'last word'.
But using the improbability to do that is not valid because if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here.
Actually, your point is not valid.
I believe that there is more than sufficient evidence for the existence of a supernatural being who created every living thing. The proof is much too extensive for a Slashdot comment, I'm afraid. Suffice it to say, that when one looks at science for years and years, and also takes into account genuine prophecy and the fulfillment of those prophesies, along with unbiased historical accounts, one can easily see that there is a supernatural presense that is quite powerful and capable of creating life.
Disprove the existence of God. When it comes down to it, your 'proof' has more to do with 'I can't see him, so he must not be' than anything.
Using the improbability of evolution and abiogenesis is a very valid course. Many things are proven wrong because of sheer improbability. The origin of life is different because it affects the value that people place on their life. It also affects a person's outlook on the future. So if one chooses to disregard any proof of God, which many scientists do, then one has to accept improbabilty as truth. Hence, our current situation.
My point wasn't that life didn't form, but that it didn't form in the way everyone wants to believe.
What's the likelyhood that a scientist would concede, once he has exhausted every scientific explanation, that God made life?
While I'd love to believe that the scientist would be honest with himself, it's much more likely that he would form an even more sensational theory, and one that couldn't be proven/disproven in his lifetime. That way, he's covered.
I don't want to start a debate here, I'm just answering a question.
Why do scientists feel the need to deliberatley complicate matters?
Maybe they finally came to the realization that there are too many factors against life forming spontaneously.
In that case, just say it came from another planet. Even though that doesn't solve the whole equation, sensationalists would camp on that idea and forget about the question of how life formed. It also allows them scenarios that are/were impossible on earth. Since we don't know where exactly it came from, we can't prove them right or wrong.
I'm really surprised you didn't find Nanci Griffith. I've got at least 15 songs of hers in MP3. We probably aren't on Napster at the same time though. I ripped all of those from my own CD's, because I got into Napster back before many mp3's were actually there. But I still look, and I find quite a bit. I was amazed at the amount of Kate Wolf that you can find.
btw, if you haven't tried Nick Drake, I wholeheartedly recommend him.
Sounds like you just aren't doing something right. I've been running linux for 4 years, and I've installed it on about 20 very different machines. The only problem I ever had was with a PCI Ultra DMA/66 HD controller. Using one of the latest distros fixed that.
See, I don't think it's quite as much people who can't afford something better... it's more those that have upgraded and don't want to throw away the old machine.
My firewall is an old P166 w/32M RAM and a 500M HD. You're right, without X the machine runs like a prize fighter. And administration takes way less time with mc and simple ipchains commands than it would to open a program, click type click, etc.
Same goes for this, for $20, pop a new screen on the tv. Makes the display area itself cheap, so the major cost of the tv becomes the internal electronics.
Just think... These screens could become the equivilent of trash bags. Just keep a few in the closet.. when you need a new one the old one gets thrown away. groovy.
They're new and improved! GLAD kitchen-sized TV screens 100 per box
No offense, but you claim anything you want. That doesn't make it true.
MP3's cut out the part of music that the human ear either has trouble hearing or can't hear.
If you really think you can hear a difference, why do you listen to recordings at all? None offer perfect recreation of a live performance. So you're listening to a tainted copy.
The point is, you could probably only tell the difference if you are trying to find it. And if you have headphones on. And if they're turned up really loud. And if you actually clicked the play button on your MP3 player to know that it's an MP3 instead of the original.
Thanks for reporting this grave injustice. How could anyone be so low as to post an article twice? And within 4 months of each other! If you ask me, slashdot just isn't delivering the journalistic fortitude that they advertise. I think I'm going to ask for my money back.
What kind of imaging does a telescope of this scale use? Is it an OWLCCD or something else? What kind of resolution? And how far away would an object need to be before the resolution becomes a shortcoming?
Actually, the interface is one of the things that most regular Blender users like most. I DID NOT find it intuitive at first, but once I spent some time learning Blender, I don't think I'd give it up easily. I can do things in Blender much faster that I can in other engines just because of the way it is designed. Though it doesn't seem easy at first, it was put together so that you can reach the important functions quickly.
Not to mention, I don't know about Lightwave but 3D studio isn't exactly cheap, much less free.
This was my first thought too. While the brain may make either-or decisions, that has no bearing on the actual nature of the process. Analog circuits can easily make "digital" decisions.
I think the problem lies in the author of the article. According to another post, the analog-digital thing happens on a neuron level. So the Yahoo article's explanation is just a bunch of hooey thrown in for those that won't question it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a really good point.
While I don't think 'dumbing down' linux is a bad thing necessarily (you can always use a different distro) it would definitely saturate the community with a lot of annoying/clueless users. On the other hand, we already have a lot of them. (see troll posts below) For those that want to learn though, this could give rise to many more self-help sites. Linux.com's tune-up pages are a good example.
Windows userbase had the same problem when the Win95 interface came out too. You had those who were used to 3.1, and those who had never used a computer before. But if a Windows novice were to pick up a Windows magazine, they'd learn quite a bit on things they want to know. Now, a novice could ask any other novice about how to use the start menu, and they don't have to bother support.
Does this let Linux be used to it's full potential? No
Does this deliver a cheap/fast/more stable way to use a computer? Yes
I'd rather IBM or someone more dependable
A friend of mine has a Thinkpad and I have a VAIO. So far, he hates his (battery problems) and I love mine. Haven't had any problems with it over the last six months.
The moral of the story: Everyone's experience is different.
ok, since Transmeta 'came out' I've been ready to buy a crusoe-based machine. Yup, eight months. Nope, none here yet.
I know everyone is saying 'later on this year', but I'm dyin' ova here. Are there any real ETAs on any of the announced devices?
Not that I use it. ok, I used it once, about 4 years ago. But besides that...
The thing is, AOL for Linux opens the Linux door to countless people who need a stable computer, but don't know how or even want to know how to grep,vi,etc.
I have a friend who uses AOL and he hates his computer's stability. So I'd love to put him on a Linux system. Of course, that hasn't been possible. But the fact is, AOLites are a huge population. If a few of them start running Linux, they'll eventually want other Linux programs that they're used to. This paves the way for more apps/games/et al in the future.
I say, the more the better.
I'm thinking someone should rent ad space at abcnews.com linking to this article.
The point is, the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns. Scream "Hot Coffee" all you want, that does not mean that someone should expect third degree burns. (btw, McDonald's cups didn't have the warning before the case.)
And what's this term 'stupid'? How dare anyone call another person stupid because of a perfectly common accident.
Sooo, there's one?
I'd say one or two hardware pci modems in existence justifies getting rid of all ISA slots everywhere. yup, perfectly reasonable.
There is no need for ISA slots on a motherboard.
How many modems can you name that use PCI but aren't 'win'modems?
Your theories rest on the existence of a god.
And your theories rest on the lack of existence of a god. woohoo. You may not want to admit it, but everything you're saying is admitting it for you.
I've spent my life working in science, and I've come to believe the way I do. You seem to be accepting (rather religiously, I might add) something that many scientists tell you. You've furnished no proofs, only conjecture. So that leads me to believe that you are severely biased in one direction and won't easily be swayed. That's fine. Like I said to begin with, I don't want to debate. This type of conversation quickly becomes a contest to see who can get the 'last word'.
No, thank you.
But using the improbability to do that is not valid because if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here.
Actually, your point is not valid.
I believe that there is more than sufficient evidence for the existence of a supernatural being who created every living thing. The proof is much too extensive for a Slashdot comment, I'm afraid. Suffice it to say, that when one looks at science for years and years, and also takes into account genuine prophecy and the fulfillment of those prophesies, along with unbiased historical accounts, one can easily see that there is a supernatural presense that is quite powerful and capable of creating life.
Disprove the existence of God. When it comes down to it, your 'proof' has more to do with 'I can't see him, so he must not be' than anything.
Using the improbability of evolution and abiogenesis is a very valid course. Many things are proven wrong because of sheer improbability. The origin of life is different because it affects the value that people place on their life. It also affects a person's outlook on the future. So if one chooses to disregard any proof of God, which many scientists do, then one has to accept improbabilty as truth. Hence, our current situation.
My point wasn't that life didn't form, but that it didn't form in the way everyone wants to believe.
What's the likelyhood that a scientist would concede, once he has exhausted every scientific explanation, that God made life?
While I'd love to believe that the scientist would be honest with himself, it's much more likely that he would form an even more sensational theory, and one that couldn't be proven/disproven in his lifetime. That way, he's covered.
I don't want to start a debate here, I'm just answering a question.
Why do scientists feel the need to deliberatley complicate matters?
Maybe they finally came to the realization that there are too many factors against life forming spontaneously.
In that case, just say it came from another planet. Even though that doesn't solve the whole equation, sensationalists would camp on that idea and forget about the question of how life formed. It also allows them scenarios that are/were impossible on earth. Since we don't know where exactly it came from, we can't prove them right or wrong.
"Saskatoon", "Regina".
:)
Canadian city names are funny.
I'm really surprised you didn't find Nanci Griffith. I've got at least 15 songs of hers in MP3. We probably aren't on Napster at the same time though. I ripped all of those from my own CD's, because I got into Napster back before many mp3's were actually there. But I still look, and I find quite a bit. I was amazed at the amount of Kate Wolf that you can find.
btw, if you haven't tried Nick Drake, I wholeheartedly recommend him.
Assuming you aren't a troll...
Sounds like you just aren't doing something right. I've been running linux for 4 years, and I've installed it on about 20 very different machines. The only problem I ever had was with a PCI Ultra DMA/66 HD controller. Using one of the latest distros fixed that.
Need help?
See, I don't think it's quite as much people who can't afford something better... it's more those that have upgraded and don't want to throw away the old machine.
My firewall is an old P166 w/32M RAM and a 500M HD. You're right, without X the machine runs like a prize fighter. And administration takes way less time with mc and simple ipchains commands than it would to open a program, click type click, etc.
Personally, I could use fewer video screens in my life, not more.
I think you're probably outnumbered. AFAIC, the more the better.
Video screens aren't the problem, it's probably the way you're using them.
Same goes for this, for $20, pop a new screen on the tv. Makes the display area itself cheap, so the major cost of the tv becomes the internal electronics.
Just think... These screens could become the equivilent of trash bags. Just keep a few in the closet.. when you need a new one the old one gets thrown away. groovy.
They're new and improved!
GLAD kitchen-sized TV screens
100 per box
No offense, but you claim anything you want. That doesn't make it true.
MP3's cut out the part of music that the human ear either has trouble hearing or can't hear.
If you really think you can hear a difference, why do you listen to recordings at all? None offer perfect recreation of a live performance. So you're listening to a tainted copy.
The point is, you could probably only tell the difference if you are trying to find it. And if you have headphones on. And if they're turned up really loud. And if you actually clicked the play button on your MP3 player to know that it's an MP3 instead of the original.
ok. For the record, I humbly apologize.
Yesterday was quite a stressful one, and I snapped at way too many people. Sorry about that.
Thanks for reporting this grave injustice. How could anyone be so low as to post an article twice? And within 4 months of each other! If you ask me, slashdot just isn't delivering the journalistic fortitude that they advertise. I think I'm going to ask for my money back.
+1:Very Good Point!
I wish more people would understand that concept.
What kind of imaging does a telescope of this scale use? Is it an OWLCCD or something else? What kind of resolution? And how far away would an object need to be before the resolution becomes a shortcoming?
Actually, the interface is one of the things that most regular Blender users like most. I DID NOT find it intuitive at first, but once I spent some time learning Blender, I don't think I'd give it up easily. I can do things in Blender much faster that I can in other engines just because of the way it is designed. Though it doesn't seem easy at first, it was put together so that you can reach the important functions quickly.
Not to mention, I don't know about Lightwave but 3D studio isn't exactly cheap, much less free.
This was my first thought too. While the brain may make either-or decisions, that has no bearing on the actual nature of the process. Analog circuits can easily make "digital" decisions.
I think the problem lies in the author of the article. According to another post, the analog-digital thing happens on a neuron level. So the Yahoo article's explanation is just a bunch of hooey thrown in for those that won't question it.