Yes, it doe make them less competitive. I'm not saying it isn't. To me it seems more of a cruelty on the consumer.
They just don't care and will accept anything *ANYTHING* the media cartels can push through congress.
I don't think so. I remember when CDs came out. Vinyl was about $8 per album and CDs were about $16 per album. CDs were cheaper than vinyl, but at the time, it was hard for people to react in any way since home burners were not available at that point. Once they were available, blank media became popular, then, finally, there was Napster. While I think there are always greedy people who will take what they can for free, most are willing to pay a reasonable price for it. Napster was, among other things, a rebellion against the high price of CDs. Even though the prices had not gone up in the roughly 2 decades CDs were out, people still felt they cost more than a fair price. That's why iTunes is so popular. While it includes DRM, $.99 a song is a much more reasonable price to most people.
I remember back in the days of my Apple//e when almost everything was copy protected. Eventually companies gave up on protection because they realized it wasn't worth the money and effort and those that were going to pirate would do so anyway. In that case, they didn't push too hard but realized their version of DRM wasn't worth it. On the other hand, now, the MPAA is pushing too hard. They tried that with VCRs when Jack Valenti told Congress that VCRs were to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to women of 19th century London. Eventually, though, they realized they could not control the public and found ways to profit from a new business model. The more they push the public, though, the quicker the public is to pirate or find ways to copy or circumvent the "protective" measures.
I would say it's more anti-customer than anti-competitive, but I'm actually glad to see it. We've all seen this getting worse and worse. With this, it'll be bad enough that consumers will start to get offended. This could be the step that pushes consumers too far and backfires on them. If it isn't, well, they'll just keep tightening their grip until they do push the public too far, then the backlash will not only shock them, but will tumble many of their "improvements" that are based on greed.
You load 16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter, don't you call me because I can't go. I owe my soul to the company store.
They made laws against the company store decades ago, but stores still do some features like that with special offers and such, but overall, it does not benefit a store, even a huge one like Wal-Mart, to trap people into currency they can spend at only one place. Even if they have a strong hold over the market, it doesn't work. I read in one article, after searching for some info in another response, that MS is even having trouble with their token economy for Zune.
Even in a case of a de facto and de jure like Microsoft, they haven't put everyone else out of business.
You're right about the bank. You're better off getting a loan from a bank than using credit cards. Banks don't use many of the practices that credit cards use. Still, banks are more likely to make a loan to someone with a good credit rating. There are also times when emergencies or difficult situations come up where credit can be a lifesaver.
I can see what you mean about it being newspeak for debt, but there's much more to it than that. I know there are times where short term debt, for me, lead to long term profit. If I can get a loan from the bank to cover some expenses to expand my business, then usually I'm better off expanding the business sooner than waiting until I have the cash to do it.
I've had the same happen in terms of borrowing to buy stock. If I had not borrowed and bought when the chance was there, I would have missed out on large profits.
The lawyer I work with that handles negotiations with my clients and other situations for me is a bankruptcy lawyer. I've learned a lot from him. I never realized the classes I had in school that covered money management are not taught in most schools and I never knew how few people actually learn any principles of money management. It's amazing how few people understand the concept of not spending more than your income, but that's a simple rule. Beyond that there is managing debt, for example, or knowing when it's a benefit to have debt. I've also learned from him a lot of tricks in dealing with the credit card companies.
I'm not thrilled with debt. I've paid cash for my last two cars over the past year and a half (but one wasn't new, it was an almost antique Mercedes 380SL). On the other hand, I've studied money management and don't shy away from what will increase my bottom line, even if it is debt so the money can be used to make more money.
Wrong. If you had read other posts before making your post, or had checked through Google, you would have found out that isn't true, but, then again, with such a sharp, clever, and unique insight, I'm sure you're a lawyer and know what you're talking about, right?
Legal Tender means it can be accepted as a payment of debt.
While it's not in the US, Ottawa will no longer accept cash when used to pay for taxes.
Also, in the U.S. there is no law requiring anyone accept cash as payment. I know Heinlein thought otherwise in some statements in "Time Enough for Love," but it's not true. For a little more, read this. As someone else pointed out, the legal tender issue will only work for paying debts incurred, not ones about to be incurred.
If you lose the room, it's your choice. I have a small business that makes good money helping people that are sued by credit card companies, so I know how nasty they can be, but on the other hand, if you watch what you're doing, you can keep your funds reasonably safe, at least, safer than what would happen if your cash were stolen. I've worked for businesses that refused to accept cash. One was when I was managing rental property. If they accepted cash, they would have had thousands of dollars in the office for the first few days each month and I would have had to take that cash to the bank, one block away, each day. I asked the same question you did and have had them (and a few other companies) explain that as long as they state the policy and apply it evenly to all, it's legal.
These days credit is more and more important. If you don't have it, many places won't give you a chance to get it because you have no credit record. While I'd like to say I admire you for sticking to your beliefs, you're going to have to make a choice: you can stick by your position and lose your room or you can work out a compromise. If you elect to stay firmly in your position, I seriously doubt the University will be upset. It's a bit what Prosser said to Arthur Dent: "Do you have any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if it were to run over you? None at all." They have nothing to lose here and you have everything to lose.
Overall, not building up credit, learning to deal with banks and credit card companies, and staying on an all cash basis is unwise in this culture. If I stuck to that policy, my net worth would be much lower because I would not have had a credit rating that allowed me to borrow when I needed it so I could build up my business.
While it's just my opinion, I can only wonder if a large part of your reluctance is more fear and unwillingness to understand how to use "the system" to your benefit and that you cover for this fear by claiming it is an ethical issue.
No, it can't run Linux, but when it was announced the new memories included of a few verses of an old Barry Manilow song, the RIAA file suit against the neurons for memory sharing.
I would much rather have someone using a command line
And therein lies the problem. You would rather have them using a command line. They don't want to. When you have a GUI, you always have prompts and a safety net. You can say, "Click on the button that says 'Change Setting.'" They have an automatic double check because there is something that matches, exactly, what they're being told to do. They have limited choices because they're working from a menu or from components and when one matches what they're told to do, they have some kind of confirmation they're pressing the right button. When you say, "Now type this," then you can hit any number of snags and they know it. You can tell them what to do and they can use a single quote instead of a double one or hear the word wrong or mistype it and, from their point of view, they don't know what's going to happen if they make a mistake.
You are much wiser than most developers I've seen post here who want to blame the uses for not knowing everything they know and you've got a good point. You and I can often move much more quickly with a console, but for users, the mere thought of having to type commands is frightening. They're looking at a blank screen with no feedback until they hit and then it could be too late.
You've realized, though, that it isn't about what you or I want, but what the user can handle or take care of on their own. That's the problem: It's our job to give them what they can handle. That is rarely a console. With my clients, before I got my software up to the point I wanted it, I had them install RealVNC on their computer and used a tunneling program I wrote in Java so it would go through their firewalls, then had them add me, and I configured RealVNC so it would only run when they wanted to run it and so it had a strong password. (And before anyone starts screaming, I'm simplifying and leaving out discussions with their bosses and IT departments about safety.) When they had problems, I just had them run RealVNC and add me, then I could fix, in less than 5 minutes, what could take 45 minutes or more if I were telling them what to do. When I finally got my own program to where I wanted it to be, that wasn't an issue anymore since I had enough failsafes they didn't need that kind of help anymore.
Ah, so you're one of those, "Let's see how many people we can take down if they say the least negative thing about MS" fanboys that lurks around.
Yes, you can use a TV to watch videos, if that's all you do with your toys. On the other hand, if you read the first sentence of the article, it uses the phrase "formalize the transition of the phone to a mobile PC." I don't know about you, but I use my computer for a lot of things, most of which need text and very few involved just video.
So I'd suggest reading all of TFA before saying others have not.
Oh, and that pretty much renders your other point as a non sequitor.
Quiet? Once I got to "to work with a TV as a secondary display" I cracked up. I remember using a TV as a display a long time ago, with my TRS-80 Color Computer. Unless you're going to use HDTV, it's a serious pain.
I'd put this right up with the recent threats about Linux and patents as press releases that really mean, "Hey, we're making it sound like Vista is doing great, but it's crashing, and we're really scared we might no longer be the big bully on the block. Instead of seeing how desperate we are, we want you to think we have other ideas." Or, translation, "Vista not doing well? You've gotta be -- oh, look, flying pigs!"
Whenever I read stories like this I remember just how poorly MS does with products that aren't based on their existing monopolies.
I never claimed to be acting in accordance with any behavior in this forum, but it seems you want to play the, "I can't win, so I'll resort to personal attacks and change the topic so I can still slam someone" tactic. Okay, if that makes you feel better and you don't want to accept that you did not provide any solid evidence backing you up, it's fine with me.
It's also fine to say you won't respond. It's quite clear you viewed this as a win/lose issue, and not an exploration of the facts. Your terms and comments show that. I can understand why you would not want to respond after you've run out of ammo to support your attack.
As to mailing lists, I'm on many of them. I'm involved in several open source projects. But, again, I can understand why you would not want to think that, since it doesn't fit in with your desire to make this a "I beat him" type of thing.
Personally, I prefer 3 tabs and replacing the tabs with spaces. I think I'm the only person I've seen with their tabs set to 3 spaces in a program editor. Oh, and I prefer Kate, which is part of KDE. I know it's not geek enough for many, but I find a GUI quite handy in many ways.
I don't think we'll see a working consensus like you suggest for a long time, and a large part of that is because there is no consensus within those groups to start with. How can the US come to agreement and work with others to build a consensus on a topic when the US itself is so divided on that same topic.
My experience is spends many hours with my girlfriend when she worked in an residential home with people with Downs Syndrome.
Not to make a contest, but hours observing in such a setting is quite different than working for years in such settings, with time spent in different groups with different situations. Downs Syndrome is also quite an exceptional situation, and I mean exceptional as in quite an exception to other situations. It's way past the 2 standard deviations from the mean or median. By your own admission and description, this is a limited experience.
Furthermore, I have worked as a student researcher with Physicists (where I actually produced something).
This brings up an interesting point. I've noticed a big difference between psych (or social work) people and hard science people. I'm dividing into groups and using easy classifications, so I want to be clear I'm talking about "in general" situations, which would cover most cases. There might be an advantage to have had training and a large amount of experience in social work and psych treatment situations. It is quite possible the reason I've been able to make it work in geek settings has been due to years (over a decade) of experience and training in treatment situations.
We aren't talking about this population in this thread. In fact, the only reason why this came up is because YOU brought it up.
Actually, I brought it up to indicate that I have seen it work with populations that are filled with those who are not inclined to working with each other. The difference between working with an ED population and a DS population is that, while both are out of the ordinary, the latter is more inclined to follow leadership, while the former is more inclined toward rebelling against leadership and not working with other people. An analogy would be that getting a DS population to work together is like skiing on the beginner slopes, while getting a group of emotionally disturbed teens to agree or work together is like skiing the expert double diamond slopes. Skiing on the beginner slopes does not indicate an ability to handle tougher slopes, while someone who can ski on the toughest slopes can ski on almost any other slopes. To find a population less likely to work through consensus than the ones I worked with would require an incarcerated population. Compared to a group of ED teens, working with geeks is a cakewalk.
I brought it up as an example. In terms of discussion or debate, if it was off topic, it would have been appropriate to point that out earlier, instead of waiting until I had shown how it is valid and supports my other points to try to invalidate it.
LOL, hubris. Your experience contradicts common sense and human nature. Perhaps you need a refresh in Psyc 101.
Oh, I like that. It's called projection. Basically, throwing a charge at me when it essentially represents your own attitudes. Ask any geek what it was like learning Java as a first programming language in class and how it compared to using that same language on the job. Is it the same? Does classroom learning always equate to the real world experience? For me, it was always interesting to see the new psych techs on the job after they had just come out of college, thinking they knew it all. Generally it took less than a month for them to realize there was a huge difference between book learning and experience learning -- and, as I said, I am talking about years of experience.
To be blunt, again, you've cited hours, note: HOURS of watching a group that follows authority, while I'm citing over a decade of experience where I have seen and experienced some tough populations work together under consensus. I don't need a refresher in Psych 101. I know human behavior follows its own sense of logic, not a set of rules that can be set up as easily as Newton's Laws. You say it contradicts common sense and human nature, yet you offer no proof, no support, nothing. You make a claim out of the
Read my other responses and see what kind of people I've worked with and seen consensus work with. With appropriate guidance, it can work with people many others consider "unreasonable."
It also leads to horrible compromises.
Not in my experience, and I've been dealing with this since the early 1990s, including with emotionally disturbed teens, a group anyone who has worked with can tell you is one of the most "unreasonable" groups you can work with. Actually, if you get horrible compromises, then you're not working with a true consensus.
But, when it comes to tech stuff, there is a significant percentage of the geek community that is so stuck in there opinions that they won't even listen to the other side.
You'd think that would be different, wouldn't it? I've seen tech/geek groups and Friend manage business. I've seen people in both be just as stubborn. I've seen it work well in both cases. Are you making a statement from theory, or have you observed both groups and seen the dynamics in both groups? I have, and I have watched both groups after years of working in residential therapeutic treatment. In both groups I've seen people let ego get in the way, but in both groups, I've seen wisdom prevail -- as long as there were leaders with patience and wisdom.
Your example of success in special ed classrooms is sophistry. While it may work with them, in the end they are weak willed. Geeks on the forums are not.
If nothing else in your post had made me question whether you spoke from experience in all the areas I mentioned, this did. Actually, this comment tells me you have no experience with the population I mentioned, specifically emotionally disturbed students. I did not specify, but I worked with teens, most of the time in residential treatment. I had to be trained to take kids down when they attacked. On more than one occasion I had to file assault charges against my own students as well as take them to the floor and keep them there until we could count on them being able to move with some emotional control. These students are anything but weak willed. They are more "stuck in their opinions" than any geek I've ever met. In other words, I'm trying politely to cite part of over a decade of experience and training that proves that statement is completely wrong.
What you don't realize is that there are bad seeds out there.
I simply don't understand where you get that impression, unless you have preconceived notions of what Friends are like and what those who associate with them are like. I had to work with students who were drug pushers, others who had rented other kids out to men for sex so they could get a hit, students whom, as I said, I had to take to court for assault charges. I've seen and dealt with, and taught, and taken on camping trips, bad seeds that most people are only aware of through hearing about them on the evening news or shows like Cops.
I am not talking about a "warm and fuzzy" world. I'm talking about reality.
It's not always easy, but even in that reality, with underage drug pushers and pimps and angry, violent teens, I have seen building consensus work.
You could study how the Friends (Quakers) handle discussions and disputes. They've managed to do quite well for about 400 years or more without using voting and majority rules. One problem with a majority rule is that there is always the chance of a person or people feeling left out and ignored. While working with building a consensus takes longer, when you reach a decision and move forward, you're moving forward with everyone able to put their full support into it.
Whenever I bring this up in discussion forums, especially in "geek" forums, quite often I see strong reactions that it won't work and can't work and so on, but it has been working for close to 400 years. I've used it in special ed classrooms with emotionally disturbed students and they found they could work with it when they got used to it. I have seen it work in many groups. The principal ingredient, in most cases, is for the leaders to treat all with respect and to expect others to do the same.
Also, the only screenshot available so far does not look like something that would be really easy to use.
Personally, I don't think many (if any) of us on/. are good judges of "easy to use" on computers. We're too involved in the technical end and know too much to judge what would be easy for someone without a lot of experience.
I've been using Kubuntu on my workstation for over a year, including upgrading from Dapper to Edgy. I'm more than semi-savvy (my business is based 100% on custom software I have written) and I've had no problems with Kubuntu. That you've had three computers and the one that failed was Kubuntu means nothing statistically. You're not working with enough computers to be statistically significant. Sure, "a few others" makes it interesting, but considering that Kubuntu is basically Ubuntu with a different package selection, it may be just your experience is on the far side of the bell curve.
I thought the SciFi channel did a darned good job with the movie that ended the Farscape series
SciFi had nothing to do with shooting the Farscape movie. I wish people would stop giving this channel credit for things like this. The show was canceled with no indication that anything would follow. Then the producers decided they wanted to tie it up and started shooting the mini-series. When they started shooting, they had no idea who would buy it or where it would be shown. SciFi picked it up.
SciFi has hardly any responsibility for the quality, or more often the lack of quality, in their shows. They are produced by other corporations and the shows are sold to SciFi. For instance, remember Stargate: SG1 was on Showtime for the first 5 years of the show. There's even one line in the last episode of the first season that referenced Showtime. When they see the transmitter and Teal'c tells them what it is, O'Neil said, "Does it get Showtime?" Later, in reruns on SciFi, the line was redubbed to remove a reference to Showtime. While SciFi claims the show as an original, it was created elsewhere.
Galactica is a slightly different story, since it involves the parent company of SciFi. Still, it is NOT SciFi that produces these shows.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it doe make them less competitive. I'm not saying it isn't. To me it seems more of a cruelty on the consumer.
//e when almost everything was copy protected. Eventually companies gave up on protection because they realized it wasn't worth the money and effort and those that were going to pirate would do so anyway. In that case, they didn't push too hard but realized their version of DRM wasn't worth it. On the other hand, now, the MPAA is pushing too hard. They tried that with VCRs when Jack Valenti told Congress that VCRs were to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to women of 19th century London. Eventually, though, they realized they could not control the public and found ways to profit from a new business model. The more they push the public, though, the quicker the public is to pirate or find ways to copy or circumvent the "protective" measures.
They just don't care and will accept anything *ANYTHING* the media cartels can push through congress.
I don't think so. I remember when CDs came out. Vinyl was about $8 per album and CDs were about $16 per album. CDs were cheaper than vinyl, but at the time, it was hard for people to react in any way since home burners were not available at that point. Once they were available, blank media became popular, then, finally, there was Napster. While I think there are always greedy people who will take what they can for free, most are willing to pay a reasonable price for it. Napster was, among other things, a rebellion against the high price of CDs. Even though the prices had not gone up in the roughly 2 decades CDs were out, people still felt they cost more than a fair price. That's why iTunes is so popular. While it includes DRM, $.99 a song is a much more reasonable price to most people.
I remember back in the days of my Apple
I would say it's more anti-customer than anti-competitive, but I'm actually glad to see it. We've all seen this getting worse and worse. With this, it'll be bad enough that consumers will start to get offended. This could be the step that pushes consumers too far and backfires on them. If it isn't, well, they'll just keep tightening their grip until they do push the public too far, then the backlash will not only shock them, but will tumble many of their "improvements" that are based on greed.
You load 16 tons and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
St. Peter, don't you call me because I can't go.
I owe my soul to the company store.
They made laws against the company store decades ago, but stores still do some features like that with special offers and such, but overall, it does not benefit a store, even a huge one like Wal-Mart, to trap people into currency they can spend at only one place. Even if they have a strong hold over the market, it doesn't work. I read in one article, after searching for some info in another response, that MS is even having trouble with their token economy for Zune.
Even in a case of a de facto and de jure like Microsoft, they haven't put everyone else out of business.
You're right about the bank. You're better off getting a loan from a bank than using credit cards. Banks don't use many of the practices that credit cards use. Still, banks are more likely to make a loan to someone with a good credit rating. There are also times when emergencies or difficult situations come up where credit can be a lifesaver.
I can see what you mean about it being newspeak for debt, but there's much more to it than that. I know there are times where short term debt, for me, lead to long term profit. If I can get a loan from the bank to cover some expenses to expand my business, then usually I'm better off expanding the business sooner than waiting until I have the cash to do it.
I've had the same happen in terms of borrowing to buy stock. If I had not borrowed and bought when the chance was there, I would have missed out on large profits.
The lawyer I work with that handles negotiations with my clients and other situations for me is a bankruptcy lawyer. I've learned a lot from him. I never realized the classes I had in school that covered money management are not taught in most schools and I never knew how few people actually learn any principles of money management. It's amazing how few people understand the concept of not spending more than your income, but that's a simple rule. Beyond that there is managing debt, for example, or knowing when it's a benefit to have debt. I've also learned from him a lot of tricks in dealing with the credit card companies.
I'm not thrilled with debt. I've paid cash for my last two cars over the past year and a half (but one wasn't new, it was an almost antique Mercedes 380SL). On the other hand, I've studied money management and don't shy away from what will increase my bottom line, even if it is debt so the money can be used to make more money.
Wrong. If you had read other posts before making your post, or had checked through Google, you would have found out that isn't true, but, then again, with such a sharp, clever, and unique insight, I'm sure you're a lawyer and know what you're talking about, right?
Legal Tender means it can be accepted as a payment of debt.
While it's not in the US, Ottawa will no longer accept cash when used to pay for taxes.
Also, in the U.S. there is no law requiring anyone accept cash as payment. I know Heinlein thought otherwise in some statements in "Time Enough for Love," but it's not true. For a little more, read this. As someone else pointed out, the legal tender issue will only work for paying debts incurred, not ones about to be incurred.
If you lose the room, it's your choice. I have a small business that makes good money helping people that are sued by credit card companies, so I know how nasty they can be, but on the other hand, if you watch what you're doing, you can keep your funds reasonably safe, at least, safer than what would happen if your cash were stolen. I've worked for businesses that refused to accept cash. One was when I was managing rental property. If they accepted cash, they would have had thousands of dollars in the office for the first few days each month and I would have had to take that cash to the bank, one block away, each day. I asked the same question you did and have had them (and a few other companies) explain that as long as they state the policy and apply it evenly to all, it's legal.
These days credit is more and more important. If you don't have it, many places won't give you a chance to get it because you have no credit record. While I'd like to say I admire you for sticking to your beliefs, you're going to have to make a choice: you can stick by your position and lose your room or you can work out a compromise. If you elect to stay firmly in your position, I seriously doubt the University will be upset. It's a bit what Prosser said to Arthur Dent: "Do you have any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if it were to run over you? None at all." They have nothing to lose here and you have everything to lose.
Overall, not building up credit, learning to deal with banks and credit card companies, and staying on an all cash basis is unwise in this culture. If I stuck to that policy, my net worth would be much lower because I would not have had a credit rating that allowed me to borrow when I needed it so I could build up my business.
While it's just my opinion, I can only wonder if a large part of your reluctance is more fear and unwillingness to understand how to use "the system" to your benefit and that you cover for this fear by claiming it is an ethical issue.
Agreed.
Or, "Extortion: Microsoft's New Business Model."
No, it can't run Linux, but when it was announced the new memories included of a few verses of an old Barry Manilow song, the RIAA file suit against the neurons for memory sharing.
I would much rather have someone using a command line
And therein lies the problem. You would rather have them using a command line. They don't want to. When you have a GUI, you always have prompts and a safety net. You can say, "Click on the button that says 'Change Setting.'" They have an automatic double check because there is something that matches, exactly, what they're being told to do. They have limited choices because they're working from a menu or from components and when one matches what they're told to do, they have some kind of confirmation they're pressing the right button. When you say, "Now type this," then you can hit any number of snags and they know it. You can tell them what to do and they can use a single quote instead of a double one or hear the word wrong or mistype it and, from their point of view, they don't know what's going to happen if they make a mistake.
You are much wiser than most developers I've seen post here who want to blame the uses for not knowing everything they know and you've got a good point. You and I can often move much more quickly with a console, but for users, the mere thought of having to type commands is frightening. They're looking at a blank screen with no feedback until they hit and then it could be too late.
You've realized, though, that it isn't about what you or I want, but what the user can handle or take care of on their own. That's the problem: It's our job to give them what they can handle. That is rarely a console. With my clients, before I got my software up to the point I wanted it, I had them install RealVNC on their computer and used a tunneling program I wrote in Java so it would go through their firewalls, then had them add me, and I configured RealVNC so it would only run when they wanted to run it and so it had a strong password. (And before anyone starts screaming, I'm simplifying and leaving out discussions with their bosses and IT departments about safety.) When they had problems, I just had them run RealVNC and add me, then I could fix, in less than 5 minutes, what could take 45 minutes or more if I were telling them what to do. When I finally got my own program to where I wanted it to be, that wasn't an issue anymore since I had enough failsafes they didn't need that kind of help anymore.
Ah, so you're one of those, "Let's see how many people we can take down if they say the least negative thing about MS" fanboys that lurks around.
Yes, you can use a TV to watch videos, if that's all you do with your toys. On the other hand, if you read the first sentence of the article, it uses the phrase "formalize the transition of the phone to a mobile PC." I don't know about you, but I use my computer for a lot of things, most of which need text and very few involved just video.
So I'd suggest reading all of TFA before saying others have not.
Oh, and that pretty much renders your other point as a non sequitor.
Quiet? Once I got to "to work with a TV as a secondary display" I cracked up. I remember using a TV as a display a long time ago, with my TRS-80 Color Computer. Unless you're going to use HDTV, it's a serious pain.
I'd put this right up with the recent threats about Linux and patents as press releases that really mean, "Hey, we're making it sound like Vista is doing great, but it's crashing, and we're really scared we might no longer be the big bully on the block. Instead of seeing how desperate we are, we want you to think we have other ideas." Or, translation, "Vista not doing well? You've gotta be -- oh, look, flying pigs!"
Whenever I read stories like this I remember just how poorly MS does with products that aren't based on their existing monopolies.
I never claimed to be acting in accordance with any behavior in this forum, but it seems you want to play the, "I can't win, so I'll resort to personal attacks and change the topic so I can still slam someone" tactic. Okay, if that makes you feel better and you don't want to accept that you did not provide any solid evidence backing you up, it's fine with me.
It's also fine to say you won't respond. It's quite clear you viewed this as a win/lose issue, and not an exploration of the facts. Your terms and comments show that. I can understand why you would not want to respond after you've run out of ammo to support your attack.
As to mailing lists, I'm on many of them. I'm involved in several open source projects. But, again, I can understand why you would not want to think that, since it doesn't fit in with your desire to make this a "I beat him" type of thing.
Personally, I prefer 3 tabs and replacing the tabs with spaces. I think I'm the only person I've seen with their tabs set to 3 spaces in a program editor. Oh, and I prefer Kate, which is part of KDE. I know it's not geek enough for many, but I find a GUI quite handy in many ways.
I don't think we'll see a working consensus like you suggest for a long time, and a large part of that is because there is no consensus within those groups to start with. How can the US come to agreement and work with others to build a consensus on a topic when the US itself is so divided on that same topic.
My experience is spends many hours with my girlfriend when she worked in an residential home with people with Downs Syndrome.
Not to make a contest, but hours observing in such a setting is quite different than working for years in such settings, with time spent in different groups with different situations. Downs Syndrome is also quite an exceptional situation, and I mean exceptional as in quite an exception to other situations. It's way past the 2 standard deviations from the mean or median. By your own admission and description, this is a limited experience.
Furthermore, I have worked as a student researcher with Physicists (where I actually produced something).
This brings up an interesting point. I've noticed a big difference between psych (or social work) people and hard science people. I'm dividing into groups and using easy classifications, so I want to be clear I'm talking about "in general" situations, which would cover most cases. There might be an advantage to have had training and a large amount of experience in social work and psych treatment situations. It is quite possible the reason I've been able to make it work in geek settings has been due to years (over a decade) of experience and training in treatment situations.
We aren't talking about this population in this thread. In fact, the only reason why this came up is because YOU brought it up.
Actually, I brought it up to indicate that I have seen it work with populations that are filled with those who are not inclined to working with each other. The difference between working with an ED population and a DS population is that, while both are out of the ordinary, the latter is more inclined to follow leadership, while the former is more inclined toward rebelling against leadership and not working with other people. An analogy would be that getting a DS population to work together is like skiing on the beginner slopes, while getting a group of emotionally disturbed teens to agree or work together is like skiing the expert double diamond slopes. Skiing on the beginner slopes does not indicate an ability to handle tougher slopes, while someone who can ski on the toughest slopes can ski on almost any other slopes. To find a population less likely to work through consensus than the ones I worked with would require an incarcerated population. Compared to a group of ED teens, working with geeks is a cakewalk.
I brought it up as an example. In terms of discussion or debate, if it was off topic, it would have been appropriate to point that out earlier, instead of waiting until I had shown how it is valid and supports my other points to try to invalidate it.
LOL, hubris. Your experience contradicts common sense and human nature. Perhaps you need a refresh in Psyc 101.
Oh, I like that. It's called projection. Basically, throwing a charge at me when it essentially represents your own attitudes. Ask any geek what it was like learning Java as a first programming language in class and how it compared to using that same language on the job. Is it the same? Does classroom learning always equate to the real world experience? For me, it was always interesting to see the new psych techs on the job after they had just come out of college, thinking they knew it all. Generally it took less than a month for them to realize there was a huge difference between book learning and experience learning -- and, as I said, I am talking about years of experience.
To be blunt, again, you've cited hours, note: HOURS of watching a group that follows authority, while I'm citing over a decade of experience where I have seen and experienced some tough populations work together under consensus. I don't need a refresher in Psych 101. I know human behavior follows its own sense of logic, not a set of rules that can be set up as easily as Newton's Laws. You say it contradicts common sense and human nature, yet you offer no proof, no support, nothing. You make a claim out of the
Consensus works when all parties are reasonable
Read my other responses and see what kind of people I've worked with and seen consensus work with. With appropriate guidance, it can work with people many others consider "unreasonable."
It also leads to horrible compromises.
Not in my experience, and I've been dealing with this since the early 1990s, including with emotionally disturbed teens, a group anyone who has worked with can tell you is one of the most "unreasonable" groups you can work with. Actually, if you get horrible compromises, then you're not working with a true consensus.
But, when it comes to tech stuff, there is a significant percentage of the geek community that is so stuck in there opinions that they won't even listen to the other side.
You'd think that would be different, wouldn't it? I've seen tech/geek groups and Friend manage business. I've seen people in both be just as stubborn. I've seen it work well in both cases. Are you making a statement from theory, or have you observed both groups and seen the dynamics in both groups? I have, and I have watched both groups after years of working in residential therapeutic treatment. In both groups I've seen people let ego get in the way, but in both groups, I've seen wisdom prevail -- as long as there were leaders with patience and wisdom.
Your example of success in special ed classrooms is sophistry. While it may work with them, in the end they are weak willed. Geeks on the forums are not.
If nothing else in your post had made me question whether you spoke from experience in all the areas I mentioned, this did. Actually, this comment tells me you have no experience with the population I mentioned, specifically emotionally disturbed students. I did not specify, but I worked with teens, most of the time in residential treatment. I had to be trained to take kids down when they attacked. On more than one occasion I had to file assault charges against my own students as well as take them to the floor and keep them there until we could count on them being able to move with some emotional control. These students are anything but weak willed. They are more "stuck in their opinions" than any geek I've ever met. In other words, I'm trying politely to cite part of over a decade of experience and training that proves that statement is completely wrong.
What you don't realize is that there are bad seeds out there.
I simply don't understand where you get that impression, unless you have preconceived notions of what Friends are like and what those who associate with them are like. I had to work with students who were drug pushers, others who had rented other kids out to men for sex so they could get a hit, students whom, as I said, I had to take to court for assault charges. I've seen and dealt with, and taught, and taken on camping trips, bad seeds that most people are only aware of through hearing about them on the evening news or shows like Cops.
I am not talking about a "warm and fuzzy" world. I'm talking about reality.
It's not always easy, but even in that reality, with underage drug pushers and pimps and angry, violent teens, I have seen building consensus work.
You could study how the Friends (Quakers) handle discussions and disputes. They've managed to do quite well for about 400 years or more without using voting and majority rules. One problem with a majority rule is that there is always the chance of a person or people feeling left out and ignored. While working with building a consensus takes longer, when you reach a decision and move forward, you're moving forward with everyone able to put their full support into it.
Whenever I bring this up in discussion forums, especially in "geek" forums, quite often I see strong reactions that it won't work and can't work and so on, but it has been working for close to 400 years. I've used it in special ed classrooms with emotionally disturbed students and they found they could work with it when they got used to it. I have seen it work in many groups. The principal ingredient, in most cases, is for the leaders to treat all with respect and to expect others to do the same.
Good point.
Besides, if he really cared about his music, he'd be using something other than a lossy format linked with hearing loss.
Also, the only screenshot available so far does not look like something that would be really easy to use.
/. are good judges of "easy to use" on computers. We're too involved in the technical end and know too much to judge what would be easy for someone without a lot of experience.
Personally, I don't think many (if any) of us on
I've been using Kubuntu on my workstation for over a year, including upgrading from Dapper to Edgy. I'm more than semi-savvy (my business is based 100% on custom software I have written) and I've had no problems with Kubuntu. That you've had three computers and the one that failed was Kubuntu means nothing statistically. You're not working with enough computers to be statistically significant. Sure, "a few others" makes it interesting, but considering that Kubuntu is basically Ubuntu with a different package selection, it may be just your experience is on the far side of the bell curve.
I thought the SciFi channel did a darned good job with the movie that ended the Farscape series
SciFi had nothing to do with shooting the Farscape movie. I wish people would stop giving this channel credit for things like this. The show was canceled with no indication that anything would follow. Then the producers decided they wanted to tie it up and started shooting the mini-series. When they started shooting, they had no idea who would buy it or where it would be shown. SciFi picked it up.
SciFi has hardly any responsibility for the quality, or more often the lack of quality, in their shows. They are produced by other corporations and the shows are sold to SciFi. For instance, remember Stargate: SG1 was on Showtime for the first 5 years of the show. There's even one line in the last episode of the first season that referenced Showtime. When they see the transmitter and Teal'c tells them what it is, O'Neil said, "Does it get Showtime?" Later, in reruns on SciFi, the line was redubbed to remove a reference to Showtime. While SciFi claims the show as an original, it was created elsewhere.
Galactica is a slightly different story, since it involves the parent company of SciFi. Still, it is NOT SciFi that produces these shows.
Why? Bottom line: MySpace is one big bug. One bug, done in one day.
It's hard enough to keep Windows stable on ONE computer. Why would anyone want a cluster of them? It's just more failure points to put up with.
It's not that kind of hum.
The truth is the Earth is humming just because it doesn't know the words.