"OK, you don't use your computer for anything important. You're not stupid. However, you can't generalize your point to the 90% of the population that do use their computers for something besides games and jerking off."
Why not? How many people out there really have anything career or life altering on their machines? If so, why aren't they afraid of lightning bolts or house fires?
At my day job, I'm a 3D artist. I work on content that is VERY difficult to replace. Massive amounts of data to boot. We take things a little more seriously than I do with my laptop at home. Regular backups, strict firewall, no downloading of stuff, etc. The thing is, though, we MUST operate under the assumption that the computer will self destruct. This is not a Windows assumption, it's a "hey, these things are electrical and sensitive" assumption. It's a "we need to have an off-site backup facility" assumption.
At some point, you just have to cope with the idea that you need to always be at a state where if your computer were to magically disappear, that your life wouldn't be over. No Linux patch will prevent your laptop from being stolen.
"If you rate game playing a higher priority than security on any system more critical than a playstation, then you are stupid. Whether you like it or not."
Right. Stupid, why? Because I might lose my data? No, I do backups. I trust my computer will fail at the least reasonable time. Stupid because somebody else might see sensitive data on my computer? No, I don't have any secrets on my computer. Not even a cc#. Stupid because I use Windows, and you don't think smart people use Windows? Well how can I argue with that?
The only thing I stand to lose is an impressive porn stash.
" but ultimately all software needs skilled people to install it and maintain it. An entire infrastructure for a business, city, or government is not going to run itself and generate no jobs just because the development of the software itself was done for free."
I don't know if many of you have seen it or not, but somewhere there is a Windows app that places a small cat on your desktop. If you click and drag on it, you pick up the cat by the scruff. When you let go, the cat drops until it lands on a window.
Imagine a Lemmings style game like that? You can pick up a Lemming, let it drop, and it does its own thing. Sounds simple enough, but when you have 30 of them on the screen, you have to move quick to pick them up and get them out of danger.
That little idea could be evolved a bit into an interesting game.
"When I can connect my ATI All-in-Wonder capture card and use it's abilities 100%, sync and download apps to my Blackberry, sync my iPod to my MP3 collection reliably, print DVDs flawlessly with my Epson printer, I'll think about Linux. Someday.
I'm probably leaving some other cool things I do with my computer too."
But wait! You have access to all the source code! You can write your own All-in-Wonder drivers!! Isn't that great about Linux?
"..his larger point, but I don't understand why everyone has latched onto the idea that the shell:// vulnerability in Mozilla was patched so quickly. It sat in Bugzilla for two years, most of it classified as WONTFIX, before an exploit turned up and it was dealt with."
This has been refuted. However, it is worth noting that the people working on Mozilla are just as human as the people working at MS. There will always be bugs, and there'll always be an exploit that goes unnoticed for too long.
I think it's funny that Slashdot will take one example of how Mozilla quickly got to a fix and everybody'll nod their head in agreement that they're cool. But if MS has one case of an exploit taking a month to fix, everybody starts shaking their pitckforks at MS because, of course, this is an indication that they do this every single time.
Try not to get sucked into believing stuff because of one example.
"Why do people think they can keep writing the same article over and over and because of it, people will start converting to Linux in droves?"
Because they read Slashdot and the MS defect of the week, and think that millions of people run around in a panic desperately trying to patch their system. They think it should be bonehead obvious to all of us Windows users that we should switch, even though they don't consider the idea that we don't rate security as high as they do, especially when we know switching to Linux will disrupt us in unpleasant ways. (Games, anyone?)
The reality is that us Windows users aren't scurrying around like that. Even the less techinically inclined users are running anti-virus and the sort. That handles most of it. Maybe a few running Zone Alarm. Even got a group of people that have no idea, and they're sending out worms like crazy. But since worms etc can't do much damage if they kill their hosts, they're not losing their data.
Viruses aren't going to be what moves people to Linux. Additionally, treating Windows users like they're stupid isn't going to make them switch heither. You want us to switch? Appeal to our sense of "we're getting something new and cool!" not "we're restricting you to lower software compatibility and not-so-ease-of-use so that you can have unlimited up-time and better virus protection even though what you have now isn't so bad and you still have to maintain Linux anyway."
"What about when most users had Windows 3.1? Setting that up wasn't practical for an end user either, as it required the ability to physically set hardware addresses, configure things through the MCI control panel that were a little less than intuitive, and knowledge of how Program Manager tied into the actual programs."
Thing is, you didn't measure Windows 3.1 users in the millions like you do with Windows >95 users.
"So what you're telling me is that this is REALLY an extended episode of Quantum Leap, and that as soon as Sam rights what is wrong with the Star Trek universe, he gets to move on?"
I know you're joking, but I think that'd be damn cool. I wish TV series would co-mingle like that.
Maybe it dispells the 'atlernate timeline' theory, but that very same article addresses the changes in the timeline quite clearly. It is a matter of semantics as to whether or not it is an 'atlernative timeline', but it is very much a different series of events. Continuity is far more flexible in this series.
"Overall, so far I give it a C-, though it's had some very good moments. It's better than Voyager."
I almost agree. I'd give it better than a C-, but I'd be hesitent to land on a particular grade level because I don't know how much of what I like about it is due to my own interests in the show, or how good at is in a more general sense. I don't think it's as good as DS9, but I wish it could replace Voyager. Heh.
Go use Google. I don't care to do the work of somebody else who will just dismiss me as an "Enterprise Apologist". If you don't like the show right now, nothing I say's going to change your mind. Frankly, I'm just not that passionate about it.
"Enterprise apologists keep making this claim, but has anyone on the creative team ever said that Enterprise is supposed to take place in a different continuity?"
" (Star Trek: Voyager, "Relativity"; just to let people who don't realize it, Seven and the future "Federation" state that the Federation (not the Terran Empire or some alternate timeline) came into being because of the Borg; there's also a passing reference to the Borg being present during the time of Cochran's flight in "Year of Hell" (Seven knew that Phoenix was the name of Cochran's ship)). So, the whole basis for Enterprise's "cold war" isn't at all based on a movie, unless you care to only pay attention to some of the "canon" of Star Trek."
This is a fair and good point. No, I didn't catch that episode as I didn't watch Voyager a whole lot. I accept what you're saying, though. (In other words, I'm not using the "i never saw it so I'm going to remain ignorant" argument.;) )
There's something to consider, though: The NX-01's timeline hasn't been completed yet that we have seen. It seems to me that the changes that have happened in this series would too dramatically alter the time-line that Picard and Co. live in. I would guess that if they reach a point to where they end the Cold War in Enterprise, they'll find some clever way to put time back to where it was, or at least pretty darned close. I do believe there was an episode of Voyager... oh I can't remember the name of it, but I remember that Kurtwood Smith played the antagonist.. anyway he had a time ship that was mucking around, Voyager destroyed it, and time more or less went back to where it was. (Err, was that Year of Hell?) So, according to Star Trek rules about how time works, this could potentially happen. I'd further add that there was an ep of TNG where there were paralell timelines all over the place with slightly different results, such as the Bajorans militarily defeating the Cardassians. Heh.
Ugh, I've really nerded myself out here. I guess the short version of my point is "It'd be hard to settle this until Enterprise is finaled. Not cancelled, but actually ended like TNG/Voy/DS9."
Yeah, actually I was kidding. I meant it to be like the "I have a credit card, I'm rich!" joke. If there's wisdom to be found in my comment, I have NFI what it is.
"You become a pacifist for the weirdest possible reason: not because the virtual violence seems so awful but because it's so bloody repetitive"
I play Q3 with a coworker nearly every day. The fun of the stealth mode isn't because it isn't repetitive, but because making him say "PUNK!!!" never gets old.
"now, if MS buys off that robot idea and makes it cuter and implants an AI system into it and sells it to every household in the world... we could see the end of the world as we know it."
So, in other words, if Microsoft invents the positronic brain, builds millions of androids, develops a very long lasting power cell for them, sufficiently arms them, and actually programs them to take over the world, then they can end all life on the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
"OK, you don't use your computer for anything important. You're not stupid. However, you can't generalize your point to the 90% of the population that do use their computers for something besides games and jerking off."
Why not? How many people out there really have anything career or life altering on their machines? If so, why aren't they afraid of lightning bolts or house fires?
At my day job, I'm a 3D artist. I work on content that is VERY difficult to replace. Massive amounts of data to boot. We take things a little more seriously than I do with my laptop at home. Regular backups, strict firewall, no downloading of stuff, etc. The thing is, though, we MUST operate under the assumption that the computer will self destruct. This is not a Windows assumption, it's a "hey, these things are electrical and sensitive" assumption. It's a "we need to have an off-site backup facility" assumption.
At some point, you just have to cope with the idea that you need to always be at a state where if your computer were to magically disappear, that your life wouldn't be over. No Linux patch will prevent your laptop from being stolen.
"If you rate game playing a higher priority than security on any system more critical than a playstation, then you are stupid. Whether you like it or not."
Right. Stupid, why? Because I might lose my data? No, I do backups. I trust my computer will fail at the least reasonable time. Stupid because somebody else might see sensitive data on my computer? No, I don't have any secrets on my computer. Not even a cc#. Stupid because I use Windows, and you don't think smart people use Windows? Well how can I argue with that?
The only thing I stand to lose is an impressive porn stash.
" but ultimately all software needs skilled people to install it and maintain it. An entire infrastructure for a business, city, or government is not going to run itself and generate no jobs just because the development of the software itself was done for free."
Yeah, I'm sure that'll be every bit as lucrative.
I don't know if many of you have seen it or not, but somewhere there is a Windows app that places a small cat on your desktop. If you click and drag on it, you pick up the cat by the scruff. When you let go, the cat drops until it lands on a window.
Imagine a Lemmings style game like that? You can pick up a Lemming, let it drop, and it does its own thing. Sounds simple enough, but when you have 30 of them on the screen, you have to move quick to pick them up and get them out of danger.
That little idea could be evolved a bit into an interesting game.
"When I can connect my ATI All-in-Wonder capture card and use it's abilities 100%, sync and download apps to my Blackberry, sync my iPod to my MP3 collection reliably, print DVDs flawlessly with my Epson printer, I'll think about Linux. Someday.
I'm probably leaving some other cool things I do with my computer too."
But wait! You have access to all the source code! You can write your own All-in-Wonder drivers!! Isn't that great about Linux?
Well it has 802.11, a touch screen, and can do 3D graphics. I'd settle for this:
- Make a cool multiplayer game. Mario Kart or Quake or something.
- Make it easy for servers to be set up like Quake is today. Don't make me pay $$$ per month just to play on line.
- Use the touch screen as an on-screen keyboard so I can choose servers, chat, and/or touch an icon depicting the weapon I wanna use.
Neat new interfaces is cool and all, but if they can get this going I'll be playing on-line from my recliner. I think that'd be awesome!
"I already run Mac OS X. Why would I want to switch to Linux?"
Immunity from off-topic mods?
"..his larger point, but I don't understand why everyone has latched onto the idea that the shell:// vulnerability in Mozilla was patched so quickly. It sat in Bugzilla for two years, most of it classified as WONTFIX, before an exploit turned up and it was dealt with."
This has been refuted. However, it is worth noting that the people working on Mozilla are just as human as the people working at MS. There will always be bugs, and there'll always be an exploit that goes unnoticed for too long.
I think it's funny that Slashdot will take one example of how Mozilla quickly got to a fix and everybody'll nod their head in agreement that they're cool. But if MS has one case of an exploit taking a month to fix, everybody starts shaking their pitckforks at MS because, of course, this is an indication that they do this every single time.
Try not to get sucked into believing stuff because of one example.
"Why do people think they can keep writing the same article over and over and because of it, people will start converting to Linux in droves?"
Because they read Slashdot and the MS defect of the week, and think that millions of people run around in a panic desperately trying to patch their system. They think it should be bonehead obvious to all of us Windows users that we should switch, even though they don't consider the idea that we don't rate security as high as they do, especially when we know switching to Linux will disrupt us in unpleasant ways. (Games, anyone?)
The reality is that us Windows users aren't scurrying around like that. Even the less techinically inclined users are running anti-virus and the sort. That handles most of it. Maybe a few running Zone Alarm. Even got a group of people that have no idea, and they're sending out worms like crazy. But since worms etc can't do much damage if they kill their hosts, they're not losing their data.
Viruses aren't going to be what moves people to Linux. Additionally, treating Windows users like they're stupid isn't going to make them switch heither. You want us to switch? Appeal to our sense of "we're getting something new and cool!" not "we're restricting you to lower software compatibility and not-so-ease-of-use so that you can have unlimited up-time and better virus protection even though what you have now isn't so bad and you still have to maintain Linux anyway."
"What about when most users had Windows 3.1? Setting that up wasn't practical for an end user either, as it required the ability to physically set hardware addresses, configure things through the MCI control panel that were a little less than intuitive, and knowledge of how Program Manager tied into the actual programs."
Thing is, you didn't measure Windows 3.1 users in the millions like you do with Windows >95 users.
"So what you're telling me is that this is REALLY an extended episode of Quantum Leap, and that as soon as Sam rights what is wrong with the Star Trek universe, he gets to move on?"
I know you're joking, but I think that'd be damn cool. I wish TV series would co-mingle like that.
Maybe it dispells the 'atlernate timeline' theory, but that very same article addresses the changes in the timeline quite clearly. It is a matter of semantics as to whether or not it is an 'atlernative timeline', but it is very much a different series of events. Continuity is far more flexible in this series.
"Overall, so far I give it a C-, though it's had some very good moments. It's better than Voyager."
I almost agree. I'd give it better than a C-, but I'd be hesitent to land on a particular grade level because I don't know how much of what I like about it is due to my own interests in the show, or how good at is in a more general sense. I don't think it's as good as DS9, but I wish it could replace Voyager. Heh.
"Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?"
There's plenty of story here. It's the drama that's virtually non-existent. Here on Slashdot, I find that to be a relief.
"Details? Quote? Reference?"
Go use Google. I don't care to do the work of somebody else who will just dismiss me as an "Enterprise Apologist". If you don't like the show right now, nothing I say's going to change your mind. Frankly, I'm just not that passionate about it.
"Enterprise apologists keep making this claim, but has anyone on the creative team ever said that Enterprise is supposed to take place in a different continuity?"
Yes, they have.
No no, I didn't mean Relativity would fix it, I meant that Enterprise might find an opportunity like that in their own time.
heh.
" (Star Trek: Voyager, "Relativity"; just to let people who don't realize it, Seven and the future "Federation" state that the Federation (not the Terran Empire or some alternate timeline) came into being because of the Borg; there's also a passing reference to the Borg being present during the time of Cochran's flight in "Year of Hell" (Seven knew that Phoenix was the name of Cochran's ship)). So, the whole basis for Enterprise's "cold war" isn't at all based on a movie, unless you care to only pay attention to some of the "canon" of Star Trek."
;) )
This is a fair and good point. No, I didn't catch that episode as I didn't watch Voyager a whole lot. I accept what you're saying, though. (In other words, I'm not using the "i never saw it so I'm going to remain ignorant" argument.
There's something to consider, though: The NX-01's timeline hasn't been completed yet that we have seen. It seems to me that the changes that have happened in this series would too dramatically alter the time-line that Picard and Co. live in. I would guess that if they reach a point to where they end the Cold War in Enterprise, they'll find some clever way to put time back to where it was, or at least pretty darned close. I do believe there was an episode of Voyager... oh I can't remember the name of it, but I remember that Kurtwood Smith played the antagonist.. anyway he had a time ship that was mucking around, Voyager destroyed it, and time more or less went back to where it was. (Err, was that Year of Hell?) So, according to Star Trek rules about how time works, this could potentially happen. I'd further add that there was an ep of TNG where there were paralell timelines all over the place with slightly different results, such as the Bajorans militarily defeating the Cardassians. Heh.
Ugh, I've really nerded myself out here. I guess the short version of my point is "It'd be hard to settle this until Enterprise is finaled. Not cancelled, but actually ended like TNG/Voy/DS9."
I'll say again, though, damned good point.
"You're kidding, right?"
Yeah, actually I was kidding. I meant it to be like the "I have a credit card, I'm rich!" joke. If there's wisdom to be found in my comment, I have NFI what it is.
"Getting pwned by every known type of virus/spyware/malware isn't what I'd call "suitable"
That'd be an interesting rebuttal if tens of millions of people were constantly being 'owned'. Exploits != ownage.
"You become a pacifist for the weirdest possible reason: not because the virtual violence seems so awful but because it's so bloody repetitive"
I play Q3 with a coworker nearly every day. The fun of the stealth mode isn't because it isn't repetitive, but because making him say "PUNK!!!" never gets old.
"news != advertising either."
News != preclusion of advertisement. If it's new and of interest to us, then it passes.
Advertising != bad. Quitcherbitchen.
"so? let's try to keep some dignity to journalism. I am not bred to be an advertisement absorber."
News != journalism. Slashdot doesn't even have any journalists.
"This looks strangely like advertisement doesn't it?"
So?
"George Bush said the economy is recovering..."
It'd recover faster if the gov't paid more for unemployment.
"now, if MS buys off that robot idea and makes it cuter and implants an AI system into it and sells it to every household in the world... we could see the end of the world as we know it."
So, in other words, if Microsoft invents the positronic brain, builds millions of androids, develops a very long lasting power cell for them, sufficiently arms them, and actually programs them to take over the world, then they can end all life on the planet.