No, it would be far more dangerous. For a start, when a car breaks down or runs out of petrol, you can just pull over and stop. What do you do with a plane?
And computer control? If computer control is so good, why are there pilots on planes? If someone was going to fly a plane into a building, they'd just override it. "Make it un-overridable" you say? Then what happens when it goes wrong?
This whole scheme is idiotic. Planes may be further away from each other in the sky, but what about when they come to land? Are you going to have each house with its own runway, or will there be 6000 of them all circling around the one local runway?
For file management, maybe as was mentioned above, using icons/objects that vary in virtual size with the actual size of the file, maybe with a hyperbolic file manager.
What? You mean the size of the icon changes with how big the file is? So what happens when I have a 50MB file next to a 1 byte file? Is one about 1 pixel wide, or does the other one take up 60 monitors? There are numbers to the side saying how big the files are.
You could reply that fridges are on the whole time, but if you leave the PC on the whole time, who pays the electricity bill?
If the fridge is on all the time, who pays the electricity bill? You'll find that the excess cost of having a computer on 24 hours a day comes to no more than a few pounds a year.
linux users tend to be people who value their connection enough to get dsl or a cable modem.
I'm a Linux user, and I extremely value my connection, but unfortuanetly I can't get cable, and can't justify spending about £50 a month on DSL, and about £150 on installation, especially as I probably couldn't get it anywhere. As I have a winmodem, the only thing for me to do is to boot back into Windows whenever I want to go on the Internet.
You literally can't give it away for free, but there's nothing wrong with it?
Can you say "monopoly"? It isn't as simple as moving to Linux, as it's so great. MS have made it as difficult as possible to convert, no matter how good the other OS is.
Linux is good for what it does, but it sucks for the AVERAGE USER.
Do you honestly think Linux is any harder to use than Windows? You really musn't know a lot about Linux. Much simpler and easier to use than Windows.
Did I say all Open Source sucks? No. I use the Gimp for windows and...well, it sucks. But there are Open Source projects out there that are good.
But the opposite is not true. Can you name me one decent closed-source typesetting engine to rival LaTeX? How about a closed-source browser to rival Galeon? How about a closed-source mailer to rival mutt? Can't be done.
What I'm saying is that with proper funds the programs would be better because companies or organizations could actually pay the people who work on it.
What difference would it make? Linux is good enough as it is. All that needs to be done is to make transition easier, i.e. removing barriers such as MS-Office document formats, Ms-only hardware, MS-only software etc. The only reason MS is more succesful is because it was here first.
Comparing Open Source to the business model is remarkably similar to comparing communism to capitalism.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Open Source is irrelevent to communism or capitalism. It is not dependent on a certain economic system, unlike closed-source software which would collapse without capitalism.
You can have PC knowledge but that means we can be arrested as soon as you enter the US. Is that the risk worth hacking a gamebox?
Why would you want to go to the US anyway? Would you really want to go to a country where you can be arrested for opening up a console? Or even one where you can be arrested for having a drink or smoking a joint? The US is the last place any right-minded person would want to go.
- "You can do this or that if you don't like this or that"
Indeed you can. You can have it behave however you want. If you like Windows, you can have it behave just like Windows. Can Windows behave like the mac or like Blackbox or Icewm? Can it fuck.
- "You can install another window manager"
Indeed you can. If you don't like one, you can use another. Everyone is happy. With Windows, everybody loses.
- "You can write your own drivers"
Indeed you can. If drivers aren't available, you can write your own. If drivers aren't available for Windows, what do you do?
- "#props to all h4xx0rz"
Sorry, you've lost me there.
Famous last words of aspiring desktop environment (and OS) aiming to fight another OS over the desktop of 50 million PCs.
Famous first first words of aspiring OS aiming to be completely better and more configurable than the shite used by 50e6 PCs.
Two words: out-of-the-box-works-great-with-everything and easy-to-use-for-John-Doe-and-his-mom. Well, maybe twenty words.
That wouldn't include Windows then. Have you ever tried to install Windows? Ever tried to install any hardware? A complete mess if ever there was one.
Now, if KDE or Gnome would come up with a totally radical
Why? Why radical? What radical changes do you want? What don't you like about them? What should they do to improve it? Saying "It's crap, make it radical" is meaningless.
and attractive GUI
KDE and Gnome are as attractive as you want them to be. They are infinitely customisable. You can make them look like whatever you want. With Windows, you're stuck with the manky default mess.
But no, they're just copying the Windows shell. Yipeee!
Like I said, you have to elaborate. What exactly don't you like about them or the Windows shell? Saying "It's shit, they should make it completely different just for the sake of it" is meaningless. You have to elaborate on what you want them to change.
Why would you need this system? I have a better solution. Every time someone starts swearing, you can just put your fingers in your ears and recite the Lord's prayer, and during any sex scenes you could just turn away and start reading the Bible instead.
Or maybe if you don't have a Bible you could just buy a sandpit and bury your head in it.
But then again you don't know what exactly will be in a book or a CD that you purchase.
Of course you do. The equivalent of this would be paying 1p to read the blurb on the back of a book, and paying 1p to listen to a song on the radio. You can sample things like books and CDs before you pay, you can't with this new system.
Frankly I don't see why everyone is so concerned about upgrading their computers every 2 years
I'm concerned. When I buy a console, I know that EVERY game I buy for it will work. I put in the game, and IT WILL WORK. With a PC, well, you'd better hope you've got enough RAM, a fast enough processor, the right drivers etc etc etc. With a console, no such hassle. Any upgrade is to a completely new console.
new super-duper-ulta-512-mega-(*insert console here*) for 500-600 bucks.
Consoles cost around £100-£200, and last for years. PCs cost around £1000, and last for a year at most.
They come out every 3-4 years sometimes less
4 years of play, for £100. With a PC, £1000 for a maximium year's play.
Its all media hype by Sony, Nintendo, and (now) Microsoft.
Console: Put in game and it works. PC: Put in game, and hope that about 4000 factors are all correct.
If your not intelligent enough to update a driver in windows, or click the install button that comes up when you put in the cd (autorun) you shouldn't be posting on slashdot. IMHO.
Now do you realise why PC gamers are looked upon as repressed, elitist nerds?
And car manufacturers have been doing it for even longer.
Re:Globalization without rules == Corporate Heaven
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
#1 - Move away from petroleum fuel. My individual choice to move away from petroleum fuel does not eliminate even one millionth of one percent of the pollution or opression created by gasoline. Massive cost to me, little to no actual effect in the world.
OK then, everyone who agrees with you, don't use petroleum fuel. If everyone agrees with you, problem solved. If everyone doesn't agree with you, then tough shit.
#2 - Give my load of non-existent cash to food for the poor. First of all, that food won't end up in Baghdad or the hands of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Second of all, that money is finite. I have impoverished myself to provide a one-time increase in the food available to other impoverished people. Do the words "net loss" mean anything to you? Oh, and 7 million Afghans may starve over the next year anyway, even with my help.
So, get everyone who agrees with you to give all their money to the poor. If everyone agrees with you, problem solved. If not, then tough shit. It's their money, and no-one has a right to it merely because they're poor.
#3 - I want to produce drugs to combat the AIDS virus in South Africa. I have the chemical knowledge to produce the drugs and can set up a business that sells at cost and do my part for the world, right? Wrong. Because our concept of intellectual property is being extended to... well, virtually everybody.
Solution: Invent your own drug. If you can do that, then problem solved. If you can't then tough shit. They made the drug, it is their property, it is their business what they do with it. Don't like it? Then don't use their drugs. Tell them to fuck off. Tell them to keep their AIDS-preventing drugs. Tell them not to bother making any more, because people will just expect it for free.
They sing "God save the Queen" in Canada? Well, my respect for Canada has just dropped several notches. I'm English and even I hate the fucking monarchy.
Re:It means the US has taken over the world
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
No, but we also would not harbor groups who acted violently against France.
But you'd happily support groups who acted violently against England.
However, in the UK guns are (more or less) illegal and there is a *lot* less gun crime there (and accidents involving guns are non-existant)
Sorry to ruin your fun, but gun crime has gone up dramatically since guns were illegalised a few years ago.
However, I do recognise that in the US there are a lot of guns floating around already and it would take a long time to cut down the amount of these weapons.
So you want to cut down on them? I take it then you're not a frail old woman sitting in her house at 3am when a 8-foot 20st rapist breaks in.
Banning Uzi's and the like would be a good start - after all, can you think of a reason a law-abiding citizen would need one?
Can you think of a reason why a law-abiding citizen would want to deny people the right to defend themselves and their family?
Re:Government should stay out except for....
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
We should limit the sale of guns.
Why? If because of this limiting you advocate, I can't get a gun, and because of that I get attacked and killed, are you going to pay for my funeral?
No civilized person would want drugs on the street
So, I take it you and your mates are going to be leading a crackdown on people walking down the street drinking a cup of tea and having a fag?
We are far to advanced a race to allow the free distribution of alcohol
Stop it! You're cracking me up! I bet the Taleban didn't allow the free distribution of alcohol. They must be so advanced! What lunacy!
Do you have any idea how many people each year are killed by falling out of windows, so we must restrict the sale of windows, only good solid brick.......
Oh right, I didn't realise you were taking the piss. My apologies!
Re:Globalism is not the problem: Government is
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
It was government regulations that forced car makers to install seat belts.
Why is it the government's business whether I have a seat belt or not? If you think it's unsafe to wear a seatbelt, then wear one.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's that good, then why don't all planes work like that?
No, it would be far more dangerous. For a start, when a car breaks down or runs out of petrol, you can just pull over and stop. What do you do with a plane?
And computer control? If computer control is so good, why are there pilots on planes? If someone was going to fly a plane into a building, they'd just override it. "Make it un-overridable" you say? Then what happens when it goes wrong?
This whole scheme is idiotic. Planes may be further away from each other in the sky, but what about when they come to land? Are you going to have each house with its own runway, or will there be 6000 of them all circling around the one local runway?
What the fuck are you? A cameraman in a porn film?
So what about sites which don't have domain names?
For file management, maybe as was mentioned above, using icons/objects that vary in virtual size with the actual size of the file, maybe with a hyperbolic file manager.
What? You mean the size of the icon changes with how big the file is? So what happens when I have a 50MB file next to a 1 byte file? Is one about 1 pixel wide, or does the other one take up 60 monitors? There are numbers to the side saying how big the files are.
You could reply that fridges are on the whole time, but if you leave the PC on the whole time, who pays the electricity bill?
If the fridge is on all the time, who pays the electricity bill? You'll find that the excess cost of having a computer on 24 hours a day comes to no more than a few pounds a year.
Use a voice translator.
linux users tend to be people who value their connection enough to get dsl or a cable modem.
I'm a Linux user, and I extremely value my connection, but unfortuanetly I can't get cable, and can't justify spending about £50 a month on DSL, and about £150 on installation, especially as I probably couldn't get it anywhere. As I have a winmodem, the only thing for me to do is to boot back into Windows whenever I want to go on the Internet.
You literally can't give it away for free, but there's nothing wrong with it?
Can you say "monopoly"? It isn't as simple as moving to Linux, as it's so great. MS have made it as difficult as possible to convert, no matter how good the other OS is.
Linux is good for what it does, but it sucks for the AVERAGE USER.
Do you honestly think Linux is any harder to use than Windows? You really musn't know a lot about Linux. Much simpler and easier to use than Windows.
Did I say all Open Source sucks? No. I use the Gimp for windows and...well, it sucks. But there are Open Source projects out there that are good.
But the opposite is not true. Can you name me one decent closed-source typesetting engine to rival LaTeX? How about a closed-source browser to rival Galeon? How about a closed-source mailer to rival mutt? Can't be done.
What I'm saying is that with proper funds the programs would be better because companies or organizations could actually pay the people who work on it.
What difference would it make? Linux is good enough as it is. All that needs to be done is to make transition easier, i.e. removing barriers such as MS-Office document formats, Ms-only hardware, MS-only software etc. The only reason MS is more succesful is because it was here first.
Comparing Open Source to the business model is remarkably similar to comparing communism to capitalism.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Open Source is irrelevent to communism or capitalism. It is not dependent on a certain economic system, unlike closed-source software which would collapse without capitalism.
Theft? Your bandwidth must be very expensive...
You went a saw a film at the cinema 4 times after you'd seen it already? What a sad bastard you are.
You can have PC knowledge but that means we can be arrested as soon as you enter the US. Is that the risk worth hacking a gamebox?
Why would you want to go to the US anyway? Would you really want to go to a country where you can be arrested for opening up a console? Or even one where you can be arrested for having a drink or smoking a joint? The US is the last place any right-minded person would want to go.
- "You can do this or that if you don't like this or that"
Indeed you can. You can have it behave however you want. If you like Windows, you can have it behave just like Windows. Can Windows behave like the mac or like Blackbox or Icewm? Can it fuck.
- "You can install another window manager"
Indeed you can. If you don't like one, you can use another. Everyone is happy. With Windows, everybody loses.
- "You can write your own drivers"
Indeed you can. If drivers aren't available, you can write your own. If drivers aren't available for Windows, what do you do?
- "#props to all h4xx0rz"
Sorry, you've lost me there.
Famous last words of aspiring desktop environment (and OS) aiming to fight another OS over the desktop of 50 million PCs.
Famous first first words of aspiring OS aiming to be completely better and more configurable than the shite used by 50e6 PCs.
Two words: out-of-the-box-works-great-with-everything and easy-to-use-for-John-Doe-and-his-mom. Well, maybe twenty words.
That wouldn't include Windows then. Have you ever tried to install Windows? Ever tried to install any hardware? A complete mess if ever there was one.
Now, if KDE or Gnome would come up with a totally radical
Why? Why radical? What radical changes do you want? What don't you like about them? What should they do to improve it? Saying "It's crap, make it radical" is meaningless.
and attractive GUI
KDE and Gnome are as attractive as you want them to be. They are infinitely customisable. You can make them look like whatever you want. With Windows, you're stuck with the manky default mess.
But no, they're just copying the Windows shell. Yipeee!
Like I said, you have to elaborate. What exactly don't you like about them or the Windows shell? Saying "It's shit, they should make it completely different just for the sake of it" is meaningless. You have to elaborate on what you want them to change.
Well?
Yes, it must be a really shit film. After all, it uses naughty words that hurt your feelings.
Why would you need this system? I have a better solution. Every time someone starts swearing, you can just put your fingers in your ears and recite the Lord's prayer, and during any sex scenes you could just turn away and start reading the Bible instead.
Or maybe if you don't have a Bible you could just buy a sandpit and bury your head in it.
But then again you don't know what exactly will be in a book or a CD that you purchase.
Of course you do. The equivalent of this would be paying 1p to read the blurb on the back of a book, and paying 1p to listen to a song on the radio. You can sample things like books and CDs before you pay, you can't with this new system.
Frankly I don't see why everyone is so concerned about upgrading their computers every 2 years
I'm concerned. When I buy a console, I know that EVERY game I buy for it will work. I put in the game, and IT WILL WORK. With a PC, well, you'd better hope you've got enough RAM, a fast enough processor, the right drivers etc etc etc. With a console, no such hassle. Any upgrade is to a completely new console.
new super-duper-ulta-512-mega-(*insert console here*) for 500-600 bucks.
Consoles cost around £100-£200, and last for years. PCs cost around £1000, and last for a year at most.
They come out every 3-4 years sometimes less
4 years of play, for £100. With a PC, £1000 for a maximium year's play.
Its all media hype by Sony, Nintendo, and (now) Microsoft.
Console: Put in game and it works. PC: Put in game, and hope that about 4000 factors are all correct.
If your not intelligent enough to update a driver in windows, or click the install button that comes up when you put in the cd (autorun) you shouldn't be posting on slashdot. IMHO.
Now do you realise why PC gamers are looked upon as repressed, elitist nerds?
Wow, so much simpler than buying a console and sticking the CD in!
And car manufacturers have been doing it for even longer.
#1 - Move away from petroleum fuel. My individual choice to move away from petroleum fuel does not eliminate even one millionth of one percent of the pollution or opression created by gasoline. Massive cost to me, little to no actual effect in the world.
OK then, everyone who agrees with you, don't use petroleum fuel. If everyone agrees with you, problem solved. If everyone doesn't agree with you, then tough shit.
#2 - Give my load of non-existent cash to food for the poor. First of all, that food won't end up in Baghdad or the hands of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Second of all, that money is finite. I have impoverished myself to provide a one-time increase in the food available to other impoverished people. Do the words "net loss" mean anything to you? Oh, and 7 million Afghans may starve over the next year anyway, even with my help.
So, get everyone who agrees with you to give all their money to the poor. If everyone agrees with you, problem solved. If not, then tough shit. It's their money, and no-one has a right to it merely because they're poor.
#3 - I want to produce drugs to combat the AIDS virus in South Africa. I have the chemical knowledge to produce the drugs and can set up a business that sells at cost and do my part for the world, right? Wrong. Because our concept of intellectual property is being extended to... well, virtually everybody.
Solution: Invent your own drug. If you can do that, then problem solved. If you can't then tough shit. They made the drug, it is their property, it is their business what they do with it. Don't like it? Then don't use their drugs. Tell them to fuck off. Tell them to keep their AIDS-preventing drugs. Tell them not to bother making any more, because people will just expect it for free.
They sing "God save the Queen" in Canada? Well, my respect for Canada has just dropped several notches. I'm English and even I hate the fucking monarchy.
No, but we also would not harbor groups who acted violently against France.
But you'd happily support groups who acted violently against England.
However, in the UK guns are (more or less) illegal and there is a *lot* less gun crime there (and accidents involving guns are non-existant)
Sorry to ruin your fun, but gun crime has gone up dramatically since guns were illegalised a few years ago.
However, I do recognise that in the US there are a lot of guns floating around already and it would take a long time to cut down the amount of these weapons.
So you want to cut down on them? I take it then you're not a frail old woman sitting in her house at 3am when a 8-foot 20st rapist breaks in.
Banning Uzi's and the like would be a good start - after all, can you think of a reason a law-abiding citizen would need one?
Can you think of a reason why a law-abiding citizen would want to deny people the right to defend themselves and their family?
We should limit the sale of guns.
Why? If because of this limiting you advocate, I can't get a gun, and because of that I get attacked and killed, are you going to pay for my funeral?
No civilized person would want drugs on the street
So, I take it you and your mates are going to be leading a crackdown on people walking down the street drinking a cup of tea and having a fag?
We are far to advanced a race to allow the free distribution of alcohol
Stop it! You're cracking me up! I bet the Taleban didn't allow the free distribution of alcohol. They must be so advanced! What lunacy!
Do you have any idea how many people each year are killed by falling out of windows, so we must restrict the sale of windows, only good solid brick.......
Oh right, I didn't realise you were taking the piss. My apologies!
It was government regulations that forced car makers to install seat belts.
Why is it the government's business whether I have a seat belt or not? If you think it's unsafe to wear a seatbelt, then wear one.