I've got only one question to you: why do I, and many tech and non-tech people alike, feel uncomfortable with the Linux desktop if it is so ready? It's free. Why aren't more people just scrambling to use it?
Personally, I still feel that the Linux desktop is just eye-candy on top of the CLI where you have to go if you really want to do something. I can't drag and drop objects, click-and-point configure the system to the extent I can on my Mac or even on Windows. The integration, consistency (for instance, where in the application menu bars I can find Preferences) and usability just isn't there.
My idea of a "better codec" is not a codec that makes me to read the specifications of each and every player/computer/software I buy just to see if it supports the damn thing. I just want a device that plays back my music. That's mp3.
I chose ogg five years ago because I was still an idealist who believed that by using it I would avoid problems with DRM or patents that would soon prevent me from listening to the music I already bought. Well, guess what? The sky didn't fall.
MP3 is supported by every damn player these days, the world is full of mp3s and no patent holder is cracking down on the free mp3 encoders or players.
Besides, with the cheap mass storage that's available these days, why would I want to compress my music anyway?
hell of exporting all my iTunes-purchased songs into Oggs
I, on the other hand, have been cursing the day I decided to rip all my CDs into Oggs. Nothing seems to play them out-of-box if at all (like my iPod).
I really should sit down one day and go through them again, rip them both into wav for optimal portability (who cares about metainfo anyway?) and write a script that converts them into the de facto standard of portable music, mp3.
OSX will be just as crap as Windows if you try to run it on generic, open hardware. The reason why OSX is such a pleasure to use is that it's been made to run under very well defined hardware.
I bet Microsoft patents most of its research just like IBM. Hence, most of the research will see the light of day. Of course, if you believe that patenting is a bad idea and equivalent to withholding research, you are right.
As a matter of fact, post 9/11 the US has put alot of pressure on some biotech research labs and universities to NOT publish some of their results
Thanks. I didn't know about that, although I did suspect it.
1. It flies in the face of the open exchange of information... 2. It's mostly pointless.
Yep. It's useless and even harmful from both ideological and practical points of view. You can't do proper science in a vacuum. No political agenda can override that truth.
I'd argue that the Manhattan Project is a special case. It was an almost complete scientific community in itself, perfectly capable of peer-reviewing and self-correcting itself. The numerous emigre scientists also made it an international and culturally diverse society which, I think, is an important aspect of science.
Unless the quantum computer research is regulated in a similar fashion (ie. basically setting up a secret "science town"), the peer-review process will suffer from the lack of contact with the outside world and this will inevitably lead to bad science.
"No, you cannot publish this in a peer-reviewed journal, because the evil Arabs/Old Europeans might read it and build an even better quantum computer!"
Have you ever thought about how much more effort it takes to destroy a book in comparison to the effort it takes to destroy its digital copy?
It's the same thing with all digital data: in a few centuries this era will be called the dark ages of information - most of the historical data (text, images, sound) will be lost because it was stored on media that just couldn't hack it. People are just too eager to store precious data in a digital form just because it is convenient.
We believe that porting a GPL version of MySQL for the SCO OpenServer platform gives thousands of users more options when it comes to choosing a database
That is a valid point. Too bad the GPL zealots are for freedom only when it benefits their own idea of what "free" is.
Re:E-mail's not good for critical messages
on
Email Turns 34
·
· Score: 1
After being a victim to certain fascist-minded "your entire ISP IP-range has been blacklisted - switch to another if you want to have your mail delivered to this address" spamlist organizations, I wouldn't cry that much even if we didn't have e-mail today.
Top posting is good because you get to read the reply without having to plow through a pages of useless, old quoted text. If you have the old posts at the end of the e-mail you can still read them for reference, but having them at the top of the e-mail drives me mad.
Oh, and I've been on the net since 1990 and even back then I couldn't understand why people didn't top post.
E-mail's not good for critical messages
on
Email Turns 34
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
E-mail's fine and dandy. However, thanks to spam (or, more specifically, the self-righteous, over-zealous spam blocking lists and filters that have been set up because of the spam) e-mail is not a viable option for delivering critical messages anymore. I still use fax and phone to deliver those.
Ok. And how much time did you spend tweaking WINE? I expect it to work out-of-box for major killer applications like MS Office before I say it's working, so I guess that's the reason I've been disappointed every time I've tried using it. Couldn't care less about games, though.
I was not talking about an autopilot. All the commands (including the stick) of the pilot on-board an Airbus 320, for instance, are vetted by the onboard computer. Essentially, the computer flies the plane and the pilot is just asking it to fly in a certain way..
Slashdot Mirror
I've got only one question to you: why do I, and many tech and non-tech people alike, feel uncomfortable with the Linux desktop if it is so ready? It's free. Why aren't more people just scrambling to use it?
Personally, I still feel that the Linux desktop is just eye-candy on top of the CLI where you have to go if you really want to do something. I can't drag and drop objects, click-and-point configure the system to the extent I can on my Mac or even on Windows. The integration, consistency (for instance, where in the application menu bars I can find Preferences) and usability just isn't there.
Is this a surprise? The Bush admin is waging a war on porn and this is a logical step.
Why didn't they turn to the open source community? They wouldn't have to pay for it and they'd get free support, too.
My idea of a "better codec" is not a codec that makes me to read the specifications of each and every player/computer/software I buy just to see if it supports the damn thing. I just want a device that plays back my music. That's mp3.
I chose ogg five years ago because I was still an idealist who believed that by using it I would avoid problems with DRM or patents that would soon prevent me from listening to the music I already bought. Well, guess what? The sky didn't fall.
MP3 is supported by every damn player these days, the world is full of mp3s and no patent holder is cracking down on the free mp3 encoders or players.
Besides, with the cheap mass storage that's available these days, why would I want to compress my music anyway?
I, on the other hand, have been cursing the day I decided to rip all my CDs into Oggs. Nothing seems to play them out-of-box if at all (like my iPod).
I really should sit down one day and go through them again, rip them both into wav for optimal portability (who cares about metainfo anyway?) and write a script that converts them into the de facto standard of portable music, mp3.
You could do that or you could use the Greek alphabet.
Efficient bureaucracy? Now that's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one...
Uh. I'm not really sure what you mean by that? What did "The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings" really wrap up?
Anyway, what I'm more worried about is the cast. Will all the wonderful voice actors be willing/available for a new series?
If you port OSX to generic hardware and start accepting 3rd party drivers, you will be in a world of shit.
OSX will be just as crap as Windows if you try to run it on generic, open hardware. The reason why OSX is such a pleasure to use is that it's been made to run under very well defined hardware.
I bet Microsoft patents most of its research just like IBM. Hence, most of the research will see the light of day. Of course, if you believe that patenting is a bad idea and equivalent to withholding research, you are right.
So, if you work for Microsoft Research, there's no way you can be doing cutting edge research?
Thanks. I didn't know about that, although I did suspect it.
1. It flies in the face of the open exchange of information... 2. It's mostly pointless.
Yep. It's useless and even harmful from both ideological and practical points of view. You can't do proper science in a vacuum. No political agenda can override that truth.
Unless the quantum computer research is regulated in a similar fashion (ie. basically setting up a secret "science town"), the peer-review process will suffer from the lack of contact with the outside world and this will inevitably lead to bad science.
"No, you cannot publish this in a peer-reviewed journal, because the evil Arabs/Old Europeans might read it and build an even better quantum computer!"
Hence, there's still a good reason to buy Intel instead of AMD.
Have you ever thought about how much more effort it takes to destroy a book in comparison to the effort it takes to destroy its digital copy?
It's the same thing with all digital data: in a few centuries this era will be called the dark ages of information - most of the historical data (text, images, sound) will be lost because it was stored on media that just couldn't hack it. People are just too eager to store precious data in a digital form just because it is convenient.
That is a valid point. Too bad the GPL zealots are for freedom only when it benefits their own idea of what "free" is.
After being a victim to certain fascist-minded "your entire ISP IP-range has been blacklisted - switch to another if you want to have your mail delivered to this address" spamlist organizations, I wouldn't cry that much even if we didn't have e-mail today.
Oh, and I've been on the net since 1990 and even back then I couldn't understand why people didn't top post.
E-mail's fine and dandy. However, thanks to spam (or, more specifically, the self-righteous, over-zealous spam blocking lists and filters that have been set up because of the spam) e-mail is not a viable option for delivering critical messages anymore. I still use fax and phone to deliver those.
Ok. And how much time did you spend tweaking WINE? I expect it to work out-of-box for major killer applications like MS Office before I say it's working, so I guess that's the reason I've been disappointed every time I've tried using it. Couldn't care less about games, though.
Yeah, sure. If you want to run a notepad, minesweeper or solitaire. I've never been able to WINE more complex windows applications than that.
IIRC, deep wounds are not closed when there is risk of blood or serous fluid collection or when there is pus or gross wound contamination.
I was not talking about an autopilot. All the commands (including the stick) of the pilot on-board an Airbus 320, for instance, are vetted by the onboard computer. Essentially, the computer flies the plane and the pilot is just asking it to fly in a certain way..