Could you reword your post performing the substitution of this simple definition? ('cos I'm not sure that in it's current form your words convey any meaning at all.)
I wonder why those models *never* seem to take into account the nuisances of the unemployed one, not even as a cost that should somehow be compensated.
I'm not an economist, but I wouldn't call a "win-win" situation one in which "the average person" is better, but one in which every player wins something.
MMORGs and other virtual spaces seems to better work by the rules of Anarcho-Capitalism than by current government regulations. How are lawmakers supposed to enforce common laws into the closed source code that runs the virtual environment?
Internet currently works by agreements between persons, and the "virtual" economy that results would regulate through private enforcement (parentheses because nowadays the "real" economy regulated by governments is really not different for real or virtual items).
Each new virtual world can serve as a testing ground to test the validity of anarcho-capitalist ideas.
You're right in your analysis, but wrong in your conclusions. You forgot that those corporate people have a life outside the corporation.
When they go back home, they usually will want to communicate with the group of moms, dads and kids - which don't necesarily use the same computer or even live at the same house. This is the point where an easy protocol for sharing content is most needed (mail worked well for a time, but it didn't scale to the current big multimedia files of video, mp3 and digital cameras).
The sharing of these kinds of files between the two biggest user groups *is* what will make this a killer app, if it has a well-implemented user-centered interface.
There has to be at least several hundered for sufficient genetic variation to avoid inbreeding. These hundered king-kongs need to eat a lot, but what is available is such large quantities?
Both of you are misleaded, thinking as programmers. The concept of abstraction is totally foreign to the average user (at least when related to task automation). Also average users don't need universal programmability - just "good-enough" one. They would have little use for whole Turing completeness.
No, the silver bullet are related to direct manipulation (removing abstraction and simplifying input) and programming by example (again removing abstraction, and simplifying depuration). I should know, I'm a researcher in the End-user Development field.
Natural language? Yes, that might help to some extent - but only until the first "gotcha", due to the inherent ambiguity, ruins the completion of the supposedly automated task.
What do you mean? Anyone can create and edit articles in Wikipedia now, and it IS the best thing since sliced bread. Only difference between then and now is, not ALL articles are under this process, just new/unpopular/not-vandalized ones. What people doesn't tend to realize (is it a flaw of human brain?) is that as processes scale, what served for the small doesn't work for the big.
There's such thing as knowledge crystallization, which changes the nature of the creation process. At the beginning Wikipedia didn't have mature content, so it didn't needed protection for it. Current immature content benefits from wiki default policy now as much as at the Wikipedia beginnings. But now Wikipedia is not homogeneus, so it doesn't makes sense treating all its content equally. So now it includes the best policy for immature content, and the best policy for mature content; it just happen not to be the same policy for both. Big deal.
The problem with that "Linus is a user" argument is that Gnome is NOT designed for that kind of users, and thus Linus is not a proper judge for the design decisions taken in Gnome.
KDE is the desktop designed for tweak-it-yourself power users. Thats why KDE is much better for Linus; but it DOESNT mean that Gnome is bad for Gnomes intended user base, wich is the i-dont-care-how-it-works-just-dont-waste-my-time kind. This response from Havoc Pennington explains it fairly well.
I never will understand people that use Emacs. If I wanted a bloated editor I'd be using Microsoft Word to edit my text files. When I want to edit a text file vi is infinitely easier, virtually universal on UNIX platforms, and has a tiny memory footprint.
Emacs is not (mainly) a text editor, it's an IDE for integrating the whole programming process.
Will new generations learn Emacs?
on
The Future of Emacs
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The main problem I see with Emacs is its terrible learning curve. Given the competing IDEs now available, I can't see any future for it unless it radicaly simplify the process needed to master the program. Drag'n'drop and mouse wheel support? That's not enough - I'd even say that they're against the traditional Emacs keyboard-only workflow.
The only future I can see to the Emacs style of working is in projects like Archy or Quicksilver, which completely redefine the particular tasks while keeping its strengths.
In other areas - office software such as professional wordprocessors - the Linux model has had much less success. (StarOffice doesn't count as a "Linux model" creation, since it is proprietary and backed by completely commercial software.) Isn't this because in such markets end-users tend to be completely passive consumers?
True, but that isn't users fault; open source developers simply haven't end users involved in the development cicle. Maybe this will change now with projects like OpenUsability.
As I understand it, the company was getting no return on the GPL investment. That is, they weren't receiving many, if any, patches from their users. There are other ways of getting return of being GPL other than having patches. I'm sure that a lot, if not all of its popularity was due to Nessus being a good GPL project.
Now that it has dropped the GPL part, I predict it will lose a lot of popularity too.
Aha, but what if you *do* know what you're going to do for a job, while still relatively early in your education? You suggest skipping the rest of learning that isnt related to your future job?
That would work well if you expect your job to be your whole life, I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious and having a hard time finding anything reasonable accurate
That is probably due to not being any real experimentation in the subject, only speculation.
Speed = space / time.
Could you reword your post performing the substitution of this simple definition? ('cos I'm not sure that in it's current form your words convey any meaning at all.)
I wonder why those models *never* seem to take into account the nuisances of the unemployed one, not even as a cost that should somehow be compensated.
I'm not an economist, but I wouldn't call a "win-win" situation one in which "the average person" is better, but one in which every player wins something.
MMORGs and other virtual spaces seems to better work by the rules of Anarcho-Capitalism than by current government regulations. How are lawmakers supposed to enforce common laws into the closed source code that runs the virtual environment?
Internet currently works by agreements between persons, and the "virtual" economy that results would regulate through private enforcement (parentheses because nowadays the "real" economy regulated by governments is really not different for real or virtual items).
Each new virtual world can serve as a testing ground to test the validity of anarcho-capitalist ideas.
You're right in your analysis, but wrong in your conclusions. You forgot that those corporate people have a life outside the corporation.
When they go back home, they usually will want to communicate with the group of moms, dads and kids - which don't necesarily use the same computer or even live at the same house. This is the point where an easy protocol for sharing content is most needed (mail worked well for a time, but it didn't scale to the current big multimedia files of video, mp3 and digital cameras).
The sharing of these kinds of files between the two biggest user groups *is* what will make this a killer app, if it has a well-implemented user-centered interface.
There has to be at least several hundered for sufficient genetic variation to avoid inbreeding. These hundered king-kongs need to eat a lot, but what is available is such large quantities?
What? Hundreds of Tyrannosaurus-Rexes, of course!
Mod parent -1 troll: too stupid to support his/her beliefs in a rational discussion.
FYI, Google Calculator doesn't return anything for the following difference:
"company having a plan" - "planned economy".
Surely you will enlighten all of us with the differences?
Although biologists already had some answers to these questions, the ID'ers have forced biologists to study them more intensely.
Maybe ID'ers have good questions. But schools are not the place to look for the answers.
Exactly where is the relation between human-computer interaction and HTML code compliance?
Well, one thing's for sure. Nobody's going to be looking at your face.
So that was the secret of why nobody recognices him!
Both of you are misleaded, thinking as programmers. The concept of abstraction is totally foreign to the average user (at least when related to task automation). Also average users don't need universal programmability - just "good-enough" one. They would have little use for whole Turing completeness.
No, the silver bullet are related to direct manipulation (removing abstraction and simplifying input) and programming by example (again removing abstraction, and simplifying depuration). I should know, I'm a researcher in the End-user Development field.
Natural language? Yes, that might help to some extent - but only until the first "gotcha", due to the inherent ambiguity, ruins the completion of the supposedly automated task.
What do you mean? Anyone can create and edit articles in Wikipedia now, and it IS the best thing since sliced bread. Only difference between then and now is, not ALL articles are under this process, just new/unpopular/not-vandalized ones. What people doesn't tend to realize (is it a flaw of human brain?) is that as processes scale, what served for the small doesn't work for the big.
There's such thing as knowledge crystallization, which changes the nature of the creation process. At the beginning Wikipedia didn't have mature content, so it didn't needed protection for it. Current immature content benefits from wiki default policy now as much as at the Wikipedia beginnings. But now Wikipedia is not homogeneus, so it doesn't makes sense treating all its content equally. So now it includes the best policy for immature content, and the best policy for mature content; it just happen not to be the same policy for both. Big deal.
Parent post nails the core of what should be the real debate here.
The problem with that "Linus is a user" argument is that Gnome is NOT designed for that kind of users, and thus Linus is not a proper judge for the design decisions taken in Gnome.
KDE is the desktop designed for tweak-it-yourself power users. Thats why KDE is much better for Linus; but it DOESNT mean that Gnome is bad for Gnomes intended user base, wich is the i-dont-care-how-it-works-just-dont-waste-my-time kind. This response from Havoc Pennington explains it fairly well.
Not trolling but this works both ways. Install Windows, need to use an editor, so use one.
Let me see... Notepad or wordpad?
I never will understand people that use Emacs. If I wanted a bloated editor I'd be using Microsoft Word to edit my text files. When I want to edit a text file vi is infinitely easier, virtually universal on UNIX platforms, and has a tiny memory footprint.
Emacs is not (mainly) a text editor, it's an IDE for integrating the whole programming process.
The main problem I see with Emacs is its terrible learning curve. Given the competing IDEs now available, I can't see any future for it unless it radicaly simplify the process needed to master the program. Drag'n'drop and mouse wheel support? That's not enough - I'd even say that they're against the traditional Emacs keyboard-only workflow.
The only future I can see to the Emacs style of working is in projects like Archy or Quicksilver, which completely redefine the particular tasks while keeping its strengths.
In other areas - office software such as professional wordprocessors - the Linux model has had much less success. (StarOffice doesn't count as a "Linux model" creation, since it is proprietary and backed by completely commercial software.) Isn't this because in such markets end-users tend to be completely passive consumers?
True, but that isn't users fault; open source developers simply haven't end users involved in the development cicle. Maybe this will change now with projects like OpenUsability.
(I run out of mod points yesterday).
I am the Turing Test!
As I understand it, the company was getting no return on the GPL investment. That is, they weren't receiving many, if any, patches from their users.
There are other ways of getting return of being GPL other than having patches. I'm sure that a lot, if not all of its popularity was due to Nessus being a good GPL project.
Now that it has dropped the GPL part, I predict it will lose a lot of popularity too.
Maybe you want this?
Your "multidimensional views on the intersections between tags" are called "faceted navigation" for those in the know.
Aha, but what if you *do* know what you're going to do for a job, while still relatively early in your education?
You suggest skipping the rest of learning that isnt related to your future job?
That would work well if you expect your job to be your whole life, I suppose.