I see this "the PC industry was built on games" line frequently, and with all due respect I think it's dubious at best.
Well, you do make a good point, however from a market point of view, during the 80s and early 90s home PCs were often bought for two main reasons: so that parents could "balance their books" and do some word-processing, and that kids could play games and "learn while having fun". I agree with you that most milestones in computer history are not related to games...but at the same time, for every rational justification in a computer buyers' minds, there has always been the thought that you could play games on it (even simple ones like Solitaire and Minesweeper). Yes, it's icing on the cake: but it's the icing that may actually make the sale more often than not. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say: "I need to get a new computer, I can't play any more games with mine..." (Note that they're not saying: I can't run Windows XP on mine...) And these are not hard-core gamers...
You're right, of course: games do not lead the PC Industry's development. But they are an integral part of it, especially for home computers. If Linux is to penetrate the desktop, projects such as Winex can only help!
All right, I stand corrected. I misinterpreted Bush's stance against Kyoto (as well as his interests in the Oil industry) as a dismissal of global warming. It now appears that the Bush Administration does believe in global warming. So, in essence, they are saying that global warming is real, but they're not about to implement the necessary changes because it would hurt the economy. Even though the rest of the world are ready to make some sacrifices, it seems the U.S. - the world's biggest polluter - is not. To do something destructive unknowingly is bad, but can be forgiven. To do the same destructive thing knowingly, well - to use Dubya's own words - that's just evil.
...since I am not an ebay costumer: is it possible to create fake identities and buy stuff from yourself in order to pump up your approval rating? Does ebay have any safeguards against this? I could see this type of fraud as very detrimental for online auctions in general...
You may have bitten, but I think it was more that you can chew...
None of these theories can be seriously compared to that of global warming due to the greenhouse effect. For the most part, they are the work of a few publicity-craving scientists...in the case of global warming, we're talking about something that has been studied extensively over the past two decades, by dozens (if not hundreds) of scientists. Comparing those fringe theories to global warming is a little bit like comparing the current black hole theory (which may indeed turn out not to be true) to something like Edmund Halley's Hollow Earth theory.
What I really meant is, what other contemporary serious threats are there, i.e. ones that have as much impact as global warming and with as much body of research about it?
If you're so scared we are causing global warming, explain the fossilized palm trees they found in Antarctica.
Ok, first I'm not scared, I'm concerned!:-)
Next, palm tree fossils in Antarctica have more to do with tectonic plate movement than global warming, i.e. they probably date back to the olden days of Pangea.
About the global population explosion, well...we'll see about that in 2050, shall we?
The point is, there has been no conclusive evidence to either support or disprove global warming theory. Until there is, I say that the careful approach is better than the carefree one, i.e. we should strive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and gradually switch to renewable, environmentally-friendly energy sources. Then, even if global warming proves to be false, at least we'll have cleaner air (and a lot less trouble in the Persian Gulf!)
I'd say that's a good implementation of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Or, in modern parlance, the "covering our ass" principle.
True. In that case I suggest puttin an easy-to-find shortcut to winipcfg.exe (or the equivalent on Linux) so that they can find out their IP and give it to you by phone - or e-mail, if they're on dial-up...not that if they are on dial-up, you're in for a staggeringly slow and frustrating experience with VNC!!:-)
When dealing with environmental issues it's very difficult to arrive at conclusive proof. But I'll take the question from a different angle: at what percentage of probability will you be convinced that global warming is a real threat that requires a change in our energy-consumption habits? 1%? 10%? 50%? 100%?
My point is that the effects of global warming are potentially so grave that even a small probability requires us not to take any chances and begin to change our habits right now. If it turns out to be wrong, well at least we'll still be using cleaner energy. But this is just not any question: the survival of humanity could be at stake in the long run. Even a 1 in 1000 percent is too much to risk that happening, IMHO...
Except that, if you tally all the scientific studies on the subject, you'd probably find that global warming is probably true, rather than the contrary. In other words, it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt, but it's more likely to be true than not...so, you're free to gamble your descendents' future if you want...
The difference here, of course, is that there is a lot of scientific studies saying that global warming, though it cannot be proven outright, is a highly likely phenomenon. While you're just talking about an issue of faith which has NOTHING to do with science. But perhaps you do not know the difference between science (which is based on empirical thought) and religion (which is based of faith)?
Come on, of all the lame arguments I've read on the issue, this has to be the weakest so far!!
One thing I can tell you, is that we've had two very warm winters in a row up here in Canada. It's probably just a coincidence...but, as I said, the effects of global warming are too far-reaching (and recognized by most scientists except those paid by large energy corporations) to take risks with.
And what about the next 1 in a 1000 "catastrophe" that gets predicted? And the next? And the next? And the next?
Errr...such as? Give us some examples of catastrophes so dramatic and with such a degree of probability which are being touted by scientists, otherwise this argument won't go very far. And how are scientists making money by predicting doomsday? They won't be out of a job if it doesn't turn out to be true: they'll just do research on another subject! (It's not as if there was a lack of subjects to research in Environmental Sciences anyway). I'll tell you, for knowing someone in the field, they'll be a lot happier if they didn't think the Earth was endangered by our habits!
Your arguments are weak, and your mistrust is misplaced. Follow the realmoney!
First of all, there's a lot more than a one in a billion chance of earth being hit by an asteroid (see this also)...some kind of defence mechanism will have to be implemented at some time, when it is technically feasible to do so. In any case, part of the NASA budget (as well as other space agencies around the world) is being used for NEO monitoring. The risk is taken seriously, even though we're pretty sure that it is not an immediate risk.
As far as the SDI - or, as it is now know, the NMD - the analogy is even less accurate. First, I'll point out that we were talking about probabilities of a catastrophy occuring, while you talk about the probability of a defense system being effective. Already, this is a completely different argument, so you're way off-mark. But let's assumed you talked about the probability of a missile attack on the United States, against which National Missile Defence would be used. Again, note that the NMD is not designed to prevent against an environmental catastrophy (whether natural or man-made), but against a military threat, so you're talking about apples and oranges. The question is: how effective would the NMD be, and how real is the threat it addresses. Nobody in their right mind believes that North Korea or another so-called "rogue" state would try to attack the U.S. with nuclear arms (they'd be vaporized within the next half-hour, and good ol' Kim isn't that delirious!). At the same time, NMD wouldn't protect against fanatics hijacking commercial airplanes, or from terrorist bombs being planted on U.S. soil. Finally, most military threats are dealt with through diplomacy and foreign policy, things which - unlike asteroids - can be influenced. So your arguments don't hold...sorry.
In other words, I think a asteroid defence mechanism is something we should look in the future, global warming is a risk we shouldn't take now and in the future, despite initial costs (which would appear small if global warming turned out to be as catastrophic as predicted) while NMD is just a colossal waste of money (or rather, a disguised subsidy of several key industries which are close to the current administration).
I think the Bush administration and other global-warming naysayers should keep that old saying in mind. Yeah, perhaps there isn't sufficient proof that we're screwing up the climate. But the stakes are so high, even if there's only a 1 in 1000 chance that global warming is likely, then it's a risk that should not be taken.
The real point, of course, is that those who oppose the global warming theory usually have economic interests that would be hurt by the development of alternative energy sources. As usual, follow the money!
I don't disagree with you, but the problem is... who spends money to market a free consumer/business product that they've already spent a ton of moolah developing?
That is indeed a key question. As I see it, there's a few ways (in addition to the obvious one of Sun advertising StarOffice to hurt Microsoft's sales): either you have an open-source "consortium" that pools resources from Linux companies, computer makers, individual donors, etc. and markets open-source products (which ones, though...selecting products can become a problem, unless there is some kind of voting method).
Another solution is for a computer maker that would bundle OpenOffice along with the machine and OS (Windows and/or Linux). They could make it their selling point: "A full-featured (and legal) Office Suite with every computer. Save up to 500$!!!"
Also, being open-source, there's nothing preventing you from making your own OpenOffice "distro", which you can "give" away with your own (well-illustrated, laid-out, hardcover) OpenOffice manual/tutorial/trick book. Let's say Ziff-Davis published one of these...they could advertise OpenOffice and their authoritative, top-of-the-line manual at the same time...
There are plenty of ways to answer that legitimate question. But, as always with finding new business models, you have to be creative and not afraid to take (calculated) risks.
Windows is complicated for new users...but by they time they are familiar with it, they can migrate to Windows-friedly desktops (such as KDE or a correctly-configured GNOME) very easily. In other words, if Granma did learn how to surf the web with Windows, she can migrate to surfing on Linux in no time - though I suggest tweaking her installation to make the transition as seamless as possible.
A little advice, which is as valid for Windows or Linux: if you end up being the family's "tech support" and you don't live at home...install VNC on their computer. That way you'll be able to administer their system remotely directly from your desktop, instead of by telephone (always a a pain!)...
Regarding StarOffice, I think Sun probably plans on supporting it for a while still, if only to annoy Microsoft...but in any case, they have released the source code which is now a open-source project known as OpenOffice. I have tried OpenOffice and it is virtually identical to StarOffice 6.0. However, their home page is not very newbie-friendly as of yet, but perhaps when version 1.0 comes out they'll work a bit more on the "marketing" aspect of the project. In any case that's not going away, and at the current rate of progress it will surpass MS Office in a matter of months.
I haven't tried Gobe Productive yet, though I've heard of it. How is it when dealing with Microsoft Files (i.e. Word and Excel)? Unfortunately, no office suite will survive if it can't open and save Microsoft-type files...
Personally I like all the window managers since fvwm and have no problems but being a computer nerd it's a tad different than explaining to my grandma that to get her optical mouse to reinit she needs to kill XWindows and startx.
Just do Ctrl-Alt-Backspace: that's simple enough...It will kill the current X session and restart it automatically (if you've setup X to run automatically at boot time, which you would do for grandma anyway). Noted advantage over Ctrl-Alt-Del: it doesn't reboot the whole machine, so it's a lot quicker. And if that doesn't work, well the ole' three-finger-salute does work as well.
StarOffice/OpenOffice: they need to iron out the last few bugs and market it, for crying out loud! Not just for Linux, but on Windows as well, so that they can wean the business sector off of MSOffice.
Games: despite what many "serious" computer users will say, the PC industry was built on gaming, and gaming is what keeps pushing the hardware improvement cycle. Serious Linux players such as IBM and HP should give substantial (if discreet) grants to efforts such as Transgaming's WineX so we come out with a complete DirectX API for Linux.
Marketing: the different Linux players, big and small, should pool some of their resources to create a "flavorless" marketing organization who promotes the Desktop use of Linux (without specifying a distro in particular). The goal is to challenge common misconceptions about Linux: that it is hard to use, that there are no apps, that it is not graphical, etc., in a series of cool, professional looking ads in print and televised media.
Aim for the Business Desktop first: more people will consider switching at home if they've been "coerced" into using Linux at the office first, only to realize that it was as easy to use as Windows, and a lot more stable.
Don't install so many apps by default in common distros: personally, I don't mind it, but Windows users might be overwhelmed by the choice. Let them choose their browser, e-mail client, office suite, etc. during installation, or with a post-installation "setup" program.
I do believe that Linux has a very good chance of becoming more widespread on the desktop...the fact that it can't be bought off by Microsoft is a big plus! But I'm not kidding myself: the Linux revolution might have better chance of taking place abroad first (Europe, Africa, Asia) - and given America's (and, by extension, Canada's) annoying record of always doing everything different than the rest of the world, it could still take some time here...
Mind you, we've had one of the warmest winter in ages...actually, make that two in a row - which is beginning to make me wonder about all of the global warming stuff...
Not to be too off-topic: I think this is great news for freedom of expression. Despite all the naysayers, we are not too bad in that department as well, even though it's not in our constitution per se (note that IANACL). But then again, our respective constitutions are very different in nature - not to mention the fact that Quebec has yet to sign it!
...who really believes that the Record Companies have their artists' best interests at heart? Miles Copeland III can tear up his shirt all he wants about how Napster is infringing on musicians' rights, the only thing members of the RIAA care about is keeping their stockholders happy.
We need more artists like George Clinton and media-whore Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit to support file sharing of their music, and give the (record) Man a big finger. When artists agree to file sharing, perhaps we'll see a real shift in the industry's exploitative business model.
...of that Tech Support story (urban legend?) in which someone called saying that their computer was broken. When the tech support guy asked to describe the problem, the person said that they pressed on the foot pedal but the computer wouldn't come on. The foot pedal, of course, turned out to be the mouse...
They blew up what was arguably the most sacred icon of American capitalism and murdered 3000 civilians in an unprovoked attack, and you think what we did in Afghanistan was "an eye for an eye?"
According to most independent reports, there have been upwards of 3,000 civilian casualities in Afghanistan since the bombing began. So that would be more like "6,000 eyes for 6,000 eyes"...this despite the fact that Afghanistan's population is much less than that of the U.S., but that's really not important.
I agree that the Taliban were a bunch of murdering fanatics (they were before 9/11, but then america didn't seem to care), and I'm not sorry they are gone, but I'm not sure if the Northern Alliance is any better to tell you the truth. Meanwhile, Ben Laden is still on the loose, and U.S. officials admit that Al-Qaida is still active...kinda makes you wonder, once you remove all the propaganda, what this campaign has achieved at all.
After all, even the most sophisticated lasers (or Missile Defense System) would have been useless to avert the WTC tragedy.
In a word, bullshit.[...]
(The only point I'll concede in your argument is that, on 9/11, whether a battery commander would have been authorized to fire on a commercial airliner in time to prevent said airliner from reaching its target, is an open issue.)
Well, you've just proved my point. I'm not saying that technologically they wouldn't have been able to shoot down the plane (because it ìs possible, in a variety of ways), but that it would have been unthinkable to shoot down a hijacked plane full of civilians if you didn't know what was going to happen afterwards. What I said, and to which you seem to agree despite your initial reaction, is that it wasn't high-tech that stopped the fourth plane and averted more deaths - it was lo-tech, unarmed civilians. Yet Bush is taking the threat of terrorism (which is mostly a police/counterintelligence affair) and asking for the biggest increase in military spending in a long time. You really think that defense of the nation is on his mind? Think again: he's using 9/11 as an excuse to subsidize his friends in the military industry. It's extremely cynical, revolting even, and an insult to those who died in the WTC tragedy.
All right, come off your white horse and calm down a bit, will you? I think you are a bit quick to call other people slanderous, especially regarding your comment about the Muslim "practice" of chopping the hand of a thief. While this barbaric form of punishment is indeed enforced in some places, it is not the case in modern Muslim nations.
Anyway, I disagree with you about the interpretation of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" - perhaps for the people who wrote the Old Testament, it was equivalent to "let the punishment fit the crime", but its modern sense is quite different, meaning that an attack should receive quick retaliation with equal strength. Then again, that seems to be Israel's current policy towards the palestinians, so I wonder how far apart the modern and and original meanings are in practice. In any case, it is obviously only making things worse instead of solving the problem at hand. Maybe my analogy was weak, but it does not take away from the point I was trying to make...
I though 25% of TV Celebrities were already synthetic...
Seriously, a lot of these predictions seem a bit off-the-wall...the problem is, sometimes it does not matter for something to be technologically feasible. It must also be something that's wanted/needed or that will create a need...I fail to see why parents would by a "virtual shopping Barbie" for their kids - you don't want to give a credit card to an 8-year old!
Slashdot Mirror
I see this "the PC industry was built on games" line frequently, and with all due respect I think it's dubious at best.
Well, you do make a good point, however from a market point of view, during the 80s and early 90s home PCs were often bought for two main reasons: so that parents could "balance their books" and do some word-processing, and that kids could play games and "learn while having fun". I agree with you that most milestones in computer history are not related to games...but at the same time, for every rational justification in a computer buyers' minds, there has always been the thought that you could play games on it (even simple ones like Solitaire and Minesweeper). Yes, it's icing on the cake: but it's the icing that may actually make the sale more often than not. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say: "I need to get a new computer, I can't play any more games with mine..." (Note that they're not saying: I can't run Windows XP on mine...) And these are not hard-core gamers...
You're right, of course: games do not lead the PC Industry's development. But they are an integral part of it, especially for home computers. If Linux is to penetrate the desktop, projects such as Winex can only help!
All right, I stand corrected. I misinterpreted Bush's stance against Kyoto (as well as his interests in the Oil industry) as a dismissal of global warming. It now appears that the Bush Administration does believe in global warming. So, in essence, they are saying that global warming is real, but they're not about to implement the necessary changes because it would hurt the economy. Even though the rest of the world are ready to make some sacrifices, it seems the U.S. - the world's biggest polluter - is not. To do something destructive unknowingly is bad, but can be forgiven. To do the same destructive thing knowingly, well - to use Dubya's own words - that's just evil.
...since I am not an ebay costumer: is it possible to create fake identities and buy stuff from yourself in order to pump up your approval rating? Does ebay have any safeguards against this? I could see this type of fraud as very detrimental for online auctions in general...
Hmm, actually, Cyrus Reed Teed was the "Hollow Earth" nutcase I was thinking of...though Edmund Halley did seem to believe in it.
You may have bitten, but I think it was more that you can chew...
None of these theories can be seriously compared to that of global warming due to the greenhouse effect. For the most part, they are the work of a few publicity-craving scientists...in the case of global warming, we're talking about something that has been studied extensively over the past two decades, by dozens (if not hundreds) of scientists. Comparing those fringe theories to global warming is a little bit like comparing the current black hole theory (which may indeed turn out not to be true) to something like Edmund Halley's Hollow Earth theory.
What I really meant is, what other contemporary serious threats are there, i.e. ones that have as much impact as global warming and with as much body of research about it?
If you're so scared we are causing global warming, explain the fossilized palm trees they found in Antarctica.
:-)
Ok, first I'm not scared, I'm concerned!
Next, palm tree fossils in Antarctica have more to do with tectonic plate movement than global warming, i.e. they probably date back to the olden days of Pangea.
About the global population explosion, well...we'll see about that in 2050, shall we?
The point is, there has been no conclusive evidence to either support or disprove global warming theory. Until there is, I say that the careful approach is better than the carefree one, i.e. we should strive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and gradually switch to renewable, environmentally-friendly energy sources. Then, even if global warming proves to be false, at least we'll have cleaner air (and a lot less trouble in the Persian Gulf!)
I'd say that's a good implementation of the "better safe than sorry" principle. Or, in modern parlance, the "covering our ass" principle.
True. In that case I suggest puttin an easy-to-find shortcut to winipcfg.exe (or the equivalent on Linux) so that they can find out their IP and give it to you by phone - or e-mail, if they're on dial-up...not that if they are on dial-up, you're in for a staggeringly slow and frustrating experience with VNC!! :-)
When dealing with environmental issues it's very difficult to arrive at conclusive proof. But I'll take the question from a different angle: at what percentage of probability will you be convinced that global warming is a real threat that requires a change in our energy-consumption habits? 1%? 10%? 50%? 100%?
My point is that the effects of global warming are potentially so grave that even a small probability requires us not to take any chances and begin to change our habits right now. If it turns out to be wrong, well at least we'll still be using cleaner energy. But this is just not any question: the survival of humanity could be at stake in the long run. Even a 1 in 1000 percent is too much to risk that happening, IMHO...
Except that, if you tally all the scientific studies on the subject, you'd probably find that global warming is probably true, rather than the contrary. In other words, it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt, but it's more likely to be true than not...so, you're free to gamble your descendents' future if you want...
The difference here, of course, is that there is a lot of scientific studies saying that global warming, though it cannot be proven outright, is a highly likely phenomenon. While you're just talking about an issue of faith which has NOTHING to do with science. But perhaps you do not know the difference between science (which is based on empirical thought) and religion (which is based of faith)?
Come on, of all the lame arguments I've read on the issue, this has to be the weakest so far!!
One thing I can tell you, is that we've had two very warm winters in a row up here in Canada. It's probably just a coincidence...but, as I said, the effects of global warming are too far-reaching (and recognized by most scientists except those paid by large energy corporations) to take risks with.
And what about the next 1 in a 1000 "catastrophe" that gets predicted? And the next? And the next? And the next?
Errr...such as? Give us some examples of catastrophes so dramatic and with such a degree of probability which are being touted by scientists, otherwise this argument won't go very far. And how are scientists making money by predicting doomsday? They won't be out of a job if it doesn't turn out to be true: they'll just do research on another subject! (It's not as if there was a lack of subjects to research in Environmental Sciences anyway). I'll tell you, for knowing someone in the field, they'll be a lot happier if they didn't think the Earth was endangered by our habits!
Your arguments are weak, and your mistrust is misplaced. Follow the real money!
Mmm...weak arguments.
First of all, there's a lot more than a one in a billion chance of earth being hit by an asteroid (see this also)...some kind of defence mechanism will have to be implemented at some time, when it is technically feasible to do so. In any case, part of the NASA budget (as well as other space agencies around the world) is being used for NEO monitoring. The risk is taken seriously, even though we're pretty sure that it is not an immediate risk.
As far as the SDI - or, as it is now know, the NMD - the analogy is even less accurate. First, I'll point out that we were talking about probabilities of a catastrophy occuring, while you talk about the probability of a defense system being effective. Already, this is a completely different argument, so you're way off-mark. But let's assumed you talked about the probability of a missile attack on the United States, against which National Missile Defence would be used. Again, note that the NMD is not designed to prevent against an environmental catastrophy (whether natural or man-made), but against a military threat, so you're talking about apples and oranges. The question is: how effective would the NMD be, and how real is the threat it addresses. Nobody in their right mind believes that North Korea or another so-called "rogue" state would try to attack the U.S. with nuclear arms (they'd be vaporized within the next half-hour, and good ol' Kim isn't that delirious!). At the same time, NMD wouldn't protect against fanatics hijacking commercial airplanes, or from terrorist bombs being planted on U.S. soil. Finally, most military threats are dealt with through diplomacy and foreign policy, things which - unlike asteroids - can be influenced. So your arguments don't hold...sorry.
In other words, I think a asteroid defence mechanism is something we should look in the future, global warming is a risk we shouldn't take now and in the future, despite initial costs (which would appear small if global warming turned out to be as catastrophic as predicted) while NMD is just a colossal waste of money (or rather, a disguised subsidy of several key industries which are close to the current administration).
I think the Bush administration and other global-warming naysayers should keep that old saying in mind. Yeah, perhaps there isn't sufficient proof that we're screwing up the climate. But the stakes are so high, even if there's only a 1 in 1000 chance that global warming is likely, then it's a risk that should not be taken.
The real point, of course, is that those who oppose the global warming theory usually have economic interests that would be hurt by the development of alternative energy sources. As usual, follow the money!
I don't disagree with you, but the problem is... who spends money to market a free consumer/business product that they've already spent a ton of moolah developing?
That is indeed a key question. As I see it, there's a few ways (in addition to the obvious one of Sun advertising StarOffice to hurt Microsoft's sales): either you have an open-source "consortium" that pools resources from Linux companies, computer makers, individual donors, etc. and markets open-source products (which ones, though...selecting products can become a problem, unless there is some kind of voting method).
Another solution is for a computer maker that would bundle OpenOffice along with the machine and OS (Windows and/or Linux). They could make it their selling point: "A full-featured (and legal) Office Suite with every computer. Save up to 500$!!!"
Also, being open-source, there's nothing preventing you from making your own OpenOffice "distro", which you can "give" away with your own (well-illustrated, laid-out, hardcover) OpenOffice manual/tutorial/trick book. Let's say Ziff-Davis published one of these...they could advertise OpenOffice and their authoritative, top-of-the-line manual at the same time...
There are plenty of ways to answer that legitimate question. But, as always with finding new business models, you have to be creative and not afraid to take (calculated) risks.
Windows is complicated for new users...but by they time they are familiar with it, they can migrate to Windows-friedly desktops (such as KDE or a correctly-configured GNOME) very easily. In other words, if Granma did learn how to surf the web with Windows, she can migrate to surfing on Linux in no time - though I suggest tweaking her installation to make the transition as seamless as possible.
A little advice, which is as valid for Windows or Linux: if you end up being the family's "tech support" and you don't live at home...install VNC on their computer. That way you'll be able to administer their system remotely directly from your desktop, instead of by telephone (always a a pain!)...
Regarding StarOffice, I think Sun probably plans on supporting it for a while still, if only to annoy Microsoft...but in any case, they have released the source code which is now a open-source project known as OpenOffice. I have tried OpenOffice and it is virtually identical to StarOffice 6.0. However, their home page is not very newbie-friendly as of yet, but perhaps when version 1.0 comes out they'll work a bit more on the "marketing" aspect of the project. In any case that's not going away, and at the current rate of progress it will surpass MS Office in a matter of months.
I haven't tried Gobe Productive yet, though I've heard of it. How is it when dealing with Microsoft Files (i.e. Word and Excel)? Unfortunately, no office suite will survive if it can't open and save Microsoft-type files...
Personally I like all the window managers since fvwm and have no problems but being a computer nerd it's a tad different than explaining to my grandma that to get her optical mouse to reinit she needs to kill XWindows and startx.
Just do Ctrl-Alt-Backspace: that's simple enough...It will kill the current X session and restart it automatically (if you've setup X to run automatically at boot time, which you would do for grandma anyway). Noted advantage over Ctrl-Alt-Del: it doesn't reboot the whole machine, so it's a lot quicker. And if that doesn't work, well the ole' three-finger-salute does work as well.
Linux is as easy as Windows, only different.
...hangs on a few things:
StarOffice/OpenOffice: they need to iron out the last few bugs and market it, for crying out loud! Not just for Linux, but on Windows as well, so that they can wean the business sector off of MSOffice.
Games: despite what many "serious" computer users will say, the PC industry was built on gaming, and gaming is what keeps pushing the hardware improvement cycle. Serious Linux players such as IBM and HP should give substantial (if discreet) grants to efforts such as Transgaming's WineX so we come out with a complete DirectX API for Linux.
Marketing: the different Linux players, big and small, should pool some of their resources to create a "flavorless" marketing organization who promotes the Desktop use of Linux (without specifying a distro in particular). The goal is to challenge common misconceptions about Linux: that it is hard to use, that there are no apps, that it is not graphical, etc., in a series of cool, professional looking ads in print and televised media.
Aim for the Business Desktop first: more people will consider switching at home if they've been "coerced" into using Linux at the office first, only to realize that it was as easy to use as Windows, and a lot more stable.
Don't install so many apps by default in common distros: personally, I don't mind it, but Windows users might be overwhelmed by the choice. Let them choose their browser, e-mail client, office suite, etc. during installation, or with a post-installation "setup" program.
I do believe that Linux has a very good chance of becoming more widespread on the desktop...the fact that it can't be bought off by Microsoft is a big plus! But I'm not kidding myself: the Linux revolution might have better chance of taking place abroad first (Europe, Africa, Asia) - and given America's (and, by extension, Canada's) annoying record of always doing everything different than the rest of the world, it could still take some time here...
Mind you, we've had one of the warmest winter in ages...actually, make that two in a row - which is beginning to make me wonder about all of the global warming stuff...
Not to be too off-topic: I think this is great news for freedom of expression. Despite all the naysayers, we are not too bad in that department as well, even though it's not in our constitution per se (note that IANACL). But then again, our respective constitutions are very different in nature - not to mention the fact that Quebec has yet to sign it!
[Insert Quebec-basher comment here.]
...since their graphics chip is in the Gamecube. Will they be making the chip for the new board, or are they basically getting cut out of the loop?
...who really believes that the Record Companies have their artists' best interests at heart? Miles Copeland III can tear up his shirt all he wants about how Napster is infringing on musicians' rights, the only thing members of the RIAA care about is keeping their stockholders happy.
We need more artists like George Clinton and media-whore Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit to support file sharing of their music, and give the (record) Man a big finger. When artists agree to file sharing, perhaps we'll see a real shift in the industry's exploitative business model.
...of that Tech Support story (urban legend?) in which someone called saying that their computer was broken. When the tech support guy asked to describe the problem, the person said that they pressed on the foot pedal but the computer wouldn't come on. The foot pedal, of course, turned out to be the mouse...
They blew up what was arguably the most sacred icon of American capitalism and murdered 3000 civilians in an unprovoked attack, and you think what we did in Afghanistan was "an eye for an eye?"
According to most independent reports, there have been upwards of 3,000 civilian casualities in Afghanistan since the bombing began. So that would be more like "6,000 eyes for 6,000 eyes"...this despite the fact that Afghanistan's population is much less than that of the U.S., but that's really not important.
I agree that the Taliban were a bunch of murdering fanatics (they were before 9/11, but then america didn't seem to care), and I'm not sorry they are gone, but I'm not sure if the Northern Alliance is any better to tell you the truth. Meanwhile, Ben Laden is still on the loose, and U.S. officials admit that Al-Qaida is still active...kinda makes you wonder, once you remove all the propaganda, what this campaign has achieved at all.
After all, even the most sophisticated lasers (or Missile Defense System) would have been useless to avert the WTC tragedy.
In a word, bullshit.[...] (The only point I'll concede in your argument is that, on 9/11, whether a battery commander would have been authorized to fire on a commercial airliner in time to prevent said airliner from reaching its target, is an open issue.)
Well, you've just proved my point. I'm not saying that technologically they wouldn't have been able to shoot down the plane (because it ìs possible, in a variety of ways), but that it would have been unthinkable to shoot down a hijacked plane full of civilians if you didn't know what was going to happen afterwards. What I said, and to which you seem to agree despite your initial reaction, is that it wasn't high-tech that stopped the fourth plane and averted more deaths - it was lo-tech, unarmed civilians. Yet Bush is taking the threat of terrorism (which is mostly a police/counterintelligence affair) and asking for the biggest increase in military spending in a long time. You really think that defense of the nation is on his mind? Think again: he's using 9/11 as an excuse to subsidize his friends in the military industry. It's extremely cynical, revolting even, and an insult to those who died in the WTC tragedy.
All right, come off your white horse and calm down a bit, will you? I think you are a bit quick to call other people slanderous, especially regarding your comment about the Muslim "practice" of chopping the hand of a thief. While this barbaric form of punishment is indeed enforced in some places, it is not the case in modern Muslim nations.
Anyway, I disagree with you about the interpretation of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" - perhaps for the people who wrote the Old Testament, it was equivalent to "let the punishment fit the crime", but its modern sense is quite different, meaning that an attack should receive quick retaliation with equal strength. Then again, that seems to be Israel's current policy towards the palestinians, so I wonder how far apart the modern and and original meanings are in practice. In any case, it is obviously only making things worse instead of solving the problem at hand. Maybe my analogy was weak, but it does not take away from the point I was trying to make...
I though 25% of TV Celebrities were already synthetic...
Seriously, a lot of these predictions seem a bit off-the-wall...the problem is, sometimes it does not matter for something to be technologically feasible. It must also be something that's wanted/needed or that will create a need...I fail to see why parents would by a "virtual shopping Barbie" for their kids - you don't want to give a credit card to an 8-year old!