Then the hardware becomes integrated with the software and you end up with truly a Windows machine. A gap in the market arises and additional hardware becomes available. It's capitalism.
Just one [anal] clarification... all MIT classes are noted by a decimal notation system, so it's "6.170," not "6-170." The 6 is short for Course VI, which is the EECS department. It's just a little thing that any MIT student would immediately notice as being odd about how you wrote it.
If I'd had mod points, you'd be a troll. Why? Your last statement is flawed:
There's a difference between being wrong and being a troll. The poster was the former, not the latter. Educate and correct. No need to insult people. Linux gets a really bad name from geek elitists.
Predictions are useful if you want to get rich. If you took heed of such predictions five years ago, can you imagine how much money you would have made? MSFT, AOL, SUNW, CSCO, AMZN, EBAY, YHOO, etc. Of course, the challenge is picking the correct prediction, but you can bet that big money rides on these kinds of predictions.
Since when does the SEC investigate companies to find out if their lawsuits have merit? Do you know for a fact that they don't have a case? If so, there are a lot of people that would like to talk to you. Their credibility may be lacking in the popular opinion department, but that's a far cry from legal proof.
Come on, this is flamebait and not at all funny./. IS too Americentric (though why America would want to kill people is beyond me).
Flamebait, yes, but insisting that Slashdot shouldn't not be American-centric is a hollow argument. It's, after all, published in the US. It has no obligation to take into account all world views. On top of that, Slashdot, as you speak of it, is really comprised of its users, not so much Slashdot as an organization. You think the editors actually do something here?
However, all readers should be aware that most posts are made by Americans and the views of Americans, for better or for worse.
Well, no kidding, but your arguments are outside the scope of the article. They're not wrong, but a (Score:5, Insightful) article should actually provide insight that isn't completely obvious.
There's no such thing as intellectual property. There's copyright law, trademark law, and patent law, but "IP" is an empty concept.
Intellectual property law is an accurate and accepted term to refer to the collection of copyright, trademark, and patent law, among others, that deal primarily with ideas and thoughts rather than people or physical things. To think otherwise is semantics.
You know, this is the real truth. It makes a huge difference to sit there and be really friendly and, most importantly, be humble. I've been on the phone with people with a fraction of the experience that I have had. Sometimes, I know exactly what's wrong and I just need a simple answer to a simple question, like where I need to download the new driver. So I just explain my problem and what I suspect, but follow it up with, "but maybe I'm wrong and you can help me out." Let them be the expert. Only if they're really a fish out of water should you start asking the tough questions and escalate it through. Be patient and you're almost guaranteed to talk to the people that you need to and, hopefully, the resolution you want.
Expect Microsoft to talk about its features in security and adminsitration of those features. Enterprise administration of logins and permissions is actually much more comprehensive OOTB in Active Directory than Linux. I mean, when you think about the granularity by which you can create groups and move users around, it actually does have a leg up. The thoroughness of these features is something to be worked on, but, as far as I know, Linux does not have these features in any major distribution. Domain administration can be extended right through, seamlessly, to individual resources on the network, including via browser. For most people, revoking a person's login to the 50 different machines that they might have access to in Linux is tedious, to put it mildly. On NT/AD, it's little more than a single checkbox. Expect all of the reports and studies that they do to key in on features and distinguishing characteristics, as opposed to raw superiority. They won't say that they're more stable than Linux, but they'll say something like it's easier to centrally monitor servers via PerfMon.
Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers
on
In-Flight Reboot?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The article doesn't say that it takes 36 seconds to reboot the computers. It says 36 seconds per flight are spent rebooting the avionics. It doesn't say how long the reboots take. The total reboot time per flight could have been reduced by quicker reboots or less reboots or both.
That's nonsense. Who does it first is less important than who does it most significantly. History is sprinkled with examples of someone inventing something, but someone else credited to making it significant or perfecting itg. WorldWideWeb was the first browser, but Netscape was the household name. Pocket electronic organizers have been around for a long time, but Palm made them commonplace. The Wright brothers invented powered flight, but Glen Curtiss made it significant. Humphrey Davy invented the electric light, but Edison made it practical.
The reason is very simple: because it was agreed to be illegal by society. The public, through the FCC, agreed that theft of cable service, of which digital satellite is an extension, is a protected service. If you want to make it legal, you need to lobby to get the FCC to change it. You may also choose to live with the law or leave the society.
Sometimes, laws make sense simply from an ethical standpoint, such as murder, theft, and other personal damages. Other times, laws are there to provide structure to society, and we agree to abide by them for the sake of furthering society.
I think that's exactly the problem that the poster was trying to show: people use computers in ways that designers may not anticipate. Even though Lindows looks a lot like Windows and has many equivalent applications, it may not pass usability tests like this, where people are so ingrained in their habits and only learn one way to do things and they stick with it. Sometimes, they learn the process and not the concept, so a small change in the interface may mean big changes for the user. In this case, the mom, may not be able to use Lindows without a learning curve.
The blurb that was submitted puts an unfortunate spin on the comments. It's not so much that marketing told them the wrong thing -- it's a failure of management to fully identify and evaluate their needs. I've seen it happen time and time again where a million dollar project gets flushed down the tube a year later because no one is using it anymore. The software works fine -- it's just that business priorities weren't quite there to get everyone on the system and plans changed. In some cases, the product is flawed and full of bugs, but most of the time, the product doesn't suit the business requirements.
I'm a huge fan of cars and have a >300 hp sports car that will out-accelerate and out-handle most cars on the road. I also take it on the track regularly and I'm familiar with the way it handles in all kinds of situations. I do agree that you probably know more than the car and it's possible tht it could screw up. But, like all safety equipment, you kinda have to play the numbers and evaluate whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks. Seat belts are great, but it is possible that getting thrown clear of an accident instead of being securely held within the "safety cage" of the car could help you, but it's more likely that it will help you than hurt you. Stability control systems, like Porsche Stability Management (I see you're a Porsche fan) are incredible at making the car very predictable. You can go into a corner way too hot, pointed in the wrong direction, and STILL come out looking like a champ. I think the stability systems of today are much better than before. Get a test drive in a 996 and I think you'll be amazed at how well it works.
One thing in particular must be cleared up: players are not required to use a GBA system to play Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles in its current form. In the private hands-on playtest that we experienced, only three GBA SP systems were available, thus a Nintendo representative was forced to plug in a standard GCN controller to join the party. The previously mentioned Japanese interview had caused quite a stir among Nintendo fans during the past week in regards to whether four GBA systems were required for multiplayer action, but we can confirm that this is not the case in the version we played. Whether or not this will change for its final release remains to be determined, but we consider it unlikely.
NASA software engineering is actually quite remarkable -- at least for the shuttle program. I read a paper once about how they actually break many of the paradigms of writing code that so many programmers are accustomed to so that the code is absolutely perfect. Deadlines are met well ahead of schedule and nobody works late. They're not allowed to work late, because the pressure or fatigue could cause an error to occur. The code is personally signed-off by the chief software engineer that it won't hurt anyone. Every line of code is fully documented. The code is virtually written twice by two separate teams. This article actually details some of it great length: They Write the Right Stuff. I don't disagree with you that maybe the way they write software needs to be reviewed, but it seems that they already go a long way to ensure that happens.
What exactly is it that you expect the government to do? How should the government control this? What kinds of laws and/or regulations need to be passed to help regulate this? What are steps that can be taken to discourage abuse of the system?
You can't just complain about something. You have to suggestion reasonable solutions or at least an avenue for discussion. Besides, in essence, you are the government. I would like to hear some ideas about what can be done. Does anyone have any good ideas at all?
Actually, I think he picked the completely wrong design. You couldn't offer to do that to my computer for free. I'm impressed by his ability to solve various problems and make a working unit and he did a great job of being thorough, but I don't want it. For me, the biggest reason is that the whole point of the iMac and Macs in general are for understated elegance of design. The point is to actually remove everything that you don't need immediately. All those ports and drives and access ports should be off to the side of the monitor, not right in the front. It gives the whole thing a Battlestar Galactica look that I'd prefer not to have. I only want to see the display and I'm willing to live with a CD tray. I look at my computer, with my mid-tower is underneath. My only interfaces to the computer are the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, with occasional access to the CD-R drive -- a computer should be built with that in mind.
Companies already make all-in-one machines that are smaller footprint (not much bigger than just an LCD monitor). It doesn't have everything as roll-your-own, but the trade-off is small enough that I'd prefer to have form over function.
GPS didn't replace basic navigation skills with a map and compass. Radios didn't replace the use of handsignals or semaphore. Radar didn't replace binoculars. APCs didn't replace marching. Machine guns didn't replace basic hand-to-hand combat. The list goes on and on...
The only single point of failure in the Urban Warrior System is still the soldier. Everything else is redundant. With a radio or even by yelling, a unit commander still has command and control. The UWS in this incarnation may still be a failure and never see active duty, but technologies to augment a soldier's capabilities will always be coming.
Probably not, but even if you could, it'd be totally useless to you. Windows XP is an integrated requirement to the Tablet PC architecture. There are all kinds of neat features that are built into Tablet PC's version of XP that you just won't get without tons of coding effort. It'll be years before someone puts together open source software that has the functionality of Tablet PC, mostly out of lack of interest. You can probably get a pop-up keyboard where you can punch in one letter at a time, but you won't get features like circling a block of text with the pen and having it cut-and-paste it right out of there. Microsoft threw a huge amount of money into this product and just because it might run Linux doesn't mean it will be better.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the hardware becomes integrated with the software and you end up with truly a Windows machine. A gap in the market arises and additional hardware becomes available. It's capitalism.
Just one [anal] clarification ... all MIT classes are noted by a decimal notation system, so it's "6.170," not "6-170." The 6 is short for Course VI, which is the EECS department. It's just a little thing that any MIT student would immediately notice as being odd about how you wrote it.
Predictions are useful if you want to get rich. If you took heed of such predictions five years ago, can you imagine how much money you would have made? MSFT, AOL, SUNW, CSCO, AMZN, EBAY, YHOO, etc. Of course, the challenge is picking the correct prediction, but you can bet that big money rides on these kinds of predictions.
Since when does the SEC investigate companies to find out if their lawsuits have merit? Do you know for a fact that they don't have a case? If so, there are a lot of people that would like to talk to you. Their credibility may be lacking in the popular opinion department, but that's a far cry from legal proof.
However, all readers should be aware that most posts are made by Americans and the views of Americans, for better or for worse.
Well, no kidding, but your arguments are outside the scope of the article. They're not wrong, but a (Score:5, Insightful) article should actually provide insight that isn't completely obvious.
Expect Microsoft to talk about its features in security and adminsitration of those features. Enterprise administration of logins and permissions is actually much more comprehensive OOTB in Active Directory than Linux. I mean, when you think about the granularity by which you can create groups and move users around, it actually does have a leg up. The thoroughness of these features is something to be worked on, but, as far as I know, Linux does not have these features in any major distribution. Domain administration can be extended right through, seamlessly, to individual resources on the network, including via browser. For most people, revoking a person's login to the 50 different machines that they might have access to in Linux is tedious, to put it mildly. On NT/AD, it's little more than a single checkbox. Expect all of the reports and studies that they do to key in on features and distinguishing characteristics, as opposed to raw superiority. They won't say that they're more stable than Linux, but they'll say something like it's easier to centrally monitor servers via PerfMon.
The article doesn't say that it takes 36 seconds to reboot the computers. It says 36 seconds per flight are spent rebooting the avionics. It doesn't say how long the reboots take. The total reboot time per flight could have been reduced by quicker reboots or less reboots or both.
Most competition cars are already sealed. They use all kinds of means to make the car completely airtight, including big meatlocker-like door latches.
That's nonsense. Who does it first is less important than who does it most significantly. History is sprinkled with examples of someone inventing something, but someone else credited to making it significant or perfecting itg. WorldWideWeb was the first browser, but Netscape was the household name. Pocket electronic organizers have been around for a long time, but Palm made them commonplace. The Wright brothers invented powered flight, but Glen Curtiss made it significant. Humphrey Davy invented the electric light, but Edison made it practical.
The reason is very simple: because it was agreed to be illegal by society. The public, through the FCC, agreed that theft of cable service, of which digital satellite is an extension, is a protected service. If you want to make it legal, you need to lobby to get the FCC to change it. You may also choose to live with the law or leave the society.
Sometimes, laws make sense simply from an ethical standpoint, such as murder, theft, and other personal damages. Other times, laws are there to provide structure to society, and we agree to abide by them for the sake of furthering society.
Does she pass the Mac test? Or the VCR 12:00 test? If not, then it's pointless to continue ... There will some people that will never become users.
I think that's exactly the problem that the poster was trying to show: people use computers in ways that designers may not anticipate. Even though Lindows looks a lot like Windows and has many equivalent applications, it may not pass usability tests like this, where people are so ingrained in their habits and only learn one way to do things and they stick with it. Sometimes, they learn the process and not the concept, so a small change in the interface may mean big changes for the user. In this case, the mom, may not be able to use Lindows without a learning curve.
The blurb that was submitted puts an unfortunate spin on the comments. It's not so much that marketing told them the wrong thing -- it's a failure of management to fully identify and evaluate their needs. I've seen it happen time and time again where a million dollar project gets flushed down the tube a year later because no one is using it anymore. The software works fine -- it's just that business priorities weren't quite there to get everyone on the system and plans changed. In some cases, the product is flawed and full of bugs, but most of the time, the product doesn't suit the business requirements.
I'm a huge fan of cars and have a >300 hp sports car that will out-accelerate and out-handle most cars on the road. I also take it on the track regularly and I'm familiar with the way it handles in all kinds of situations. I do agree that you probably know more than the car and it's possible tht it could screw up. But, like all safety equipment, you kinda have to play the numbers and evaluate whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks. Seat belts are great, but it is possible that getting thrown clear of an accident instead of being securely held within the "safety cage" of the car could help you, but it's more likely that it will help you than hurt you. Stability control systems, like Porsche Stability Management (I see you're a Porsche fan) are incredible at making the car very predictable. You can go into a corner way too hot, pointed in the wrong direction, and STILL come out looking like a champ. I think the stability systems of today are much better than before. Get a test drive in a 996 and I think you'll be amazed at how well it works.
NASA software engineering is actually quite remarkable -- at least for the shuttle program. I read a paper once about how they actually break many of the paradigms of writing code that so many programmers are accustomed to so that the code is absolutely perfect. Deadlines are met well ahead of schedule and nobody works late. They're not allowed to work late, because the pressure or fatigue could cause an error to occur. The code is personally signed-off by the chief software engineer that it won't hurt anyone. Every line of code is fully documented. The code is virtually written twice by two separate teams. This article actually details some of it great length: They Write the Right Stuff. I don't disagree with you that maybe the way they write software needs to be reviewed, but it seems that they already go a long way to ensure that happens.
What exactly is it that you expect the government to do? How should the government control this? What kinds of laws and/or regulations need to be passed to help regulate this? What are steps that can be taken to discourage abuse of the system?
You can't just complain about something. You have to suggestion reasonable solutions or at least an avenue for discussion. Besides, in essence, you are the government. I would like to hear some ideas about what can be done. Does anyone have any good ideas at all?
Actually, I think he picked the completely wrong design. You couldn't offer to do that to my computer for free. I'm impressed by his ability to solve various problems and make a working unit and he did a great job of being thorough, but I don't want it. For me, the biggest reason is that the whole point of the iMac and Macs in general are for understated elegance of design. The point is to actually remove everything that you don't need immediately. All those ports and drives and access ports should be off to the side of the monitor, not right in the front. It gives the whole thing a Battlestar Galactica look that I'd prefer not to have. I only want to see the display and I'm willing to live with a CD tray. I look at my computer, with my mid-tower is underneath. My only interfaces to the computer are the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, with occasional access to the CD-R drive -- a computer should be built with that in mind.
Companies already make all-in-one machines that are smaller footprint (not much bigger than just an LCD monitor). It doesn't have everything as roll-your-own, but the trade-off is small enough that I'd prefer to have form over function.
GPS didn't replace basic navigation skills with a map and compass. Radios didn't replace the use of handsignals or semaphore. Radar didn't replace binoculars. APCs didn't replace marching. Machine guns didn't replace basic hand-to-hand combat. The list goes on and on ...
The only single point of failure in the Urban Warrior System is still the soldier. Everything else is redundant. With a radio or even by yelling, a unit commander still has command and control. The UWS in this incarnation may still be a failure and never see active duty, but technologies to augment a soldier's capabilities will always be coming.
Unit locations and other encrypted information are already flying through the skies and satellites anyway. This isn't anything new.
Probably not, but even if you could, it'd be totally useless to you. Windows XP is an integrated requirement to the Tablet PC architecture. There are all kinds of neat features that are built into Tablet PC's version of XP that you just won't get without tons of coding effort. It'll be years before someone puts together open source software that has the functionality of Tablet PC, mostly out of lack of interest. You can probably get a pop-up keyboard where you can punch in one letter at a time, but you won't get features like circling a block of text with the pen and having it cut-and-paste it right out of there. Microsoft threw a huge amount of money into this product and just because it might run Linux doesn't mean it will be better.