I would say that SF is more suited to the mini-series arena, with Dune being a perfect example.
For the most part I'd have to agree with this. A lot of the true sci-fi stuff has to be experience over a period of time to really make sense or to have an impact. Often because the genre as a whole asks: What if X is true? And the true evaluation of that is not the knee jerk speculation that comes immediately after. The truer answer is when you sit in that scenerio and just simmer in the assumptions.
_Heroes_ is doing a fairly good job of this one. At first, it's really cool to think about having super powers. But, as it goes on, you see that assumption isn't true. In many cases it's way more trouble than it is worth. As a series though, it can pull that off. As a movie, it'd just end up as an overblown action sequence.
_Battlestar Galactica_ is very, very good at this concept too. The point isn't about which side wins. It's about what happens in the process. And that process has to be experience to really make the point.
_X-Files_ had some scifi elements. The big what if being: aliens working with the gov't. But, the series approach on an episode to episode basis was part mystery, part suspense, and part drama. No examination of the human condition or of the after effects of the big What If.
I've thought this too. I started listening to Pandora Radio. Thankfully they don't have those incentives. (Nor could they and continue to exist as they do.) I'm surprized (and a little embarrassed) at how much music is out there that I had no idea existed.
Being a metal head, I wasn't exactly catered to by Clear Channel or any other radio station. So, aside from the handful of bands that everybody can name as thrash metal, I had no idea of what was out there or how to look for it.
The way I'd look is by trading band names and descriptions with friends and taking the occasional chance. Sometimes I'd get burned sometimes not. But, I never really knew what else was out there.
Pandora changed my life;')
If all I know about is $foo. But, I would really would like $bar, but never hear it. I'm not going to buy either.
However, what SUV's gain in passive safety, they lack in active. Passive, of course being their behemoth size and weight. Active being the maneuverability, braking distance, and overall performance.
Because of this SUV's are much, much more likely to be involved in an accident. After all, they have lesser capacity to avoid it. However, you are correct in that SUV drivers are much more likely to survive these accidents. They are only safer if you are inside one. Those outside have become more unsafe.
It's almost like a part of the population declared a sort of informal war against the other parts.
Pre-installed or blank you gain both of those things anyways.
With a pre-install you get a few more advantages:
A work PC out of the box.
Guaranteed Driver Support. Dell (or HP) would look stupid if their pre-install didn't work with their systems. So, instead of an offering and a promise, you actually have leverage to hold them to it.
If they have a preferred Linux, they'll be more apt to buy parts for future computers that are more friendly to open source. Buying power does a lot more persuading than merely asking for compliance.
A significant percentage might even like their OS. (They are polling to see what we're asking for.) It'll save them an hour of installing.
Of course mass exposure.
There is no added disadvantage. If you were going to format and reinstall, you're not hindered at all. Hell, you still get to benefit from the driver support they'll be held to.
My point is, if you're technically capable, and an OS is installed you can change it.
But, if we want Linux to be introduced to the masses then we have to assume the masses won't know enough to install it themselves. So, sell them pre-installed. The cost won't be any different from a naked system. And it'll serve the lowest common denominator of buyer. If you don't like it. Change it, you can. They can't. That's my point.
To me, you and the rest here on slashdot that makes perfect sense. To the average user, they'll be upset there were sold, in their minds, a $1000+ paperweight.
And, while it would be tempting to say "tough shit, they can learn to stick in a disk", you can't expect that of the average user.
The main thing slashdotters would be getting out of this is an exemption from the Micrsoft Tax. As far as OS's go, we're more than capable of formatting and installing what we like. So, the whole choice of pre-installed or comes with a disk only matters to the rest of the population. So, why not make it easier on them? We want them to get interested in it don't we?
True. But, is that office capable of it? Even given a good president who is committed to QA, could they keep up with it? So many bills get pushed with all sorts of unrelated items tagged onto them. It would be like having one debugger combing through all the Windows source code.
In Theory, the Supreme court should catch those that get by the President. But, by the time it gets to them, bad laws have been in the system for years.
Somebody else said it here, there should be a 1:1 ratio of problem to bills. None of this tacking on stuff. There should be designated times where smaller bills are considered and voted on so that tacking on doesn't become their only route to being passed. Small bill fridays anyone?
I'd also love to see a form of government where laws are engineered and maintained much the same way code is. All bills tested for bugs, put in beta stages, peer reviewed...
And let's train congressmen to do their jobs. Sure, popular vote them in. But, train them afterwards on how to write good bills. And we need a feedback mechanism for those that don't. Something independent of popular vote. If Senator Al gets an F in bill writing, I think this constituents would put that into consideration when re-electing him.
I would also add that Microsoft has sort of painted themselves in a corner with their current business model. Microsoft wants it's user to get stuff done the Microsoft way. Google and Mac both seem to be approaching the consumer/user with the idea the consumer just wants to get something done. To hell with who's method. Microsoft can't compete with that. They also can't change their tactics without taking back on God-knows-how-many-years of business strategy. And that's highly unlikely. That's not because they couldn't if they really wanted to. It's because they won't because their culture is so entrenched.
To top it off, Google and Mac are both surprisingly agile to consumer needs. Instead of pumping out one big product every few years, both of them have mastered the process of small but significant improvements. This allows them to keep shorter goals and to stay more in touch with what the user wants.
The very serious problem with this is that you essentially give people no accountability for those actions. Because then those actions are ultimately nobody's fault. While I'm not judging your claim, it does bring to question the survival of society. Society as we know it is founded on the concept that we can change our behaviors and are responsible to do so. The acceptance of such a theory on the population at large would be devastating.
Amen to that. I had the opportunity to attend the admin meeting. (Apparently that's the PC term for it these days.) You would be surprised how much power they have. All the big purchases of course get approved by the higher ups. But, all purchases big and little end up getting processed by this group. In that particular meeting, they had a office supply vendor practically grovelling for their purchases.
Considering that "God", "Allah", "Buddha"... can not be proven or disproven, the contradictory evidence thing is not applicable. And considering that these ideals have been passed down from generation to generation wholey preserved, I wouldn't say "making shit up" either. Today's followers have little power to change the core beliefs of their religions.
Most people go into a religious faith for the purposes of finding an answer or explanation to some personal question in their life. It's really no different than any scientist's curiousity and search into the natural world with the soul exception of methodology. Scientist must make limits in their work methods so their conclusions are univerally applicable.
So... no, it's not about making shit up and justifying the conclusions. To make that comment suggests some gross presumptions of behavior.
Faith is what happens when you don't have or don't accept the answers for those questions.
Faith doesn't contradict with questioning. We don't come to have faith in something because we are refusing to search for the answers. We come to have faith in something because we fancy the answer we've discover or created for ourselves.
Let's face it, when we human beings get all up in arms about something, we kill people.
Think about human history and silly things we've killed for: Sections of land small enough to walk around in a day, bad cartoons, insults, mythical WMD's. And that's just these past couple of years.
The list is nearly endless and mindless. The problem isn't the metaphor/allegory. The problem is us. We'll kill for things we believe in, whether we're right or wrong. It's not that it's a lie or the truth, it's because some of us don't bother to question it.
God could say "Hello" and half the world's population would try killing the other half because they weren't "worthy" to hear it. How's that God's fault?
A very good friend of someone I once knew told me he had done extensive work in flash, and he had included graphics, moving images, and text in his website. If that isn't the sweet song of tomorrow, then I must be tuned into the wrong station.
I'm probably feeding a troll here but, I'll bite.
I've worked in flash since version 4.0. I'm quite aware of what it's strong points are and it's weak points. There's more to technology than it's pretty face. You can have all of the beauty, aesthetics and media you want but it doesn't change the fact that flash is no substitute for HTML.
Flash is difficult to update, overly complicated, and inadequate to substitute for HTML. And it's that way because it was DESIGNED that way. When flash was created, it was never intended to replace traditional web architecture. It was intended to fill the niche for low bandwidth, interactive, visual and auditory content. It does that very, very well. It does not however do that in a way that is easy to maintain. It also doesn't do that in a way that seamlessly integrates with traditonal web architecture.
Content in movies cannot be categorized, translated, indexed or searched with out traditional html architecture to back it up. That's ok. Flash still has it's use as long as people realize that is what it is for.
You don't use flash for traditional imagery and navigation for the same reason you don't use a pliers to unscrew screws. It's much easier and efficient to use the tool intended for the job.
You my friend have hit the nail on the head. As a webmaster there is nothing more irresponsible than using flash to do html's job. It hurts so many things.
Other reasons to avoid flash for anything other than the above 2 scenerios meantioned above:
Accessibility: Would you build a building with out a handicap ramp? Why would you build a website that way? Flash is poorly suited for outputting in any way that isn't sight AND sound.
Translators: Translating sites won't touch your flash navigation. They'll happily parse an html one if it's coded properly. Most of the world doesn't speak your language.
Load Time: Not so much an issue anymore. Well, not for most of us. But, there are still a signifcant portion of the web surfing community loading pages through 56k modems on machines 6 or more years old. Html is smaller and loads faster.
Maintenance: Flash has a fairly steep learning curve. After you've spent a bit of time with it, things get a lot easier. But just diving into is difficult for most people. That's why consultants charge so much to build and maintain it. So, if you needed to change it, you've either got to shell out the bucks to out source it or develop some in-house talent. Also, you've just complicated your web software unnecessarily by requiring flash knowledge to maintain it. Flash is an add-on not a core dependency.
Besides that point, HTML is so much easier to crack open and edit. And easier to keep up to date with CSS.
I say this as a web and flash developer. Flash is for fun animations and demonstations. It's not for site design, navigation, still graphics or content (unless animation is your content).
An interesting phenomenon I've discovered with history (and anthropology) students and the professors is that they tend to be very protective and defensive about their knowledge. I've heard of students getting flunked out out for favoring the wrong theory or worse, an opposing professor's theory. It doesn't come as a surprise that they have conflicting opinions about wikipedia.
Now, this has been my perception. Mileage may vary... yadda yadda yadda.
...why is it socially accepted to be social to be physical lurker but when you are a non lurker on the on-line world you are seen as anti-social?
It's because physical contact gives the appearance that you're interested in the world around you. Note the word "appearance." People need to see indicators that you care about your environment. Computers are good at hiding that because all your physical motions are the same when retrieving information. So, zoning out to a video game looks the same as keeping up with what's going on.
That being said, I'm all for introversion and not going out. But, if going meant showing that I cared to the people around me, then I'd go. You don't have to do it every time.
Slashdot Mirror
...and they spring to the instrument panel.. and the cockpit... and the sleep quarters.. and the breathable air...
For the most part I'd have to agree with this. A lot of the true sci-fi stuff has to be experience over a period of time to really make sense or to have an impact. Often because the genre as a whole asks: What if X is true? And the true evaluation of that is not the knee jerk speculation that comes immediately after. The truer answer is when you sit in that scenerio and just simmer in the assumptions.
_Heroes_ is doing a fairly good job of this one. At first, it's really cool to think about having super powers. But, as it goes on, you see that assumption isn't true. In many cases it's way more trouble than it is worth. As a series though, it can pull that off. As a movie, it'd just end up as an overblown action sequence.
_Battlestar Galactica_ is very, very good at this concept too. The point isn't about which side wins. It's about what happens in the process. And that process has to be experience to really make the point.
_X-Files_ had some scifi elements. The big what if being: aliens working with the gov't. But, the series approach on an episode to episode basis was part mystery, part suspense, and part drama. No examination of the human condition or of the after effects of the big What If.
I've thought this too. I started listening to Pandora Radio. Thankfully they don't have those incentives. (Nor could they and continue to exist as they do.) I'm surprized (and a little embarrassed) at how much music is out there that I had no idea existed.
;')
Being a metal head, I wasn't exactly catered to by Clear Channel or any other radio station. So, aside from the handful of bands that everybody can name as thrash metal, I had no idea of what was out there or how to look for it.
The way I'd look is by trading band names and descriptions with friends and taking the occasional chance. Sometimes I'd get burned sometimes not. But, I never really knew what else was out there.
Pandora changed my life
If all I know about is $foo. But, I would really would like $bar, but never hear it. I'm not going to buy either.
However, what SUV's gain in passive safety, they lack in active. Passive, of course being their behemoth size and weight. Active being the maneuverability, braking distance, and overall performance.
Because of this SUV's are much, much more likely to be involved in an accident. After all, they have lesser capacity to avoid it. However, you are correct in that SUV drivers are much more likely to survive these accidents. They are only safer if you are inside one. Those outside have become more unsafe.
It's almost like a part of the population declared a sort of informal war against the other parts.
The funny thing is, your company obviously can't stop a slashdot post.
If they can't stop that, what's to stop you from posting documents to your journal? Blog? Total retention/archival is impossible.
With a pre-install you get a few more advantages:
There is no added disadvantage. If you were going to format and reinstall, you're not hindered at all. Hell, you still get to benefit from the driver support they'll be held to.
No, we're not. At least not in the short run.
In the long run we'd better be thinking some average users are going to cash in on it. Because it won't remain profitable if they don't.
Because up until this, it always has. It's always been Windows.
My point is, if you're technically capable, and an OS is installed you can change it.
But, if we want Linux to be introduced to the masses then we have to assume the masses won't know enough to install it themselves. So, sell them pre-installed. The cost won't be any different from a naked system. And it'll serve the lowest common denominator of buyer. If you don't like it. Change it, you can. They can't. That's my point.
To me, you and the rest here on slashdot that makes perfect sense. To the average user, they'll be upset there were sold, in their minds, a $1000+ paperweight.
And, while it would be tempting to say "tough shit, they can learn to stick in a disk", you can't expect that of the average user.
The main thing slashdotters would be getting out of this is an exemption from the Micrsoft Tax. As far as OS's go, we're more than capable of formatting and installing what we like. So, the whole choice of pre-installed or comes with a disk only matters to the rest of the population. So, why not make it easier on them? We want them to get interested in it don't we?
True. And in all likelihood, it would encourage more lawsuits. Blood in the water and all that.
I can't imagine Google would settle for that reason alone. They've got a lot of assets but they'd be dumb to let that floodgate open.
They had to know what was going to happen to them when they bought YouTube. So, what is their long term game here?
True. But, is that office capable of it? Even given a good president who is committed to QA, could they keep up with it? So many bills get pushed with all sorts of unrelated items tagged onto them. It would be like having one debugger combing through all the Windows source code.
In Theory, the Supreme court should catch those that get by the President. But, by the time it gets to them, bad laws have been in the system for years.
Somebody else said it here, there should be a 1:1 ratio of problem to bills. None of this tacking on stuff. There should be designated times where smaller bills are considered and voted on so that tacking on doesn't become their only route to being passed. Small bill fridays anyone?
I'd also love to see a form of government where laws are engineered and maintained much the same way code is. All bills tested for bugs, put in beta stages, peer reviewed...
And let's train congressmen to do their jobs. Sure, popular vote them in. But, train them afterwards on how to write good bills. And we need a feedback mechanism for those that don't. Something independent of popular vote. If Senator Al gets an F in bill writing, I think this constituents would put that into consideration when re-electing him.
Definitely agreed.
I would also add that Microsoft has sort of painted themselves in a corner with their current business model. Microsoft wants it's user to get stuff done the Microsoft way. Google and Mac both seem to be approaching the consumer/user with the idea the consumer just wants to get something done. To hell with who's method. Microsoft can't compete with that. They also can't change their tactics without taking back on God-knows-how-many-years of business strategy. And that's highly unlikely. That's not because they couldn't if they really wanted to. It's because they won't because their culture is so entrenched.
To top it off, Google and Mac are both surprisingly agile to consumer needs. Instead of pumping out one big product every few years, both of them have mastered the process of small but significant improvements. This allows them to keep shorter goals and to stay more in touch with what the user wants.
The very serious problem with this is that you essentially give people no accountability for those actions. Because then those actions are ultimately nobody's fault. While I'm not judging your claim, it does bring to question the survival of society. Society as we know it is founded on the concept that we can change our behaviors and are responsible to do so. The acceptance of such a theory on the population at large would be devastating.
Considering that "God", "Allah", "Buddha"... can not be proven or disproven, the contradictory evidence thing is not applicable. And considering that these ideals have been passed down from generation to generation wholey preserved, I wouldn't say "making shit up" either. Today's followers have little power to change the core beliefs of their religions.
Most people go into a religious faith for the purposes of finding an answer or explanation to some personal question in their life. It's really no different than any scientist's curiousity and search into the natural world with the soul exception of methodology. Scientist must make limits in their work methods so their conclusions are univerally applicable.
So... no, it's not about making shit up and justifying the conclusions. To make that comment suggests some gross presumptions of behavior.
Faith is what happens when you don't have or don't accept the answers for those questions.
Faith doesn't contradict with questioning. We don't come to have faith in something because we are refusing to search for the answers. We come to have faith in something because we fancy the answer we've discover or created for ourselves.
It's completely ethical too, considering how much trouble you'll keep them from causing.
I hope you aren't under the assumption that faith implies a lack of questioning.
Let's face it, when we human beings get all up in arms about something, we kill people.
Think about human history and silly things we've killed for: Sections of land small enough to walk around in a day, bad cartoons, insults, mythical WMD's. And that's just these past couple of years.
The list is nearly endless and mindless. The problem isn't the metaphor/allegory. The problem is us. We'll kill for things we believe in, whether we're right or wrong. It's not that it's a lie or the truth, it's because some of us don't bother to question it.
God could say "Hello" and half the world's population would try killing the other half because they weren't "worthy" to hear it. How's that God's fault?
A very good friend of someone I once knew told me he had done extensive work in flash, and he had included graphics, moving images, and text in his website. If that isn't the sweet song of tomorrow, then I must be tuned into the wrong station.
I'm probably feeding a troll here but, I'll bite.
I've worked in flash since version 4.0. I'm quite aware of what it's strong points are and it's weak points. There's more to technology than it's pretty face. You can have all of the beauty, aesthetics and media you want but it doesn't change the fact that flash is no substitute for HTML.
Flash is difficult to update, overly complicated, and inadequate to substitute for HTML. And it's that way because it was DESIGNED that way. When flash was created, it was never intended to replace traditional web architecture. It was intended to fill the niche for low bandwidth, interactive, visual and auditory content. It does that very, very well. It does not however do that in a way that is easy to maintain. It also doesn't do that in a way that seamlessly integrates with traditonal web architecture.
Content in movies cannot be categorized, translated, indexed or searched with out traditional html architecture to back it up. That's ok. Flash still has it's use as long as people realize that is what it is for.
You don't use flash for traditional imagery and navigation for the same reason you don't use a pliers to unscrew screws. It's much easier and efficient to use the tool intended for the job.
Other reasons to avoid flash for anything other than the above 2 scenerios meantioned above:
Accessibility: Would you build a building with out a handicap ramp? Why would you build a website that way? Flash is poorly suited for outputting in any way that isn't sight AND sound.
Translators: Translating sites won't touch your flash navigation. They'll happily parse an html one if it's coded properly. Most of the world doesn't speak your language.
Load Time: Not so much an issue anymore. Well, not for most of us. But, there are still a signifcant portion of the web surfing community loading pages through 56k modems on machines 6 or more years old. Html is smaller and loads faster.
Maintenance: Flash has a fairly steep learning curve. After you've spent a bit of time with it, things get a lot easier. But just diving into is difficult for most people. That's why consultants charge so much to build and maintain it. So, if you needed to change it, you've either got to shell out the bucks to out source it or develop some in-house talent. Also, you've just complicated your web software unnecessarily by requiring flash knowledge to maintain it. Flash is an add-on not a core dependency.
Besides that point, HTML is so much easier to crack open and edit. And easier to keep up to date with CSS.
I say this as a web and flash developer. Flash is for fun animations and demonstations. It's not for site design, navigation, still graphics or content (unless animation is your content).
An interesting phenomenon I've discovered with history (and anthropology) students and the professors is that they tend to be very protective and defensive about their knowledge. I've heard of students getting flunked out out for favoring the wrong theory or worse, an opposing professor's theory. It doesn't come as a surprise that they have conflicting opinions about wikipedia.
Now, this has been my perception. Mileage may vary... yadda yadda yadda.
Considering how few females there are in china, I'd say he's better off leaving the internet full of porn.
...why is it socially accepted to be social to be physical lurker but when you are a non lurker on the on-line world you are seen as anti-social?
It's because physical contact gives the appearance that you're interested in the world around you. Note the word "appearance." People need to see indicators that you care about your environment. Computers are good at hiding that because all your physical motions are the same when retrieving information. So, zoning out to a video game looks the same as keeping up with what's going on.
That being said, I'm all for introversion and not going out. But, if going meant showing that I cared to the people around me, then I'd go. You don't have to do it every time.