you launch a totally sealed reactor, can you imagine what they would do if you wanted to launch something that *gasp* released radioactive gasses into the atmosphere?
Well, first, what happens when something goes wrong, say after launch? Like, say it explodes? Second, how is it a good idea to launch a plume of radioactive gasses into the atmosphere?
You can't talk seriously about space travel (or just about any other technology) without including *failure* and if the benifits after the risks still are acceptable, go for it. But theres a simple old saying: if something can go wrong, it will. Launching a reactor into space via our precious atmosphere makes my ears prick up a little. So explain it to me tough guy.
I was just being daft. I mainly stick to simple drinks like beer or single malts. It sounds like an interesting drink, but the next fancy drink on my list is still Absinthe. Bless them little people!
Forgive me, I just started doing a little research when I read your story. Of course I started with 'open notebook' and related searches, but I didn't find anything. Anyone know of any industry group trying to create and open standard there?
Anyhow, I'm interested in your problem for selfish reasons, family and friends have been asking me about building/upgrading existing/fixing their notebooks for years. I've dodged them this whole time because I couldn't afford one myself, but this is finally starting to change.
So, anyhow, if I where going to buy a computer today I'd look seriously at building a 'barebones' notebooks. A few familiar companies seem to be building barebones notebooks, which is basically a motherboard and graphics card wrapped up with a keyboard, LCD screen and a case. ASUS, ECS, AOpen, Arima (??) and FIC seem to sell them. I couldn't guarantee it, but I bet you'd have much better luck getting a replacement part from someone like ECS or ASUS, plus you get to pick out or upgrade things like your CPU, hard/cd/dvd drive and memory.
Here are a couple of quick links to product pages for a few of the manufacturers:
Not there example. The lights shown would only be appropriate as 'mood' lights or at a night club. Bright/direct light is the one important thing I didn't see an example of (although I was viewing a mirror..so..). Dont get me wrong, some of them look beautiful and remind me of Mathmos' lights as seen on thinkgeek.com and I'm glad some designers are taking a new approach to good old lighting.
I'll keep my Myth box thank you. But this sounds like a nice product heading in the right direction. Of course aside from the geek factor of the Myth box I've got myself a multimedia Swiss Army knife, with PVR, commercial detection/skip, database, movies browsable by cover/name, CD ripping, weather forcasts, RSS feeds and of course a funtioning Linux box I can use from the couch.
Just kidding. But this sounds like a the results of a late night drinking session with the engineering and marketing departments. Scratching is 'hot'. And visuals are hot. Scatching (um, jog) videos is NOT.
Thanks, I didn't know that. Typically I'm a Blackbox man, but KDE looks better on the multimedia system so I've been looking at it a little more lately.
Is it just me or is this design just a copy of the KDE file selector? Which is annoyingly overloaded. I like GTK but it seems like everyones missing KISS these days (Keep It Simple Stupid). Its like the Microsoft file loader with 'My Computer' stuck to the side of it.
Maybe I've been living with broadband too long, but I've got at least 30 gigs of music. We have a total of 3 120 gig drives spread between 2 machines on our network and they keep pretty tight. Best use I could figure would be backing up archived TV shows (or movies). One of our PC's is the multimedia pc (MythTV based) and that one will fill up pretty quickly if I don't erase programs (I'd like to keep my Fooly Cooly episodes!).
I'm sick, so sorry about the rambling.
To summerize:
1. Back up music files (1000's of mp3!)
2. Back up video's (got an extra copy of my 2001 dvd in case of disaster!)
3. Back up your old fashioned data (always feels good to pull a tar off of home.)
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Sorry to post so much verbatim, but it seems pretty clear that their goals are in alignment with the broader (original?) open source movement. Heres a quick cut from their definition of Open Content (what they provide):
Open content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Open content, coined by analogy with open source, describes any kind of creative work (for example, articles, pictures, audio, video, etc.) that is published under a non-restrictive copyright license and format that explicitly allows the copying of the information. (An example is the GNU Free Documentation License, which is used by Wikipedia and Nupedia.) "Open content" is also sometimes used to describe content that can be modified by anyone. Of course, this is not without prior review by other participating parties--but there is no closed group like a commercial encyclopedia publisher which is responsible for all the editing.
Just as open source software is sometimes described simply as Free Software (not to be confused with Freeware), open content materials can be more briefly described as free materials. But not every open content is free in the GNU GPL sense (for instance the Open Directory). Some licenses attempt to maximize the freedom of all potential recipients in the future, while others maximize the freedom of the initial recipient. See public domain, free content, free software movement, copyleft.
Btw, that last part was taken for the google cache since there site is (partly) down at the time. Here's a link. Oh, right, I agree with you. But wouldn't it be more of an "Open Collective" or better yet an "Open Collaboration"? Seems like Open Content sums it up fine and Open Source is appropriate enough (and depending on your preferences, might even be better policically). Any way you slice it, its a great project!
You know it could be argued back and forth about which is 'better'. Gnome has some stong points too (like its 'open file' dialog). I like them both, but I find them about equally frustrating to use as a DE or a tool kit (I'm a Blackbox man).
What I think is important is that the underlying standards get some serious attention, and I don't think it matters so much which DE is used to do this. I would definately say choosing *one* would be a very important first step.
Once the standards have been hashed out why wouldn't KDE be able to use them? Linux based applications should be DE independant and I'm hoping this is the direction business will take us. In another 3 years I'd like to be able to use KDE with its fancy Karamba screen candy or the Slicker kicker replacement and have it work seamlessly with my favorite *Linux* applications. Down to the error dialogs and open file boxes. Someones going to have to step on some toes to make it happen, but I think in the end all camps win.
So basic Windows style functionality might not be the final goal, but there are some basics I think we forgot about in our excitement (and our freedom). Sexy standards aren't, but I'll bet with a solid foundation we can really show our stuff!
That would be the advanage of having a standard. KDE and Gnome would be able to work with it seamlessly, it would just be that there would be a basic underlying principle at work underneath. I agree with you that we do need choice and it would be silly for me to advoce from anything that would stip that away. Think of the idea of a default 'standarized' DE as a basic starting point for new users or users that can't be bothered with their desktop's specifics (read: business). This way you end up with a standard they can use and compatability between YOUR paricular favorite DE and the defacto should be seamless (open standards, available source code, documentation). Until we have this we are basically just forming desktop factions.
I don't care who becomes the standard so much as I care that some DE becomes standard. I think it more important that this happens then who it happens with. The advantages of having a standard in an open environments should be pretty obvious to most of us. Right now its like every DE is its own proprietary environment. Applications have to be written specifically for your favorite DE. Why is that? I use an open source operating system and I have to have multiple libraries installed with applications functioning completely differently based on which one they use. I'm getting pretty tired of it. The days of the patchwork Linux are limited, but don't worry too much, Linux is an open environment still and those who don't like the default will always be able to customize EVERYTHING (maybe KDE and Gnome can finally work interchangably and you can chose based on your own personal preference? GASP!).
I'd rather see a someone take either project and standardize and codify it into a cleaner and more consistent environment. Neither Gnome nor KDE offer the consistency or utilitarian usefulness available with OSX or Windows and as totally unsexy as it is I think once its done we can get a lot more use out of Linux on the desktop. I think this should be considered our primary goal and instead of funding multiple separate projects I'd like to see Linux backing corporations backing a serious, unsexy one-size-fits-all desktop environment and until we have that we should not be considered a serious contender for the corporate or home desktop.
I'm not trying to start a flame war and I'm not saying that neither environment has its merits (I believe they both do). I am saying that basic standardization is on a level of importance that should supercede the unique benefits of having Linux distro's depend on a multitude of drop-in desktop environments.
Once we have a default standard in place interoperability between all window managers can be achieved, instead of programmers having to chose between one or the other themselves (not to mention the standard behavior of the applications!) they can focus on developing 'Linux' applications and fans of Gnome or KDE will have the benefit of being able to run them all, right in their native environment. That seems like something that would be worth focusing on.
All the other answers pretty much suck. I don't want to pay for 450 channels I don't watch and I can see any serious (long term) reason I should. Anyone with a server and enough bandwidth (and the proper licenses for the content) should be able to set up their own broadcast network. Period.
I think we are looking at a sort of drop-in replacement. Humaniod robots have the advanage of going places and doing things designed for humans. It seems obvious that there will be a need for robots of different design for different tasks, but a humanoid robot has the flexability to perform human-like tasks and seems like a good design goad (if you can do this well, you certainly should be able to do other designs as well).
Slashdot Mirror
you launch a totally sealed reactor, can you imagine what they would do if you wanted to launch something that *gasp* released radioactive gasses into the atmosphere?
Well, first, what happens when something goes wrong, say after launch? Like, say it explodes? Second, how is it a good idea to launch a plume of radioactive gasses into the atmosphere?
You can't talk seriously about space travel (or just about any other technology) without including *failure* and if the benifits after the risks still are acceptable, go for it. But theres a simple old saying: if something can go wrong, it will. Launching a reactor into space via our precious atmosphere makes my ears prick up a little. So explain it to me tough guy.
I was just being daft. I mainly stick to simple drinks like beer or single malts. It sounds like an interesting drink, but the next fancy drink on my list is still Absinthe. Bless them little people!
:)
If you like to get all your calories from sugar. Its like eating a Snickers bar in a glass. Give me an IPA or a single malt.
If you don't at least see little people its not really worth it. I'll just have another Guinness.
Forgive me, I just started doing a little research when I read your story. Of course I started with 'open notebook' and related searches, but I didn't find anything. Anyone know of any industry group trying to create and open standard there?
Anyhow, I'm interested in your problem for selfish reasons, family and friends have been asking me about building/upgrading existing/fixing their notebooks for years. I've dodged them this whole time because I couldn't afford one myself, but this is finally starting to change.
So, anyhow, if I where going to buy a computer today I'd look seriously at building a 'barebones' notebooks. A few familiar companies seem to be building barebones notebooks, which is basically a motherboard and graphics card wrapped up with a keyboard, LCD screen and a case. ASUS, ECS, AOpen, Arima (??) and FIC seem to sell them. I couldn't guarantee it, but I bet you'd have much better luck getting a replacement part from someone like ECS or ASUS, plus you get to pick out or upgrade things like your CPU, hard/cd/dvd drive and memory.
Here are a couple of quick links to product pages for a few of the manufacturers:
Aopen
ECS
ASUS
Arima
FIC
Most of these links came from this site, which seems to specialize in mobile computing bare bone systems and hardware. Man, is it lunch time yet?
Not there example. The lights shown would only be appropriate as 'mood' lights or at a night club. Bright/direct light is the one important thing I didn't see an example of (although I was viewing a mirror..so..). Dont get me wrong, some of them look beautiful and remind me of Mathmos' lights as seen on thinkgeek.com and I'm glad some designers are taking a new approach to good old lighting.
Revolution? Paaah!
I'll keep my Myth box thank you. But this sounds like a nice product heading in the right direction. Of course aside from the geek factor of the Myth box I've got myself a multimedia Swiss Army knife, with PVR, commercial detection/skip, database, movies browsable by cover/name, CD ripping, weather forcasts, RSS feeds and of course a funtioning Linux box I can use from the couch.
But this still sounds interesting.
I didn't know that. That is news.
Thanks.
Good quote!
Just kidding. But this sounds like a the results of a late night drinking session with the engineering and marketing departments. Scratching is 'hot'. And visuals are hot. Scatching (um, jog) videos is NOT.
This is still more interesting to me.
Thanks, I didn't know that. Typically I'm a Blackbox man, but KDE looks better on the multimedia system so I've been looking at it a little more lately.
/excuse
Thanks!
Is it just me or is this design just a copy of the KDE file selector? Which is annoyingly overloaded. I like GTK but it seems like everyones missing KISS these days (Keep It Simple Stupid). Its like the Microsoft file loader with 'My Computer' stuck to the side of it.
I want Weenie Level. It keeps me honest.
Maybe I've been living with broadband too long, but I've got at least 30 gigs of music. We have a total of 3 120 gig drives spread between 2 machines on our network and they keep pretty tight. Best use I could figure would be backing up archived TV shows (or movies). One of our PC's is the multimedia pc (MythTV based) and that one will fill up pretty quickly if I don't erase programs (I'd like to keep my Fooly Cooly episodes!).
I'm sick, so sorry about the rambling.
To summerize:
1. Back up music files (1000's of mp3!)
2. Back up video's (got an extra copy of my 2001 dvd in case of disaster!)
3. Back up your old fashioned data (always feels good to pull a tar off of home.)
Opps. :-)
KDE on Windows! Geesh! ;-)
Sorry to post so much verbatim, but it seems pretty clear that their goals are in alignment with the broader (original?) open source movement. Heres a quick cut from their definition of Open Content (what they provide): Btw, that last part was taken for the google cache since there site is (partly) down at the time. Here's a link. Oh, right, I agree with you. But wouldn't it be more of an "Open Collective" or better yet an "Open Collaboration"? Seems like Open Content sums it up fine and Open Source is appropriate enough (and depending on your preferences, might even be better policically). Any way you slice it, its a great project!
An exciting new genre indeed!
You know it could be argued back and forth about which is 'better'. Gnome has some stong points too (like its 'open file' dialog). I like them both, but I find them about equally frustrating to use as a DE or a tool kit (I'm a Blackbox man).
What I think is important is that the underlying standards get some serious attention, and I don't think it matters so much which DE is used to do this. I would definately say choosing *one* would be a very important first step.
Once the standards have been hashed out why wouldn't KDE be able to use them? Linux based applications should be DE independant and I'm hoping this is the direction business will take us. In another 3 years I'd like to be able to use KDE with its fancy Karamba screen candy or the Slicker kicker replacement and have it work seamlessly with my favorite *Linux* applications. Down to the error dialogs and open file boxes. Someones going to have to step on some toes to make it happen, but I think in the end all camps win.
So basic Windows style functionality might not be the final goal, but there are some basics I think we forgot about in our excitement (and our freedom). Sexy standards aren't, but I'll bet with a solid foundation we can really show our stuff!
That would be the advanage of having a standard. KDE and Gnome would be able to work with it seamlessly, it would just be that there would be a basic underlying principle at work underneath. I agree with you that we do need choice and it would be silly for me to advoce from anything that would stip that away. Think of the idea of a default 'standarized' DE as a basic starting point for new users or users that can't be bothered with their desktop's specifics (read: business). This way you end up with a standard they can use and compatability between YOUR paricular favorite DE and the defacto should be seamless (open standards, available source code, documentation). Until we have this we are basically just forming desktop factions.
I don't care who becomes the standard so much as I care that some DE becomes standard. I think it more important that this happens then who it happens with. The advantages of having a standard in an open environments should be pretty obvious to most of us. Right now its like every DE is its own proprietary environment. Applications have to be written specifically for your favorite DE. Why is that? I use an open source operating system and I have to have multiple libraries installed with applications functioning completely differently based on which one they use. I'm getting pretty tired of it. The days of the patchwork Linux are limited, but don't worry too much, Linux is an open environment still and those who don't like the default will always be able to customize EVERYTHING (maybe KDE and Gnome can finally work interchangably and you can chose based on your own personal preference? GASP!).
I'd rather see a someone take either project and standardize and codify it into a cleaner and more consistent environment. Neither Gnome nor KDE offer the consistency or utilitarian usefulness available with OSX or Windows and as totally unsexy as it is I think once its done we can get a lot more use out of Linux on the desktop. I think this should be considered our primary goal and instead of funding multiple separate projects I'd like to see Linux backing corporations backing a serious, unsexy one-size-fits-all desktop environment and until we have that we should not be considered a serious contender for the corporate or home desktop.
I'm not trying to start a flame war and I'm not saying that neither environment has its merits (I believe they both do). I am saying that basic standardization is on a level of importance that should supercede the unique benefits of having Linux distro's depend on a multitude of drop-in desktop environments.
Once we have a default standard in place interoperability between all window managers can be achieved, instead of programmers having to chose between one or the other themselves (not to mention the standard behavior of the applications!) they can focus on developing 'Linux' applications and fans of Gnome or KDE will have the benefit of being able to run them all, right in their native environment. That seems like something that would be worth focusing on.
Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah!
All the other answers pretty much suck. I don't want to pay for 450 channels I don't watch and I can see any serious (long term) reason I should. Anyone with a server and enough bandwidth (and the proper licenses for the content) should be able to set up their own broadcast network. Period.
It sounds like a bad nightmare!
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Through inaction? They'll have to rule us just to keep us safe from OURSELVES!! SONY, end the maddness before its too late!
I think we are looking at a sort of drop-in replacement. Humaniod robots have the advanage of going places and doing things designed for humans. It seems obvious that there will be a need for robots of different design for different tasks, but a humanoid robot has the flexability to perform human-like tasks and seems like a good design goad (if you can do this well, you certainly should be able to do other designs as well).