Is "Is Linux for Losers?" an open question in computing? Certainly I don't think Linux users are any more neurotic, self-absorbed, petty or insecure than your average drug addict, certified public accountant, member of congress or supermarket cashier. So, the author of the article wrote that headline either facetiously or with an unnecessarily offensive attitude. Adding a question mark, in my mind, just seems like an attempt to achieve some objective, either for the author himself, his publication, or something else.
Showing a.44 casing in a story that requires it to have been fired by a.38 is not.
Excellent clarification. Stories don't need to have their worlds be reconciled with the one we carry around in our heads, but they do need to have the actions in their story make sense relative to the world as it has been revealed in the story.
So: if you're going to show people take advantage of the ability to perform telekinesis, don't show them only using it once whilst fighting four-armed robots; if they have that ability, it makes sense that they'd use it all the time in the performance of some telekinesis-based martial art, or in the deflection of fiery sabers.
Couldn't we just have companies that will, as a feature of their service, heavily monitor traffic and block or restrict things? Asking someone to control the entire internet is similar to asking someone to control every boat, airplane, car, book, movie, sound wave, ocean tide, and light wavicle that crosses some arbitrary boundary. How would they even control it? What's good and bad?
So, I think people should either protect themselves, or get some independent group to serve as a filter between them and everything else. Like a religion!;-)
No kidding, but who would reasonably think that the name "Firefox" would be taken by anyone, for anything? There aren't that many spontaneously-combusting fox advocates out there that I know of.
And I remember when I first heard the name Firefox, I remember not knowing if I'd like it, but I did grow to quite quickly. It has a nice ring to it.
I propose a new website called "You, Cringely!" in which we all band together to provide Cringely with the easily-found answers to questions and situations he supposes. I'll start:
If Apple is willing to embrace the Intel architecture because of its performance and low power consumption, then why not go with AMD, which equals Intel's power specs, EXCEEDS Intel's performance specs AND does so at a lower price point across the board?
AMD does not have the wherewithal to provide Apple with the supply and development they require. If IBM didn't, who does? Oh yeah, maybe Intel!
I assume it will run on any machine that represents a hardware profile OS X is compatible with. This is the case now with OS X on PPC, with some models of hardware (e.g. some CD/DVD burners) being completely ignored by OS X, until you install some hack or driver.
There may be some software (or hardware!) in the new x86-based Apple computers that will identify the machine as a mac or "mac-compatible," but I don't think I'd be very surprised if Apple forewent those measures similar to how they are agnostic of software piracy.
Imagine yourself a year from now in an Apple store with your mother, showing her the features of the new, faster Powerbook. But just before hearing her decision, advise her that she will be purchasing an x86-based mac, which is different from the older macs [for the following reasons]. How would she react?
The more I think about it, the more I think Apple will continue as they are now: selling their own computers, probably with lower overhead. And as long as they're on x86, they'll always have the option of saying to Intel, "look, we want to continue working with you, but AMD simply beats you in terms of price and performance." Perhaps this discussion has already taken place between Intel and Apple, and Intel said "uncle" and gave them a huge price break. It seems to me that Intel could find the situation of supplying to two major opposing competitors at once, to be very attractive to be in.
So, as far as competition from Dell et al, Apple are doing that now, and I think their market share and mind share are increasing because Apple simply makes and sells better, more reliable products -- from hardware to software.
Look, kids, same hardware has your Windows box, but not one single virus
Actually, if a pre-existing virus is compiled for x86, isn't it possible for this code to be executed? Granted, most viruses seem to be pretty tied to specific vulnerabilities in libraries and other software, but shouldn't the code itself be able to execute? Especially if it's embedded in something designed to exploit buffer overflow vulnerabilities (i.e. only assembly code; no executable headers, etc.)?
Are you defining yourself as your memories, or are you defining yourself as some majority of body matter that happens to exist in a particular location? Or are you defining it as your ability to stay alive?
If you're taking your memories into account: what if you were impaired such that you could never retain memories? What are you then? Only what other, memory-capable people define you as? How far can you go down the food chain before you can decide that certain life forms have no "self"? Past sentient life? Past beings that are capable of even having this debate, which - as far as I know - is only one form of life?
Since bodies change on the cellular level from moment to moment, can you ever said to be "you"?
If you think about consciousness as a window of experience, that window is extinguished at death, whereupon the parts of your body are decomposed, consumed or destroyed. Taking an imprint and arranging another brain to match it is a copy, as I see it. From that moment on, as every moment before it, there is only what exists: there is not one person living in two places. Possibly apart from the initial coincidence, the experiences of each brain are then unique.
Well, maybe the recall is due to the batteries vomiting serial numbers?
And I'm already convinced the Apple laptops are somewhat sentient. Look at the glowing "sleep" indicators, even! And, of course they're snobby. So, the computers could have seen something they didn't like, and produced the only emesis they had available. Wait -- is there a new Windows Media Player available for OS X?
ADD is caused by a chemical imbalance. I don't believe you can "get it"; I believe you have to be born with it. What you're describing - if you don't have ADD - is probably something else.
Maybe Nintendo doesn't think it needs to pander to compete? Isn't that truly more mature?
If you compare the sales and ratings of the highly-anticipated State of Emergency to games like Wind Waker and Paper Mario, I think it's clear that violence and "seriousness" don't sell games - or consoles - in the long run. In other words, violent games as a group don't sell because they're violent; they sell because they're fun games. And I'm not convinced that a violent game which is equally fun (and equally-priced) as a non-violent game, will sell better. So, if Nintendo sees violence as a distraction to the objective of making fun games, maybe they're right.
And it's not as though Nintendo's games are not violent. They present actions like kidnapping, destruction, theft and death in an equally precarious environment.
A totally CGI-composed Enterprise-D?? That sounds impressive, but with such a high-profile announcement for such a complex project, they're really setting themselves up as a target for buffer-overflow attacks. I hope they debugged it!
Is the ability to update without rebooting a side-effect feature, or a full-effect feature? It seems like something only a consumer PC (i.e. not a server) would have to do, and infrequently. Is it really a demand that people have?
Also, Apple has been busy altering/optimizing Java so that, for instance, Java programs can share packages/code with each other, similar to how shared/dynamic libraries work for native binaries. According to Apple, they have given this technology to Sun. Check it out: link.
Rather than looking at the internet as standing starkly in evasion of tax code, it should stand starkly as an example of why things people do or experience, should not be taxed. Taxes aren't the price you pay every time you take advantage of what a great country we continually make for ourselves; taxes should just be our equal burden for keeping the government running. The government is not resonsible for the existence and success of the free market; it should be separate from it.
Apple's Mail program has a "Bounce" feature which I have used, but I don't think it has ever worked to this effect. I think what supposedly worked in this case is that the spammers were not even able to connect to the mail server; being able to connect and receiving a bounce message doesn't seem to "cut the cord" as it were.
The only caveat is if you want to get a high profile degree from a top of the line college. All the Phds I work with come from top drawer schools, and went to top schools from the bachlor stage on. It is more of a pedigree at that point, and it clearly matters.
Isn't the pursuance of a Ph.D. a mostly solitary pursuit? If so, it seems a little lopsided to value the source of later degrees, as the experience is more and more solitary. Perhaps it matters in that the people who you have to defend your thesis to will be "tougher" or "better."
I think that the organization of C.S. programs is pretty varied between most universities, and is also bordering on arbitrary at all of them. Many schools start with very high level programming languages, and then further down the line give you some of the more fundamental courses, which the students resent. What is the approach here? Why are curricula structured in this manner? I believe that schools should teach C.S. "from the wires up." A couple years after I received my degree (which included assembly, OS and comp. arch. courses), I brought myself back down to basics. I started with assembly, along the way truly learning why things are the way they are, and went to C when I needed to, and could justify it. I then went to C++ when I could justify that. After this process, I found myself a much more confident, knowledgeable, skeptical programmer with substantial intuition and no fear of getting as low as I needed to. And incidentally, I find myself solving complex problems at work very quickly. I know what kind of tools I need, and I go for them. Also, picking up knowledge of our network setup was easy, and I'm able to troubleshoot complex problems there as well. Looking around for that sexy metaphor, I guess I'd compare what I'm looking for in a C.S. education to the curriculum for a B.S. in architecture, which starts with the absolute basics (space, materials, history) and moves into design and execution in a series of workshop courses which may be mentored. Design, history and responsibility should be built into the major from the very beginning. I think that since programs can wield an incredible amount of power even when poorly or incorrectly written, it's easy to think a curriculum is working or correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Is "Is Linux for Losers?" an open question in computing? Certainly I don't think Linux users are any more neurotic, self-absorbed, petty or insecure than your average drug addict, certified public accountant, member of congress or supermarket cashier. So, the author of the article wrote that headline either facetiously or with an unnecessarily offensive attitude. Adding a question mark, in my mind, just seems like an attempt to achieve some objective, either for the author himself, his publication, or something else.
So: if you're going to show people take advantage of the ability to perform telekinesis, don't show them only using it once whilst fighting four-armed robots; if they have that ability, it makes sense that they'd use it all the time in the performance of some telekinesis-based martial art, or in the deflection of fiery sabers.
Couldn't we just have companies that will, as a feature of their service, heavily monitor traffic and block or restrict things? Asking someone to control the entire internet is similar to asking someone to control every boat, airplane, car, book, movie, sound wave, ocean tide, and light wavicle that crosses some arbitrary boundary. How would they even control it? What's good and bad?
;-)
So, I think people should either protect themselves, or get some independent group to serve as a filter between them and everything else. Like a religion!
No kidding, but who would reasonably think that the name "Firefox" would be taken by anyone, for anything? There aren't that many spontaneously-combusting fox advocates out there that I know of.
And I remember when I first heard the name Firefox, I remember not knowing if I'd like it, but I did grow to quite quickly. It has a nice ring to it.
AMD does not have the wherewithal to provide Apple with the supply and development they require. If IBM didn't, who does? Oh yeah, maybe Intel!
Have a good day!
I assume it will run on any machine that represents a hardware profile OS X is compatible with. This is the case now with OS X on PPC, with some models of hardware (e.g. some CD/DVD burners) being completely ignored by OS X, until you install some hack or driver.
There may be some software (or hardware!) in the new x86-based Apple computers that will identify the machine as a mac or "mac-compatible," but I don't think I'd be very surprised if Apple forewent those measures similar to how they are agnostic of software piracy.
Imagine yourself a year from now in an Apple store with your mother, showing her the features of the new, faster Powerbook. But just before hearing her decision, advise her that she will be purchasing an x86-based mac, which is different from the older macs [for the following reasons]. How would she react?
The more I think about it, the more I think Apple will continue as they are now: selling their own computers, probably with lower overhead. And as long as they're on x86, they'll always have the option of saying to Intel, "look, we want to continue working with you, but AMD simply beats you in terms of price and performance." Perhaps this discussion has already taken place between Intel and Apple, and Intel said "uncle" and gave them a huge price break. It seems to me that Intel could find the situation of supplying to two major opposing competitors at once, to be very attractive to be in.
So, as far as competition from Dell et al, Apple are doing that now, and I think their market share and mind share are increasing because Apple simply makes and sells better, more reliable products -- from hardware to software.
Are you defining yourself as your memories, or are you defining yourself as some majority of body matter that happens to exist in a particular location? Or are you defining it as your ability to stay alive?
If you're taking your memories into account: what if you were impaired such that you could never retain memories? What are you then? Only what other, memory-capable people define you as? How far can you go down the food chain before you can decide that certain life forms have no "self"? Past sentient life? Past beings that are capable of even having this debate, which - as far as I know - is only one form of life?
Since bodies change on the cellular level from moment to moment, can you ever said to be "you"?
If you think about consciousness as a window of experience, that window is extinguished at death, whereupon the parts of your body are decomposed, consumed or destroyed. Taking an imprint and arranging another brain to match it is a copy, as I see it. From that moment on, as every moment before it, there is only what exists: there is not one person living in two places. Possibly apart from the initial coincidence, the experiences of each brain are then unique.
And I'm already convinced the Apple laptops are somewhat sentient. Look at the glowing "sleep" indicators, even! And, of course they're snobby. So, the computers could have seen something they didn't like, and produced the only emesis they had available. Wait -- is there a new Windows Media Player available for OS X?
ADD is caused by a chemical imbalance. I don't believe you can "get it"; I believe you have to be born with it. What you're describing - if you don't have ADD - is probably something else.
Maybe Nintendo doesn't think it needs to pander to compete? Isn't that truly more mature?
If you compare the sales and ratings of the highly-anticipated State of Emergency to games like Wind Waker and Paper Mario, I think it's clear that violence and "seriousness" don't sell games - or consoles - in the long run. In other words, violent games as a group don't sell because they're violent; they sell because they're fun games. And I'm not convinced that a violent game which is equally fun (and equally-priced) as a non-violent game, will sell better. So, if Nintendo sees violence as a distraction to the objective of making fun games, maybe they're right.
And it's not as though Nintendo's games are not violent. They present actions like kidnapping, destruction, theft and death in an equally precarious environment.
A totally CGI-composed Enterprise-D?? That sounds impressive, but with such a high-profile announcement for such a complex project, they're really setting themselves up as a target for buffer-overflow attacks. I hope they debugged it!
Is the ability to update without rebooting a side-effect feature, or a full-effect feature? It seems like something only a consumer PC (i.e. not a server) would have to do, and infrequently. Is it really a demand that people have?
I wonder how well Apple's gcc 4.0 (in Tiger) fairs?
Also, Apple has been busy altering/optimizing Java so that, for instance, Java programs can share packages/code with each other, similar to how shared/dynamic libraries work for native binaries. According to Apple, they have given this technology to Sun. Check it out: link.
Are there any studies that link games to real life violence, discrimination, or any altered behavior at all?
Rather than looking at the internet as standing starkly in evasion of tax code, it should stand starkly as an example of why things people do or experience, should not be taxed. Taxes aren't the price you pay every time you take advantage of what a great country we continually make for ourselves; taxes should just be our equal burden for keeping the government running. The government is not resonsible for the existence and success of the free market; it should be separate from it.
At least Sony didn't include Russian Roulette as a pack-in.
You can find many documents with Google Scholar. It will also search libraries.
When it gets out of beta? I think you're giving Google a lot of credit.
Apple's Mail program has a "Bounce" feature which I have used, but I don't think it has ever worked to this effect. I think what supposedly worked in this case is that the spammers were not even able to connect to the mail server; being able to connect and receiving a bounce message doesn't seem to "cut the cord" as it were.
I think that the organization of C.S. programs is pretty varied between most universities, and is also bordering on arbitrary at all of them. Many schools start with very high level programming languages, and then further down the line give you some of the more fundamental courses, which the students resent. What is the approach here? Why are curricula structured in this manner? I believe that schools should teach C.S. "from the wires up." A couple years after I received my degree (which included assembly, OS and comp. arch. courses), I brought myself back down to basics. I started with assembly, along the way truly learning why things are the way they are, and went to C when I needed to, and could justify it. I then went to C++ when I could justify that. After this process, I found myself a much more confident, knowledgeable, skeptical programmer with substantial intuition and no fear of getting as low as I needed to. And incidentally, I find myself solving complex problems at work very quickly. I know what kind of tools I need, and I go for them. Also, picking up knowledge of our network setup was easy, and I'm able to troubleshoot complex problems there as well. Looking around for that sexy metaphor, I guess I'd compare what I'm looking for in a C.S. education to the curriculum for a B.S. in architecture, which starts with the absolute basics (space, materials, history) and moves into design and execution in a series of workshop courses which may be mentored. Design, history and responsibility should be built into the major from the very beginning. I think that since programs can wield an incredible amount of power even when poorly or incorrectly written, it's easy to think a curriculum is working or correct.