Re:This may be true for some, but it's not for me
on
Robots Without a Cause
·
· Score: 1
I am a "technically-inclined" person, and when I get a phone call in my room from my friend using his cell phone two rooms away, yes, there is indeed an unacceptable amount of decadence going on.
I agree with many (though not all) of his points. I will add this: I've noticed many people using the argument "well, it's making our lives easier, so why not?". My problem is not in that statement, or the devices in question, but how people become hopelessly dependent on them. People I know who used to walk 2 miles to school now complain about having to walk around the corner because their car is busted. Yet another friend, who hardly ever stayed in his room and did occassionally act like a socially normal person has spent the last year or two in front of his computer IM'ing 10 people at a time, almost all of which live in the area and would be nearly effortless to visit or do things with.
In fact, being technically savvy I'm more horrified by this sort of behavior than my "non-technically savvy" friends are.
I'm not going to try to define 'bloat', and I agree that a program that consumes more resources than aother like it is not necessarily bloated or bad. However, bloat is definitely a legitimate idea... and problem.
Look at MusicMatch (bloated) and Winamp. Winamp starts as soon as I click it's icon. MusicMatch has to give me a title screen, my hard disk light doesn't turn off for a good 30 seconds. Furthermore, Winamp takes up abotu 2 megs on my disk... MusicMatch takes 50.
Certainly, MusicMatch does a ton of things more than Winamp does. However, after using it for over a year, I still can't figure out exactly what takes 50 megs, why MusicMatch thinks I need these things to play or convert music (because I sure don't), or why it can't load components when I use them, rather than at start up.
Hell, even look at Winamp 2 vs Winamp 3. Most of the feature differences are strictly aesthetic. Winamp 3 is huge and slow, and really doesn't add anything to what it is. Winamp 2 is just as good of a player as Winamp 3, it has most of the same features (just toned down a lot), yet I notice the cpu and memory difference between the two.
It's all about arete really -- that whole "A watch can tell me the weather, have an address book, and be made out of diamonds and gold, but if it still can't tell time, it's a bad watch" thing. What is the software's purpose and are it's features serving that purpose or hindering it? If a program has a lot of features that don't really relate to it's use and/or it's excess features hinder it's primary use, then it isn't very good.
A window manager, for all it's bells and whistles, needs to be managing your windows -- which in of itself is about usability. Waiting longer for my computer to load, lower responsiveness because it has to disk hit every time I move a window, having less space on my window because of a ginormous title bar, etc, are all extra baggage that do not help useability.
Er... "Spirits within" was little more than a watered down final fantasy 7 mythos with a very lame primary antagonist. In short, its story is about as dribbly and unengaging as ff8's. If you think -that's- a good plotline, I might have some EA Sports games to suggest to you (like "Yet more unrealistic hockey '05 EXTREME!!1"
As usual, Slashdot isn't quite hitting the nail on the head.
MIT didn't steal this image. An independent artist (the daughter of a professor, as it turns out), made the drawing. MIT was completely unaware of its origins and certainly would not have used it if they did, given the significance of the proposal in which it was included.
The situation is a consumer getting goods from an independent vendor who broke copyright. Unless you are suggesting that every consumer, private and corporate, is responsible for ensuring that everything they purchase has the correct copyright permissions and fair use, then clearly MIT is a bystandard here. As a token of goodwill, MIT has released an apology.
For more information:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N35/35comic.35n.html
If you actually read my post, I pointed out that actually releasing data that is stored within the XBox is against the DMCA (see the part about the encryption key). However, part of the DMCA and legal cases in general is sending out a warning when someone is doing something illegal... it is a necessary part of the process.
Before I start, I agree that Microsoft deserves credit for not -threatening- to use the DMCA or dragging Bunnie/the EFF through a lawsuit.
That being said, they -couldn't- win the case using the DMCA. The research Bunnie did was legal, even though it was reverse engineering, because it was published through MIT, which legally defines it as academic research.
What would have been illegal, as it goes beyond reverse engineering and IS illegal by the DMCA in -any- circumstance, is if he had actually published the encryption key he discovered. That information was never released/published by Bunnie.
So, yes, M$ still deserves credit for sitting back and not being assholes. They could have started a lawsuit and it wouldn't have been thrown outmeaning either Bunnie, or the EFF who agreed to represent him, would have had to dish out a lot of money fighting the case. However, many people in this forum are talking as if M$ could have barred the paper and milked Bunnie for all he's worth and more, but they couldn't have (and if you read the article carefully, it doesn't suggest that M$ could have done this)
Incidentally, its not the WWF...
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 1
Unless you *actually* meant the World Wildlife Fund, you meant to say WWE, aka World Wrestling Entertainment.
The WWE lost their rights to the initials WWF in a recent lawsuit.
Indeed. One of the things Microsoft is known for (and is one of the things it actually does correctly) is that it has teams of engineers/programmers for the sole purpose of teaching and assisting other companies who have to or choose to use their products/api's, etc. While I think X-box is a POS, for example, its learning curve in units of engineering hours is nearly an order of magnitude less than, say, PlayStation 2.
As far as "well, people are more likely to write their drivers for M$ than Linux", well go cry me a river about it. I'm sorry, but as much as I support *nix and open source, you can't just ignore the fact that "more stuff" is made and available for Windows (in some cases) than *nix just because that particular metric of an operating system doesn't have to do with whatever ideals you are trying to promote.
It doesn't matter how free it is, or how pretty and small the kernel is, or how customizable and configurable it is, etc etc, if it doesn't work on my hardware, or doesn't run software that I need to run, than that is a flaw of the operating system.
Though I will continue to use Linux and BSD because I want to avoid becoming dependent or supporting M$, it is certainly true that I have spent more hours getting *nix systems up than I care to admit. (of which drivers is a major fraction)
Of course, there is an inherent beauty/comfort knowing that once I've gone through hell and back setting it up that I won't have to worry about it again for a long time (as opposed to Windows)
*sigh* Why is it always the good ones that go down, while spyware whores like Kazaa run around free? (yes yes, I know the specific reasons, I'm speaking generally here).
At least we still have WinMX.
When I first read this I thought "big deal". But when I thought about it, I realized that I had always assumed the number was much bigger than that.
I wouldn't have been too surprised if the story was "1 billion people have PC's in their homes", but I thought with corporations and schools that number would double.
There are a few neat things, and single player has much needed improvements (though it still boils down to plopping a bunch of units on the screen... hero development is ehhhn), but it is not as engaging as StarCraft.
I don't know what it is about SC, it just seems to have the right, "natural" balance of individual unit power, strategy skill, manual dexterity/reaction skill, and game length.
No doubt, WarCraft3 is entertaining to play, and having played StarCraft for however many years, its refreshing to have a new game by the same company to play with, but ultimately I think it is forgettable and I fully intend on returning to StarCraft once single player is out of the way.
Well, for things like/. , where there's a lot of "people power" in terms of mod'ing comments and the like, I can see why its useful.
But why (and I'm not complaining, I just don't understand) does NYTimes.com require it to read their stories? Marketing research? I have a hard time believing online registrations are doing them anything worthwhile (given how many times *I've* BS'ed a seemingly useless registration) in terms of research.
Seriously, 50% of his articles are hardly worth reading (this one), 25% have useless/annoying/inflamatory commentary, leaving at best 25% useful/quality slashdot articles (I think I am actually being very generous in these numbers).
Slashdot Mirror
I am a "technically-inclined" person, and when I get a phone call in my room from my friend using his cell phone two rooms away, yes, there is indeed an unacceptable amount of decadence going on.
I agree with many (though not all) of his points. I will add this: I've noticed many people using the argument "well, it's making our lives easier, so why not?". My problem is not in that statement, or the devices in question, but how people become hopelessly dependent on them. People I know who used to walk 2 miles to school now complain about having to walk around the corner because their car is busted. Yet another friend, who hardly ever stayed in his room and did occassionally act like a socially normal person has spent the last year or two in front of his computer IM'ing 10 people at a time, almost all of which live in the area and would be nearly effortless to visit or do things with.
In fact, being technically savvy I'm more horrified by this sort of behavior than my "non-technically savvy" friends are.
I'm not going to try to define 'bloat', and I agree that a program that consumes more resources than aother like it is not necessarily bloated or bad. However, bloat is definitely a legitimate idea... and problem. Look at MusicMatch (bloated) and Winamp. Winamp starts as soon as I click it's icon. MusicMatch has to give me a title screen, my hard disk light doesn't turn off for a good 30 seconds. Furthermore, Winamp takes up abotu 2 megs on my disk... MusicMatch takes 50. Certainly, MusicMatch does a ton of things more than Winamp does. However, after using it for over a year, I still can't figure out exactly what takes 50 megs, why MusicMatch thinks I need these things to play or convert music (because I sure don't), or why it can't load components when I use them, rather than at start up. Hell, even look at Winamp 2 vs Winamp 3. Most of the feature differences are strictly aesthetic. Winamp 3 is huge and slow, and really doesn't add anything to what it is. Winamp 2 is just as good of a player as Winamp 3, it has most of the same features (just toned down a lot), yet I notice the cpu and memory difference between the two. It's all about arete really -- that whole "A watch can tell me the weather, have an address book, and be made out of diamonds and gold, but if it still can't tell time, it's a bad watch" thing. What is the software's purpose and are it's features serving that purpose or hindering it? If a program has a lot of features that don't really relate to it's use and/or it's excess features hinder it's primary use, then it isn't very good. A window manager, for all it's bells and whistles, needs to be managing your windows -- which in of itself is about usability. Waiting longer for my computer to load, lower responsiveness because it has to disk hit every time I move a window, having less space on my window because of a ginormous title bar, etc, are all extra baggage that do not help useability.
Er... "Spirits within" was little more than a watered down final fantasy 7 mythos with a very lame primary antagonist. In short, its story is about as dribbly and unengaging as ff8's. If you think -that's- a good plotline, I might have some EA Sports games to suggest to you (like "Yet more unrealistic hockey '05 EXTREME!!1"
DnD's going downhill anyway. It's time for newer, hungrier developers and game companies (like White Wolf) to shine.
As usual, Slashdot isn't quite hitting the nail on the head. MIT didn't steal this image. An independent artist (the daughter of a professor, as it turns out), made the drawing. MIT was completely unaware of its origins and certainly would not have used it if they did, given the significance of the proposal in which it was included. The situation is a consumer getting goods from an independent vendor who broke copyright. Unless you are suggesting that every consumer, private and corporate, is responsible for ensuring that everything they purchase has the correct copyright permissions and fair use, then clearly MIT is a bystandard here. As a token of goodwill, MIT has released an apology. For more information: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N35/35comic.35n.html
If you actually read my post, I pointed out that actually releasing data that is stored within the XBox is against the DMCA (see the part about the encryption key). However, part of the DMCA and legal cases in general is sending out a warning when someone is doing something illegal... it is a necessary part of the process.
Before I start, I agree that Microsoft deserves credit for not -threatening- to use the DMCA or dragging Bunnie/the EFF through a lawsuit.
That being said, they -couldn't- win the case using the DMCA. The research Bunnie did was legal, even though it was reverse engineering, because it was published through MIT, which legally defines it as academic research.
What would have been illegal, as it goes beyond reverse engineering and IS illegal by the DMCA in -any- circumstance, is if he had actually published the encryption key he discovered. That information was never released/published by Bunnie.
So, yes, M$ still deserves credit for sitting back and not being assholes. They could have started a lawsuit and it wouldn't have been thrown outmeaning either Bunnie, or the EFF who agreed to represent him, would have had to dish out a lot of money fighting the case. However, many people in this forum are talking as if M$ could have barred the paper and milked Bunnie for all he's worth and more, but they couldn't have (and if you read the article carefully, it doesn't suggest that M$ could have done this)
Unless you *actually* meant the World Wildlife Fund, you meant to say WWE, aka World Wrestling Entertainment.
The WWE lost their rights to the initials WWF in a recent lawsuit.
Indeed. One of the things Microsoft is known for (and is one of the things it actually does correctly) is that it has teams of engineers/programmers for the sole purpose of teaching and assisting other companies who have to or choose to use their products/api's, etc. While I think X-box is a POS, for example, its learning curve in units of engineering hours is nearly an order of magnitude less than, say, PlayStation 2.
As far as "well, people are more likely to write their drivers for M$ than Linux", well go cry me a river about it. I'm sorry, but as much as I support *nix and open source, you can't just ignore the fact that "more stuff" is made and available for Windows (in some cases) than *nix just because that particular metric of an operating system doesn't have to do with whatever ideals you are trying to promote.
It doesn't matter how free it is, or how pretty and small the kernel is, or how customizable and configurable it is, etc etc, if it doesn't work on my hardware, or doesn't run software that I need to run, than that is a flaw of the operating system.
Though I will continue to use Linux and BSD because I want to avoid becoming dependent or supporting M$, it is certainly true that I have spent more hours getting *nix systems up than I care to admit. (of which drivers is a major fraction)
Of course, there is an inherent beauty/comfort knowing that once I've gone through hell and back setting it up that I won't have to worry about it again for a long time (as opposed to Windows)
Interesting, I was unaware. At least they didn't add malice to their stupidity by having it silently install spyware (like Kazaa) :\
*sigh* Why is it always the good ones that go down, while spyware whores like Kazaa run around free? (yes yes, I know the specific reasons, I'm speaking generally here). At least we still have WinMX.
When I first read this I thought "big deal". But when I thought about it, I realized that I had always assumed the number was much bigger than that.
I wouldn't have been too surprised if the story was "1 billion people have PC's in their homes", but I thought with corporations and schools that number would double.
Oh well, that's one less delusion for me I guess.
There are a few neat things, and single player has much needed improvements (though it still boils down to plopping a bunch of units on the screen... hero development is ehhhn), but it is not as engaging as StarCraft.
I don't know what it is about SC, it just seems to have the right, "natural" balance of individual unit power, strategy skill, manual dexterity/reaction skill, and game length.
No doubt, WarCraft3 is entertaining to play, and having played StarCraft for however many years, its refreshing to have a new game by the same company to play with, but ultimately I think it is forgettable and I fully intend on returning to StarCraft once single player is out of the way.
Well, for things like /. , where there's a lot of "people power" in terms of mod'ing comments and the like, I can see why its useful.
But why (and I'm not complaining, I just don't understand) does NYTimes.com require it to read their stories? Marketing research? I have a hard time believing online registrations are doing them anything worthwhile (given how many times *I've* BS'ed a seemingly useless registration) in terms of research.
Seriously, 50% of his articles are hardly worth reading (this one), 25% have useless/annoying/inflamatory commentary, leaving at best 25% useful/quality slashdot articles (I think I am actually being very generous in these numbers).