Granted, I've always been a huge jabber advocate, but I honestly don't see why more people here don't recommend it. A lot of features that are cited in other posts that are foudn in the more popular protocols that make them unique from one another are already present in jabber: permissions, offline messages, various status options, logging (not really a protocol feature). The protocol is easy-as-pie XML, and the is open and standard so that the sky is the limit as to how clients can choose to interact with one another. I've always found the protocol to be very flexible, and there are a lot of tiny little features that make it a pleasure to use (subscription management, anonymous chatting, etc etc).
What aliens? Before we get government programs and spend public funding on programs and policies to properly deal with extraterrestrials, shouldn't we first prove they exist? I'm not saying they can't be out there, but all of our best attempts to find them have yielded negative results.
Also, in light of other issues that government has to deal with, this sort of thing is a real joke. I honestly believe that there are more important things to be delt with.
That being said, however, I appreciate their foresight; for all I know these initiatives might help save humanity. I feel the odds of that are infinitesimal, though...
What kind of shallow nonsense is it to have relationship problems just because your significant other has engrossing hobbies or other things that they are dedicated to? Part of why I want a girl to like me is because I do enjoy spending hours programming, playing musical instruments, reading, and even enjoying video games. It gives me more depth and character (not to mention things to talk about when I am spending time with her), and it speaks poorly of a partner's character if they demand a full monopoly over my interest and time. Forsooth, I myself wouldn't be interested in someone whose only pastime were catering to me.
Also, sometimes we're not in the mood. My ex would get upset at me if I weren't in the mood for sex when she was, and yet there were many more instances where I was in the mood and she wasn't. At those times I would respect how she felt and would be not affected emotionally because I felt sympathy for her. She didn't do the same for me, and selfishness and double standards are part of why I left her.
Wrong. "Ad hominem" would be if I said, "You're a Freemason, and Freemasons never know what they're talking about."
Saying I'm wrong because of that example is denying the antecedent ("If your statement were this, it would be ad hominem. It is not this, therefore it is not ad hominem."). You're not telling me that your argument is not ad hominem, but instead you're telling me that different one is.
I provided a valid argument and gave examples to support it. You did not address any of my points, but simply said "You have improper grammar, therefore your position is wrong." Grammar actually has nothing to do with the argument, and you're ignoring the issue; it is ad hominem beyond doubt because you're discrediting me and not my argument.
I simply pointed out that his argument exhibited the very "What I know how to do is simple" fallacy that I had previously talked about.
Just because I am familiar with it, that does not mean it cannot be objectively simple. What you're saying is ad hominem circumstantial because you are saying, "Of course you think it is simple; you're familiar with it." You're implying that my argument is invalid because I'm predisposed to it, which is a fallacy.
it's a lot easier to train computer newbies with standardized "point-and-grunt" user interfaces than to make them learn complicated command syntaxes and file system conventions.
I fear for the survival of our race if those sort of things qualify as being "complicated."
These things seem "simpler" to people who learned to use computers early on. But by any objective standard, they just aren't.
I'd like to hear about these object standards of yours, because I object wholly to your statement. It depends, however, on whether you meant to say "commands are simpler than point-and-click" or "commands are simpler to long-time users than they are to people with objective standards."
Here is an objective example: to view all of the files in directory c:\foo\bar, you must type 'dir c:\foo\bar'. That is one step. Say you are using a GUI in standard Windows XP: "Start > My Computer > C: > foo > bar" That's 5 steps! The "complex" command structure involves simply typing an abreviated English word followed by the name of the directory. The GUI method can be given shortcuts, such as linking a shortcut to that directory or using the run function, but the former can be automated the same way on the command line using a batch file/command alias, and the latter requires that you type in the path and is therefore just as complex. Also, the dir command is accepted on more systems (example, 'dir [directory]' can work on anything from *nix to DOS to Windows to VMS natively and any other operating system with minimal modifications. GUI methods will differ profoundly from one platform to another.
Also, programming a GUI is more complex than any other kind of interface, and adding keyboard shortcuts is quite trivial. I never underestimate the laziness of programmers (I do this because I am one), and it's probably true that they don't bother to add them, but then that is a poor GUI they have just written.
Yes; it's a lifesaver especially if your professor doesn't like to be corrected. The only thing I could do to make him budge was to turn the screen and say, "Look!" That way he could see the compiler errors that his syntax was generating.
I remember that class because the guy who sat behind me was in total awe as he watched me play nethack one day during the lecture; he acted as if it was the coolest thing he had ever see. I'm not sure if he was referring to the VESA terminal or the game itself.
I've been toting my laptop off and on since high school, and until a few years into college I was one of the only people in my class to be doing this.
In high school, I used it to take notes; I can type quite a bit faster than I can write, and they come out looking a bit more organized and legible than they otherwise would have. Also, having a computer for some reason would help me stay focused; I was practically raised on computers, and you might say it is sort of a comfort thing. Whatever it was, it helped me study.
In college, things became more interested. I started off taking primarily computer science courses. I taught myself to program when I was younger, and this process involves a great deal of fiddling around with new concepts in order to fully grasp them. I would sit in class during the lecture compiling away, doing examples that the instructor was giving me and seeing how I could push the envelope. On one occasion I was even able to correct my instructor on the usage of particular syntax.
Being the kind of person that learns scientifically (I like to observe the process and alter test conditions to evaluate the results), a computer is a very nifty tool for giving me the means to gasp the material during the lecture. While my original methods did not employ the use of wifi, having connectivity would be useful in case I needed to look up or download something on the fly; I would just have to be disciplined enough to turn off my instant messenger and mail client so that I don't get too distracted.
Usually I am opposed to computers in the classroom because of such things as funding and underemployment (of the machines themselves), but when the computers are owned by the students themselves, then I'm able to see more benefits (if you're going to pay a grand for a gadget, you're going to learn how to use it). Whether the computer ultimately helps or hinders your classroom experience depends on how good of a student you are, and typically good/bad students get the grades they deserve with or without wifi-enabled computers.
This holiday season I'm investing in a GP2X. This device has been reported on previously on Slashdot; basically, it's a handheld that's powered by open source software. If this doesn't help the "game industry," I don't know what will...:-)
Thanks for pointing that out. It's kind of hard to tell where to draw the line between "video games" and "computer games." Certainly, there were actually graphical "video" inveted long before either Nethack or Spacewar, and the machines that played them were probably "computers" in any sense of the word.
To be more specific, I think Rogue was the first graphical computer game written on its platform. For example, if memory serves correct, on the PC this award goes to Roberta William's "Mystery House" (box art).
Nethack is somewhat of a hybrid; text-mode graphics paired with a healthy doese of narrative description. I wouldn't go around calling it a "text based adventure," though. Certainly, nethack is graphical, taking its heritage from Rogue, the first graphical computer game ever written. That's right! *shakes his cane* Young whippersnappers...
It makes me a bit happy to see KDE growing strong.
Throughout the time that I used open source on the desktop, there were often various times where I felt one of the desktops was lacking (sometimes KDE, sometimes GNOME). At times I would clearly prefer one, and sometimes I would prefer neither.
Lately, however, I have found both desktops only getting stronger and more pleasurable to use. Right now I am using KDE, but I will continue to switch back and forth between the two simply because I honestly can't tell which is better.
Everyone has their favorites, and these two are pet projects for a lot of people, but I definitely take it as a good sign that I can no longer have a definite favorite (especially after I was once so sure that I could never prefer one to the other).
Bravo, KDE team, and cheers for all lovers of Free software.
Don't try to tell me that you never act in your own self interest.
To whatever extent that it doesn't conflict with the good interests of others. When we accuse MS of being self-interested, we're implying that what's good for MS is bad for us. I'm of the opinion that this is usually true, but I will gladly accept reasonable arguments to the contrary.
So if it is a Solaris kernel replacing the Linux kernel and a Solaris userland replacing the GNU userland what is the justification for calling it GNU/Solaris again?
I think because it says "core userland" that only the necessary or most reasonable components will be kept at that level. The rest of the entire operating system would be GNU, which would merit calling it GNU/Solaris. Even though it makes sense just to call it GNU, for some reason the kernel matters a lot to people, so I guess we might as well include it in the name.
What makes naming this difficult, however, is that Solaris is not just the name of a kernel; it's an entire unix system. Linux is just a kernel, but what do you call Solaris when you're just referring to its kernel?
I'm a socialist, you insensitive clods; I was letting the parent know that I supported his position. To prove this, I will link to a nearly identical post that I made a day before this article was published.
Specifically, take note of this sentence:
I do not believe that capitalist enterprise should be afforded the same rights in every case as other, more altruistic organizations or individuals.
Clearly, I was not being facetious. If my views offend anyone, I'm sorry.
Copyrights are bad when Big Evil Companies use them, but copyrights are good when Noble Intellectuals use them. Nothing like a nice, hot cup of double standards to wake yourself up to in the morning.
You talk about double standards as if they are a bad thing. I do not believe that capitalist enterprise should be afforded the same rights in every case as other, more altruistic organizations or individuals. It's one thing to use the law to fight the corruption of our children's education, and it's another thing to use the law to profit at the expense of the public at large.
Look, I know this is/. where the vast majority of adherents are left-of-center, athiest, or both
I see a broad spectrum of people post on slashdot, even moderate conservatives to flat out reactionaries. You can't just go around stamping your foot and proclaiming, "Oh you bunch of liberals! I'm going to whine about it." How about a little less finger-pointing and name-calling and a little more discussion of the issue.
When did/. become a PAW (Political Action Website)?
I don't think slashdot holds any pretense of being apolitical. I think all of the free software/open source stuff would tip you off.
I remember back in the day when games were making the transition from 2D to 3D graphics. At the time, 2D games in fact had much better graphics, but we suffered through the transition because after sufficient development had taken place the 3D would eventually surpass it. In the mean time, we were happy simply because 3D had a special kind of novelty, and it helped open up gameplay to new possibilities.
I'm guessing that this works the same for any new technology. Console game developers are not familiar enough with the new hardware in order to milk it for all that it's worth, and until they can figure out how to do that then there will be that grace period where the older, single-threaded games or what-have-you are going to be more stable and better written. Once they are done catching up. however, the results will be worth the wait (hopefully).
Actually, there is that part of me that really misses beautiful 2D games.
I remember playing that part of the game quite clearly, and to this day I can't help but giggle. The reason for this is the soundtrack; throughout the scene, the game maintains that dark and creepy atmosphere described in the article. The setting is empty and lifeless, leaving only blood on the walls and and an impression of violence. It's fairly silent, but music is there. It keeps the tone quiet and dark, and it plods along for quite a few minutes, keeping the tone until suddenly, after a final movement and a moment of silent, there is a high-pitched, triple beat on an absurd sounding wooden rhythm instrument: "tap-tap-tap!" It is totally out of character, and it shatters the mood with its flippant sound. After having built up so much tension, you can't help but burst out laughing. I do it every time, and I think it was rather clever of the composer to throw that in (I'd like to believe it was deliberately humorous).
I have to say that I personally disagree with all of the people that said "your manager was right." Right about what? Taking care of your customer? Working with them as a human being and giving them 110% instead of just being a drone? Customers love that. They find you a pleasure to work with, they were surprised by the results and how your company met their needs better than they thought. Guess who has money? The customer!
A happy customer is a returning customer. They're also more willing to recommend you to others. Overall this results in much better business, so I don't buy this "you wasted company time/money" mantra you're getting from other posters. You've improved your company's reputation at the very least, which in itself is worth more than a bugfix that they didn't get to squeeze for profit. I understand the need for unification and being careful, but your manager should have been supportive even if he'd like you to do things differently next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, I've always been a huge jabber advocate, but I honestly don't see why more people here don't recommend it. A lot of features that are cited in other posts that are foudn in the more popular protocols that make them unique from one another are already present in jabber: permissions, offline messages, various status options, logging (not really a protocol feature). The protocol is easy-as-pie XML, and the is open and standard so that the sky is the limit as to how clients can choose to interact with one another. I've always found the protocol to be very flexible, and there are a lot of tiny little features that make it a pleasure to use (subscription management, anonymous chatting, etc etc).
What aliens? Before we get government programs and spend public funding on programs and policies to properly deal with extraterrestrials, shouldn't we first prove they exist? I'm not saying they can't be out there, but all of our best attempts to find them have yielded negative results.
Also, in light of other issues that government has to deal with, this sort of thing is a real joke. I honestly believe that there are more important things to be delt with.
That being said, however, I appreciate their foresight; for all I know these initiatives might help save humanity. I feel the odds of that are infinitesimal, though...
What kind of shallow nonsense is it to have relationship problems just because your significant other has engrossing hobbies or other things that they are dedicated to? Part of why I want a girl to like me is because I do enjoy spending hours programming, playing musical instruments, reading, and even enjoying video games. It gives me more depth and character (not to mention things to talk about when I am spending time with her), and it speaks poorly of a partner's character if they demand a full monopoly over my interest and time. Forsooth, I myself wouldn't be interested in someone whose only pastime were catering to me.
Also, sometimes we're not in the mood. My ex would get upset at me if I weren't in the mood for sex when she was, and yet there were many more instances where I was in the mood and she wasn't. At those times I would respect how she felt and would be not affected emotionally because I felt sympathy for her. She didn't do the same for me, and selfishness and double standards are part of why I left her.
Wrong. "Ad hominem" would be if I said, "You're a Freemason, and Freemasons never know what they're talking about."
Saying I'm wrong because of that example is denying the antecedent ("If your statement were this, it would be ad hominem. It is not this, therefore it is not ad hominem."). You're not telling me that your argument is not ad hominem, but instead you're telling me that different one is.
I provided a valid argument and gave examples to support it. You did not address any of my points, but simply said "You have improper grammar, therefore your position is wrong." Grammar actually has nothing to do with the argument, and you're ignoring the issue; it is ad hominem beyond doubt because you're discrediting me and not my argument.
I simply pointed out that his argument exhibited the very "What I know how to do is simple" fallacy that I had previously talked about.
Just because I am familiar with it, that does not mean it cannot be objectively simple. What you're saying is ad hominem circumstantial because you are saying, "Of course you think it is simple; you're familiar with it." You're implying that my argument is invalid because I'm predisposed to it, which is a fallacy.
That is ad hominem.
it's a lot easier to train computer newbies with standardized "point-and-grunt" user interfaces than to make them learn complicated command syntaxes and file system conventions.
I fear for the survival of our race if those sort of things qualify as being "complicated."
These things seem "simpler" to people who learned to use computers early on. But by any objective standard, they just aren't.
I'd like to hear about these object standards of yours, because I object wholly to your statement. It depends, however, on whether you meant to say "commands are simpler than point-and-click" or "commands are simpler to long-time users than they are to people with objective standards."
Here is an objective example: to view all of the files in directory c:\foo\bar, you must type 'dir c:\foo\bar'. That is one step. Say you are using a GUI in standard Windows XP: "Start > My Computer > C: > foo > bar" That's 5 steps! The "complex" command structure involves simply typing an abreviated English word followed by the name of the directory. The GUI method can be given shortcuts, such as linking a shortcut to that directory or using the run function, but the former can be automated the same way on the command line using a batch file/command alias, and the latter requires that you type in the path and is therefore just as complex. Also, the dir command is accepted on more systems (example, 'dir [directory]' can work on anything from *nix to DOS to Windows to VMS natively and any other operating system with minimal modifications. GUI methods will differ profoundly from one platform to another.
Also, programming a GUI is more complex than any other kind of interface, and adding keyboard shortcuts is quite trivial. I never underestimate the laziness of programmers (I do this because I am one), and it's probably true that they don't bother to add them, but then that is a poor GUI they have just written.
Yes; it's a lifesaver especially if your professor doesn't like to be corrected. The only thing I could do to make him budge was to turn the screen and say, "Look!" That way he could see the compiler errors that his syntax was generating.
I remember that class because the guy who sat behind me was in total awe as he watched me play nethack one day during the lecture; he acted as if it was the coolest thing he had ever see. I'm not sure if he was referring to the VESA terminal or the game itself.
I've been toting my laptop off and on since high school, and until a few years into college I was one of the only people in my class to be doing this.
In high school, I used it to take notes; I can type quite a bit faster than I can write, and they come out looking a bit more organized and legible than they otherwise would have. Also, having a computer for some reason would help me stay focused; I was practically raised on computers, and you might say it is sort of a comfort thing. Whatever it was, it helped me study.
In college, things became more interested. I started off taking primarily computer science courses. I taught myself to program when I was younger, and this process involves a great deal of fiddling around with new concepts in order to fully grasp them. I would sit in class during the lecture compiling away, doing examples that the instructor was giving me and seeing how I could push the envelope. On one occasion I was even able to correct my instructor on the usage of particular syntax.
Being the kind of person that learns scientifically (I like to observe the process and alter test conditions to evaluate the results), a computer is a very nifty tool for giving me the means to gasp the material during the lecture. While my original methods did not employ the use of wifi, having connectivity would be useful in case I needed to look up or download something on the fly; I would just have to be disciplined enough to turn off my instant messenger and mail client so that I don't get too distracted.
Usually I am opposed to computers in the classroom because of such things as funding and underemployment (of the machines themselves), but when the computers are owned by the students themselves, then I'm able to see more benefits (if you're going to pay a grand for a gadget, you're going to learn how to use it). Whether the computer ultimately helps or hinders your classroom experience depends on how good of a student you are, and typically good/bad students get the grades they deserve with or without wifi-enabled computers.
This holiday season I'm investing in a GP2X. This device has been reported on previously on Slashdot; basically, it's a handheld that's powered by open source software. If this doesn't help the "game industry," I don't know what will... :-)
True that...this account predates my lemurtude.
My alias on the internet has been Lemur for years. This gives me the warm fuzzies.
Thanks for pointing that out. It's kind of hard to tell where to draw the line between "video games" and "computer games." Certainly, there were actually graphical "video" inveted long before either Nethack or Spacewar, and the machines that played them were probably "computers" in any sense of the word.
To be more specific, I think Rogue was the first graphical computer game written on its platform. For example, if memory serves correct, on the PC this award goes to Roberta William's "Mystery House" (box art).
Nethack is somewhat of a hybrid; text-mode graphics paired with a healthy doese of narrative description. I wouldn't go around calling it a "text based adventure," though. Certainly, nethack is graphical, taking its heritage from Rogue, the first graphical computer game ever written. That's right! *shakes his cane* Young whippersnappers...
It makes me a bit happy to see KDE growing strong.
Throughout the time that I used open source on the desktop, there were often various times where I felt one of the desktops was lacking (sometimes KDE, sometimes GNOME). At times I would clearly prefer one, and sometimes I would prefer neither.
Lately, however, I have found both desktops only getting stronger and more pleasurable to use. Right now I am using KDE, but I will continue to switch back and forth between the two simply because I honestly can't tell which is better.
Everyone has their favorites, and these two are pet projects for a lot of people, but I definitely take it as a good sign that I can no longer have a definite favorite (especially after I was once so sure that I could never prefer one to the other).
Bravo, KDE team, and cheers for all lovers of Free software.
/warmfuzzies
To whatever extent that it doesn't conflict with the good interests of others. When we accuse MS of being self-interested, we're implying that what's good for MS is bad for us. I'm of the opinion that this is usually true, but I will gladly accept reasonable arguments to the contrary.
So if it is a Solaris kernel replacing the Linux kernel and a Solaris userland replacing the GNU userland what is the justification for calling it GNU/Solaris again?
I think because it says "core userland" that only the necessary or most reasonable components will be kept at that level. The rest of the entire operating system would be GNU, which would merit calling it GNU/Solaris. Even though it makes sense just to call it GNU, for some reason the kernel matters a lot to people, so I guess we might as well include it in the name.
What makes naming this difficult, however, is that Solaris is not just the name of a kernel; it's an entire unix system. Linux is just a kernel, but what do you call Solaris when you're just referring to its kernel?
I'm a socialist, you insensitive clods; I was letting the parent know that I supported his position. To prove this, I will link to a nearly identical post that I made a day before this article was published.
Specifically, take note of this sentence:
Clearly, I was not being facetious. If my views offend anyone, I'm sorry.
Help help, I'm being oppressed!
Good job, comrade.
Ad hominem ad nauseum. :(
Copyrights are bad when Big Evil Companies use them, but copyrights are good when Noble Intellectuals use them. Nothing like a nice, hot cup of double standards to wake yourself up to in the morning.
You talk about double standards as if they are a bad thing. I do not believe that capitalist enterprise should be afforded the same rights in every case as other, more altruistic organizations or individuals. It's one thing to use the law to fight the corruption of our children's education, and it's another thing to use the law to profit at the expense of the public at large.
Look, I know this is /. where the vast majority of adherents are left-of-center, athiest, or both
I see a broad spectrum of people post on slashdot, even moderate conservatives to flat out reactionaries. You can't just go around stamping your foot and proclaiming, "Oh you bunch of liberals! I'm going to whine about it." How about a little less finger-pointing and name-calling and a little more discussion of the issue.
When did /. become a PAW (Political Action Website)?
I don't think slashdot holds any pretense of being apolitical. I think all of the free software/open source stuff would tip you off.
I remember back in the day when games were making the transition from 2D to 3D graphics. At the time, 2D games in fact had much better graphics, but we suffered through the transition because after sufficient development had taken place the 3D would eventually surpass it. In the mean time, we were happy simply because 3D had a special kind of novelty, and it helped open up gameplay to new possibilities.
I'm guessing that this works the same for any new technology. Console game developers are not familiar enough with the new hardware in order to milk it for all that it's worth, and until they can figure out how to do that then there will be that grace period where the older, single-threaded games or what-have-you are going to be more stable and better written. Once they are done catching up. however, the results will be worth the wait (hopefully).
Actually, there is that part of me that really misses beautiful 2D games.
I hear you, comrade. Flash is a major component of what's wrong with the web.
So basically you're saying that this currently existing chip pales in comparison to your chip that doesn't exist yet and consumes more power.
I remember playing that part of the game quite clearly, and to this day I can't help but giggle. The reason for this is the soundtrack; throughout the scene, the game maintains that dark and creepy atmosphere described in the article. The setting is empty and lifeless, leaving only blood on the walls and and an impression of violence. It's fairly silent, but music is there. It keeps the tone quiet and dark, and it plods along for quite a few minutes, keeping the tone until suddenly, after a final movement and a moment of silent, there is a high-pitched, triple beat on an absurd sounding wooden rhythm instrument: "tap-tap-tap!" It is totally out of character, and it shatters the mood with its flippant sound. After having built up so much tension, you can't help but burst out laughing. I do it every time, and I think it was rather clever of the composer to throw that in (I'd like to believe it was deliberately humorous).
I have to say that I personally disagree with all of the people that said "your manager was right." Right about what? Taking care of your customer? Working with them as a human being and giving them 110% instead of just being a drone? Customers love that. They find you a pleasure to work with, they were surprised by the results and how your company met their needs better than they thought. Guess who has money? The customer!
A happy customer is a returning customer. They're also more willing to recommend you to others. Overall this results in much better business, so I don't buy this "you wasted company time/money" mantra you're getting from other posters. You've improved your company's reputation at the very least, which in itself is worth more than a bugfix that they didn't get to squeeze for profit. I understand the need for unification and being careful, but your manager should have been supportive even if he'd like you to do things differently next time.