drinkypoo, my dear lad, are nuts? $15 to get a PS/2 to USB adapter? Try $1.50. Sure, you can pay more if you want, but it's not necessary. Just make sure you're getting USB Male To PS2 Female, of course.
You do make a good point, so we should never say never. And though I doubt this coming to pass any time soon, if ever, there is an important precedent. NeXT was forced out of the hardware market to become a software company.
I don't see how it hurts the community if you switch to OS X.
If anything, it will help the community over the long term, especially if you are a developer. I think far too many developers are saddled with diminished expectations, a result of their roots in the Windows world. Developers should be shooting for "better than OS X" instead of "as good as windows".
I know that I'm generalizing, and that there are lots of developers that aren't ham-stringed in this way. I'm just saying.
Seriously, on the Mac, unless you're already into X11 apps, OO.o sucks. If one were already an OO.o user that was moving to OS X, it might be acceptable, but for someone used to either the Mac OS or MS office on the mac, it's more pain than it's worth.
However if you're already a Mac user, I wouldn't imagine the mini would be all that attractive as far as computing power and such,
It depends. I know a few Mac users that are still using old iMacs or earlier machines that haven't upgraded for budgetary reasons. Those who own old beige macs might have upgraded the CPU (amongst other things) and are able to run OS X with the X Post Facto hack from OWC, but they still lust after the new hardware.
I don't think it's so much that the Mini offers enough to entice people, but that all the various Windows malware and other Windows headaches will entice some people "out of their boxes of complacency and tolerance".
That's just too fucking bad for Disney. I'm sure they would have liked to keep this hushed up, as they try to do when someone dies at Disneyland or Disneyworld.
I can't believe that you actually believe that the "privacy rights" of a hotel trumps solving a heinous crime. Where are your priorities?
That's still years of hard work that Adams needed to gain the skill necessary. In the case of Ansel Adams, it's not merely knowing the camera so well that he could use it instinctively, it was knowing the properties of the film*. And he still had to compose the shot. Then later, he had to print it. No doubt that Ansel Adams was a great artist, but his art rested firmly on technique and skills that he took years to develop (no pun intended).
You've bitten the apologia hook, line, and sinker. The point is not that they deferred to someone who really was in a position to share expert knowledge, but that they didn't bother to check this "knowledge" because it conformed to their prejudices.
It's true that Sokal doesn't really understand modern science studies and postmodernism.
He apparently understood enough to fool the editorial collective at Social Text and demonstrate their intellectual dishonesty. They were the real frauds in this case, which was proven not so much by the publishing of the parody, but by their responses afterwards. And by supporting and repeating the accusation that Sokal is the fraudster, you've brought your own intellectual honesty into question. You're buying into ideological fundamentalism that is just as corrupt as the Christian or Islamic equivalents.
Social Text was hoisted on it's own (Lacanian) absence of the Father, if you will.
I am a legitimate expert in a number of things, for example. I could certainly get journals or magazines concerned with other subjects to publish my deliberately misleading characterizations of those subjects I know, particularly if they were journals in other areas that had an interest in cross-discipline discussion. So what?
So maybe those journals lack integrity? Besides which, Sokal didn't write "misleading characterizations", he wrote things which were blatantly and obviously and absurdly (to even an undergraduate) false as part of his parody.
Perhaps you are so blinded by the text that you cannot read the words.
Do you understand that the behavior that you're describing from the _Social Text_ editors is the very antithesis of peer review?
Just for the record, Social Text is not peer reviewed, nor did it ever claim to be. Quite the opposite. However, they could still have checked the science.
The only thing that Alan Sokal's credentials got him (and should have gotten him) was his foot in the door of Social Text. The reason they published his parody was because it pandered to their ideological bias.
The grandparent poster unfortunately has let the academic apologists of Social Text brainwash her (or him), rather than examine the evidence objectively.
Had the _Social Text_ editors not been charlatans, they would not have even been harmed by this experiment.
Had they not been charlatans, they would have admitted their goof and engaged in some self reflection. Instead, they circled the wagons.
Another fake paper was submitted to a humanities magazine deliberately written by a physicist as obstuse as possible.
I think you are referring to the Sokal Hoax. The Sokal Hoax was more important, IMO, because it took place in the heart of academia, and was an attack on the abuses of post modernism, or at least on some of the people who practice such abuses. In the words of Alan Sokal (a physics professor at NYU):
So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies -- whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross -- publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?
The answer, unfortunately, is yes.
If for no other reason, this hoax is important because it points to the deep cultural divide between the Sciences and the Humanities. I think that it's also a terrific flame war, taking place on the pages of the New York Times, newspapers around the world, as well as academic journals. (Sure, the Empire of Meow is great, but did they ever cross post to the NYT?)
I'm inclined to agree with you, but he might be preparing the case that while initial price for linux is not lower than windows, that TCO is lower. I think we should wait and see the second article.
Besides which, I think the real reason linux on the desktop, linux thin clients, or even OS X are going to have trouble in the corporate sphere is that they potentially threaten IT managers' turf. It almost doesn't matter if there are good studies that show Linux is better for corporate use. Managers will have a plentiful supply of astroturf studies to support their positions and prop up their fiefdoms.
Progress will remain slow until advantage can overwhelmingly outweigh political resistance. It is not clear at the moment that linux on the desktop offers the overwhelming business advantage that justifies the risk. When the ROI is great enough, arguments about TCO will lose importance.
I would like to argue that part of the problem is linux desktop developers are setting their sites too low. They seem (to me) to be aiming at a UI that is comparable to windows, that is a "good enough" replacement. Consider OO.o, which many claim does "most of the things that MS Office does" and that most users never need the advance features that OO.o lacks. I would like to argue this, but I cannot. If we were even at this stage in the game, Mac OS X would clearly have more presence on the corporate desktop, since it does offer many advantages to Windows OS and there is a native version of MS Office
One last thing. If nothing else, Buck might offer us further insight into the culture and mindset that creates our current Windows inertia. Khasim, you of all people will be able to dissect these articles, glean anything new (if there is anything new), and share that with us.
CTO? Who likes Linux? Approaching the subject in this fashion to get "real" results?
I'm beyond sceptical at this point.
You're suspicious that he's an double agent? Or that he's just another clueless PHB? As a CTO for a huge corporation, I doubt he ever personally got on the phone and ordered computers for his company. He asked a middle manager to get him some bids, at best.
Do HD analog(0) signals contain Macrovision?(1) I doubt it, there aren't even any component-input recording devices available on the market(2), likely due to intense pressure from the media companies.
0) What is "HD analog"?
1) You might want to look into the broadcast flag thing.
2) There are HD recording devices out on the market, but you're not going to find them at circuit city. They start around $20K for a DVC Pro HD deck. HD Cam VTRs start around $40K.
I've got a question, though. Why do you want component in on a HD deck? Or why do you want an HD deck if you want component in? Component is analogue, and HD is digital. I'm sorry if that's obvious, but you seemed unclear on the concepts.
You state that Apple bought out Be, and you were modded up as both insightful and informative?
If you can't get basic facts straight (Palm bought BeOS, Apple bought NeXT), then why should we trust your revision of history? Next you'll be telling us that MS was never found by the court to be a monopoly, and some ijit will mod you up as informative.
However, we don't know for a fact that it was a false claim. Was she (or any 83 year old) somehow constitutionally incapable of using file sharing software? Who else had access to her computer (the screen name smittenkitten suggests that someone younger was using her computer, but it is not impossible that it was her)? We'll probably never know, since the RIAA dropped the case.
If nothing else, you and a few other slashdotters have shown that you are as willing to jump to conclusions as the RIAA.
One last thing. It was a civil case, so there was no "false police report".
Slashdot Mirror
drinkypoo, my dear lad, are nuts? $15 to get a PS/2 to USB adapter? Try $1.50. Sure, you can pay more if you want, but it's not necessary. Just make sure you're getting USB Male To PS2 Female, of course.
You do make a good point, so we should never say never. And though I doubt this coming to pass any time soon, if ever, there is an important precedent. NeXT was forced out of the hardware market to become a software company.
I don't see how it hurts the community if you switch to OS X.
If anything, it will help the community over the long term, especially if you are a developer. I think far too many developers are saddled with diminished expectations, a result of their roots in the Windows world. Developers should be shooting for "better than OS X" instead of "as good as windows".
I know that I'm generalizing, and that there are lots of developers that aren't ham-stringed in this way. I'm just saying.
Mod me down, you passive agressive self loathing bitches, but don't ever cross my path.
If you didn't post as an Anonymous Coward so we could know who you are, you bile filled freak, I'd gladly cross the street when I saw you coming.
Seriously, on the Mac, unless you're already into X11 apps, OO.o sucks. If one were already an OO.o user that was moving to OS X, it might be acceptable, but for someone used to either the Mac OS or MS office on the mac, it's more pain than it's worth.
However if you're already a Mac user, I wouldn't imagine the mini would be all that attractive as far as computing power and such,
It depends. I know a few Mac users that are still using old iMacs or earlier machines that haven't upgraded for budgetary reasons. Those who own old beige macs might have upgraded the CPU (amongst other things) and are able to run OS X with the X Post Facto hack from OWC, but they still lust after the new hardware.
Possibly correct, but most people won't even get this far in your message.
I got that far, but I couldn't comprehend it. What was Nanogator trying to express here?
they will consider spending $500 on a mediocre PC that is in a large and gaudy beige case
I think this is the first time I've ever seen beige referred to as gaudy.
I don't think it's so much that the Mini offers enough to entice people, but that all the various Windows malware and other Windows headaches will entice some people "out of their boxes of complacency and tolerance".
Nope. You're not supposed to put anything on top of the mini. Not even another mini.
Exactly! Isn't the Mac Mini an accessory for the iPod?
That's just too fucking bad for Disney. I'm sure they would have liked to keep this hushed up, as they try to do when someone dies at Disneyland or Disneyworld.
I can't believe that you actually believe that the "privacy rights" of a hotel trumps solving a heinous crime. Where are your priorities?
That's still years of hard work that Adams needed to gain the skill necessary. In the case of Ansel Adams, it's not merely knowing the camera so well that he could use it instinctively, it was knowing the properties of the film*. And he still had to compose the shot. Then later, he had to print it. No doubt that Ansel Adams was a great artist, but his art rested firmly on technique and skills that he took years to develop (no pun intended).
* See The Negative by Ansel Adams.
You've bitten the apologia hook, line, and sinker. The point is not that they deferred to someone who really was in a position to share expert knowledge, but that they didn't bother to check this "knowledge" because it conformed to their prejudices.
It's true that Sokal doesn't really understand modern science studies and postmodernism.
He apparently understood enough to fool the editorial collective at Social Text and demonstrate their intellectual dishonesty. They were the real frauds in this case, which was proven not so much by the publishing of the parody, but by their responses afterwards. And by supporting and repeating the accusation that Sokal is the fraudster, you've brought your own intellectual honesty into question. You're buying into ideological fundamentalism that is just as corrupt as the Christian or Islamic equivalents.
Social Text was hoisted on it's own (Lacanian) absence of the Father, if you will.
I am a legitimate expert in a number of things, for example. I could certainly get journals or magazines concerned with other subjects to publish my deliberately misleading characterizations of those subjects I know, particularly if they were journals in other areas that had an interest in cross-discipline discussion. So what?
So maybe those journals lack integrity? Besides which, Sokal didn't write "misleading characterizations", he wrote things which were blatantly and obviously and absurdly (to even an undergraduate) false as part of his parody.
Perhaps you are so blinded by the text that you cannot read the words.
Do you understand that the behavior that you're describing from the _Social Text_ editors is the very antithesis of peer review?
Just for the record, Social Text is not peer reviewed, nor did it ever claim to be. Quite the opposite. However, they could still have checked the science.
The only thing that Alan Sokal's credentials got him (and should have gotten him) was his foot in the door of Social Text. The reason they published his parody was because it pandered to their ideological bias.
The grandparent poster unfortunately has let the academic apologists of Social Text brainwash her (or him), rather than examine the evidence objectively.
Had the _Social Text_ editors not been charlatans, they would not have even been harmed by this experiment.
Had they not been charlatans, they would have admitted their goof and engaged in some self reflection. Instead, they circled the wagons.
I think you are referring to the Sokal Hoax. The Sokal Hoax was more important, IMO, because it took place in the heart of academia, and was an attack on the abuses of post modernism, or at least on some of the people who practice such abuses. In the words of Alan Sokal (a physics professor at NYU):
If for no other reason, this hoax is important because it points to the deep cultural divide between the Sciences and the Humanities. I think that it's also a terrific flame war, taking place on the pages of the New York Times, newspapers around the world, as well as academic journals. (Sure, the Empire of Meow is great, but did they ever cross post to the NYT?)
I'm inclined to agree with you, but he might be preparing the case that while initial price for linux is not lower than windows, that TCO is lower. I think we should wait and see the second article.
Besides which, I think the real reason linux on the desktop, linux thin clients, or even OS X are going to have trouble in the corporate sphere is that they potentially threaten IT managers' turf. It almost doesn't matter if there are good studies that show Linux is better for corporate use. Managers will have a plentiful supply of astroturf studies to support their positions and prop up their fiefdoms.
Progress will remain slow until advantage can overwhelmingly outweigh political resistance. It is not clear at the moment that linux on the desktop offers the overwhelming business advantage that justifies the risk. When the ROI is great enough, arguments about TCO will lose importance.
I would like to argue that part of the problem is linux desktop developers are setting their sites too low. They seem (to me) to be aiming at a UI that is comparable to windows, that is a "good enough" replacement. Consider OO.o, which many claim does "most of the things that MS Office does" and that most users never need the advance features that OO.o lacks. I would like to argue this, but I cannot. If we were even at this stage in the game, Mac OS X would clearly have more presence on the corporate desktop, since it does offer many advantages to Windows OS and there is a native version of MS Office
One last thing. If nothing else, Buck might offer us further insight into the culture and mindset that creates our current Windows inertia. Khasim, you of all people will be able to dissect these articles, glean anything new (if there is anything new), and share that with us.
But when the narrator's iPod, Cuisinart, LifeQuilt, and vacuum get together with his girlfriend, it all goes pear-shaped...
His "girlfriend" is a wireless device? Hmmmm, sounds like your typical slashdotter of the future.
It depends on the AC of the show.
No amontillado for you, ever!
CTO? Who likes Linux? Approaching the subject in this fashion to get "real" results?
I'm beyond sceptical at this point.
You're suspicious that he's an double agent? Or that he's just another clueless PHB? As a CTO for a huge corporation, I doubt he ever personally got on the phone and ordered computers for his company. He asked a middle manager to get him some bids, at best.
Do HD analog(0) signals contain Macrovision?(1) I doubt it, there aren't even any component-input recording devices available on the market(2), likely due to intense pressure from the media companies.
0) What is "HD analog"?
1) You might want to look into the broadcast flag thing.
2) There are HD recording devices out on the market, but you're not going to find them at circuit city. They start around $20K for a DVC Pro HD deck. HD Cam VTRs start around $40K.
I've got a question, though. Why do you want component in on a HD deck? Or why do you want an HD deck if you want component in? Component is analogue, and HD is digital. I'm sorry if that's obvious, but you seemed unclear on the concepts.
You state that Apple bought out Be, and you were modded up as both insightful and informative?
If you can't get basic facts straight (Palm bought BeOS, Apple bought NeXT), then why should we trust your revision of history? Next you'll be telling us that MS was never found by the court to be a monopoly, and some ijit will mod you up as informative.
However, we don't know for a fact that it was a false claim. Was she (or any 83 year old) somehow constitutionally incapable of using file sharing software? Who else had access to her computer (the screen name smittenkitten suggests that someone younger was using her computer, but it is not impossible that it was her)? We'll probably never know, since the RIAA dropped the case.
If nothing else, you and a few other slashdotters have shown that you are as willing to jump to conclusions as the RIAA.
One last thing. It was a civil case, so there was no "false police report".
You're suggesting that the US government is going to default on them? Oh, yeah, they do that ALL the time.
So, why don't you tell us. Where do you think the money comes from?