If there was no Gnome, QT would still be non-free.
This is dead on the money. I think all of us, whether we use GNOME or not, owe a debt of gratitude to the GNOME developers. Regardless of what happened with KDE and QT, they ensured that a major free desktop environment would always be available.
I'd submit this as a story, but my stories always get rejected. The people behind Kazaa have made Skype which is peer to peer routing, with end-to-end encryption, and it works through a NAT. I encourage everyone to check this out.
Actually most people here are very much aware of that point. However, when Windows has more vulnerabilities out of the box during a given time frame, it does not matter how many users there are. More vulnerabilities means more patching, which means more work for people who want (or are responsible to have) secure systems. Microsoft actually does a reasonably good job of fixing vulnerabilities. The people who don't know enough to patch would be a nuisance no matter what operating system they use. The only real question is : if I DO know better and I try to keep up with patches, how much work do I have to do ?
The fact is, this "amnesty" program could be a lot of things. 1) It could be a trap. I can't underestimate the incredibly bad PR that follow, should the RIAA promise amnesty to someone, and then a member company turns around and sues them, or the government prosecutes them. 2) It could be a genuine offer, only poorly thought out. This is what I wondered about in my parent post, for which I certainly didn't expect to get a "flamebait" mod. 3) It could be a purposely half-assed effort to garner good PR, with no obligations. This seems to be the most likely. They offer amnesty, but careful inspection reveals that it could be a scam. The RIAA doesn't intend to sue people who sign up, because it rightfully expects that nobody will sign up. They get good PR, and a political feather in their cap later - "Well we offered people amnesty but nobody took it".
The crucial distiction here is that Opera actually exists. I like Opera, and I recommend it (along with Mozilla & Firebird) to people who would be interested.
TOP STORY : The Associated Press website is under attack. A flood of connection attempts beginning at 02:52PM Eastern time have rendered the website unavailable. Initial reports suggest that this attack originates from an organization known as "Slashdot", however it is unclear whether this is a terrorist organization or whether terrorism is involved.
Ignorace of the law has never been a defense. It is the responsibility of each citizen (in pretty much any country) to determine whether a course of action is legal or not.
Oh thank god, a kindred spirit. I was starting to worry that people had forgotten the purpose of getting an education. Honestly, has the pursuit of money brainwashed people into wanting to be robots ? Maybe I should build a robot to do my job, and write my essays (to be graded by other robots now), so that I can learn interesting things and live my life in a meaningful way.
Personally, I don't understand how you can think a system like this is "fair". This program is just a statistic which measures similarity to other works which were graded "good". Honestly, the entire idea is complete bullcrap, but just because it treats everyone the same you're willing to call it "fair" ? Human graders may not be without bias, and their grades may not be perfectly deterministic, but at least they are applying intellect. You can't say the same about the machine.
I disagree. The program is not exactly strong-AI here, it's simply a set of heuristics. It can not evaluate content in any meaningful way. I can see using a program to highlight potential spelling or grammatical errors, but that's about as far as you can go with this sort of thing. Having some stupid heuristic is only going to make the markers lazy. Your good or bad grade will have nothing to do with the content of your paper, and everything to do with how well you can "go through the motions" of writing something which sounds decent.
The idea that students should write a paper to have it evaluated by a machine demonstrates a fundamental lack of appreciation for what writing IS. It is such a discouraging and depressing comment: these students are not getting an education, they are getting a grade, and not a very enlightening one at that.
'Process' does not necessarily imply non-human. Neither does 'more efficient.' How exactly would you define "the human element" then ? I would expect "the human element" to be a quality exclusive to human action or judgement. A "process" is essentially an algorithm; an abstract set of instructions which could be executed by any suitably intelligent being, or automated in a computer or machine. Nothing about a process requires a human to do it, so processes can't contain "the human element".
As for whether the "human element" can be made more efficient, I'll concede the point to you because I don't think I can logically argue it. I think to argue either way, you'd have to somehow turn "the human element" into a process first.
Also, you misspelled disingenuous Sloppy mistake on my part.
"That's really not the case, because we're not talking about eliminating the human element. We're making the process more efficient."
I love this quote in particular because it has to be the most disingenious claim one could make. The entire act of making something a process, and then making that process more efficient IS "removing the human element". It's the type of subtle point that would be completely missed by, say, a computer grading system.
DING! DING! DING! - We have a winner ! It's called job security : convince management that what you do is of primary importance to the health of the company.
Slashdot Mirror
This text brought to you by an insider at the New York Times.
.... a sexy, available, female nerd. We would all like it to exist.
Moreover, just to smite us, maybe she does exist, and she's a lesbian.
Or alternatively, each party can put forward more and more candidates who sound like moderates, even though their positions are the political extreme.
The internet? you must mean the Darylnet.
maybe they are, and that's why nvidia has sucky performance.
If there was no Gnome, QT would still be non-free.
This is dead on the money. I think all of us, whether we use GNOME or not, owe a debt of gratitude to the GNOME developers. Regardless of what happened with KDE and QT, they ensured that a major free desktop environment would always be available.
I'd submit this as a story, but my stories always get rejected. The people behind Kazaa have made Skype which is peer to peer routing, with end-to-end encryption, and it works through a NAT. I encourage everyone to check this out.
Actually most people here are very much aware of that point. However, when Windows has more vulnerabilities out of the box during a given time frame, it does not matter how many users there are. More vulnerabilities means more patching, which means more work for people who want (or are responsible to have) secure systems. Microsoft actually does a reasonably good job of fixing vulnerabilities. The people who don't know enough to patch would be a nuisance no matter what operating system they use. The only real question is : if I DO know better and I try to keep up with patches, how much work do I have to do ?
Better yet, remember how the RIAA measures CD Burners. That zero-computers owned could easily be 30.
The fact is, this "amnesty" program could be a lot of things.
1) It could be a trap. I can't underestimate the incredibly bad PR that follow, should the RIAA promise amnesty to someone, and then a member company turns around and sues them, or the government prosecutes them.
2) It could be a genuine offer, only poorly thought out. This is what I wondered about in my parent post, for which I certainly didn't expect to get a "flamebait" mod.
3) It could be a purposely half-assed effort to garner good PR, with no obligations. This seems to be the most likely. They offer amnesty, but careful inspection reveals that it could be a scam. The RIAA doesn't intend to sue people who sign up, because it rightfully expects that nobody will sign up. They get good PR, and a political feather in their cap later - "Well we offered people amnesty but nobody took it".
It's easy to be cynical and think that the RIAA's offer was just a trap, but what if it were genuine ?
Apologies for my horrible spelling, I hit submit instead of preview.
The crucial distiction here is that Opera actually exists. I like Opera, and I recommend it (along with Mozilla & Firebird) to people who would be interested.
What ever happened to that Xwebs browser written by some 16 year old kid, that was a total scam, I mean, supposedly sped up web surfing lots ?
TOP STORY : The Associated Press website is under attack. A flood of connection attempts beginning at 02:52PM Eastern time have rendered the website unavailable. Initial reports suggest that this attack originates from an organization known as "Slashdot", however it is unclear whether this is a terrorist organization or whether terrorism is involved.
Ignorace of the law has never been a defense. It is the responsibility of each citizen (in pretty much any country) to determine whether a course of action is legal or not.
OUCH! That had to have hurt.
[Looks down at dollar bill]
Me: Hey, when was this changed from "In God We Trust" to "I'm gonna sue!" ?
Oracle: Somewhere around the 1980's...
Why that almost sounds like a library ! We have to outlaw such a horrible idea ! Think of the damage to business !
Oh thank god, a kindred spirit. I was starting to worry that people had forgotten the purpose of getting an education. Honestly, has the pursuit of money brainwashed people into wanting to be robots ? Maybe I should build a robot to do my job, and write my essays (to be graded by other robots now), so that I can learn interesting things and live my life in a meaningful way.
Personally, I don't understand how you can think a system like this is "fair". This program is just a statistic which measures similarity to other works which were graded "good". Honestly, the entire idea is complete bullcrap, but just because it treats everyone the same you're willing to call it "fair" ? Human graders may not be without bias, and their grades may not be perfectly deterministic, but at least they are applying intellect. You can't say the same about the machine.
I disagree. The program is not exactly strong-AI here, it's simply a set of heuristics. It can not evaluate content in any meaningful way. I can see using a program to highlight potential spelling or grammatical errors, but that's about as far as you can go with this sort of thing. Having some stupid heuristic is only going to make the markers lazy. Your good or bad grade will have nothing to do with the content of your paper, and everything to do with how well you can "go through the motions" of writing something which sounds decent.
The idea that students should write a paper to have it evaluated by a machine demonstrates a fundamental lack of appreciation for what writing IS. It is such a discouraging and depressing comment: these students are not getting an education, they are getting a grade, and not a very enlightening one at that.
'Process' does not necessarily imply non-human. Neither does 'more efficient.'
How exactly would you define "the human element" then ? I would expect "the human element" to be a quality exclusive to human action or judgement. A "process" is essentially an algorithm; an abstract set of instructions which could be executed by any suitably intelligent being, or automated in a computer or machine. Nothing about a process requires a human to do it, so processes can't contain "the human element".
As for whether the "human element" can be made more efficient, I'll concede the point to you because I don't think I can logically argue it. I think to argue either way, you'd have to somehow turn "the human element" into a process first.
Also, you misspelled disingenuous
Sloppy mistake on my part.
"That's really not the case, because we're not talking about eliminating the human element. We're making the process more efficient."
I love this quote in particular because it has to be the most disingenious claim one could make. The entire act of making something a process, and then making that process more efficient IS "removing the human element". It's the type of subtle point that would be completely missed by, say, a computer grading system.
DING! DING! DING! - We have a winner ! It's called job security : convince management that what you do is of primary importance to the health of the company.