Your whole argument does a poor job telling me why a GUI is better than a CLI. What is does an excellent job at is telling me the differences between the two and the situations in which I would use one or the other, and I really think that is the key.
There are huge differences between the GUI and CLI and they do entirely different things. You use the example of Photoshop or other "applications" that don't really translate well to the CLI. You need the GUI for that. In the CLI, we use "programs" that take care of a specific task and no more. As you say, "fully specified." Great for automation or batch jobs.
I think this is why most people who use *NIX on a personal machine have some sort of desktop on which they can run "applications" and will drop into a shell when they need to run a "program".
Now, which is easier for newbies is obviously up for debate. It's been a long time for me, so I'm really poorly qualified to comment on that.
...I get my jeans at Walmart...most customers, like myself, would rather not be haggled...
And that's why you buy at Walmart. I don't think we'll see this in Walmart any time soon, because Walmart doesn't serve their customers in that fashion. Many, like yourself, don't like it, and it keeps their overhead low. Prada, on the other hand, is very expensive and depends on full service (appeals to those used to having servants, I suppose). This is why Walmart has RFID for inventory and Prada has RFID for service.
This outcome mentioned assumes that there is only violence in the world. I personally have seen much which is not violent.
There is a man who sits on a street corner next to my house. I assume he is homeless, but I have never seen him pan-handle. About two months ago I happened to notice someone giving him money as they passed. From where I stand, a random act of kindness indeed.
I think that "societal discussion" is real, but as you indicate, not everyone sitting at a big table talking rationally. Think more along the lines of Slashdot, letters to the editor, that sort of thing. People air their opinions, hear others, and most people come to a rough consensus. There will always be the trolls on the right and left, those who will always be vocal and not representative.
I think that most people accept the amount of gun control we have. Not all weapons are allowed, but most are. There is a limited amount of public debate on this issue, which is largely confined to those who would ban all weapons or those who want fewer restrictions.
Public debate or "societal discussion" is necessary for a society to come to a consensus. No two people will have exactly the same opinion, but most will be close (or tolerated). This comes from reasonable people willing to bend and be influenced by reasonable argument. After a period of time, the discussion will reach a societally acceptable conclusion.
This isn't a FET like the transistors found in computers (and just about everything else). This is bi-polar technology that uses much more power than FET. They're looking for speed only to make possible very demanding applications like direct microwave processing.
You bring up a very good point. "Right" is a little nebulous here, as it requires a television to receive the broadcast, and I don't think that many people would argue that owning a television is a right.
The broadcasters are granted the "right" to broadcast over a regulated public medium for the common good. So the question becomes, does the broadcast flag work for that common good? As television is used largely for entertainment, I think the broadcast flag will hold little harm. I for one will not die if I cannot record "Friends". But again, this must be guarded against to prevent abuse that would control the flow of important information, or, as stated by another poster, raise the barrier to entry for small broadcasters too high (as if it wasn't high enough).
It seems that also at issue here is whether the broadcast reciever has any rights over the broadcast. Of course, the famous Sony case says that at least we have the right to time-shift the broadcast. As the broadcast flag prevents us from time-shifting, this seems clearly illegal.
I guess I'm still conflicted. But then again, illegal is illegal...
I was harshly against the broadcast flag until I read the poster's comment about the "Right to Watch". What right do we have to watch? We don't pay for the content (excepting premium cable channels) and by and large do not need television. We have other alternatives, as illustrated by your post. If they want to prevent us from copying their content for which we have no license (which differs from the fair use we should have for purchased licenses like DVDs), then that is their perogative.
However, you are also correct that this control should be looked at very carefully to avoid corporate abuse that could limit dissemination of important information; e.g. newscasts.
I feel the King James Version is not as innacurate as you may believe. It was also not translated from the Vulgate, but from Hebrew and Greek as well. Other translations were also used for comparison. (reference here) However, I will concede that newer translations have used manuscripts that were not discovered at the time the KJV was translated.
Why not just use high frequency microwaves? (Probably around 500 ghz to 1 thz) You have all the bandwidth you could ever
use for cellphones in that range, and you wouldn't need fancy optical devices like super-sensitive photodetectors.
Why not indeed? Probably because you need to convert that signal to digital. Fast as computers are, they don't run in the 500ghz range. This is why companies are willing to pay so much for bandwidth. They know they won't be able to get more until the technology makes a leap forward.
Some superconducting ICs run about 100 ghz, but they are hard to use (need to be supercooled, but hey, who on slashdot doesn't) and are mostly for military use right now (IEEE Spectrum, December 2000, "Superconductor ICs: the 100-GHz generation"). Perhaps a little out of date, but I don't think technology has advanced that far.
Slashdot Mirror
Your whole argument does a poor job telling me why a GUI is better than a CLI. What is does an excellent job at is telling me the differences between the two and the situations in which I would use one or the other, and I really think that is the key.
There are huge differences between the GUI and CLI and they do entirely different things. You use the example of Photoshop or other "applications" that don't really translate well to the CLI. You need the GUI for that. In the CLI, we use "programs" that take care of a specific task and no more. As you say, "fully specified." Great for automation or batch jobs.
I think this is why most people who use *NIX on a personal machine have some sort of desktop on which they can run "applications" and will drop into a shell when they need to run a "program".
Now, which is easier for newbies is obviously up for debate. It's been a long time for me, so I'm really poorly qualified to comment on that.
...I get my jeans at Walmart...most customers, like myself, would rather not be haggled...
And that's why you buy at Walmart. I don't think we'll see this in Walmart any time soon, because Walmart doesn't serve their customers in that fashion. Many, like yourself, don't like it, and it keeps their overhead low. Prada, on the other hand, is very expensive and depends on full service (appeals to those used to having servants, I suppose). This is why Walmart has RFID for inventory and Prada has RFID for service.
This outcome mentioned assumes that there is only violence in the world. I personally have seen much which is not violent.
There is a man who sits on a street corner next to my house. I assume he is homeless, but I have never seen him pan-handle. About two months ago I happened to notice someone giving him money as they passed. From where I stand, a random act of kindness indeed.
So what if they donate to political causes. Every large company does.
Some do not. IBM does not.
Same with gyroscopic mice -- they're going the way of the Dodo, despite happy predictions.
But not those pesky microscopic mice.
We are Americans. We are lazy. We will NOT count all those stinkin' ballots by hand.
I think that "societal discussion" is real, but as you indicate, not everyone sitting at a big table talking rationally. Think more along the lines of Slashdot, letters to the editor, that sort of thing. People air their opinions, hear others, and most people come to a rough consensus. There will always be the trolls on the right and left, those who will always be vocal and not representative.
I think that most people accept the amount of gun control we have. Not all weapons are allowed, but most are. There is a limited amount of public debate on this issue, which is largely confined to those who would ban all weapons or those who want fewer restrictions.
Public debate or "societal discussion" is necessary for a society to come to a consensus. No two people will have exactly the same opinion, but most will be close (or tolerated). This comes from reasonable people willing to bend and be influenced by reasonable argument. After a period of time, the discussion will reach a societally acceptable conclusion.
It should be reasonably resistant to ESD, as the article states that the material was originally used as an anti-static coating.
This isn't a FET like the transistors found in computers (and just about everything else). This is bi-polar technology that uses much more power than FET. They're looking for speed only to make possible very demanding applications like direct microwave processing.
You bring up a very good point. "Right" is a little nebulous here, as it requires a television to receive the broadcast, and I don't think that many people would argue that owning a television is a right.
The broadcasters are granted the "right" to broadcast over a regulated public medium for the common good. So the question becomes, does the broadcast flag work for that common good? As television is used largely for entertainment, I think the broadcast flag will hold little harm. I for one will not die if I cannot record "Friends". But again, this must be guarded against to prevent abuse that would control the flow of important information, or, as stated by another poster, raise the barrier to entry for small broadcasters too high (as if it wasn't high enough).
It seems that also at issue here is whether the broadcast reciever has any rights over the broadcast. Of course, the famous Sony case says that at least we have the right to time-shift the broadcast. As the broadcast flag prevents us from time-shifting, this seems clearly illegal.
I guess I'm still conflicted. But then again, illegal is illegal...
I was harshly against the broadcast flag until I read the poster's comment about the "Right to Watch". What right do we have to watch? We don't pay for the content (excepting premium cable channels) and by and large do not need television. We have other alternatives, as illustrated by your post. If they want to prevent us from copying their content for which we have no license (which differs from the fair use we should have for purchased licenses like DVDs), then that is their perogative.
However, you are also correct that this control should be looked at very carefully to avoid corporate abuse that could limit dissemination of important information; e.g. newscasts.
I feel the King James Version is not as innacurate as you may believe. It was also not translated from the Vulgate, but from Hebrew and Greek as well. Other translations were also used for comparison. (reference here) However, I will concede that newer translations have used manuscripts that were not discovered at the time the KJV was translated.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/23/025124 6&mode=thread&tid=126
Why not indeed? Probably because you need to convert that signal to digital. Fast as computers are, they don't run in the 500ghz range. This is why companies are willing to pay so much for bandwidth. They know they won't be able to get more until the technology makes a leap forward.
Some superconducting ICs run about 100 ghz, but they are hard to use (need to be supercooled, but hey, who on slashdot doesn't) and are mostly for military use right now (IEEE Spectrum, December 2000, "Superconductor ICs: the 100-GHz generation"). Perhaps a little out of date, but I don't think technology has advanced that far.