The snoose button is an excelent idea. But it should put the phone at silent mode. Period. No time-out. When the owner get out of the meeting, he changes the mode himself.
" But.... Bullying is what made me the man I am today."
I second you on that. I'd probably never learn how to deal with people so well if I didn't have a few bullies to convince to stop when I was a kid. I've trained lots of communication (and social) skills this way, and guess what?! They are very usefull today.
Everything seems worse when you are a kid. I have a baby here at my side who is simply terrified by the noise that the whater does passing in a nearby pipe. I understand the despair of children being bulled (I felt that), and their parents, but no evironment is out of problems and what you do (or not do) out of those problems that will create your character.
I don't think that users WANT the computers to be unpredictable (so, I disagree with the GP). I think that they BELIVE that they are unpredictable, and act much more like a pet than an VCR.
You are underestimating the benefit to migrating to GPLv3. When hardware enforced DRM becomes more common (everything points on this direction), companies will trust less GPLv2 code, because it can be taken away. A forked GPLv3 version of Linux, even if it doesn't have Linus' code (and even if it not Linux at all) will probably attract all companies that currently support Linux (except, maybe, IBM that buids chips).
"What possible reason is there to re-invent the wheel three times?"
Because for some kinds of applications, one of those languages is order of magnitude faster and cheaper to code. And for other kinds, it is another language, and so on.
Of course, there are other applications for what all of them perform alike. But that is not excuse for ignoring the advantages of each language.
"...must think about the awful mess you're going to have 5 years down, when you need to do an upgrade. If the whole project is written in one language, you're going to have to find only one replacement compiler/library/development environment - which can be hard enough."
Never met one of those languages that cease to exist in 5 years. Oh, wait! Are you talking about MS's ones here, aren't you? No other do. Even Cobol has plenty of tools nowadays.
"...but where are you going to find maintenance drones that are fluent enough in all of them? Training a halfwit well enough to maintain some crappy C-Code is hard enough..."
If you hire halfwits, none of your code will be maintanable. Period.
That said, all that makes the code unmaintanable is bad programmers working on it. It doesn't matter if you use 1, 2 or 7 different languages at the same time. If your programmers know what they are doing they'll produce good code. There are plenty of techiniquer to mix languages, all of them are used because they are good for something. And all those languages are out there also because they are good for something.
Or they are realizing that their business model, based on being the gateway on the music market, is doomed and want to change it to gathering taxes.
What artists do you think that will receive this money? Some independent ones? And how much of it goes to the artist anyway? The music labels just want to become some kind of aristocracy.
Even if it is adware or spyware, if they are using the name "BitTorrent" on a descriptible way, like "works on the BitTorrent network", or "compatible with BitTorrent" and have a different name, it will not be affected.
The Creative Commons never wanted to be a free umbrella. Their goal is to create a standard for licenses. Artistic work used to have a big number of hard to understand licenses, so the CC people created a small set of them that is suitable to almost everybody, and made it available.
So RMS hit it exactly on the head. When you read that something is published on a CC license, you know nothing about your rights. But after you read the license name, you know exactly what it says (so all of you who put works under CC, please tell me the license name). That said, CC was very sucessfull on that, because its licenses cover almost all needs, from the most free work to the most resticted one. But FSF can not recomend you to use CC licenses on general, because, on general, they aren't free.
As usual, people bashing RMS don't know what they are talking about. As the interviewer: "There must be some basic misunderstanding here. If a work is released under the GPL, then the GPL's terms apply to it. How could it possibly be otherwise?". Great answer:).
The incresing prices seems to be a good idea. Even if the researcher needs more patents, he can have them. And it punishes big companies, who gain much more from current laws that small people. But notice that you are not identifying a troll, you are fighting another problem, that is big companies getting lots of low value patents to monopolize markets.
But I don't think the other two would work. A small reseacher can't know about people violating his patent because the way things work are not public. You can expect people to defend their trademarks because names are public information, but no company goes out saying that it violates your patent.
Also, the GP have already showed a (very common) situation where finishing not produced patents won't work well.
If instead of writting a C program to reformat your doccument before feeding it to excel (why it is a win for excel again?) you could replace every space with a comma and get a default csv file that can be opened by every spreadshit you can think about (and statistical analysis tollboxes).
"The definition of "suckiness" always seems biased away from the UI you're used to."
Funny, I have being collecting some "interface measurement dimensions" for a time. Let's see what it does...
Concision: Multi window reduce that on GIMP tools, when compared with Photoshop. GIMP menus are also many times several steps bigger, but Photoshop have some other complications, so I think they match on menus.
Expressiveness: Both do nearly the same.
Ease (mnemonic load): Remembering what window you are working (and what is under it) increases mnemonic load. GIMP loses.
Transparency: If I remember it well, Photoshop transformations have preview. If so, they match.
Discoverability: Photoshop's single window is normal. GIMP's multiple windows are new. Photoshop wins that. Also, Photoshop's menus are better organized.
Scriptability: Both are very bad on that.
Memorability (if users forget it when don't use): The only thing to forget is the menus order. GIMP loses on that.
Errors: If I remember Photoshop well, GIMP wins by far on error messaging and recovering. The undo window is excelent.
Satisfaction: Very subjective. I prefer not to opine.
"> Why not have a nice tabbed interface?
Why have one? Just to look'n'feel like Adobe?"
You know? There is a reason that all those programs are using tabbed interfaces...
"Point is: use keyboard shortcuts instead of the mouse..."
It is an image manipulatin program. Why do you think that using the keyboard is reasonable?
So you are wondering something very strange. We can't understand quantum entanglement the same way that we can't understand multi-dimensional spaces and newtonian mechanics.
If you think that we can understand newtoninan mechanics better than quantum, try to explain me why stuff insist to fall (not how, why).
And turing complete is turing complete. Brain capacity don't really matter this much when dealing with math (maybe to make things faster).
Slashdot Mirror
We need urgently some tags. Otherwise we can't know when the sender forgot to put some tags...
The snoose button is an excelent idea. But it should put the phone at silent mode. Period. No time-out. When the owner get out of the meeting, he changes the mode himself.
And how do you expect to create a small ISP without paying to the big ones? Remember, they own the internet.
Politicians, of course. Toxoplasmas are the ones apologising.
I second you on that. I'd probably never learn how to deal with people so well if I didn't have a few bullies to convince to stop when I was a kid. I've trained lots of communication (and social) skills this way, and guess what?! They are very usefull today.
Everything seems worse when you are a kid. I have a baby here at my side who is simply terrified by the noise that the whater does passing in a nearby pipe. I understand the despair of children being bulled (I felt that), and their parents, but no evironment is out of problems and what you do (or not do) out of those problems that will create your character.
I don't think that users WANT the computers to be unpredictable (so, I disagree with the GP). I think that they BELIVE that they are unpredictable, and act much more like a pet than an VCR.
There aren't 40 possibilities. Just those 4 above. And who have to comply with the GPL is Alan (that is distributing the software), not the BadCorp.
As far as I see, there is no way to solve that problem. Now, I am as interested on ideas as the GP, so pelase, don't troll the dabate.
You are underestimating the benefit to migrating to GPLv3. When hardware enforced DRM becomes more common (everything points on this direction), companies will trust less GPLv2 code, because it can be taken away. A forked GPLv3 version of Linux, even if it doesn't have Linus' code (and even if it not Linux at all) will probably attract all companies that currently support Linux (except, maybe, IBM that buids chips).
Isn't this "retrictions on competitors" the same thing as the GP's "freedom to all users"?
"What possible reason is there to re-invent the wheel three times?"
Because for some kinds of applications, one of those languages is order of magnitude faster and cheaper to code. And for other kinds, it is another language, and so on.
Of course, there are other applications for what all of them perform alike. But that is not excuse for ignoring the advantages of each language.
Good luck on all those meetings...
Never met one of those languages that cease to exist in 5 years. Oh, wait! Are you talking about MS's ones here, aren't you? No other do. Even Cobol has plenty of tools nowadays.
If you hire halfwits, none of your code will be maintanable. Period.
That said, all that makes the code unmaintanable is bad programmers working on it. It doesn't matter if you use 1, 2 or 7 different languages at the same time. If your programmers know what they are doing they'll produce good code. There are plenty of techiniquer to mix languages, all of them are used because they are good for something. And all those languages are out there also because they are good for something.
Or they are realizing that their business model, based on being the gateway on the music market, is doomed and want to change it to gathering taxes.
What artists do you think that will receive this money? Some independent ones? And how much of it goes to the artist anyway? The music labels just want to become some kind of aristocracy.
If it is on LGPL, why can't they use it?
You'll probably change your mind when you have 5 or 6 applications sucking 200MB of memory at the same time.
Because they have completely different goals. He didn't say that CC are wholesale, just that he can't advise people to use it (on a generic way).
Even if it is adware or spyware, if they are using the name "BitTorrent" on a descriptible way, like "works on the BitTorrent network", or "compatible with BitTorrent" and have a different name, it will not be affected.
The Creative Commons never wanted to be a free umbrella. Their goal is to create a standard for licenses. Artistic work used to have a big number of hard to understand licenses, so the CC people created a small set of them that is suitable to almost everybody, and made it available.
So RMS hit it exactly on the head. When you read that something is published on a CC license, you know nothing about your rights. But after you read the license name, you know exactly what it says (so all of you who put works under CC, please tell me the license name). That said, CC was very sucessfull on that, because its licenses cover almost all needs, from the most free work to the most resticted one. But FSF can not recomend you to use CC licenses on general, because, on general, they aren't free.
As usual, people bashing RMS don't know what they are talking about. As the interviewer: "There must be some basic misunderstanding here. If a work is released under the GPL, then the GPL's terms apply to it. How could it possibly be otherwise?". Great answer :).
The incresing prices seems to be a good idea. Even if the researcher needs more patents, he can have them. And it punishes big companies, who gain much more from current laws that small people. But notice that you are not identifying a troll, you are fighting another problem, that is big companies getting lots of low value patents to monopolize markets.
But I don't think the other two would work. A small reseacher can't know about people violating his patent because the way things work are not public. You can expect people to defend their trademarks because names are public information, but no company goes out saying that it violates your patent.
Also, the GP have already showed a (very common) situation where finishing not produced patents won't work well.
Agreed. The hardest part of any patent reform (with good intent) is to differentiate the patent trolls from the small researches.
If so, I can explain you why quantum entanglement happens.
If instead of writting a C program to reformat your doccument before feeding it to excel (why it is a win for excel again?) you could replace every space with a comma and get a default csv file that can be opened by every spreadshit you can think about (and statistical analysis tollboxes).
Funny, I have being collecting some "interface measurement dimensions" for a time. Let's see what it does...
Concision: Multi window reduce that on GIMP tools, when compared with Photoshop. GIMP menus are also many times several steps bigger, but Photoshop have some other complications, so I think they match on menus.
Expressiveness: Both do nearly the same.
Ease (mnemonic load): Remembering what window you are working (and what is under it) increases mnemonic load. GIMP loses.
Transparency: If I remember it well, Photoshop transformations have preview. If so, they match.
Discoverability: Photoshop's single window is normal. GIMP's multiple windows are new. Photoshop wins that. Also, Photoshop's menus are better organized.
Scriptability: Both are very bad on that.
Memorability (if users forget it when don't use): The only thing to forget is the menus order. GIMP loses on that.
Errors: If I remember Photoshop well, GIMP wins by far on error messaging and recovering. The undo window is excelent.
Satisfaction: Very subjective. I prefer not to opine.
You know? There is a reason that all those programs are using tabbed interfaces...
It is an image manipulatin program. Why do you think that using the keyboard is reasonable?
That would be a nice plus at a desktop environment.
So you are wondering something very strange. We can't understand quantum entanglement the same way that we can't understand multi-dimensional spaces and newtonian mechanics.
If you think that we can understand newtoninan mechanics better than quantum, try to explain me why stuff insist to fall (not how, why).
And turing complete is turing complete. Brain capacity don't really matter this much when dealing with math (maybe to make things faster).