The first "reality show" was An American Family, on PBS in 1973. However, the modern crop of reality programs are all descended somehow from MTV's The Real World, of 1992.
And of course, the specific hoax-oriented style to which you refer was pioneered by Candid Camera, again from the USA.
I don't think that word means what you think it means
This is hilarious... four people accussing her of misunderstanding "condone", when really they don'tunderstand it themselves. (Makes me wish Slashcode had a good option to respond to multiple posts at once, in an unobtrusive and space-conserving manner)
And I don't think "condone" means what you want it to mean since
Why, what do you think "condone" means?
In English, it means to ignore or forgive a behavior you admit is wrong.
Many people don't know the meaning, because the prevalent idiomatic usage is "I will not condone that action". That phrase means you both disapprove of the action, and refuse to quietly ignore it when it occurs.
Therefore, since "not condone" means both "disapprove" and "not forgive", ignoramuses tend to assume that "condone" means "approve and forgive", when it really means "disapproves, but still forgives".
Condoning his actions implies you agree with, and to some extent support him.
No, it doesn't mean that. Check the dictionary. "Condone" means you allow something to proceed, even though you might not entirely agree with it, and probably think that it's wrong.
The most common modern usage is in a form of "I will not condone that behavior", which means (1) I disagree with behavior AND (2) I'm not willing to let it go on unpunished. If you DID condone it, however, then you would still disagree with it, but would no longer try to prevent it or punish for it.
I didn't mention this, but I did start out trying to use Qt, and when I could never get past all the completely useless compiler error messages
That points out a difference between GTK and Qt that's possibly more important than licensing.
GTK is written in C, which means it's semantics are virtually a subset of every other programming language. But Qt is written in a weirdly-preprocessed superset of C++, adding multiple new features to an already elaborate language. A natural consequence is that error-messages will be less understandable, as the C++ compiler doesn't grok the Qt stuff piled on top of it.
That also may be an additional reason for authors of cross-platform GUI wrappers to prefer GTK as a backend over QT: relatively straightforward function calls are easier to pull into your own logical flow, while Qt wants to bring in it's own overall structure.
Yes, users want a simplified interface that doesn't get in their way
No, actually I want native Alsa support. Compatibility with the current Linux sound API (Alsa's OSS emulation is not good enough to work fully with Audacity)
Also, it'd be neat to change mp3 export options on a per-file basis. Users expect preferences like that to be accessible via an Advanced button within the file-save dialog.
When it comes to GUI design the "it will confuse the user" point of view
Free-Software people might not like to admit it, but in today's world, "not confuse the user" is basically equivalent to "be like Microsoft Windows" (after all, that's probably where they're familiar). And KDE can be configured much closer to WindowsXP's look & feel than Gnome can.
So if that would mean Gnome primarily targets 'dummies', then I'm all for it. IMHO, there's nothing dumb about clearing the path for dummies to a Linux desktop.
But that makes it as if Gnome is targeting a non-existant user-group.
Gnome is simpler (=less options) than KDE, true. But! KDE is much more like Microsoft Windows than Gnome is.
Face it, most of the "dummies" will be coming from Windows experience, so KDE is better for them. And because it's more complex, KDE will be better for smarties as well. Gnome has no niche left.
Since Linux FUSE (Filesystem in Userspace) became part of the 2.6.14 mainline Linux kernel, any user (not just root) can mount remote directories set up under KDE.
They could mostly do that already, with programs along the lines of smb4k. Wouldn't work for an arbitrary kio (fish), but the school network is most likely SMB.
Although, it's a real shame it took so long for FUSE to come out, and that separate features are conflated. Userspace applications providing the filesystem and non-root users creating mounts (in their own ~ and for their own use ONLY) are separate problems, which should've been separately solved years ago. UNIX needed some of these from the start.
I'm pretty sure that over the years Hawking has become proficient in the use of rooms
How bafflingly ignorant! Hawking has almost no ability to use a room- and over the years he's steadily become worse and worse. A 3-day old kitten can work a room better than him.
Your other "I'm pretty sure"s are similarly grounded in speculative fantasy.
skill and UI design skill, I think you're missing the key point of this discussion.
Nope. Linus's qualifications as a UI designer shouldn't actually be under dispute- his ability as a UI critic is more important. It's easier to judge than to build. You don't have to be a director to tell if a film scene was good or bad.
Did Linus design a PUI, or even attempt to contribute to one? No. He simply pointed out that GNOME is much worse than KDE, Windows, or Mac.
One does very little to inform the other.
UI design and kernel design are both functional creative skills, which means they are at least 10,000 times more similar than astrophysics (an investigative science) and interior decorating (an artistic expression of taste).
Perl is interesting because it was developed by a linguist and modelled after human languages
That's a myth- a retroactive redefinition of the origin. Perl's design was taken as a union of the styles of sh, C, and awk. The only way to base it less on human speech would be to mix some Lisp in there.
The fact that Perl programs can whimsically shift between so many different approaches to describing a program is part of the reason it's risky to suggest to low-intensity developers.
rather than by a Math geek modelled after a strict theoretical model
That much is true. A language based even roughly on math principles will have some coherency to it. Perl's willingness to combine all varieties of syntax (including, as you point out, some created solely for perverse amusement) can easily be seen as more of a flaw than a charming advantage.
The problem, of course, is that many apps these days require the gnome libs to run.
Even if that were true (it's not), that's still a non-problem. You don't need to run gnome just to have it's libs installed- with today's disks, that's hardly a bother at all.
The problem, of course, is that many apps these days require the gnome libs to run. Look at firefox as an example.
Go ahead and point out which ones you think are from gnome. (Most of the libs with "g" in the name are probably also needed by gnome, but that's different from being part of it)
Linus Torvalds is not a usablilty expert any more than Steven Hawking is an interior designer.
No, that analogy far overreaches. Linus spends much time working with and thinking about PC GUIs. Do you have any evidence that Hawking has any strong opinions about interior design, or even has a mild interest in the subject? (His inability to even around a room suggests otherwise)
Linus is an experienced usability designer in many ways- he maintains a major piece of important software, and strives to improve its quality, which includes usability for both developers and end users.
It is far smarter to compare software and software than astrophysics and architectural attractiveness.
I really don't know why people try to cannonize Linus.
You're trying to do that more strongly that the people you "refute".
OM: Microsoft is not a monopoly. Only force can create a monopoly -- and only government can legally use force.
And the government exercises force on behalf of Microsoft to "protect their intellectual property". Therefore Microsoft has force, and what's your problem?
Only force can create a monopoly
No. Only property rights can create a monopoly. Force is only necessary insofar as it protects property rights.
In any capitalist system and field with a nontrivial economic barrier-to-entry, entities will increase their marketshare at a rate proportionate to their capital (ie, their existing marketshare). Monopolies will be the natural result of market force.
The unnatural part is that any monopoly which occurs will spontaneously be destroyed when the rest of the population decides to infringe on their property rights. Only if a government acts to protect their "property" can the monopoly survive.
Since the mandate is only that they use ODF, and not STOP USING any other format, it will force them to do exactly nothing. There will naturally be a long period of transition when the government continues to accept MSWord files, and merely keeps the official, archival copy in ODF.
That period will almost certainly last longer than the typical hardware-upgrade period you mention.
On one hand, MS did get a start into the position they are in due to free market forces.
Not really. The only reason Bill Gates got his critical DOS contract from IBM is that IBM had to separate out development of PC systems to stave off upcoming anti-trust regulation. Even for it's very inception, Microsoft was dependent on government intervention.
AC: Um, no. What he's saying is that the PEOPLE should decide what format they use, not some asshole in an appointed position who the people never elected or chose.
He was appointed by an ELECTED executive. That means the PEOPLE entrusted him to make various decisions on their behalf, particularly in regards to details of government operation. Whether or not they approve of this particular choice shall be a factor in Romney's next election campaign.
Your complaint applies equally well to any kind of representative democracy (and of course, nonrepresentative democracy is too cumbersome to be workable with modern technology)
In a democratic republic, this can range in severity from kicking out the groups currently
You used the term "democratic republic", which is excessively specific. The solution would be no different in any other democracy, including a non-republic like the United Kingdom.
Trying to squeeze in the word "republic" when it adds no meaning looks like Republican partisanship (pretending that "democracy" and "republicanism" are equally important parts of the USA's national character, when it reality one is farm more critical than the other)
No! The word you're thinking of is the capitalized one. "Republican", "Democrat", and "Libertarian" are all the names of specific political parties, whose platforms are only partially based on the principles from which they took their names. For example, in the USA, "Republican" means anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty, but "republican" only means "supporting a government without monarchy or nobility". Likewise, George Bush is a "democrat" in that he hopes to to democratize Iraq, but he certainly isn't a "Democrat".
Uncapitalized, "libertarian" just means somebody who promotes and defends individual liberty, while "Libertarian" means anti-statist or anarcho-capitalist. A real "libertarian" is free to decide that sometimes, state power may be the best way to protect personal liberty from commercial and cultural interests.
Get it right- don't disparage libertarians by mixing them together with Libertarians.
AC: Commonwealth turns out to be a fancy word that means, effectively, "soverign republic".
No, it means just what it literally says: "common wealth", ie "shared benefit". New redefinitions that sometimes make it a synonym for "state" don't matter.
since it was essentially a weak alliance between actual states
They already didn't possess the hallmarks of real nations back in 1780 (armies, presidents, citizenship).
(Yes, we know, he "freed the slaves" - but he also paved the way for the destruction of states' rights.)
If he hadn't destroyed those state's rights, then the residents of the USA would be speaking German today (or Japanese, for Hawaii/California).
as PGP signatures can be used over a quantum-encrypted connection.
Meaningless, because until that data has been exchanged, you don't have a QC connection. (Note that "quantum-encrypted connection" is an invalid phrase, as there is no way to "encrypt" a message with quantum mechanics, as the word "encrypt" specifically means to use a cipher or code. "Quantum Cryptography" or "QC" can be used, as it is a proper noun for the misnomer title given to the technique)
Then use another independent method of verifying the signing key. Phone, say.
That is "security through obscurity". You are trusting that the fact that you verify over phone is obscure enough to not also have been eavesdropped. And worse, if it is NOT obscure, then you are actually exposing a key that might otherwise have been safe.
Slashdot Mirror
The US didn't invent the "reality show"
No? Where was it invented, then?
The first "reality show" was An American Family, on PBS in 1973. However, the modern crop of reality programs are all descended somehow from MTV's The Real World, of 1992.
And of course, the specific hoax-oriented style to which you refer was pioneered by Candid Camera, again from the USA.
I don't think that word means what you think it means
This is hilarious... four people accussing her of misunderstanding "condone", when really they don't understand it themselves. (Makes me wish Slashcode had a good option to respond to multiple posts at once, in an unobtrusive and space-conserving manner)
And I don't think "condone" means what you want it to mean since
Why, what do you think "condone" means?
In English, it means to ignore or forgive a behavior you admit is wrong.
Many people don't know the meaning, because the prevalent idiomatic usage is "I will not condone that action". That phrase means you both disapprove of the action, and refuse to quietly ignore it when it occurs.
Therefore, since "not condone" means both "disapprove" and "not forgive", ignoramuses tend to assume that "condone" means "approve and forgive", when it really means "disapproves, but still forgives".
Condoning his actions implies you agree with, and to some extent support him.
No, it doesn't mean that. Check the dictionary. "Condone" means you allow something to proceed, even though you might not entirely agree with it, and probably think that it's wrong.
The most common modern usage is in a form of "I will not condone that behavior", which means (1) I disagree with behavior AND (2) I'm not willing to let it go on unpunished. If you DID condone it, however, then you would still disagree with it, but would no longer try to prevent it or punish for it.
I didn't mention this, but I did start out trying to use Qt, and when I could never get past all the completely useless compiler error messages
That points out a difference between GTK and Qt that's possibly more important than licensing.
GTK is written in C, which means it's semantics are virtually a subset of every other programming language.
But Qt is written in a weirdly-preprocessed superset of C++, adding multiple new features to an already elaborate language. A natural consequence is that error-messages will be less understandable, as the C++ compiler doesn't grok the Qt stuff piled on top of it.
That also may be an additional reason for authors of cross-platform GUI wrappers to prefer GTK as a backend over QT: relatively straightforward function calls are easier to pull into your own logical flow, while Qt wants to bring in it's own overall structure.
Yes, users want a simplified interface that doesn't get in their way
No, actually I want native Alsa support. Compatibility with the current Linux sound API (Alsa's OSS emulation is not good enough to work fully with Audacity)
Also, it'd be neat to change mp3 export options on a per-file basis. Users expect preferences like that to be accessible via an Advanced button within the file-save dialog.
When it comes to GUI design the "it will confuse the user" point of view
Free-Software people might not like to admit it, but in today's world, "not confuse the user" is basically equivalent to "be like Microsoft Windows" (after all, that's probably where they're familiar). And KDE can be configured much closer to WindowsXP's look & feel than Gnome can.
You must be using a different Gnome than the one that is at gnome.org
Silly, they're not trying to imitate Apple's UI! Just Apple's UI Naziism.
So if that would mean Gnome primarily targets 'dummies', then I'm all for it. IMHO, there's nothing dumb about clearing the path for dummies to a Linux desktop.
But that makes it as if Gnome is targeting a non-existant user-group.
Gnome is simpler (=less options) than KDE, true. But!
KDE is much more like Microsoft Windows than Gnome is.
Face it, most of the "dummies" will be coming from Windows experience, so KDE is better for them. And because it's more complex, KDE will be better for smarties as well. Gnome has no niche left.
Since Linux FUSE (Filesystem in Userspace) became part of the 2.6.14 mainline Linux kernel, any user (not just root) can mount remote directories set up under KDE.
They could mostly do that already, with programs along the lines of smb4k. Wouldn't work for an arbitrary kio (fish), but the school network is most likely SMB.
Although, it's a real shame it took so long for FUSE to come out, and that separate features are conflated. Userspace applications providing the filesystem and non-root users creating mounts (in their own ~ and for their own use ONLY) are separate problems, which should've been separately solved years ago. UNIX needed some of these from the start.
I'm pretty sure that over the years Hawking has become proficient in the use of rooms
How bafflingly ignorant! Hawking has almost no ability to use a room- and over the years he's steadily become worse and worse. A 3-day old kitten can work a room better than him.
Your other "I'm pretty sure"s are similarly grounded in speculative fantasy.
There isn't much that a UI can do to fix that.
No? Then why is Apple's main selling point a promise that their UI will fix that?
skill and UI design skill, I think you're missing the key point of this discussion.
Nope. Linus's qualifications as a UI designer shouldn't actually be under dispute- his ability as a UI critic is more important. It's easier to judge than to build. You don't have to be a director to tell if a film scene was good or bad.
Did Linus design a PUI, or even attempt to contribute to one? No. He simply pointed out that GNOME is much worse than KDE, Windows, or Mac.
One does very little to inform the other.
UI design and kernel design are both functional creative skills, which means they are at least 10,000 times more similar than astrophysics (an investigative science) and interior decorating (an artistic expression of taste).
I have both installed, use GNOME for my WM
Do you also use Half-Life for your text editor?
Perl is interesting because it was developed by a linguist and modelled after human languages
That's a myth- a retroactive redefinition of the origin. Perl's design was taken as a union of the styles of sh, C, and awk. The only way to base it less on human speech would be to mix some Lisp in there.
The fact that Perl programs can whimsically shift between so many different approaches to describing a program is part of the reason it's risky to suggest to low-intensity developers.
rather than by a Math geek modelled after a strict theoretical model
That much is true. A language based even roughly on math principles will have some coherency to it. Perl's willingness to combine all varieties of syntax (including, as you point out, some created solely for perverse amusement) can easily be seen as more of a flaw than a charming advantage.
The problem, of course, is that many apps these days require the gnome libs to run.
Even if that were true (it's not), that's still a non-problem. You don't need to run gnome just to have it's libs installed- with today's disks, that's hardly a bother at all.
The problem, of course, is that many apps these days require the gnome libs to run. Look at firefox as an example.
Falsehoods. Here are the libraries firefox needs.
libmozjs.so libxpcom.so libplds4.so libplc4.so
libnspr4.so libpthread.so libdl.so libgtk-x11-2.0.so
libgdk-x11-2.0.so libatk-1.0.so libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so
libpangoxft-1.0.so libpangox-1.0.so libpango-1.0.so
libgobject-2.0.so libgmodule-2.0.so libglib-2.0.so
libX11.so libm.so libjpeg.so libz.so libsmime3.so
libssl3.so libnss3.so libsoftokn3.so libXt.so
libXp.so libXext.so libxpcom_compat.so libstdc++.so
libgcc_s.so libc.so libXft.so libfreetype.so
libfontconfig.so libXrandr.so libXi.so
libXcursor.so libXrender.so libpangoft2-1.0.so
libSM.so libICE.so libexpat.so
Go ahead and point out which ones you think are from gnome. (Most of the libs with "g" in the name are probably also needed by gnome, but that's different from being part of it)
Linus Torvalds is not a usablilty expert any more than Steven Hawking is an interior designer.
No, that analogy far overreaches. Linus spends much time working with and thinking about PC GUIs. Do you have any evidence that Hawking has any strong opinions about interior design, or even has a mild interest in the subject? (His inability to even around a room suggests otherwise)
Linus is an experienced usability designer in many ways- he maintains a major piece of important software, and strives to improve its quality, which includes usability for both developers and end users.
It is far smarter to compare software and software than astrophysics and architectural attractiveness.
I really don't know why people try to cannonize Linus.
You're trying to do that more strongly that the people you "refute".
OM: Microsoft is not a monopoly. Only force can create a monopoly -- and only government can legally use force.
And the government exercises force on behalf of Microsoft to "protect their intellectual property". Therefore Microsoft has force, and what's your problem?
Only force can create a monopoly
No. Only property rights can create a monopoly. Force is only necessary insofar as it protects property rights.
In any capitalist system and field with a nontrivial economic barrier-to-entry, entities will increase their marketshare at a rate proportionate to their capital (ie, their existing marketshare). Monopolies will be the natural result of market force.
The unnatural part is that any monopoly which occurs will spontaneously be destroyed when the rest of the population decides to infringe on their property rights. Only if a government acts to protect their "property" can the monopoly survive.
Whereas, using ODF will force citizens to:
Since the mandate is only that they use ODF, and not STOP USING any other format, it will force them to do exactly nothing. There will naturally be a long period of transition when the government continues to accept MSWord files, and merely keeps the official, archival copy in ODF.
That period will almost certainly last longer than the typical hardware-upgrade period you mention.
On one hand, MS did get a start into the position they are in due to free market forces.
Not really. The only reason Bill Gates got his critical DOS contract from IBM is that IBM had to separate out development of PC systems to stave off upcoming anti-trust regulation. Even for it's very inception, Microsoft was dependent on government intervention.
AC: Um, no. What he's saying is that the PEOPLE should decide what format they use, not some asshole in an appointed position who the people never elected or chose.
He was appointed by an ELECTED executive. That means the PEOPLE entrusted him to make various decisions on their behalf, particularly in regards to details of government operation. Whether or not they approve of this particular choice shall be a factor in Romney's next election campaign.
Your complaint applies equally well to any kind of representative democracy (and of course, nonrepresentative democracy is too cumbersome to be workable with modern technology)
In a democratic republic, this can range in severity from kicking out the groups currently
You used the term "democratic republic", which is excessively specific. The solution would be no different in any other democracy, including a non-republic like the United Kingdom.
Trying to squeeze in the word "republic" when it adds no meaning looks like Republican partisanship (pretending that "democracy" and "republicanism" are equally important parts of the USA's national character, when it reality one is farm more critical than the other)
He's obviously a "libertarian" (pretty name
No! The word you're thinking of is the capitalized one. "Republican", "Democrat", and "Libertarian" are all the names of specific political parties, whose platforms are only partially based on the principles from which they took their names. For example, in the USA, "Republican" means anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty, but "republican" only means "supporting a government without monarchy or nobility". Likewise, George Bush is a "democrat" in that he hopes to to democratize Iraq, but he certainly isn't a "Democrat".
Uncapitalized, "libertarian" just means somebody who promotes and defends individual liberty, while "Libertarian" means anti-statist or anarcho-capitalist. A real "libertarian" is free to decide that sometimes, state power may be the best way to protect personal liberty from commercial and cultural interests.
Get it right- don't disparage libertarians by mixing them together with Libertarians.
AC: Commonwealth turns out to be a fancy word that means, effectively, "soverign republic".
No, it means just what it literally says: "common wealth", ie "shared benefit". New redefinitions that sometimes make it a synonym for "state" don't matter.
since it was essentially a weak alliance between actual states
They already didn't possess the hallmarks of real nations back in 1780 (armies, presidents, citizenship).
(Yes, we know, he "freed the slaves" - but he also paved the way for the destruction of states' rights.)
If he hadn't destroyed those state's rights, then the residents of the USA would be speaking German today (or Japanese, for Hawaii/California).
as PGP signatures can be used over a quantum-encrypted connection.
Meaningless, because until that data has been exchanged, you don't have a QC connection. (Note that "quantum-encrypted connection" is an invalid phrase, as there is no way to "encrypt" a message with quantum mechanics, as the word "encrypt" specifically means to use a cipher or code. "Quantum Cryptography" or "QC" can be used, as it is a proper noun for the misnomer title given to the technique)
Then use another independent method of verifying the signing key. Phone, say.
That is "security through obscurity". You are trusting that the fact that you verify over phone is obscure enough to not also have been eavesdropped. And worse, if it is NOT obscure, then you are actually exposing a key that might otherwise have been safe.