Microsoft doesn't expect anyone to buy this. It is a statement. They are releasing this to show that competition with linux does not result in a superior product. At the same time releasing this to compete with linux is a way of insulting linux, implying that linux is crap.
And last but not least, they are releasing this so they can claim that their pricepoint is fair. They will claim that this is all they can offer at these rock bottom prices because software developments costs... etc. etc. etc. We all know how huge their profit margins are on windows so we know it's a load of crap. On the other hand it is not entirely... it looks good on paper to beurocrats who do not use the software themselves, they hope people will turn around and buy full versions, and Microsoft doesn't just have to make huge profits. They have to meet or exceed ANTICIPATED profits that are based on their previous ridiculous earnings or their stock will drop and that hits the top dogs pocketbooks.
Re:Not that bold, ask a creationist!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
I would not debate that. The mind is akin to a program running on top of a computer. However, once you fully understand the computer you can meticulously reverse engineer a snapshot of the software (which IS ultimately just an abstract of the current electrical state of the hardware, in the case of the mind and software).
The (Great+)grandparent was challenging the idea that the mind was contained entirely within the brain. Either he was refering to the rest of the nervous system (and therefore technically correct, although it would be more correct to include that as part of the brain) or was implying the existance of some other force that drives the brain (i.e. a soul). Like an abacus.
Reality is that the mind is more like software. And like software you CAN reverse engineer it's function by watching the physical level because LIKE SOFTWARE it is merely an abrastraction of those physical parts (in software it's electrons, in the brain it is neurons and chemical states).
Understand of course when I say you can, I mean to say that if one were able to fully map and record those physical states and then step through in the appropriate increments (neuron firing rate or click ticks) then one could derive the abstract state from that date. Or develop a suitable abstract to describe the states in the case of the brain. We don't actually have the technology and computing power to do this now of course, but it is a matter of horsepower and suitably fine grained monitoring.
Zen is a nice place to start, but it's the hard way by itself. You can combine the two camps like I am doing. Get an EEG (google openeeg) to monitor your brain state and use neurofeedback to take some of the subjectivity out of the question. Focus is not subjective. Either your brain is in a focused state (mostly giving off 20hz beta waves) or not. If not you can use eeg feed to deliver a tone to your ears that grows louder the further from 20hz you are. Higher and lower octaves can be used as well to indicate if you are too high or low. This lets you know whether you are actually more soothed or if you just think so. If meditating, are you really in that 10hzish alpha state you are aiming for?
People using this simple technique have been known to aquire mastery over their brain states in as little as a year equivelent to that of monks who have been meditating for 20yrs. You can also use light pulses and binaural audio to help coax your brain into the correct states through entrainment.
I've written a little perl app I use in combination with sbagen for this. I have dubbed it affectionately as "brainfuck".
Really only the ignorant avoid RPMs (read that as package management, debs are fine too).;) Believe it or not being slick is NOT a bad thing. Being slick is good so long as it does not come at the expense of flexibility.
Stupid and ignorant people configure/make/make install with flags and so forth.
Intelligent ones take 2 seconds and a text editor to make a spec file that compiles the software per their specific requirements. Then they have a perfectly tuned binary whenever they have need for one that is easy to install and/or uninstall. Couple the package format with apt and you even have automated dependency resolution and network install support.
Seriously, if you still aren't using a package format (rpm/deb) with a good package management frontend (apt/yum) and maybe even a gui frontend to that (synaptic/yast2); it is time you stepped into the 21st century. Nobody thinks of rpm as just the rpm binary anymore, power users realize that rpmbuild is essential as well. If you learn how to build packages it does not take long (isn't *nix full of tools with a learning curve?) you get all the flexibility of building packages yourself (since you are literally scripting the build commands in the spec file) AND the subsequent ease of package management.
I doubt most people who are building packages by hand are stupid but I suspect many are ignorant. They have been burned by easy to use Windows and Macintosh system and are afraid of things being dumbed down. The reason I still use linux is that while the system grows ever easier to use, that ease has not come at the expense of access to flexibility and customizability.
Even less flexible pretty configuration tools are accessing the same old flexible and easy to backup config files.
Wonderful rant really. You mentioned the fix for data yourself. It is called the backup. The NSA produced a more flexible security model if you need it, but I don't know of any grandmas that do.
I'm sure we would all like a security system that makes our checking data as secure at our home computer as at the bank and is easy enough for grandma to use but that is a pipe dream. Reality is that your computer is NOT a safe. When you connect that computer to the internet you have no reasonable expectation that the data on it is as secure as that in your wallet when you walk down a crowded street (although it is generally much safer).
"After all, if software on your system would NOT contain any exploitable bugs.."
After all if pigs sprouted butterfly wings out their arses and went scooba-diving...
Seriously though. The parent was not commenting on the general merit of the old unix security model or the new ones. Rather the parent was answering the original question of why one should not use root for day to day work. The answer is because you can't be turned into a spam zombie that hurts others and your system is much more difficult to compromise in that manner. Restoring data takes what 5m-1h if you have a substantial amount? Whereas losing your system adds anywhere from 45m-15hrs ON TOP of that.
"single user in his home has different priorities"
Says you. Most single users at home do not have the technical knowledge to reinstall the system. A root compromise means hiring a technician to resetup their computer AND losing all their data.
If root is not compromised the system is not compromised, only the individual user. If you run as root it isn't like the system is compromised but not your personal data.
Also on a single user system your personal data may or may not be all that critical. MOST home users have no critical data on their computer at all, so $100 to have the computer guy come "fix" their computer is greater than the loss of losing a couple pirated songs and a half hour spent on a paper.
Also do not assume home and single user are synonymous. Believe it or not they have these things called "families" and they have become quite common. Hell even smaller units called "couples" are in vogue. And these units involve multiple users in a home scenerio. While those users wouldn't know what they are missing in a single user setup they will never turn back once they have experienced seperate and private preferences, desktops, browser history/bookmarks, etc.
"And it tends to produce a "let's try this - I'm a regular user and nothing can go *really* wrong" attitude. In other words, you can catch yourself becoming *sloppier* as a regular user, which is actually bound to *carry over* as root."
Maybe for some. I find that most who are even aware there is another account on the system called root and consider something other than what the tech uses when he fixes the computer or sets up new programs already have a "lets try this - I want to see what happens" attitude. This is the category of user who has the kinds of problems on a linux system that require constantly adjusting internals and using root access.
I run as a regular user and actually do quite a bit with my system but tinker with it rarely nowdays. The only time I have ever used the 'whoami' command is in scripts that need to be run as root. Aside from installing software root is almost never needed on an already configured system. Even that doesn't involve something like an xterm. I mean you open synaptic, find your package, and install it. The only way you even realized it required root access is that you had to type the password into the kdesu box.
You can bork the system in 30 seconds or less in linux or dos/windows. The difference is what types of things lead you to doing it. With dos/windows the systems bork themselves and you either fix them or REALLY bork them when trying to fix what they borked on their own. Example, toasting the system hive because turned on your XP/2000/2003 system to find it randomly decided to corrupt your registry and start bluescreening today.
With linux if you leave the system be it will only bork itself if hardware goes bad. But installation and configuration involve lots of tinkering and manipulating guts and they are as gentle as an anal probe with a cattle prod. And hey, lets face it, using linux leads you to want to tinker with all that free software.
Re:Not that bold, ask a creationist!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
"but it is very likely that we won't be able to trace existing thoughts all the way back to physical origins."
Why would we want to? And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The parent and grandparent are arguing about whether or not the mind is software or some spiritual body seperate from the physical that uses the brain as a co-processor of sorts.
Re:Not that bold, ask a creationist!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
No but we have slapped neurons harvested from the brains of multiple rats on a dish of sensors wired to a flight simulator and watched the simple pieces interact in a complex manner and determine they should level out the plane and keep it level. I guess the rat souls came along for the ride eh?
Psychology is NOT science. Neurobiology is science, Psychology is a suckers game.
Science is what told us what Neurons were in the first place. Based on what we know of them we created our own make believe neurons and taught them how to interpret speech.
"At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken."
No at the end of the day a browser that has correctly implemented 90% of CSS has a 90% chance of correctly rendering of arbitrary complexity that implements CSS. A browser with 40% implemented has a 40% chance.
Obviously that is not the total picture; you could make the issue drastically more complex by arguing the commonality and usage of certain parts of CSS. As well as the theoretical usage of parts if authors were able to reasonably expect them to be supported and so on. And of course the GP pulled 90% and 40% out of his arse.
'Let's see: "Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer."'
The headline was that Firefox and Opera failed to pass the test. IE failing is expected and not suprising. This has nothing to do with OSS. Opera isn't OSS after all. IE and Microsoft in general have a hard earned reputation for standards incompliance. The statement you mention is simply heading off any FUD that might claim FF/Opera are not dedicated to standards compliance by IE apologizers. There is no FUD involved in stating that the status quo has not changed and the informed expectation that Opera and FF would exhibit greater compliance out of the box than IE was upheld.
Any expectation is a bias, not all biases are reasonable and some are common sense. Because it has been proven to me that water freezes at a certain point my belief is biased. If someone were to ask me what would happen if they chilled a tray of liquid appearing to be water below 0c I would be biased toward the belief it would freeze. I could be wrong of course, could turn out to be salt water. Most of the time I would be right because my bias was based upon logic and evidence.
Argue that MS software is easy to use. Argue that it is of reasonable quality. But if you argue that MS software could not be reasonably expected to be lacking in standards compliance compared to arbitrary programs performing the same function. At least when there are reference standards to compare those programs against, it is you who is showing a bias because there is a factual history of non-compliance on the part of Microsoft in every case. Further, intentional non-compliance is a well established business practice of the company.
As long as you can reasonably expect someone to be able to accurately state "Obviously, no program exhibited compliance as poor as that of MS Program X", it is not unreasonable to head FUD implying the opposite off at the pass. That said MS supporting FUD is inevitable if not immediately discounted is rather intersting considering this is a MS Basher oriented site eh?
That is not true. Broken is broken but there are dozens of various pieces of technology that compose this test. The uglier the rendering the more of those individual elements are broken.
In the real world you will maybe have 1 or 2 of the elements used in this page in your entire website. If 80% of them render correctly in FF/Opera and 20% in IE (don't take those specific numbers to heart) then FF/Opera are 4 times more likely to render your site correctly than IE. By all means insert the real numbers but the principle remains the same. Yes, considering that NONE of the browsers are 100% compliant, having a greater compliance level that is still less than 100% is still commendable.
The bottom line is that this really is not one test, it is dozens of hand picked tests so every fail or pass counts individually. Since this was just released the number of passes vs fails we see right now is an indicator of how seriously the developers of a given browser take advanced standards compliance.
In the end I would like to see all 3 browsers 100% standards compliant. Even after being fixed to pass this acid test none of the browsers will be 100% compliant. This test just uses some cherry picked features, it was intentionally designed so that none of the browsers would pass it.
hmm that would be a rather intriguing paradox. I really would pay to see an already made film showing someone wiping their ass with the money I paid to see the film! The physics nerds would go on about that for quite some time I imagine.
Yup, I used to work for Sony. When it comes to consumer electronics they offer high quality devices with drastically overinflated prices. When it comes to anything they classify as a "PC" device they offer shit support/warranty, less features, rebranded technology, the cheapest crap hardware they can find with the right specs, and a REALLY overinflated price.
Pick any desktop pc in sony's product line. Replace each piece of hardware with the best hardware out there that meets the same list of specs, add 400 for putting the pieces together. The price in every case would half or less than half of what Sony charges for their version with parts of lower quality than those found in a POS dell or gateway.
Because USB is a can of worms. The difference between a serial connection and a USB connection is akin to the difference between a hardware modem and a software emulated one. Software is more flexible and it is easier to fix problems latter, but you'll always have more problems with software (and the other componenets it relies on to operate) than with a simple all hardware solution.
USB depends on a software controller in order to operate where serial does not and people have near constant problems with USB. Hell you can break USB support on a windows pc simply by plugging in most usb printers/scanners before installing the software.
USB has numerous benefits (just as software voice modems do) but far too many people want to pretend it is anywhere near as stable as legacy ports like serial and parallel.
Futility. I had basic concepts such as that mastered in pre-school. Thankyou for reminding me why those additional years in the educational system exist. They exist for the ones who are dense enough that they need someone to spell out the results of applying the same general concepts to each and every new subject.
""Your" has not adopted an additional meaning in common usage, and I dare you to find one reputable source which says that it has."
Common usage can be studied ONLY by observation. There is no such thing as an authoritive source on common usage. Your reputable sources are merely followers that attempt to catch up with common usage.
"Language lives and changes, but your usage is wrong by any accepted standard, and your ignorance in claiming otherwise is indicative of your bias against education."
Nonsense, I never claimed my usage was acceptable by any accepted standard. I claimed my usage had fallen into common usage and that in a spoken language common usage trumps accepted standards. You have failed to show otherwise.
"Language lives and changes, but your usage is wrong by any accepted standard, and your ignorance in claiming otherwise is indicative of your bias against education."
Actually I never made any comments regarding MY education.
"prerequisite for clear representation of your ideas"
Feel free to discourse further on this subject if you are able to demonstrate where my ideas were unclear. Your ability to "correct" me, demonstrates that you were easily able to discern my meaning.
"I am not a grammar troll."
You are correcting grammar and/or spelling outside of an English related course. The last time I checked anyone who does so is a grammar troll or at least grammar trolling.
"This is a site for geeks. Begone!;)"
Yes, this site is for geeks not grammar trolls. Begone!
"Although if your a professional photographer using OO.org and Gimp you really ought to be questioning yourself about why you're running them on an inferior underlying system."
Should be:
"Although if your a professional photographer using OO.org and Gimp you really ought to be questioning yourself about why, if you're running them on an inferior underlying system like windows."
Although someone could run Win+OO.o+Gimp, it is probably about as likely as building a cart with square wheels. Anything is possible, that does not mean anyone is going to do it.
Sounds like a biased source to me. Let us ask the tobacco companies whether there is merit in smoking shall we?
"While you're doing your graduate studies, maybe you can learn some English, as well."
tsk. tsk. Sounds like they did not teach you in school that language is living. English is defined by usage, not text books. "Your" has adopted an additional meaning synonymous with "You are" in common usage. Therefore it is the text books and not my usage that is dated. With that said I do not recall soliciting visitation from a grammar troll, begone.;)
You would have a good point if the photoshop interface was at all unique or creative but it is not. Making something have an interface more like photoshop is really just making it have an interface more like almost every program other than gimp.;)
Just because gimp would have an interface similar to those found in other applications does not mean it has to having matching internal function or be a photoshop clone.
His argument was for Gimp not linux. Although if your a professional photographer using OO.org and Gimp you really ought to be questioning yourself about why you're running them on an inferior underlying system.
What most people are ignoring is that this does NOT really make gimp look much like photoshop. Instead it changes the menus and keyboard shortcuts to match those in photoshop.
So, with that information, you really should give this a shot.
"Bullshit. Go get your PhD and then tell me how easy it was. You stick around school making 12,000 a year while your friends with a BS are out making a living."
Yeah, they call that persevering. While that might be difficult in a sense, it hardly disputes my claim that it should not have especially challenged your intellect.
"you should at least walk a day in their shoes"
What makes you assume I do not have a PhD? My claim is not that there is no value in what is done to attain a PhD. My claim is that a PhD is only one route to learning and not a route that sets someone above others.
I have known quite a few people in my life, with a number of professional and educational achievments. What I have found is that no professional or education achievement assures that the bearer has a brain. If you do not have a powerful mind and utilize that mind in critical thought and analysis, questioning all things you encounter in life... then you are just another of the cattle; regardless of academic and professional achievement.
Slashdot Mirror
Any references in ENGLISH. This is a US-based English website.
The name of the country is Brazil. I believe Brasil was one of the plethora of viruses/worms for windows or some such.
Microsoft doesn't expect anyone to buy this. It is a statement. They are releasing this to show that competition with linux does not result in a superior product. At the same time releasing this to compete with linux is a way of insulting linux, implying that linux is crap.
And last but not least, they are releasing this so they can claim that their pricepoint is fair. They will claim that this is all they can offer at these rock bottom prices because software developments costs... etc. etc. etc. We all know how huge their profit margins are on windows so we know it's a load of crap. On the other hand it is not entirely... it looks good on paper to beurocrats who do not use the software themselves, they hope people will turn around and buy full versions, and Microsoft doesn't just have to make huge profits. They have to meet or exceed ANTICIPATED profits that are based on their previous ridiculous earnings or their stock will drop and that hits the top dogs pocketbooks.
I would not debate that. The mind is akin to a program running on top of a computer. However, once you fully understand the computer you can meticulously reverse engineer a snapshot of the software (which IS ultimately just an abstract of the current electrical state of the hardware, in the case of the mind and software).
The (Great+)grandparent was challenging the idea that the mind was contained entirely within the brain. Either he was refering to the rest of the nervous system (and therefore technically correct, although it would be more correct to include that as part of the brain) or was implying the existance of some other force that drives the brain (i.e. a soul). Like an abacus.
Reality is that the mind is more like software. And like software you CAN reverse engineer it's function by watching the physical level because LIKE SOFTWARE it is merely an abrastraction of those physical parts (in software it's electrons, in the brain it is neurons and chemical states).
Understand of course when I say you can, I mean to say that if one were able to fully map and record those physical states and then step through in the appropriate increments (neuron firing rate or click ticks) then one could derive the abstract state from that date. Or develop a suitable abstract to describe the states in the case of the brain. We don't actually have the technology and computing power to do this now of course, but it is a matter of horsepower and suitably fine grained monitoring.
Zen is a nice place to start, but it's the hard way by itself. You can combine the two camps like I am doing. Get an EEG (google openeeg) to monitor your brain state and use neurofeedback to take some of the subjectivity out of the question. Focus is not subjective. Either your brain is in a focused state (mostly giving off 20hz beta waves) or not. If not you can use eeg feed to deliver a tone to your ears that grows louder the further from 20hz you are. Higher and lower octaves can be used as well to indicate if you are too high or low. This lets you know whether you are actually more soothed or if you just think so. If meditating, are you really in that 10hzish alpha state you are aiming for?
People using this simple technique have been known to aquire mastery over their brain states in as little as a year equivelent to that of monks who have been meditating for 20yrs. You can also use light pulses and binaural audio to help coax your brain into the correct states through entrainment.
I've written a little perl app I use in combination with sbagen for this. I have dubbed it affectionately as "brainfuck".
Really only the ignorant avoid RPMs (read that as package management, debs are fine too). ;) Believe it or not being slick is NOT a bad thing. Being slick is good so long as it does not come at the expense of flexibility.
Stupid and ignorant people configure/make/make install with flags and so forth.
Intelligent ones take 2 seconds and a text editor to make a spec file that compiles the software per their specific requirements. Then they have a perfectly tuned binary whenever they have need for one that is easy to install and/or uninstall. Couple the package format with apt and you even have automated dependency resolution and network install support.
Seriously, if you still aren't using a package format (rpm/deb) with a good package management frontend (apt/yum) and maybe even a gui frontend to that (synaptic/yast2); it is time you stepped into the 21st century. Nobody thinks of rpm as just the rpm binary anymore, power users realize that rpmbuild is essential as well. If you learn how to build packages it does not take long (isn't *nix full of tools with a learning curve?) you get all the flexibility of building packages yourself (since you are literally scripting the build commands in the spec file) AND the subsequent ease of package management.
I doubt most people who are building packages by hand are stupid but I suspect many are ignorant. They have been burned by easy to use Windows and Macintosh system and are afraid of things being dumbed down. The reason I still use linux is that while the system grows ever easier to use, that ease has not come at the expense of access to flexibility and customizability.
Even less flexible pretty configuration tools are accessing the same old flexible and easy to backup config files.
Wonderful rant really. You mentioned the fix for data yourself. It is called the backup. The NSA produced a more flexible security model if you need it, but I don't know of any grandmas that do.
I'm sure we would all like a security system that makes our checking data as secure at our home computer as at the bank and is easy enough for grandma to use but that is a pipe dream. Reality is that your computer is NOT a safe. When you connect that computer to the internet you have no reasonable expectation that the data on it is as secure as that in your wallet when you walk down a crowded street (although it is generally much safer).
"After all, if software on your system would NOT contain any exploitable bugs.."
After all if pigs sprouted butterfly wings out their arses and went scooba-diving...
Seriously though. The parent was not commenting on the general merit of the old unix security model or the new ones. Rather the parent was answering the original question of why one should not use root for day to day work. The answer is because you can't be turned into a spam zombie that hurts others and your system is much more difficult to compromise in that manner. Restoring data takes what 5m-1h if you have a substantial amount? Whereas losing your system adds anywhere from 45m-15hrs ON TOP of that.
"single user in his home has different priorities"
Says you. Most single users at home do not have the technical knowledge to reinstall the system. A root compromise means hiring a technician to resetup their computer AND losing all their data.
If root is not compromised the system is not compromised, only the individual user. If you run as root it isn't like the system is compromised but not your personal data.
Also on a single user system your personal data may or may not be all that critical. MOST home users have no critical data on their computer at all, so $100 to have the computer guy come "fix" their computer is greater than the loss of losing a couple pirated songs and a half hour spent on a paper.
Also do not assume home and single user are synonymous. Believe it or not they have these things called "families" and they have become quite common. Hell even smaller units called "couples" are in vogue. And these units involve multiple users in a home scenerio. While those users wouldn't know what they are missing in a single user setup they will never turn back once they have experienced seperate and private preferences, desktops, browser history/bookmarks, etc.
"And it tends to produce a "let's try this - I'm a regular user and nothing can go *really* wrong" attitude. In other words, you can catch yourself becoming *sloppier* as a regular user, which is actually bound to *carry over* as root."
Maybe for some. I find that most who are even aware there is another account on the system called root and consider something other than what the tech uses when he fixes the computer or sets up new programs already have a "lets try this - I want to see what happens" attitude. This is the category of user who has the kinds of problems on a linux system that require constantly adjusting internals and using root access.
I run as a regular user and actually do quite a bit with my system but tinker with it rarely nowdays. The only time I have ever used the 'whoami' command is in scripts that need to be run as root. Aside from installing software root is almost never needed on an already configured system. Even that doesn't involve something like an xterm. I mean you open synaptic, find your package, and install it. The only way you even realized it required root access is that you had to type the password into the kdesu box.
You can bork the system in 30 seconds or less in linux or dos/windows. The difference is what types of things lead you to doing it. With dos/windows the systems bork themselves and you either fix them or REALLY bork them when trying to fix what they borked on their own. Example, toasting the system hive because turned on your XP/2000/2003 system to find it randomly decided to corrupt your registry and start bluescreening today.
With linux if you leave the system be it will only bork itself if hardware goes bad. But installation and configuration involve lots of tinkering and manipulating guts and they are as gentle as an anal probe with a cattle prod. And hey, lets face it, using linux leads you to want to tinker with all that free software.
"but it is very likely that we won't be able to trace existing thoughts all the way back to physical origins."
Why would we want to? And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The parent and grandparent are arguing about whether or not the mind is software or some spiritual body seperate from the physical that uses the brain as a co-processor of sorts.
No but we have slapped neurons harvested from the brains of multiple rats on a dish of sensors wired to a flight simulator and watched the simple pieces interact in a complex manner and determine they should level out the plane and keep it level. I guess the rat souls came along for the ride eh?
Psychology is NOT science. Neurobiology is science, Psychology is a suckers game.
Science is what told us what Neurons were in the first place. Based on what we know of them we created our own make believe neurons and taught them how to interpret speech.
"At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken."
No at the end of the day a browser that has correctly implemented 90% of CSS has a 90% chance of correctly rendering of arbitrary complexity that implements CSS. A browser with 40% implemented has a 40% chance.
Obviously that is not the total picture; you could make the issue drastically more complex by arguing the commonality and usage of certain parts of CSS. As well as the theoretical usage of parts if authors were able to reasonably expect them to be supported and so on. And of course the GP pulled 90% and 40% out of his arse.
'Let's see: "Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer."'
The headline was that Firefox and Opera failed to pass the test. IE failing is expected and not suprising. This has nothing to do with OSS. Opera isn't OSS after all. IE and Microsoft in general have a hard earned reputation for standards incompliance. The statement you mention is simply heading off any FUD that might claim FF/Opera are not dedicated to standards compliance by IE apologizers. There is no FUD involved in stating that the status quo has not changed and the informed expectation that Opera and FF would exhibit greater compliance out of the box than IE was upheld.
Any expectation is a bias, not all biases are reasonable and some are common sense. Because it has been proven to me that water freezes at a certain point my belief is biased. If someone were to ask me what would happen if they chilled a tray of liquid appearing to be water below 0c I would be biased toward the belief it would freeze. I could be wrong of course, could turn out to be salt water. Most of the time I would be right because my bias was based upon logic and evidence.
Argue that MS software is easy to use. Argue that it is of reasonable quality. But if you argue that MS software could not be reasonably expected to be lacking in standards compliance compared to arbitrary programs performing the same function. At least when there are reference standards to compare those programs against, it is you who is showing a bias because there is a factual history of non-compliance on the part of Microsoft in every case. Further, intentional non-compliance is a well established business practice of the company.
As long as you can reasonably expect someone to be able to accurately state "Obviously, no program exhibited compliance as poor as that of MS Program X", it is not unreasonable to head FUD implying the opposite off at the pass. That said MS supporting FUD is inevitable if not immediately discounted is rather intersting considering this is a MS Basher oriented site eh?
"There's no degree of broken."
That is not true. Broken is broken but there are dozens of various pieces of technology that compose this test. The uglier the rendering the more of those individual elements are broken.
In the real world you will maybe have 1 or 2 of the elements used in this page in your entire website. If 80% of them render correctly in FF/Opera and 20% in IE (don't take those specific numbers to heart) then FF/Opera are 4 times more likely to render your site correctly than IE. By all means insert the real numbers but the principle remains the same. Yes, considering that NONE of the browsers are 100% compliant, having a greater compliance level that is still less than 100% is still commendable.
The bottom line is that this really is not one test, it is dozens of hand picked tests so every fail or pass counts individually. Since this was just released the number of passes vs fails we see right now is an indicator of how seriously the developers of a given browser take advanced standards compliance.
In the end I would like to see all 3 browsers 100% standards compliant. Even after being fixed to pass this acid test none of the browsers will be 100% compliant. This test just uses some cherry picked features, it was intentionally designed so that none of the browsers would pass it.
"and talked less than his mother."
That's not neccesarily saying much. Most mothers I know have no business in a theater under any circumstance either.
hmm that would be a rather intriguing paradox. I really would pay to see an already made film showing someone wiping their ass with the money I paid to see the film! The physics nerds would go on about that for quite some time I imagine.
Yup, I used to work for Sony. When it comes to consumer electronics they offer high quality devices with drastically overinflated prices. When it comes to anything they classify as a "PC" device they offer shit support/warranty, less features, rebranded technology, the cheapest crap hardware they can find with the right specs, and a REALLY overinflated price.
Pick any desktop pc in sony's product line. Replace each piece of hardware with the best hardware out there that meets the same list of specs, add 400 for putting the pieces together. The price in every case would half or less than half of what Sony charges for their version with parts of lower quality than those found in a POS dell or gateway.
Because USB is a can of worms. The difference between a serial connection and a USB connection is akin to the difference between a hardware modem and a software emulated one. Software is more flexible and it is easier to fix problems latter, but you'll always have more problems with software (and the other componenets it relies on to operate) than with a simple all hardware solution.
USB depends on a software controller in order to operate where serial does not and people have near constant problems with USB. Hell you can break USB support on a windows pc simply by plugging in most usb printers/scanners before installing the software.
USB has numerous benefits (just as software voice modems do) but far too many people want to pretend it is anywhere near as stable as legacy ports like serial and parallel.
Not to mention companies hiring programmers to "scratch their itch" in a given free software application.
Futility. I had basic concepts such as that mastered in pre-school. Thankyou for reminding me why those additional years in the educational system exist. They exist for the ones who are dense enough that they need someone to spell out the results of applying the same general concepts to each and every new subject.
""Your" has not adopted an additional meaning in common usage, and I dare you to find one reputable source which says that it has."
;)"
Common usage can be studied ONLY by observation. There is no such thing as an authoritive source on common usage. Your reputable sources are merely followers that attempt to catch up with common usage.
"Language lives and changes, but your usage is wrong by any accepted standard, and your ignorance in claiming otherwise is indicative of your bias against education."
Nonsense, I never claimed my usage was acceptable by any accepted standard. I claimed my usage had fallen into common usage and that in a spoken language common usage trumps accepted standards. You have failed to show otherwise.
"Language lives and changes, but your usage is wrong by any accepted standard, and your ignorance in claiming otherwise is indicative of your bias against education."
Actually I never made any comments regarding MY education.
"prerequisite for clear representation of your ideas"
Feel free to discourse further on this subject if you are able to demonstrate where my ideas were unclear. Your ability to "correct" me, demonstrates that you were easily able to discern my meaning.
"I am not a grammar troll."
You are correcting grammar and/or spelling outside of an English related course. The last time I checked anyone who does so is a grammar troll or at least grammar trolling.
"This is a site for geeks. Begone!
Yes, this site is for geeks not grammar trolls. Begone!
You are right, I will revise the statement.
"Although if your a professional photographer using OO.org and Gimp you really ought to be questioning yourself about why you're running them on an inferior underlying system."
Should be:
"Although if your a professional photographer using OO.org and Gimp you really ought to be questioning yourself about why, if you're running them on an inferior underlying system like windows."
Although someone could run Win+OO.o+Gimp, it is probably about as likely as building a cart with square wheels. Anything is possible, that does not mean anyone is going to do it.
"In fact, if you read educators like Adler"
;)
Sounds like a biased source to me. Let us ask the tobacco companies whether there is merit in smoking shall we?
"While you're doing your graduate studies, maybe you can learn some English, as well."
tsk. tsk. Sounds like they did not teach you in school that language is living. English is defined by usage, not text books. "Your" has adopted an additional meaning synonymous with "You are" in common usage. Therefore it is the text books and not my usage that is dated. With that said I do not recall soliciting visitation from a grammar troll, begone.
Actually this still does not give you a normal window model. It more closely matches the menu entries and keyboard shortcuts.
You would have a good point if the photoshop interface was at all unique or creative but it is not. Making something have an interface more like photoshop is really just making it have an interface more like almost every program other than gimp. ;)
Just because gimp would have an interface similar to those found in other applications does not mean it has to having matching internal function or be a photoshop clone.
"Gimp and OO.o have Windows ports"
His argument was for Gimp not linux. Although if your a professional photographer using OO.org and Gimp you really ought to be questioning yourself about why you're running them on an inferior underlying system.
What most people are ignoring is that this does NOT really make gimp look much like photoshop. Instead it changes the menus and keyboard shortcuts to match those in photoshop.
So, with that information, you really should give this a shot.
"Bullshit. Go get your PhD and then tell me how easy it was. You stick around school making 12,000 a year while your friends with a BS are out making a living."
Yeah, they call that persevering. While that might be difficult in a sense, it hardly disputes my claim that it should not have especially challenged your intellect.
"you should at least walk a day in their shoes"
What makes you assume I do not have a PhD? My claim is not that there is no value in what is done to attain a PhD. My claim is that a PhD is only one route to learning and not a route that sets someone above others.
I have known quite a few people in my life, with a number of professional and educational achievments. What I have found is that no professional or education achievement assures that the bearer has a brain. If you do not have a powerful mind and utilize that mind in critical thought and analysis, questioning all things you encounter in life... then you are just another of the cattle; regardless of academic and professional achievement.