Personal rant: I've known a number of perfectly intelligent engineers that absolutely could not write a readable sentence. These were grad school big brains, for crap's sake; they misused the word "literately," they couldn't spell "definitely," they didn't get irony, and they couldn't write concisely. It takes clear, appropriate language to explain advanced concepts, and that's why/. should link to such an article, even if it's not really a breaking news story. Why not be well-rounded nerds?
Stuff that Matters
Personal opinion: Not sounding like a braying jackass matters a fantastic lot.
Say what you will about Microsoft, but I'm impressed with their security updates. I mean, I downloaded the Microsoft Windows XP "Pirate Code" as soon as it was available, and it saved me from that horrible "Service Pack 1" virus.
(I'm waiting for the group that cracks MS product activation. You know, you'll call a toll free number to get your activation crack from a snotty 16 year old in Kazblakastan. And after you hang up, your phone will ring five more times with porn offers.)
(Go-go-gadget irate response biased by a wealth of personal experience!) Y'know, as a journalist, I'm bloody tired of people being offended by interview questions. An interviewer is SUPPOSED to ask tricky questions. I agree that interviewers should ask such questions respectfully, and I think this writer did just that.
He didn't call Matt a squash-headed boob or anything; he mostly wanted to know the reasons behind leaving certain features out. The interviewer probably assumed that there were perfectly good reasons, but you've got to ask to know. Valid questions aren't tactless. (Tactless would be panning the given reasons.)
The interviewer has also observed, seemingly fisrthand, problems with the software, and he wants to know if Red Hat has addressed them. Yay, interviewer, for doing your job.
We don't need interviewers who don't ask "confrontational" questions... we've got corporate press releases. So buck up, buttercup. (I just posted a very similar comment to another page about reporters unwilling to confront government officials for fear of seeming unpatriotic. Chickens, the lot of 'em.)
I can't help but wonder how/.'ers would react to an interview with MicroBill that asked such "confrontational" questions... probably roast the poor writer for not setting loose the dogs.
Agreed, absolutely... Yahoo! provides a remarkably decent front page. Great variety of sources, not too annoying to look at (mildly customizable interface; banner ads at top and bottom of the page, but nothing too intrusive).
As a ferocious sports fan, I've yet to find a better online resource than sports.yahoo.com. When I'm trying to follow a baseball game 1,500 miles away, and ESPN 2 is busy showing Peruvian clown rodeos or whatever, Yahoo! sports is a godsend. Other outfits try to provide the same types of services (live updating GameChannel windows and such), but none are as dependable, or as fast, as Yahoo!
And Yahoo! Games is similarly terrific. So is Yahoo! maps. And Yahoo IM. And on. And on. Yahoo! has evolved into much more than a search engine, and kudos to it. Their search engine has never been a peach anyway (I used altavista back in the day).
Why doesn't Yahoo! accept that Google owns the search world, jettison their own search development, and focus on the portal? Ego in the way?
Slashdot Mirror
Personal rant: I've known a number of perfectly intelligent engineers that absolutely could not write a readable sentence. These were grad school big brains, for crap's sake; they misused the word "literately," they couldn't spell "definitely," they didn't get irony, and they couldn't write concisely. It takes clear, appropriate language to explain advanced concepts, and that's why /. should link to such an article, even if it's not really a breaking news story. Why not be well-rounded nerds?
Stuff that Matters
Personal opinion: Not sounding like a braying jackass matters a fantastic lot.
Oh, wait, hold on... you said WATER. Not oil.
(I'm waiting for the group that cracks MS product activation. You know, you'll call a toll free number to get your activation crack from a snotty 16 year old in Kazblakastan. And after you hang up, your phone will ring five more times with porn offers.)
(Go-go-gadget irate response biased by a wealth of personal experience!) Y'know, as a journalist, I'm bloody tired of people being offended by interview questions. An interviewer is SUPPOSED to ask tricky questions. I agree that interviewers should ask such questions respectfully, and I think this writer did just that.
He didn't call Matt a squash-headed boob or anything; he mostly wanted to know the reasons behind leaving certain features out. The interviewer probably assumed that there were perfectly good reasons, but you've got to ask to know. Valid questions aren't tactless. (Tactless would be panning the given reasons.)
The interviewer has also observed, seemingly fisrthand, problems with the software, and he wants to know if Red Hat has addressed them. Yay, interviewer, for doing your job.
We don't need interviewers who don't ask "confrontational" questions... we've got corporate press releases. So buck up, buttercup. (I just posted a very similar comment to another page about reporters unwilling to confront government officials for fear of seeming unpatriotic. Chickens, the lot of 'em.)
I can't help but wonder how /.'ers would react to an interview with MicroBill that asked such "confrontational" questions... probably roast the poor writer for not setting loose the dogs.
As a ferocious sports fan, I've yet to find a better online resource than sports.yahoo.com. When I'm trying to follow a baseball game 1,500 miles away, and ESPN 2 is busy showing Peruvian clown rodeos or whatever, Yahoo! sports is a godsend. Other outfits try to provide the same types of services (live updating GameChannel windows and such), but none are as dependable, or as fast, as Yahoo!
And Yahoo! Games is similarly terrific. So is Yahoo! maps. And Yahoo IM. And on. And on. Yahoo! has evolved into much more than a search engine, and kudos to it. Their search engine has never been a peach anyway (I used altavista back in the day).
Why doesn't Yahoo! accept that Google owns the search world, jettison their own search development, and focus on the portal? Ego in the way?
Actually, I read through Classics of Western Literature last night... the political satire rather nails the Bush whitehouse.
It's Reagan redux. Breathed is a prophet!