IBM has done a lot of good stuff since getting knocked off of their pedestal back in the day. (Well, except that they didn't marker OS/2 very well). I often wonder if even (gasp) Microsoft could be "good" if they ever realized that they aren't the only option in the computing world.
Maybe it's not too late for me to sue Topps and other baseball card manufacturers. I used to spend all of my allowance on them, when I was trying to get really valuable cards!
You could institute some sort of system where a password was mailed after a certain amount of time (say, 1 hour), so that impulse posting with new login accounts would not be near as feasible.
It's like giving a 16-year old a Corvette or Viper or something, handing them the keys, and saying "You don't have to know anything to get on the freeway. Why don't you go pick up an aftermarket stereo and some rims and install them? It's so EASY!", except it's not nearly as deadly with a computer.
This is exactly right. As I said in another reply, folks expect to have a certain basic knowledge in order to be able to drive a car, and they should do the same thing with a computer. I hadn't thought about it, but like you say, nobody else gets the kind of tech support that computer manufacturers get.
Plus, most people don't call up GM when they try to install an aftermarket stereo and end up botching up their electrical system, and then complain loudly when GM refuses to help them out of their quandry.
Heh. My dad bought an Atari 800 in '79 when I was four. I discovered Atari Basic pretty early on, and I would often try to write programs like: 10 CLEAR SCREEN 20 DRAW CAR 30 MAKE CAR RACE 40 BEAT ALL OTHER CARS Then I would wonder why it wouldn't work. I'm quite thankful that my dad seemed to have no end to the time he would spend showing me how to write real programs in BASIC, even after an agonizing 8 hours at work. I must say, that without it, I probably wouldn't be where I am now. Thanks dad!
We've got a guy who teaches an "Introduction to Computers" class at my school. It's the only computer class we have right now, and it basically teaches people how to point and click, navigate in Win9x, and use WordPerfect. The guy used to teach at a community college, and it pains me to think of all the students he has led astray. Some examples of things he has said:
"Before Windows 95 existed, Microsoft was working on an operating system called Chicago. But, it was way to buggy, so they scrapped it and then re-released it as Windows 95." (This one has the most truth in it of all of them)
"After Microsoft introduced Windows 95, they created an operating system called Windows NT. The NT means that it is a network server." (What about NT 3.51?)
"After you get done using the internet, you need to disconnect your phone line from your modem to make sure nobody hacks into your computer and puts a virus on it." (Huh? I doubt many hackers call around looking for folks who have set their software up to answer when somebody calls.)
"If you double click on an icon and it tells you that it can't find it, it means the icon isn't there . .." (How do you double click on something that isn't there?)
(After a blue screen "fatal exception OE"): "That computer must have some kind of virus. I'll have the computer guy (me) check it out after class."
And, my personal favorite: "One day, you might turn on your computer and discover that someone has put it a logon password and you don't know it. Has anybody ever had this happen? Yeah . . . what you can do is turn off the computer, and take the case off. There are usually screws in the back to do this. Y'all come up here and watch this. (Begins disassembling the case, much to my consternation -- but, I listened, just to see what was going to happen.) Y'all see this shiny thing here? This is the CMOS battery. It keeps that logon password. All of the hard drives have them. All you need to do is remove this battery for about 15 seconds and it will clear out that logon password." (Ummm . . . is it really wise to tell folks who can't figure out how to double click to open up their case and mess around with the internals?)
It really makes me somewhat angry that these folks still let this guy teach even after I've notified folks that he doesn't know what he's talking about sometimes. Usually, I just get "Well, he's taught computer stuff for 4 years, so he must know about some things that you don't." HELLO? TAKING OUT A CMOS BATTERY HAS *NEVER* CLEARED A WINDOWS LOGON PASSWORD, NOR WILL IT EVER (that I can imagine) DO SO!!!
I daresay the DOS prompt isn't what was meant by being able to "get under the hood." It may be the equivalent of opening the hood of a car, but when the user wants to do some heavy duty work under the hood, he can't.
It's about like if I decided to change my camshaft and bore out the engine in my car, only to find that the engine was welded together. Sure, most drivers don't have the desire to do this, but if they do get a hankering, it can be done.
Ordinary folks who don't understand computers don't deserve to be mocked. Ordinary people who want to use their computers but refuse to learn anything about them do.
However, after spending a good afternoon reading these stories, I note that many of them involve a user who assumes that he knows more than the tech support person or a tech support person who won't consider the obvious.
When a user calls up, claims to be an "Apple Tech," and then proceeds to ask how to do something simple the techie tells him to do, he rightfully should be mocked. When the user refuses to take the advice of a knowledgeable tech and then threatens some sort of recourse because "the tech doesn't know anything," they rightfully should be mocked.
The problem with many computer users is that they get proficient with using MS Word, figure out how to drag and drop, and install a program or two while surfing the web using AOL and they decide that they're an instant A+ certified MSCE know-it-all. I've got friends like this. One of my (least) favorites thinks he knows all about designing web pages. He's decent at Photoshop and knows a bit about WordPerfect. One day, he applied for a job where I work, and told the folks that he had a "vast knowledge of computers." The next day he called me wanting to know how to put in a CD-ROM drive.
I'm often reminded of the "General Motors Tech Support" joke that was circulating about two years ago, where a user calls up tech support because his car won't start. When the support guy tries to get the user to check things out, he is met with replies like: "What's a steering wheel? What's a dashboard? Fuel Gauge? What's That?" Finally, the exasperated user exclaims "I'm not a technical person! I just want to go places with my car!"
Although it seems ludicrous that we would allow someone with such limited knowledge to pilot an automobile, we do the same thing with computers every day. I'm not saying that people who don't know computers shouldn't be allowed to use them -- I'm saying that most people realize that a certain amount of knowledge is necessary to drive a car on our highways. Computers users need to realize that despite the fact that they might want to do something useful with their new toy, they are going to have to take some time to master some concepts.
Sigh. I can't believe I'm adding to this thread a full 16 hours after it was started.
Anyway: GOD DOES EXIST. Prove me wrong.
I'm not saying this will change your argument that much. However, if the God can be proven to not exist, as you said, creation science can be tossed aside easily. However, proving the non-existence of God is as much a difficult undertaking as proving his existence.
In the same way that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, one cannot prove the truthfulness of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. For that matter, nothing that has occurred in the past can be shown to have definately happened. The best we can do is look at the evidence and say that with all probability something did or did not occur. It's the same way with evolution.
In the end, the public school system, as a government institution, has a Constitutional responsibility to not pick a single religion and teach it as fact. Thus, this decision does not violate this, as it does not replace evolution with creation science.
Personally, as a Christian who generally holds to creation science (and I'm sure to get flamed for this if anybody other than me is reading this), I feel that the most appropriate way to approach the subject is to note that a large portion of the scientific community promotes evolution as a plausible explanation for the origin of life. However, many religious groups have explanations for the origin of life that are quite different from evolution. Problems with both evolutionary theory as well as other explanations should be pointed out.
Before I cease my sensless ramblings, I will point out that (IMHO), the fact that God (as described by the Bible, which is apparently what you are referring to) does not behave in a manner that suits you is in no way, shape, or form a problem with God. God may be (in the Christian view) all knowing and all powerful doesn't mean he has to be fair (although it would be nice if he were, if he indeed exists). I daresay if God were portrayed to have created humanity and given them no choice in how they behaved, that would peeve you much more.
With the flood, God created humanity, and let them choose whether to behave or not. He gave them some general instructions that provided boundaries for their behavior (and most people will admit that some boundaries are necessary whether they like all the established boundaries or not). However, he didn't force them to abide by his instructions. When they got to the point where they were blatently violating them and causing trouble, he put a stop to it (albeit in a very violent way).
If this is a problem with God, it is as well a problem with the U.S. governement, which also establishes boundaries, chooses to allow the citizens decide whether to abide by them or not, and punishes those who get too out of line.
In the interest of being fair, I do recognize that pretty much any problem with the existence of God that can be produced can be explained away by my argument that God has the right to behave in any manner that he wants to. And, I recognize that there are bigger problems with the existence of God than have been presented.
Now that I've probably managed to peeve people on both sides of the issue (which was not my intention), I'll quit rambling.
After wading through almost four hundred comments, yours is the most well-reasoned I have encountered so far. I was beginning to wonder whether anybody had actually read the article before shifting into flame mode at 6000 RPM.
That being said, my observations on the subject are as follows: 1. Science has in the past been wrong on numerous occasions. Science, in the future, will certainly be wrong on numerous occasions. 2. Religion has often opposed what has been shown to be scientific fact on a number of occasions as well.
Thus, the best reaction to science and/or religion is to not discard something because it is contrary to your current belief system, but to examine it and determine its truthfulness. On the other hand, one should not always believe what they are taught, whether scientific or religious.
In the end, (IMHO), one should question what one is told in the interest of determining what is truth.
If TrueType fonts display better than postscript, and postscript fonts print better than TrueType, then why could one not implement a system where in a situation where both a TrueType and postscript version of a given font were available, the TrueType would be displayed by default while the postscript would be used for printing?
That's putting it mildly.
on
LinModems?
·
· Score: 1
A wise man once told me "There are two ways to get something done -- the right way and the cheap way."
A software modem may be cheaper to buy, but in the long run you'll pay for it with poor quality transfer times, etc., just like printing with your WinPrinter slows your box to a crawl. (BTW, be glad you have an HP -- I've helped two people install Linux, only to have to tell them that their cheesy Lexmark won't work with Linux)
I certainly hope that Linux users will respond to the introduction of this sort of crap by not purchasing anything less than a real hardware modem, thus forcing this junk off the market.
Anyway, I agree with you -- money is better spent on hardware that doesn't tax the CPU.
I recently obtained a 233 MHz Multia in exchange for some work I did on the side -- it's a nice machine, and has provided me with some valuable experience with installing Linux on a non-x86 platform.
It is a bit slow compared to my main box, but it's been quite a bit of fun getting it running.
I first installed RH 6.0 on it, and most recently I installed Debian 2.1 just for kicks. My main problem has been getting X to work properly.
What was that bit about The Road Ahead, Bill? Missed the boat again, didja?
Unfortunately for Microsoft, despite all their cries and screams about "The Freedom to Innovate," they really aren't all that good at innovating.
They've missed the boat, and since they can't buy it, they're trying to hijack it by pushing their way into a closed standard product, and then screaming bloody murder when AOL changes their protocol.
The bottom line is, MS will only support open standards when it benefits them. Numerous other folks have already mentioned Java, JavaScript, HTML, MS APIs, file formats, and the like, all of which MS has either developed on their own and kept quite secret, or they've tried to "fix" the standard to benefit themselves.
I'm at a loss to figure out exactly how to respond to this. The sane side of me wants to say that AOL should play fair and support some kind of messaging standard. However, AOL is probably right to be concerned about security issues with the username/password thing, not to mention they've pretty much hit the nail on the head when they say that the standards thing is simply a MS smokescreen. It's not like Microsoft has ever really wanted any standards (unless they get to set them). Look what they did to Java!
On the other hand, I admire AOL (as much as it hurts me to say that I admire AOL for ANYTHING) for flipping MS the bird this time . . .
While I'm not sure I'd go as far as writing a Windows-like OS for a C64 like the fellow mentioned in the article, I do appreciate the old computers, and have a few vintages around yet, although not of the sort mentioned in the article.
I've got a Mac Plus (with a whopping 4 megs of memory) that I use exclusively as my "phone book" of frequently called numbers, and a 512K (with a Mac Rescue upgrade card no less) that serves as a message board of sorts.
Although it isn't in constant use, I still have the Atari 800 that I learned to code BASIC on, and two 800XLs as well that I occasionally haul out to play video games with.
It's kinda odd, but I never would have though about using these again if it hadn't been for Linux -- it's brought back the fun in computing that I used to enjoy with those old machines.
You're right -- they throw the stuff out, the source won't even compile. It seems like most of the work has been pruning the bloat out and re-writing entire sections of code. Then, people complain that it is a "failed" project because we don't have a final product yet.
Do they expect something that is fast, not bloated, and funtional to appear out of the ether?
I know that there hasn't been much community support, but I would like to compare the contributions to the Mozilla project to something else, like maybe the KOffice apps or something.
I hope that Sun/Netscape/AOL will reconsider this -- it seems like they are ready to cancel the project just as it is gaining momentum and direction.
I remember learning typing in our school's lab -- we had several Apple IIs hanging around. I was so lazy, I coded Basic programs to help me complete whatever typing excercise we were doing at the time if I could . . .
The teacher thought I was amazing. I told her that I had learned how to type coding on my dad's old Atari 800 (later 800XL) at home.
Come to think of it, that actually IS how I ended up learning to type . . .
I've been reading stuff here for quite a while (since sometime last summer, I think) and in my opinion, the number of dumb, off-topic (think "FIRST POST!!!" and "(GNOME, KDE, Enlightenment) is (ugly, stupid, a memory hog, bloated)!!!") seem to actually have decreased, and intelligent discussion seems to have increased.
On the other hand, this is all based on my subjective opinion of what consitutes intelligent discussion, and my (somewhat faded) memories of what Slashdot was like pre-moderation.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM has done a lot of good stuff since getting knocked off of their pedestal back in the day. (Well, except that they didn't marker OS/2 very well). I often wonder if even (gasp) Microsoft could be "good" if they ever realized that they aren't the only option in the computing world.
I hope that in the future, more ISPs will become more "enlightened" in this manner.
Maybe it's not too late for me to sue Topps and other baseball card manufacturers. I used to spend all of my allowance on them, when I was trying to get really valuable cards!
You could institute some sort of system where a password was mailed after a certain amount of time (say, 1 hour), so that impulse posting with new login accounts would not be near as feasible.
It's like giving a 16-year old a Corvette or Viper or something, handing them the keys, and saying "You don't have to know anything to get on the freeway. Why don't you go pick up an aftermarket stereo and some rims and install them? It's so EASY!", except it's not nearly as deadly with a computer.
Plus, most people don't call up GM when they try to install an aftermarket stereo and end up botching up their electrical system, and then complain loudly when GM refuses to help them out of their quandry.
10 CLEAR SCREEN
20 DRAW CAR
30 MAKE CAR RACE
40 BEAT ALL OTHER CARS
Then I would wonder why it wouldn't work. I'm quite thankful that my dad seemed to have no end to the time he would spend showing me how to write real programs in BASIC, even after an agonizing 8 hours at work. I must say, that without it, I probably wouldn't be where I am now. Thanks dad!
OK, I'm done with the emotional part now . . .
"Before Windows 95 existed, Microsoft was working on an operating system called Chicago. But, it was way to buggy, so they scrapped it and then re-released it as Windows 95." (This one has the most truth in it of all of them)
"After Microsoft introduced Windows 95, they created an operating system called Windows NT. The NT means that it is a network server." (What about NT 3.51?)
"After you get done using the internet, you need to disconnect your phone line from your modem to make sure nobody hacks into your computer and puts a virus on it." (Huh? I doubt many hackers call around looking for folks who have set their software up to answer when somebody calls.)
"If you double click on an icon and it tells you that it can't find it, it means the icon isn't there . . ." (How do you double click on something that isn't there?)
(After a blue screen "fatal exception OE"): "That computer must have some kind of virus. I'll have the computer guy (me) check it out after class."
And, my personal favorite:
"One day, you might turn on your computer and discover that someone has put it a logon password and you don't know it. Has anybody ever had this happen? Yeah . . . what you can do is turn off the computer, and take the case off. There are usually screws in the back to do this. Y'all come up here and watch this. (Begins disassembling the case, much to my consternation -- but, I listened, just to see what was going to happen.) Y'all see this shiny thing here? This is the CMOS battery. It keeps that logon password. All of the hard drives have them. All you need to do is remove this battery for about 15 seconds and it will clear out that logon password." (Ummm . . . is it really wise to tell folks who can't figure out how to double click to open up their case and mess around with the internals?)
It really makes me somewhat angry that these folks still let this guy teach even after I've notified folks that he doesn't know what he's talking about sometimes. Usually, I just get "Well, he's taught computer stuff for 4 years, so he must know about some things that you don't." HELLO? TAKING OUT A CMOS BATTERY HAS *NEVER* CLEARED A WINDOWS LOGON PASSWORD, NOR WILL IT EVER (that I can imagine) DO SO!!!
It's about like if I decided to change my camshaft and bore out the engine in my car, only to find that the engine was welded together. Sure, most drivers don't have the desire to do this, but if they do get a hankering, it can be done.
However, after spending a good afternoon reading these stories, I note that many of them involve a user who assumes that he knows more than the tech support person or a tech support person who won't consider the obvious.
When a user calls up, claims to be an "Apple Tech," and then proceeds to ask how to do something simple the techie tells him to do, he rightfully should be mocked. When the user refuses to take the advice of a knowledgeable tech and then threatens some sort of recourse because "the tech doesn't know anything," they rightfully should be mocked.
The problem with many computer users is that they get proficient with using MS Word, figure out how to drag and drop, and install a program or two while surfing the web using AOL and they decide that they're an instant A+ certified MSCE know-it-all. I've got friends like this. One of my (least) favorites thinks he knows all about designing web pages. He's decent at Photoshop and knows a bit about WordPerfect. One day, he applied for a job where I work, and told the folks that he had a "vast knowledge of computers." The next day he called me wanting to know how to put in a CD-ROM drive.
I'm often reminded of the "General Motors Tech Support" joke that was circulating about two years ago, where a user calls up tech support because his car won't start. When the support guy tries to get the user to check things out, he is met with replies like: "What's a steering wheel? What's a dashboard? Fuel Gauge? What's That?" Finally, the exasperated user exclaims "I'm not a technical person! I just want to go places with my car!"
Although it seems ludicrous that we would allow someone with such limited knowledge to pilot an automobile, we do the same thing with computers every day. I'm not saying that people who don't know computers shouldn't be allowed to use them -- I'm saying that most people realize that a certain amount of knowledge is necessary to drive a car on our highways. Computers users need to realize that despite the fact that they might want to do something useful with their new toy, they are going to have to take some time to master some concepts.
Alas, though I agree with you that God does indeed exist, you have failed to prove his existence. This is where the faith factor comes into play . . .
Anyway:
GOD DOES EXIST.
Prove me wrong.
I'm not saying this will change your argument that much. However, if the God can be proven to not exist, as you said, creation science can be tossed aside easily. However, proving the non-existence of God is as much a difficult undertaking as proving his existence.
In the same way that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, one cannot prove the truthfulness of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. For that matter, nothing that has occurred in the past can be shown to have definately happened. The best we can do is look at the evidence and say that with all probability something did or did not occur. It's the same way with evolution.
In the end, the public school system, as a government institution, has a Constitutional responsibility to not pick a single religion and teach it as fact. Thus, this decision does not violate this, as it does not replace evolution with creation science.
Personally, as a Christian who generally holds to creation science (and I'm sure to get flamed for this if anybody other than me is reading this), I feel that the most appropriate way to approach the subject is to note that a large portion of the scientific community promotes evolution as a plausible explanation for the origin of life. However, many religious groups have explanations for the origin of life that are quite different from evolution. Problems with both evolutionary theory as well as other explanations should be pointed out.
Before I cease my sensless ramblings, I will point out that (IMHO), the fact that God (as described by the Bible, which is apparently what you are referring to) does not behave in a manner that suits you is in no way, shape, or form a problem with God. God may be (in the Christian view) all knowing and all powerful doesn't mean he has to be fair (although it would be nice if he were, if he indeed exists). I daresay if God were portrayed to have created humanity and given them no choice in how they behaved, that would peeve you much more.
With the flood, God created humanity, and let them choose whether to behave or not. He gave them some general instructions that provided boundaries for their behavior (and most people will admit that some boundaries are necessary whether they like all the established boundaries or not). However, he didn't force them to abide by his instructions. When they got to the point where they were blatently violating them and causing trouble, he put a stop to it (albeit in a very violent way).
If this is a problem with God, it is as well a problem with the U.S. governement, which also establishes boundaries, chooses to allow the citizens decide whether to abide by them or not, and punishes those who get too out of line.
In the interest of being fair, I do recognize that pretty much any problem with the existence of God that can be produced can be explained away by my argument that God has the right to behave in any manner that he wants to. And, I recognize that there are bigger problems with the existence of God than have been presented.
Now that I've probably managed to peeve people on both sides of the issue (which was not my intention), I'll quit rambling.
That being said, my observations on the subject are as follows:
1. Science has in the past been wrong on numerous occasions. Science, in the future, will certainly be wrong on numerous occasions.
2. Religion has often opposed what has been shown to be scientific fact on a number of occasions as well.
Thus, the best reaction to science and/or religion is to not discard something because it is contrary to your current belief system, but to examine it and determine its truthfulness. On the other hand, one should not always believe what they are taught, whether scientific or religious.
In the end, (IMHO), one should question what one is told in the interest of determining what is truth.
If TrueType fonts display better than postscript, and postscript fonts print better than TrueType, then why could one not implement a system where in a situation where both a TrueType and postscript version of a given font were available, the TrueType would be displayed by default while the postscript would be used for printing?
A software modem may be cheaper to buy, but in the long run you'll pay for it with poor quality transfer times, etc., just like printing with your WinPrinter slows your box to a crawl. (BTW, be glad you have an HP -- I've helped two people install Linux, only to have to tell them that their cheesy Lexmark won't work with Linux)
I certainly hope that Linux users will respond to the introduction of this sort of crap by not purchasing anything less than a real hardware modem, thus forcing this junk off the market.
Anyway, I agree with you -- money is better spent on hardware that doesn't tax the CPU.
It is a bit slow compared to my main box, but it's been quite a bit of fun getting it running.
I first installed RH 6.0 on it, and most recently I installed Debian 2.1 just for kicks. My main problem has been getting X to work properly.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, despite all their cries and screams about "The Freedom to Innovate," they really aren't all that good at innovating.
They've missed the boat, and since they can't buy it, they're trying to hijack it by pushing their way into a closed standard product, and then screaming bloody murder when AOL changes their protocol.
The bottom line is, MS will only support open standards when it benefits them. Numerous other folks have already mentioned Java, JavaScript, HTML, MS APIs, file formats, and the like, all of which MS has either developed on their own and kept quite secret, or they've tried to "fix" the standard to benefit themselves.
On the other hand, I admire AOL (as much as it hurts me to say that I admire AOL for ANYTHING) for flipping MS the bird this time . . .
I've got a Mac Plus (with a whopping 4 megs of memory) that I use exclusively as my "phone book" of frequently called numbers, and a 512K (with a Mac Rescue upgrade card no less) that serves as a message board of sorts.
Although it isn't in constant use, I still have the Atari 800 that I learned to code BASIC on, and two 800XLs as well that I occasionally haul out to play video games with.
It's kinda odd, but I never would have though about using these again if it hadn't been for Linux -- it's brought back the fun in computing that I used to enjoy with those old machines.
Do they expect something that is fast, not bloated, and funtional to appear out of the ether?
I know that there hasn't been much community support, but I would like to compare the contributions to the Mozilla project to something else, like maybe the KOffice apps or something.
I hope that Sun/Netscape/AOL will reconsider this -- it seems like they are ready to cancel the project just as it is gaining momentum and direction.
The teacher thought I was amazing. I told her that I had learned how to type coding on my dad's old Atari 800 (later 800XL) at home.
Come to think of it, that actually IS how I ended up learning to type . . .
When I do use a television, it is usually to watch a movie of some sort that has been rented or purchased.
Would it even be possible to disable this junk?
On the other hand, this is all based on my subjective opinion of what consitutes intelligent discussion, and my (somewhat faded) memories of what Slashdot was like pre-moderation.
Anybody want to snag this idea?