The presented story of the hijackers successful in seizing the aircraft is less astonishing than any alternative explanation.
I respect your own opinion. Personally, after seeing in the released video the dimension of the plane (or whatever it is) I can't believe a rookie pilot could have flown a plane so perfectly. The traces in the screenshots are parallel to the ground. A rookie would have crashed from above, near the center of the pentagon. But the 911 guy first takes the plane almost to touchdown and then crashes it on the side. Cool. How come did the guy fly so well, if they had reportedly problems in landing a friggin piper?
About the alternative explanation of a government killing his own people being strange... I dunno, a war started with fake information means killing your own people together with the bad guys of the month. Not informing the soldiers of the danger of DU (this was Italian army) is killing your own people. Of course you might believe this behaviour is not intentional, while I suspect they needed some oil and rebuilding contracts, and some data about how much DU they can dump in the environment before too many people start to die.
Games, games... but what about a machine that runs win, mac, and (hopefully) linux? No need to switch to another box to test your brand new web app? Seems a pretty good reason to consider an intel mac.
That might be the case for some projects, like JBoss. In the majority of cases anyway I am sure that FOSS projects suffer from lack of documentation or QA because they are the less creative aspects of the project. And imho even underdocumented stuff is easier to live with than commercial software designed to perpetuate one vendor's marketshare. (shuddering recalling the good old commercial/invasive shareware installation and usage days).
I do not see how creating difficult to use software can make you competitive in the long run. Competition just "gets inspired" by your project, copies some code, adds documentation and eats you alive.
When a company like Apple implements legal P2P file sharing we'll have many more non-techies being able to make the distinction between P2P and illegal sharing. It will be more difficult to legiferate against P2P systems after this, hopefully.
BTW, what will they call this flavour of "peer to peer"? "apple to apple"?:)
The main subject of the article is tech support, and that's fine (I guess death threats and lusers tend to be all alike all over the world) but examining the difference of income between outsourced and american employees involves taking account of differences in taxation, welfare, lifestyle...
It's a broad subject that in my opinion has little to do with TFA and might be better discussed relating to jobs in general, not tech support in particular.
hehe you were sarcastic I guess? Indeed what trouble can there if a company well known by judges all over the world for anti competitive behavior suddenly has complete access control to Linux booting on the majority of new PCs?:D
Well there is more than one way to do it. Censorship is bad for your corporate image, do the opposite. If apple rumours sites/blogs are a problem they can just create more of them with fake information or, even better, information that lead competition to routes found to be impractical (e.g. "next OSX will implement a completely DB-based filesystem"). Popularity of fake sites is easy to achieve, since apple can allow them to score some controlled hits and build up credibility.
You don't appear evil, you keep your fanboys, you protect your friggin' secrets.
Indeed:) I recall about Cicciolina. I fervently hoped her election would turn the Parlamento into a porn flick stage, thus improving the democratic life (if politicians are busy screwing each other they have less time to screw the electorate). Didn't work, and she almost became one of THEM. It was horrible.
Eh ? Stunning compared to its predeccesor (by which I mean MacOS, not NeXT) maybe, but there's nothing especially earth shatteringly brilliant about OS X.
I suspect you are talking from a technological point of view. But for the user experience, the OSX/mac apps is the most consistent and refined environment out there. Even as a switcher from OSX to linux for philosophical reasons, I must admit it. You are right though, that's not brilliant: OSX represents the way the whole proprietary software industry should work. Does it? Well I can't easily figure out things in XP that took me no effort on MacOS, OSX and little effort on Linux. Maybe that's just me, maybe most people's perception of Win ease of use comes from having started there in the first place.
In fact wanting Debian to follow Ubuntu path makes little sense. It will end up suffering from the same problems and having the same bonuses (I admit the problems i have experienced are minor, the perceived superior quality of Debian may be just subjective, Ubuntu is impressive). I suggest closer interaction between debian ubuntu and other apt based distros and letting the user choose. As long as it's Free software, I see no problem.
Of course it makes sense for the leader of Debian project to streamline and speed up the process of releasing the next version without impacting the distro's identity.
I don't remember seeing an icon on my desktop for synaptic when I first installed Ubuntu.
I do not recall either, but I guess parent was challenging you on the ease of use concept instead of the number of desktop icons.
Saying it's easier to have your desktop cluttered by icons instead of using the menus is entirely subjective. Using whatever desktop is out there, be it osx win or linux, requires you to deal with menus for basic operations, so a clearly labeled install/uninstall programs menu entry offers no particular challenges.
The directness of a desktop icon is challenged not only by clutter, but also by windows that get on top of it.
The preview of installed apps is a clear advantage over no preview, of course. But how many times would a screenshot be relevant over a text description that every package manager offers? and does it justify paying for a subscription?
A pretty metaphore, actually: while commercial products may bloat to increase time to market, or possibly even increase obsolescence of older machines to boost hardware sales, bloat in open source means added functionality or performance, or bad coding which has to be replaced ASAP. So yep, you need big bones to support more stuff.
As a side note: Slashdot duped this story, could well have mentioned the very likely antefacts.
- Negroponte tests first prototypes of $100 laptops
- Laptop performing not too well, too much strain on system resources
- Negroponte discovers that latest kernel not actually meant for a $100 laptop
- Negroponte blames coders. (we are here)
As much as I want the concept to take off I do not like people who blames others for faults that were there from the beginning. Kernel developers have also no responsibility towards him, as the no warranty clause in GPL goes.
Well the phonetic alphabet is impractical compared to hieroglyphics. That is, if your business is being a scribe. Your business oriented point of view affects your definition of practical. You are right, but on your ground only.
A power user point of view can be: free software is always more practical than dealing with multiple licenses, and intallation of applications over the LAN, even if theyre legally used.
A philosophical point of view can be: free software is always more practical than reinventing the wheel every time you have to make an application. One can try to stick to traditional closed source ways of doing stuff but so he risks becoming obsolete just like ancient scribes.
In fact the only problem I see is business people being influenced by irrelevant factors like OSS developers' dress code instead of concentrating on the strength and weaknesses of OSS adoption.
Decision based on appearance is prejudice. I'd expect a successful businessman to make a profitable deal with a hippy, rather than discarding an opportunity because of a prejudice.
And don't forget the huge patent portfolio of IBM. But, if they start a patent war the general public will experience huge inconveniences because of it (problems with linux, vista...) and many people would realize how silly most patents are and may want to change rules. Big software industry prefers things to stay like they are now.
Funny thing is, Hypercard had taken off, then was left to wither. Relational database capabilities in the hands of end users was dangerous to the then closed source only software industry, maybe?
See, Mr Bad Analogy Guy, when you step down from bad analogies to utter nonsense you actually get better moderation. Sure, Linux has too few applications on top, especially if we talk internet server software. Sure, ASP.Net is the right choice for parked domain web pages... Welcome to/.:D
I chose the wrong term: one can indeed define reality. What I meant is that one cannot know for sure what reality is made of, its intimate nature, by observing from inside reality itself.
IMHO the falling tree in a forest is a philosophical question. Since we're on/. I'd say that we have no way of observing what's beyond our reality just like a process cannot know for sure if it's running on a perfectly virtualized environment or not. A process cannot know if it's running on a simulator in a completely different architecture than the one it was designed to run in, like Pac Man under MAME.
So we can define scientifically our representation of the universe in detail but it's still a representation.
This is not another "Life is a dream" opinion. Comparing reality to something else is pointless because we cannot define reality.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is that the first virus ever in the wild was for apple computers.
Heh, Apple leading the way and M$ playing catch-up, again?
The presented story of the hijackers successful in seizing the aircraft is less astonishing than any alternative explanation.
I respect your own opinion. Personally, after seeing in the released video the dimension of the plane (or whatever it is) I can't believe a rookie pilot could have flown a plane so perfectly. The traces in the screenshots are parallel to the ground. A rookie would have crashed from above, near the center of the pentagon. But the 911 guy first takes the plane almost to touchdown and then crashes it on the side. Cool. How come did the guy fly so well, if they had reportedly problems in landing a friggin piper?
About the alternative explanation of a government killing his own people being strange... I dunno, a war started with fake information means killing your own people together with the bad guys of the month. Not informing the soldiers of the danger of DU (this was Italian army) is killing your own people. Of course you might believe this behaviour is not intentional, while I suspect they needed some oil and rebuilding contracts, and some data about how much DU they can dump in the environment before too many people start to die.
Games, games... but what about a machine that runs win, mac, and (hopefully) linux? No need to switch to another box to test your brand new web app? Seems a pretty good reason to consider an intel mac.
More like "legislate ferociously for", given the context...
That might be the case for some projects, like JBoss. In the majority of cases anyway I am sure that FOSS projects suffer from lack of documentation or QA because they are the less creative aspects of the project.
And imho even underdocumented stuff is easier to live with than commercial software designed to perpetuate one vendor's marketshare. (shuddering recalling the good old commercial/invasive shareware installation and usage days).
I do not see how creating difficult to use software can make you competitive in the long run. Competition just "gets inspired" by your project, copies some code, adds documentation and eats you alive.
When a company like Apple implements legal P2P file sharing we'll have many more non-techies being able to make the distinction between P2P and illegal sharing. It will be more difficult to legiferate against P2P systems after this, hopefully.
:)
BTW, what will they call this flavour of "peer to peer"? "apple to apple"?
The main subject of the article is tech support, and that's fine (I guess death threats and lusers tend to be all alike all over the world) but examining the difference of income between outsourced and american employees involves taking account of differences in taxation, welfare, lifestyle...
It's a broad subject that in my opinion has little to do with TFA and might be better discussed relating to jobs in general, not tech support in particular.
hehe you were sarcastic I guess? Indeed what trouble can there if a company well known by judges all over the world for anti competitive behavior suddenly has complete access control to Linux booting on the majority of new PCs? :D
Well there is more than one way to do it. Censorship is bad for your corporate image, do the opposite. If apple rumours sites/blogs are a problem they can just create more of them with fake information or, even better, information that lead competition to routes found to be impractical (e.g. "next OSX will implement a completely DB-based filesystem"). Popularity of fake sites is easy to achieve, since apple can allow them to score some controlled hits and build up credibility.
You don't appear evil, you keep your fanboys, you protect your friggin' secrets.
Indeed :) I recall about Cicciolina. I fervently hoped her election would turn the Parlamento into a porn flick stage, thus improving the democratic life (if politicians are busy screwing each other they have less time to screw the electorate). Didn't work, and she almost became one of THEM. It was horrible.
In Catholic Italy, pr0n burns YOU! :)
Eh ? Stunning compared to its predeccesor (by which I mean MacOS, not NeXT) maybe, but there's nothing especially earth shatteringly brilliant about OS X.
I suspect you are talking from a technological point of view. But for the user experience, the OSX/mac apps is the most consistent and refined environment out there. Even as a switcher from OSX to linux for philosophical reasons, I must admit it.
You are right though, that's not brilliant: OSX represents the way the whole proprietary software industry should work. Does it? Well I can't easily figure out things in XP that took me no effort on MacOS, OSX and little effort on Linux. Maybe that's just me, maybe most people's perception of Win ease of use comes from having started there in the first place.
The allow other package flag doesn't need to exist as it's always TRUE. The config file is, guess what, /etc/apt/sources.list
.list files, I discovered it now.
This solution is more general than the one you propose, as you can choose where to fetch the unofficial packages if alternatives exist.
There is also a sources.list.d directory where to put
In fact wanting Debian to follow Ubuntu path makes little sense. It will end up suffering from the same problems and having the same bonuses (I admit the problems i have experienced are minor, the perceived superior quality of Debian may be just subjective, Ubuntu is impressive). I suggest closer interaction between debian ubuntu and other apt based distros and letting the user choose. As long as it's Free software, I see no problem. Of course it makes sense for the leader of Debian project to streamline and speed up the process of releasing the next version without impacting the distro's identity.
I don't remember seeing an icon on my desktop for synaptic when I first installed Ubuntu.
I do not recall either, but I guess parent was challenging you on the ease of use concept instead of the number of desktop icons.
Saying it's easier to have your desktop cluttered by icons instead of using the menus is entirely subjective. Using whatever desktop is out there, be it osx win or linux, requires you to deal with menus for basic operations, so a clearly labeled install/uninstall programs menu entry offers no particular challenges.
The directness of a desktop icon is challenged not only by clutter, but also by windows that get on top of it.
The preview of installed apps is a clear advantage over no preview, of course. But how many times would a screenshot be relevant over a text description that every package manager offers? and does it justify paying for a subscription?
A pretty metaphore, actually: while commercial products may bloat to increase time to market, or possibly even increase obsolescence of older machines to boost hardware sales, bloat in open source means added functionality or performance, or bad coding which has to be replaced ASAP. So yep, you need big bones to support more stuff.
As a side note: Slashdot duped this story, could well have mentioned the very likely antefacts.
- Negroponte tests first prototypes of $100 laptops
- Laptop performing not too well, too much strain on system resources
- Negroponte discovers that latest kernel not actually meant for a $100 laptop
- Negroponte blames coders. (we are here)
As much as I want the concept to take off I do not like people who blames others for faults that were there from the beginning. Kernel developers have also no responsibility towards him, as the no warranty clause in GPL goes.
A WTF?/STFU! tag, anyone?
Well the phonetic alphabet is impractical compared to hieroglyphics. That is, if your business is being a scribe. Your business oriented point of view affects your definition of practical. You are right, but on your ground only. A power user point of view can be: free software is always more practical than dealing with multiple licenses, and intallation of applications over the LAN, even if theyre legally used. A philosophical point of view can be: free software is always more practical than reinventing the wheel every time you have to make an application. One can try to stick to traditional closed source ways of doing stuff but so he risks becoming obsolete just like ancient scribes.
In fact the only problem I see is business people being influenced by irrelevant factors like OSS developers' dress code instead of concentrating on the strength and weaknesses of OSS adoption.
Decision based on appearance is prejudice. I'd expect a successful businessman to make a profitable deal with a hippy, rather than discarding an opportunity because of a prejudice.
And don't forget the huge patent portfolio of IBM. But, if they start a patent war the general public will experience huge inconveniences because of it (problems with linux, vista...) and many people would realize how silly most patents are and may want to change rules. Big software industry prefers things to stay like they are now.
;) is just spreading FUD.
So IMHO Mr. Bullmer
Funny thing is, Hypercard had taken off, then was left to wither. Relational database capabilities in the hands of end users was dangerous to the then closed source only software industry, maybe?
See, Mr Bad Analogy Guy, when you step down from bad analogies to utter nonsense you actually get better moderation. Sure, Linux has too few applications on top, especially if we talk internet server software. Sure, ASP.Net is the right choice for parked domain web pages... Welcome to /. :D
RVIT!
(ridens volvendo in terra)
Well, not everybody has your reading or typing skills! The poor guy is a *newspaper editor*, for God's sake!
I chose the wrong term: one can indeed define reality. What I meant is that one cannot know for sure what reality is made of, its intimate nature, by observing from inside reality itself.
IMHO the falling tree in a forest is a philosophical question. Since we're on /. I'd say that we have no way of observing what's beyond our reality just like a process cannot know for sure if it's running on a perfectly virtualized environment or not. A process cannot know if it's running on a simulator in a completely different architecture than the one it was designed to run in, like Pac Man under MAME.
So we can define scientifically our representation of the universe in detail but it's still a representation.
This is not another "Life is a dream" opinion. Comparing reality to something else is pointless because we cannot define reality.