Rather convenient that you don't name this "country" you live in, isn't it? If this fictitious country of yours has inflated prices due to import duties, how will the proposed thin clients help? They also have to be imported, and will end up costing "$1000" as you say. Either you are telling the truth and this new product is utterly useless to you (in which case the point made at the beginning of this thread stands) or you are trolling.
If I were you, I'd just sell the thing and buy myself a nice ThinkPad and put Debian on it.
I'm a big Apple fan but I recognize that they are not for everybody. And given what you've said your needs are, I don't think a PowerBook is a good match for you. If you are interested in running mainly or just X applications, then I wouldn't bother with Apple at all. (You can put YellowDog on it, but then you don't get the multiple buttons with your trackpad, and it's just a pain in general.) I think it's only worth the time and effort needed to switch to an Apple if you are interested in the Apple development tools, Mac-specific editors, work with the iLife applications, and also the tons of non-X based open source applications available.
True, Steve Jobs has not blessed it and you probably won't see it used by some trendy featherbrain on "Sex and the City," but it can crunch a lot of numbers for hundreds less than a similarly configured Mac.
That "featherbrain" you are making fun of is actually quite smart. Have you actually watched the show? Geeks would actually enjoy the show if they gave it a chance. Carrie is a hacker, but not of machines, but people. The whole show is about her attempt to get in there and figure out how the system we call "relationships" between men and women worked and how to nudge it, move it, and get it to do what we want. There are many parallels between Carrie's methods and conclusions as applied to relationships and those of the early phone hackers (as applied to the phone system) and today's computer hackers.
I was skeptical when I first tried out an episode in my wife's collection. I got hooked once I realized that Carrie, far from a featherbrain, has the dedicated hacker ethos and smarts.
This may be the start of a new type of troll on/. You are really inspired. Look at all the people who are biting. I'm amazed.
This is like a combination of the "is it good or is it whack?" troll with a dash of universal "your os sucks" troll sprinkled with a bit of "not trying to be a troll here but can someone explain to me..."
and you even manage to add in a signature troll. WOW. You are good.
Except for the fact that very few Chinese customers are able to afford an iPod Shuffle. So Apple is not losing any customers -- perfect market differentiation between Apple and the cheaper knockoff manufacturers. No harm no foul.
The free speech rights of journalists are not trampled upon. There is NO constitutional right for journalists to keep the names of their sources secret. Some states have laws that protect this right, but there is neither a federal constitutional right nor a common law privilege. The state laws are not absolute privileges either -- in the California case, the judge ruled that California's shield law does not cover the type of reporting done by the fan sites.
From the ruling: "Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, (the enthusiast sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information."
This seems to be lost in all the hysteria over Apple's suit. Apple is NOT suing ThinkSecret for damages. They are suing ThinkSecret only to get the names of the people who did reveal trade secrets. Those people broke their NDAs and Apple wants to go after them for breach of contract. There is, of course, no "free speech" right to break a contract in which you agreed not to reveal those secrets. Apple's target is those people, and that's what the law suit is about.
Now, since ThinkSecret is refusing to reveal the names of those sources, and since there's no privilege to keep those names secret, it is in contempt of court. This is a fundamental aspect of our justice system, that the litigants are entitled to "everyman's evidence." You definitely want this. Think about it. If you were in an accident and none of the witnesses want to testify, where does that leave you? You can subpoena them to testify in court and reveal what they know, and if they refuse, they can be held in contempt of court. This is exactly analogous.
Don't let the label "journalist" fool you. We are all journalists -- we post on a blog and we report what we see and what we think. If you are going to give "journalists" a right to keep quiet about evidence, then everyone would have this right, and our system would not function. The First Amendment emphatically does not allow you to keep silent in court unless you have an applicable privilege.
You may have failed to read my post carefully. I may or may not agree with the original poster. I may or may not like strawberries. I may or may not like T'Pol. You have no idea. And I expressed no opinion in my post.
I simply wanted to answer the question "why did [the original post] get modded insighttful." I was explaining why the criticisms contained in there were legitimate. The trollish nature of the question is obvious when you look at its structure and see that it (1) attacks the judgment of the moderators in an attempt to get itself modded up, and (2) offers a "holy-war" style criticism of the original post by denigrating its points as baseless and worthless, and (3) cleverly inviting posters like you to join it and add to its credibility.
It was not a good-faith effort at engaging in a debate -- hence, it's a troll.
The only one attempting to nullify everyone else's opinion would be you, if you misread my post.
Oh, shut your cynical bitter mouth. Because you worked for a good-for-nothing bubble of a company doesn't mean everyone else, and in particular these companies listed here, were not doing useful work.
Incorrect. If you go to any UI design class at university these days, these are the main ideas being talked about. Plenty of academic work has been done on usability and learnability (or discoverability) as separate things.
The real problem is that very few people, including Raskin himself, ever thought hard enough or figured out how to make a truly usable system (but one that is not necessarily learnable) commercially successful. That is the really hard problem to solve.
Sorry, you are a troll. The original poster was pointing out why the show grated on the sensibilities of viewers raised on TNG and DS9. That is a legitimate basis for criticism. The previous series built up a certain feel and set of conventions that Enterprise failed to either adhere to or change in interesting/fun ways. The moderators were correct, it was quite insightful.
Thank you. You are the first poster here who actually "gets" it.
The rest of you have simply declared as a matter of faith that the claims are false and cannot be proven, given any state of facts. That is not doing science, people, that's just giving religion a different name. That is what is dangerous.
These people have set up the experiments so that their claims will either be supported by facts or not. That is how science is done.
Sometimes the groupthink quotient here is so high that one wonders if anyone even knows what science is.
I applaud you, sir, for this wonderful bit of troll. This is what is called a "holier-than-thou" troll where the poster cleverly reveals that the other person's position can be twisted and misunderstood in a way that would make it the very opposite of motherhood, baseball, and apple pie. All right-thinking Americans ought to despise anyone who holds the other person's opinion.
Except of course the other side said nothing of the sort that you pretend they said. There's nothing about prosecution of thought crimes in there.
There is a very simple explanation for this. Satellite radio is not yes sufficiently fault-free to be put into a mass market portable device yet. This article from the NY Times looks at one of the first such portable devices and explains why it doesn't work. The radios require line-of-sight to the satellite (so you can forget about all the subway commuters, the primary city iPod audience), and need a good antenna to get a really clear signal. There's also too much "geek factor" involved in all the various attachments necessary to get it to work properly in different conditions (a separate antenna for each type of listening location).
Apple is not interested in the iPod becoming (just) a geek toy. Most users, I suspect, would want satellite radio to work normally if they are underground, lying around in their apartment, or walking through the streets -- just like their iPods do now. Until Apple can figure out a way to get the technology to work as simply as most people expect, they'd rather not add it to a mass-product device.
I suspect Apple will eventually be the first company to offer a really usable satellite radio device though. Jobs likes to say no until the technology is ready.
So what? You are not answering his point. He can make the problem go away, but that does not explain "why windows sucks." Nor does it help people who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to "make the problem go away."
So your girlfriend is shallow and obsessed with beauty, even for products that are supposed to spend 99% of their time hidden away in your pocket and doing what they are supposed to be doing: playing music.;-)
By that logic there is no need to write beautiful code, since code spends 100% of the time hidden away in CVS, doing what they are supposed to do: fodder for the compiler.
Without beauty, there is no point in engineering. All of our pursuits are ultimately to add a little beauty for ourselves and the ones we love. That is not shallow and superficial at all. Love for beauty in things hidden deep is what makes geeks geeks.
Actually, you are the "illiterate" one. Webster's notes that one of the definitions of "flaunt" is "to treat contemptuously." It is conceded that etymologically, this sense of "flaunt" is probably the result of confusion with "flout" -- however, this use of "flaunt" has long become standard and accepted. To call this use of "flaunt" incorrect shows your ignorance, my cowardly friend.
Not true at all. Every compiler has specific extensions that are not implemented in other compilers, and they are support different parts of the standard with different levels of compliance. Template support for C++, for example, is different on every compiler, so there is a lot of cost in switching compilers if you have a large codebase.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather convenient that you don't name this "country" you live in, isn't it? If this fictitious country of yours has inflated prices due to import duties, how will the proposed thin clients help? They also have to be imported, and will end up costing "$1000" as you say. Either you are telling the truth and this new product is utterly useless to you (in which case the point made at the beginning of this thread stands) or you are trolling.
I'm a big Apple fan but I recognize that they are not for everybody. And given what you've said your needs are, I don't think a PowerBook is a good match for you. If you are interested in running mainly or just X applications, then I wouldn't bother with Apple at all. (You can put YellowDog on it, but then you don't get the multiple buttons with your trackpad, and it's just a pain in general.) I think it's only worth the time and effort needed to switch to an Apple if you are interested in the Apple development tools, Mac-specific editors, work with the iLife applications, and also the tons of non-X based open source applications available.
That "featherbrain" you are making fun of is actually quite smart. Have you actually watched the show? Geeks would actually enjoy the show if they gave it a chance. Carrie is a hacker, but not of machines, but people. The whole show is about her attempt to get in there and figure out how the system we call "relationships" between men and women worked and how to nudge it, move it, and get it to do what we want. There are many parallels between Carrie's methods and conclusions as applied to relationships and those of the early phone hackers (as applied to the phone system) and today's computer hackers.
I was skeptical when I first tried out an episode in my wife's collection. I got hooked once I realized that Carrie, far from a featherbrain, has the dedicated hacker ethos and smarts.
I'm in awe. I've just witnessed the birth of a new repeatable joke on /.
This is only "insightful" if you buy into the whole concept of ideas and concepts as "property." Information should be free.
ROFL.
This may be the start of a new type of troll on /. You are really inspired. Look at all the people who are biting. I'm amazed.
This is like a combination of the "is it good or is it whack?" troll with a dash of universal "your os sucks" troll sprinkled with a bit of "not trying to be a troll here but can someone explain to me ..."
and you even manage to add in a signature troll. WOW. You are good.
Except for the fact that very few Chinese customers are able to afford an iPod Shuffle. So Apple is not losing any customers -- perfect market differentiation between Apple and the cheaper knockoff manufacturers. No harm no foul.
The free speech rights of journalists are not trampled upon. There is NO constitutional right for journalists to keep the names of their sources secret. Some states have laws that protect this right, but there is neither a federal constitutional right nor a common law privilege. The state laws are not absolute privileges either -- in the California case, the judge ruled that California's shield law does not cover the type of reporting done by the fan sites.
From the ruling: "Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, (the enthusiast sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information."
This seems to be lost in all the hysteria over Apple's suit. Apple is NOT suing ThinkSecret for damages. They are suing ThinkSecret only to get the names of the people who did reveal trade secrets. Those people broke their NDAs and Apple wants to go after them for breach of contract. There is, of course, no "free speech" right to break a contract in which you agreed not to reveal those secrets. Apple's target is those people, and that's what the law suit is about.
Now, since ThinkSecret is refusing to reveal the names of those sources, and since there's no privilege to keep those names secret, it is in contempt of court. This is a fundamental aspect of our justice system, that the litigants are entitled to "everyman's evidence." You definitely want this. Think about it. If you were in an accident and none of the witnesses want to testify, where does that leave you? You can subpoena them to testify in court and reveal what they know, and if they refuse, they can be held in contempt of court. This is exactly analogous.
Don't let the label "journalist" fool you. We are all journalists -- we post on a blog and we report what we see and what we think. If you are going to give "journalists" a right to keep quiet about evidence, then everyone would have this right, and our system would not function. The First Amendment emphatically does not allow you to keep silent in court unless you have an applicable privilege.
You may have failed to read my post carefully. I may or may not agree with the original poster. I may or may not like strawberries. I may or may not like T'Pol. You have no idea. And I expressed no opinion in my post.
I simply wanted to answer the question "why did [the original post] get modded insighttful." I was explaining why the criticisms contained in there were legitimate. The trollish nature of the question is obvious when you look at its structure and see that it (1) attacks the judgment of the moderators in an attempt to get itself modded up, and (2) offers a "holy-war" style criticism of the original post by denigrating its points as baseless and worthless, and (3) cleverly inviting posters like you to join it and add to its credibility.
It was not a good-faith effort at engaging in a debate -- hence, it's a troll.
The only one attempting to nullify everyone else's opinion would be you, if you misread my post.
Oh, shut your cynical bitter mouth. Because you worked for a good-for-nothing bubble of a company doesn't mean everyone else, and in particular these companies listed here, were not doing useful work.
Incorrect. If you go to any UI design class at university these days, these are the main ideas being talked about. Plenty of academic work has been done on usability and learnability (or discoverability) as separate things.
The real problem is that very few people, including Raskin himself, ever thought hard enough or figured out how to make a truly usable system (but one that is not necessarily learnable) commercially successful. That is the really hard problem to solve.
Sorry, you are a troll. The original poster was pointing out why the show grated on the sensibilities of viewers raised on TNG and DS9. That is a legitimate basis for criticism. The previous series built up a certain feel and set of conventions that Enterprise failed to either adhere to or change in interesting/fun ways. The moderators were correct, it was quite insightful.
Thank you. You are the first poster here who actually "gets" it.
The rest of you have simply declared as a matter of faith that the claims are false and cannot be proven, given any state of facts. That is not doing science, people, that's just giving religion a different name. That is what is dangerous.
These people have set up the experiments so that their claims will either be supported by facts or not. That is how science is done.
Sometimes the groupthink quotient here is so high that one wonders if anyone even knows what science is.
An attempt to start trolling in the article itself -- hilarious. What, are there now font trolls and holy wars?
I applaud you, sir, for this wonderful bit of troll. This is what is called a "holier-than-thou" troll where the poster cleverly reveals that the other person's position can be twisted and misunderstood in a way that would make it the very opposite of motherhood, baseball, and apple pie. All right-thinking Americans ought to despise anyone who holds the other person's opinion.
Except of course the other side said nothing of the sort that you pretend they said. There's nothing about prosecution of thought crimes in there.
There is a very simple explanation for this. Satellite radio is not yes sufficiently fault-free to be put into a mass market portable device yet. This article from the NY Times looks at one of the first such portable devices and explains why it doesn't work. The radios require line-of-sight to the satellite (so you can forget about all the subway commuters, the primary city iPod audience), and need a good antenna to get a really clear signal. There's also too much "geek factor" involved in all the various attachments necessary to get it to work properly in different conditions (a separate antenna for each type of listening location).
Apple is not interested in the iPod becoming (just) a geek toy. Most users, I suspect, would want satellite radio to work normally if they are underground, lying around in their apartment, or walking through the streets -- just like their iPods do now. Until Apple can figure out a way to get the technology to work as simply as most people expect, they'd rather not add it to a mass-product device.
I suspect Apple will eventually be the first company to offer a really usable satellite radio device though. Jobs likes to say no until the technology is ready.
Moderators, are you blind to sarcasm? The parent post should be modded funny. It was a joke.
So what? You are not answering his point. He can make the problem go away, but that does not explain "why windows sucks." Nor does it help people who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to "make the problem go away."
How about offering some arguments to back up your assertions? And define "pretty fucking good."
You've totally missed the parent poster's point...
So your girlfriend is shallow and obsessed with beauty, even for products that are supposed to spend 99% of their time hidden away in your pocket and doing what they are supposed to be doing: playing music. ;-)
By that logic there is no need to write beautiful code, since code spends 100% of the time hidden away in CVS, doing what they are supposed to do: fodder for the compiler.
Without beauty, there is no point in engineering. All of our pursuits are ultimately to add a little beauty for ourselves and the ones we love. That is not shallow and superficial at all. Love for beauty in things hidden deep is what makes geeks geeks.
Awesome post. You have made my day.
Some of the effected distriubtions include..." should be something more like "RedHat 7.2 and newer are effected" or some such.
No. You mean "affected". You are not ready to write your own trojans either :)
Actually, you are the "illiterate" one. Webster's notes that one of the definitions of "flaunt" is "to treat contemptuously." It is conceded that etymologically, this sense of "flaunt" is probably the result of confusion with "flout" -- however, this use of "flaunt" has long become standard and accepted. To call this use of "flaunt" incorrect shows your ignorance, my cowardly friend.
Not true at all. Every compiler has specific extensions that are not implemented in other compilers, and they are support different parts of the standard with different levels of compliance. Template support for C++, for example, is different on every compiler, so there is a lot of cost in switching compilers if you have a large codebase.