I once raced my son -- who was a senior air cadet at that time -- in ground school. I used my HP-33E which I had preprogrammed with instructions for the same calculations as you would use the E6-B for, but with no inputs stored yet. He used the E6-B. Starting at the same moment, he beat me cleanly on 3 different problems before I gave up. In the hands of an experienced user, the flight calculator is equal or superior to today's technology for the types of problems for which it is specialized.
This sounds like ranting that has no factual basis what-so-ever. Don't bother reading the article, it contains no more info than what is contained in the summary.
This is Slashdot. Don't bother telling us not to bother reading the article; the vast majority of us haven't.
Lighten up. Personally I prefer "geek" (mostly because it's more accurate), but anyone who has strong feelings about the technical merits of "SCO vs The World" is, by definition, a nerd.
Well, no -- it's fairly generally accepted that geek and nerd are not quite interchangeable. Geek has connotations of technical wizardry, whereas nerd generally carries implications of bookishness and social awkwardness. Dan Lyons, as an occupational word-smith, is keenly aware of such differences. I suspect he carefully and deliberately chose the words he used.
Dan Lyons mealy-mouthed retraction by way of apology simply doesn't fly. He fell down on the fundamental requirements of a journalist: to actually do some real research before publishing an opinion. Why he did that is still open to question, but it's just not a matter of simply having made a mistake.
By way of contrast, Bob Mims (Salt Lake Tribune) throughout the SCOX saga was as impartial, unbiased, and informed as you could ask. Now there's a journalist. Kudos to him for his integrity.
From the very link you so kindly included in your post:
Don't use apostrophes for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals.
Apostrophes should not be used with possessive pronouns because possessive pronouns already show possession -- they don't need an apostrophe. His, her, its, my, yours, ours are all possessive pronouns.
True story: My grandfather used to take a walk [...] Later that day, his daughter (my aunt) was flying out to England, and from there to India. He took her to the airport, and went through the security checkpoint to walk her to the gate.
Wait -- you had me going right up to this point. What airport was that, exactly, where they let you get through the security gate without a valid boarding pass in hand?
I've travelled a fair bit by air in the last couple of years (mostly across North America but a couple of times clear around the world -- Europe, Middle East, South Asia) and I've never EVER been able to get through the security checkpoint ANYWHERE without showing and having my boarding pass scrutinized by a security staffer -- and neither has anyone else I've seen (and I've seen a few people try it).
Professor Ding says based on anecdotal evidence, he remains confident the dolphins are still out there. "I'm pretty much sure there are a few of them left somewhere in the Yangtze River," he said. "I keep receiving reports from fishermen, they say they saw a couple of baiji somewhere, sometime."'"
Given the speed with which Microsoft attempted to ram through their "standard" and the dubiousness of the tactics employed (see discussions over on Groklaw), that was far too close to take any comfort from.
The real questions now are:
(a) how to ensure that the various standards organizations around the world really sit up and pay attention so that the obvious technical deficiencies and the crippling lack of open-ness in the proposal -- which were pointed out over and over again by individuals and companies opposed to the fast-tracking -- will be truly taken into account?
(b) how to keep Microsoft from succeeding with their tactic of stacking attendance at national standards organizations meetings to carry the day for them?
They almost succeeded the last time. If something doesn't change, they won't fail next time.
'The monkeys did much better on the first three days when they had the help than when they didn't, but on the test day, it completely reversed. When they studied with the hint, there is no evidence they learned anything about the list. They learned the lists when they didn't get the help.'"
"Monkey, am I ever getting tired of these stupid tests!"
"Hey, idea, Jimbo: let's pretend not to get it when they give us the 'hints' tomorrow... really dork up their results!"
As a result, there's little competition in U.S. broadband -- if you're lucky, you have a choice between the services offered by the local cable monopoly and the local phone monopoly. The price is high and the service is poor, but there's nowhere else to go.
Here in western Canada, we have precisely that situation: a choice between services offered by the local cable monopoly (Shaw or Rogers) and the local phone monopoly (Telus). Cable service areas for the 2 companies do not overlap; they've divided up the city between them.
And yet... our prices are fairly moderate (compared with US or European; I'm paying about $Cdn42/mo. for cable access; rates for DSL service are comparable) and the service is very good to excellent (outages are quite rare, installation is quick with service fees often waived, and the phone desk and online help are very responsive). You can provide your own modem or else they'll rent you one. What else is there?
One exception disproves a theory, right? Must come down to our Canadian-ness or something...
Another suggestion (not mine; I've seen this elsewhere -- e.g. on Groklaw): MS-XML instead of OOXML. I believe in calling a spade a spade, and that's what OOXML is: Microsoft's own internal (proprietary) format, not an open standard.
Microsoft will not "support" ODF in the sense that they will offer a version of their office productivity suite which allows for opening or saving ODF files.
Fortunately for the rest of us, Sun has nicely taken care of that little problem for them! : )
Suggesting that technological design doesn't have to take a 'soup OR salad' approach, she calls for changes in the way present and future computer scientists are trained. Dr. Sweeney is quoted as saying, 'I think if we are successful in producing a new breed of engineers and computer scientists, society will really benefit. The whole technology-dialectics thing is really aiming at how you should go about teaching engineers and computer scientists to think about user acceptance and social adoption [and also that they] have to think about barriers to technology [from the beginning].'"
Making engineers and computer scientists responsible for anything which is dependent on normal human response and social interaction is a very, very bad idea. The assumption is that they have some understanding of it -- which is a rather poor assumption because then they themselves wouldn't have made a career choice of engineering or computer science in the first place. : )
In fact, I have worked for a large (10,000+) organization in the past. They had a hierarchical reporting structure in which decisions were referred further and further up the chain of command, depending on the capital commitment. It seemed like a logical way to run things. But all this is just a teensy bit beside the point...
Isn't a decision not to extend any hardware warranty coverage just a little bit... er, um... unusual? And wouldn't a decision like that have to be made at a somewhat -- perhaps fairly -- senior level? (I must admit that Hanlon's Razor argues in favour of your position, however.)
I dunno, are you running Linux kernel v 1.0.0? Why not, didn't they get it right the first time?
No, but then I'm not running Vista either. And if Linux 1.0 hadn't worked reasonably well, nobody would be running Linux 2.6 today, now would they?
Of course, if not having any hardware warranty coverage whatsoever isn't a fatal flaw for you, I'm sure there are any number of vendors out there who would be delighted to provide you with an over-priced, under-performing system, pal, pre-loaded with any operating system you care to choose -- including Linux 1.0.
If this stands -- if Dell is adamant in this illogical refusal to extend warranty coverage to a machine carrying a non-MS OS, then I have bought my last Dell ever (and I've bought 4 over the past 5 years). Screw that noise! Market pressure, people -- it just works!
Slashdot Mirror
THAT's where I went wrong: I have a non-fucking girlfriend! Thank you!
I once raced my son -- who was a senior air cadet at that time -- in ground school. I used my HP-33E which I had preprogrammed with instructions for the same calculations as you would use the E6-B for, but with no inputs stored yet. He used the E6-B. Starting at the same moment, he beat me cleanly on 3 different problems before I gave up. In the hands of an experienced user, the flight calculator is equal or superior to today's technology for the types of problems for which it is specialized.
And pilots! Don't forget the E6B flight calculator -- a.k.a. whiz wheel. Its use is still taught in ground school today.
Dan Lyons mealy-mouthed retraction by way of apology simply doesn't fly. He fell down on the fundamental requirements of a journalist: to actually do some real research before publishing an opinion. Why he did that is still open to question, but it's just not a matter of simply having made a mistake.
By way of contrast, Bob Mims (Salt Lake Tribune) throughout the SCOX saga was as impartial, unbiased, and informed as you could ask. Now there's a journalist. Kudos to him for his integrity.
Nope. I'm running a corporate version of XP, and my machine was surreptitiously updated on August 23 at 5:34 pm.
mod parent up (Informative) (waits interminably for /. to decide it took long enough to type 4 words)
I've travelled a fair bit by air in the last couple of years (mostly across North America but a couple of times clear around the world -- Europe, Middle East, South Asia) and I've never EVER been able to get through the security checkpoint ANYWHERE without showing and having my boarding pass scrutinized by a security staffer -- and neither has anyone else I've seen (and I've seen a few people try it).
Given the speed with which Microsoft attempted to ram through their "standard" and the dubiousness of the tactics employed (see discussions over on Groklaw), that was far too close to take any comfort from.
The real questions now are:
(a) how to ensure that the various standards organizations around the world really sit up and pay attention so that the obvious technical deficiencies and the crippling lack of open-ness in the proposal -- which were pointed out over and over again by individuals and companies opposed to the fast-tracking -- will be truly taken into account?
(b) how to keep Microsoft from succeeding with their tactic of stacking attendance at national standards organizations meetings to carry the day for them?
They almost succeeded the last time. If something doesn't change, they won't fail next time.
"Hey, idea, Jimbo: let's pretend not to get it when they give us the 'hints' tomorrow
And yet
One exception disproves a theory, right? Must come down to our Canadian-ness or something
This means that, months after initial release, Vista users are finally starting to figure out how to access the web from their computers.
Another suggestion (not mine; I've seen this elsewhere -- e.g. on Groklaw): MS-XML instead of OOXML. I believe in calling a spade a spade, and that's what OOXML is: Microsoft's own internal (proprietary) format, not an open standard.
Ready Simon? Ready Theodore? Ready Alvin? Alvin? Alvin? ALVIN!!!
(OK, stop already; I know there's a difference between squirrels and chipmunks.)
They can't possibly be genuine pirated versions, then!
Arrrrrrrr(gh)!
In fact, I have worked for a large (10,000+) organization in the past. They had a hierarchical reporting structure in which decisions were referred further and further up the chain of command, depending on the capital commitment. It seemed like a logical way to run things. But all this is just a teensy bit beside the point ...
... er, um ... unusual? And wouldn't a decision like that have to be made at a somewhat -- perhaps fairly -- senior level? (I must admit that Hanlon's Razor argues in favour of your position, however.)
Isn't a decision not to extend any hardware warranty coverage just a little bit
Of course, if not having any hardware warranty coverage whatsoever isn't a fatal flaw for you, I'm sure there are any number of vendors out there who would be delighted to provide you with an over-priced, under-performing system, pal, pre-loaded with any operating system you care to choose -- including Linux 1.0.
We're not asking for the moon here. What's so hard about getting it right the first time?
If this stands -- if Dell is adamant in this illogical refusal to extend warranty coverage to a machine carrying a non-MS OS, then I have bought my last Dell ever (and I've bought 4 over the past 5 years). Screw that noise! Market pressure, people -- it just works!