IT was never exempt from communication, as IT is all ABOUT communication. Learning to dress usually means adhering to an arbitarily strict dress code that interferes with the nature of IT work to begin with. Ever try to set up a work station while wearing a suit and tie or something similar? You end up fighting your clothes more than the probelm at hand.
I'm not sure where in the continuum between wearing a suit/tie and not wearing any pants your arbitrarily strict characterisation falls, but it's always amused that if you look at any old photographs of computer rooms in the mainframe era, most everyone is wearing a short or long-sleeved pocketed (for the sliderule, no doubt) shirt and tie. My guess is that if you wore jeans or a T-shirt, you wouldn't be allowed in the building.
Me, I prefer going to work dressed for work. For me, that means a suit and tie. If the work at hand is physical, then I may clip or remove the tie, or just wear cheaper clothes of a similar nature.
Casual dress is a recent development. Getting work done isn't.
X-ray machines, Jet engines, and more all report operating conditions and usage information back to the manufacturer.
And X-ray machines and jet engines are multi-purpose devices that store gobs of personal information?
They aren't sending back any "personal information" like credit card numbers or even identification information.
I'd like to know how you've achieved that conclusion given the fact that you and just about everyone outside of Microsoft lacks meaningful information as to what *is* being sent, in what form, and how.
Someone long ago said "Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind, but certainty is a ridiculous one." But no worries, right?
Some Usenet groups have degraded into nothing but spam havens, and some have just died from lack of traffic. But there are a few that continue to be valuable sources of info. I personally find value in following comp.ai, comp.ai.genetic...
The entire comp. hierarchy is valuable. For those interested in programming, for example, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.perl.misc, comp.unix.shell are additional groups that alive and kicking and more valuable to just about anyone than most of the rubbish found on the web. For Windows users, the microsoft.public* hierarchy is similarly valuable. So much so that Microsoft themselves offer it as a "service" (LOL) for their users, albeit with a specially designed web front-end.
Spam has always been a problem on USENET, but for those groups where there's lots of activity, it's a minor nuisance. For other groups, the denizens just move on to another empty group.
As for the original deteriorated into porn images, complaint, well, that's a plus for some, right? There's terrabytes of binary data flowing through usenet on a daily basis, so everyone is free to download as much or as little as they want. IMHO, it puts P2P sharing to shame. Then, again, it could be the OP is using their ISP's NNTP servers, so he doesn't get the groups or the binaries or the retention that the rest of us do for a few bucks a month.
Actually, I've noticed in the last few years that instead of saying RTFM (the value of which advice, incidentally, can't be overstated), is that people post Wiki links instead. My guess is that it may be more useful for those unaccustomed to reading a terse man page and has the added bonus of being a brush-off that appears polite.
Similarly, offering linkies to popular websites is becoming increasingly common. There's more and more good websites, of course, but most people looking for information aren't interested in How It Works explanations (which man pages are meant to document). What these people seem to want are quick How To's instead.
I'd also add that this 98% portion are increasingly (or solely) relying on what's available in their web browser. What's the first thing someone typically does when they need information? Google it. Doesn't matter if they already have on their hard drive a collection of well-written README's, or a comprehensive manual (even in HTML form) and FAQ that was written explictly answer their question. I can't count the number of times I've seen questions that begin with "I searched Google and couldn't find anything."
As for the disproportionate percentage, that shouldn't come as a surprise. Few are qualified to inform or teach, and fewer are drawn to spending their time doing so. Not unlike high school. One teacher, 29 kids waiting for the bell to ring, and one student waiting to talk to the teacher after class.
But it was the beginning of a joining-together of communities of affect in the global organisation of power, the beginning of affiliation rather than territorial location or political domination, as the source of legitimacy for legislation.
Nice words to read, but this could be entitled The Triumph of Optimism over Experience. My gut tells me that despite the underlying Star Trekish optimism in the evolution of our species, and despite our inherent ability to aspire to greater things, nationalism and petty self-interest will prevail as they always have.
That's not to say we can't find new ways of looking at things. Or establish new institutions.
The thing is, there are bigger problems going on in the world. We're literally at war.
LOL. You mean the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam? That's an invasion, not a war. Get over it.
For the Sunni and Shia, it's a war. For the foreign fighters, it's a war. We don't get to call it a war. When you go into other people's neighbourhoods to stir things up or bust heads and don't expect resistance, that's simply A Really Dumb Idea.
Or were you referring to the War on Insert-Your-Favourite-Vague-Concept-Here?
Google is a publicly held company, not a soup kitchen.
So Google's efforts to develop their app is somehow akin to charity? If you're trying to make that argument, you've not done so because it amounts to nothing more than saying a vendor who ignores a subset of their market (non-Windows users) is meeting their fiduciary responsibilities by dismissing it outright. That was said about Firefox users not so long ago and it was proved both wrong and embarrassing.
The OP, on the other hand, articulated clearly what I think is perfectly valid series of observations. None of them is in conflict with making a buck, or whiney as one poster trollishly suggested. Moreover, I think the OP's comments fit well to varying degrees with not only with Google's mission statement, but also their position in a market under constant threat of monopoly power and abuse.
If there's any soup kitchen element to Google behaviour, it's their continuing efforts in offering non-money making betas to the public, or expending efforts and money in an attempt to distinguish themselves in ways that no Fortune 500 company would ever consider.
This is the "half-empty" view. The "half-full" full is that Microsoft welcomes such virtualization in the sense that it's product will be on more computers than ever before...
Personally, I'll wager that the "half-empty" view is more correct. Microsoft's history can be described as one defined by a need for complete dominance and control, even where it was inappropriate, unneeded or counter productive. The possibility that, according to the article, they'll be playing "second fiddle", is more apt to send chairs flying than anything else. To say nothing of the corrosive nature of losing monopoly (perceived or otherwise) power.
The other issue is that while it's entirely possible that Microsoft's bottom line won't suffer immediate negative consequences, it will be the case that Apple's bottom line will, by comparison, be enhanced much more so. For every $100 or so going to Microsoft, there's a corresponding $1000 or more heading to Apple.
For me, I've decided my next computer purchase will be a MacBook Pro. If I buy a copy of Vista, it will be as an accessory.;-)
Re:So someone got the idea
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
1. Seperate logic from userinterface 2. Seperate into small logical components
3. Store settings in human-readable, human-editable configuration files so you can manage, control or otherwise reproduce them.
XP is the end of the line for me and Windows. We've had a long and bumpy relationship, but it's over now. Time to move on.
I stopped at Win2000. Well, entirely not true. I went with a warezed copy XP for a time (prompted by a need for Cleartype for use on LCD screens), and bumped against activation issues. I concluded that I simply didn't need the hassle. In fact, I didn't need it at all.
Not everyone has that luxury, however, or can avoid living on the Windows treadmill. If in the future I need to run Windows (I'm talking personal use here), it'll be because I bought a Mac. Sure, Microsoft may receive payment for a copy of their software, but I think it says more about the end of Microsoft's hegemony than it says about Apple's growing popularity.
As for the article, I'm amused at the Microsoft's choice of the word "rumors" with respect to delaying purchase. From the fine article:
SP1 is no minor update. Although Microsoft won't officially comment on its contents, we do know that Microsoft is at some point going to provide a complete replacement for the Windows kernel, moving from version 6.0 to 6.1 -- the same kernel found in Windows Server 2008 (codenamed Longhorn).
If XP is any indicator (notwithstanding the history of most Microsoft products), I'd suggest that what is good advice (as opposed to rumor) is to wait for SP2.
No, noone can. There is no reasoning behind the bans on Cuba.
I'll take a shot. Voters in Florida.
It's purely emotional.
Might depend on whether you're the one voting, or the one up for re-election.
Personally, I think Cubans (the ones in Florida) should just "get over it". Easy to say not having ever been in their shoes, but then, again, they were never in Castro's shoes (boots) either.
Totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that companies have more "access" to legislators than the electorate does.
While I agree with the sentiment, I think that statement is somewhere between overbroad and naive. Put yourself in the shoes of an elected official (in any level of government) and see if you can answer the Pop Quiz "Whose call would you take?"
(a) Brad and Angelina call to make an appointment to discuss an issue of importance.
(b) A non-profit public interest group calls to advocate their positions on a specific matter of interest.
(c) A vocal and annoying citizens group (one that represents a large voter base) calls to schedule yet another meeting on a series of topics.
(d) A CEO whose business employs several thousand people in your district and generates big tax revenues for the economy calls to schedule an extended lunch appointment.
(e) Numerous well-informed, educated and articulate individuals who want to make the world a better place call to share their opinions.
If you picked (e), congratulations on being well-intentioned, but good luck making up with all those folks (the ones that matter) that are now pissed off. And good luck getting re-elected.
Electoral laws need reform.
Indeed. But getting that done is uphill both ways. Much like getting citizens to actually vote.
Sorry to hear. Between all the default settings in the/etc/fonts.conf and your own fonts.conf, it's entirely possible you've missed something. Maybe start with increasing the hinting? One thing I've noticed is that increasing the background ambient lighting (directly behind your monitor) tends to make fonts appear a bit heavier.
Me, I have everything the way I want, but that's only after investing an inordinate amount of time, and then, the final Eureka moment occurred only after some accidental change I honestly don't remember. I default to what most people call "teeny tiny" fonts, so I doubt own settings would satisfy you.
Does anyone know how to tweak freetype on linux to render the fonts closer to OS X? I already have hinting turned off and that helps, but the contrast of the fonts still isn't right (OS X fonts render a bit heavier, which I like on the screen).
and recompiling freetype. IIRC, the above involves patent restrictions so by default, it's not used. Additionally, you can uncomment
#define TT_CONFIG_OPTION_COMPONENT_OFFSET_SCALED
People claim the results are similar enough to what they get on a Mac, but I can't claim to know with certainty as I customise things to suit my environment and my own preferences. That said, much depends on the fonts you use, and more importantly, the configuration in your ~/.fonts.conf file.
Firefox, I believe, has some settings you can tweak, but I can't provide you with those. Most (all?) config files seem to be checked/rewritten at startup so they're impossible to document properly.
Probably the same as dolphins -- you know, the stuff you sometimes find in cans of tuna.
Ok, now that everyone feels an even greater sense of disgust and self-loathing, here's a little story to put things in perspective:
Once upon a time (in the Old Country), it was my grandmother's responsibility to prepare chickens for dinner. By prepare, that meant first going out into the yard and grabbing one. People who raise chickens (or keep birds as pets) consider them intelligent and affectionate. I think they're nasty cruel creatures. That said, I was alway amazed to watch my grandmother kill the chickens. Lots of methods for that -- typically a simple wring of the neck, or a knife to the throat. But what I thought was most interesting was what she did before she sent the chicken off to meet its maker, and that was that she would make the sign of the cross and say a small prayer before killing it.
I'm not suggesting that everyone stop to pay hommage to those plastic-wrapped packages of chicken breasts piled in the meat department of your local grocers. or even resurrect the tradition of saying grace before eating. But instead of feeling guilty about killing another living thing, maybe we should pause to consider whether we should really be feeling guilty for being so out of touch that we can't tell the difference anymore, or fully grasp why it's as natural a thing as it is necessary.
It could be that whales are yummy and taste like chicken. But killing one in this day and age is increasingly similar to cutting down trees that are a hundred years old or older for their prized timber. Common sense should tell that you're taking away from your children, and everybody who comes after you.
I watched a recent broadcast on C-SPAN of a House Science and Technology Committee meeting on P2P file sharing. I recall there was a recent Slashdot article on that same meeting (proof positive that few have ever watched C-SPAN, let alone that particular program) that I think is also relevant to DRM.
While I watched, two things struck me. First, that the committee members (some of whom sit on the all-powerful Judiciary Committee) invariably said, with a conviction typically reserved for occasions where one is required to place one's right hand on the bible, that they were very strong believers in intellectual property protection. The silence in the room seemed to suggest that the issue was a black and white one, somewhat akin to being against flag burning, or safe streets and neighbourhoods, or fighting terrorism, and the act of making such statements conferred patriotic bonus points on those who stood up to do so.
Second, despite the fact that all of the panel members (the IT heads of various universities) unanimously agreed (and went on at length to describe the reasons) that technological solutions could offer no guarantees of success, they were pressed upon by more than one committee member as to why they weren't placing a greater emphasis on technological solutions, given that it did offer at least some measure of success, even if it was temporary. After a series of "yes buts", the committee and the panel members agreed to agree that a coordinated technological/enforcement solution in conjunction with an education/policy-based approach was the ideal solution.
That last bit reminded me of what typically occurs in communities where crime is a problem and someone comes up with a New and Improved approach. The enforcement approach hasn't worked, but the police are asked to implement a crackdown. After enough heads are hit or enough people are arrested, the New and Improved solution is gradually put into effect and everyone feels good. It's worth remembering that people who vote typically vote for "law and order" candidates, and elected candidates who concentrate on law and order issues stay elected, irrespective of whether their actions have results, positive or otherwise. The scenario isn't unlike George Bush and his recent surge. The military approach hasn't worked, so the solution? More troops.
It would be satisfying if simplistic to state that DRM is a technological solution that's doomed to failure. You can be sure that the issue of DRM is discussed in boardrooms of media companies, in government, and in the board rooms of any technology company that has an interest in the matter. At those levels, the issue becomes a political one, and people are held accountable for what they do or don't do. Put another way, everyone needs to be seen doing something, even if that something has prior art in the form of a Dilbert cartoon.
So if DRM isn't working, the solution will ultimately be more DRM. Followed by a phased in New and Improved approach that, surprise, most likely won't involve DRM. In that regard, we can say that Steve Jobs may be the only smart guy in the room.
Yes, yes. I submit to your explanation. No doubt, CNN, Fox, VOA, RFA, RFE speak the unqualified truth. Woe to those who question such sources. After all, the US & Europe have a God given monopoly on the truth. And anyone who conflicts with those views must be evil.
Small wonder, then, that Al Jazeera, among others, still doesn't have a US distributor.
I'm not Arab so I doubt I'd be a regular viewer of Arab television, but it would be informative to hear what 50 million or so people who don't consume a regular diet of CNN, FOX, et al are listening to on a daily basis. Or, more importantly, what news stories are covered there that aren't covered elsewhere.
Personally, I've never allowed myself the luxury of trusting that I'm right because everyone around is saying the same thing, or is otherwise in agreement with me. It's harder that way, but the alternative of settling for what passes as informed discussion on "talk radio", for example, is somewhere betweeen suspect and disingenuous at best.
That is false. It actually will protect Europe from... Iranian launches.
Launches of what? Homemade explosive devices? Propaganda leaflets? A large bowl of hummus? I can see it now. Fifteen athletic Iranian guys carrying a long cylindrical object running at full tilt toward a cliff. Or was that was the Coyote in perpetual war against the evil Roadrunner?
But back to real facts. Russia feels threatened, and rightfully so. Doesn't take a genius to see an aggressively expanding NATO (made up, in part, of some of their former satellites) at their doorstep as something other than problematic.
But it would be better for everyone if Bush would spend more time talking to Putin about this.
Agreed, but despite the fact that the cold war ended years ago, and despite the very real (and recently demonstrated) value of Russia to the US in everything from terrorism to geopolitics, we still refuse to talk to them (except through back channels) or acknowledge their importance. Come to think of it, we don't talk to anybody but our friends. I guess the strategy is to piss everyone off, and threaten anyone who objects.
Why not buy the sheet music and tabs you want, or wait and use the tab/lyric sites operated by the publishers themselves?
Judging from your story about buying a Beatles song book for $10 bucks, I know that you really haven't grasped the issue at hand, and don't play much guitar.
Sheet music is mostly written for piano. It represents a sort of lowest common denominator transcription of the music, like Muzak for singalongs. Guitar "song books" are much the same, but have guitar chords added. You think either represents the music the way it was played in the original song? Not bloodly likely.
Almost all sheet music is wrong. They may get the key correct, and a few of the chords might be correct, but that's the extent of it. You can play, for example, an A minor chord in an almost infinite number of ways. The variables include the number of strings used, the fret position, whether a capo is used, whether a different tuning was used. Different guitarists play in different ways.
The fret position and fingering is usually enough to get you in the right neighborhood. That's what guitar tabs offer and what sheet music can't and doesn't offer. Granted, if we're talking about the Beatles (or Country and Western, folk songs, etc.) where most all songs are played in open position and use very simple strumming or picking, you might get away with the sheet music. That's hardly true for guitarists like Robert Fripp, U2's The Edge, Jimmy Page of yesteryear, or even someone whos entirely derivative like Brian Setzer.
Sheet music is copyrighted tablature. Guitar tabs are reverse engineering.
Hi, I'm a prime number nerd [adjusts glasses]. Actually having a huge male sex organs could lead to great difficulty making sex with most women. It may not enter fully, and requires significantly more foreplay than average to average-big organs.
There is no difficulty, and they really don't mind.;-) Trust me. I'm over 6' tall and have... big hands.
My ring finger, by contrast, suffers from being in the short category. The news of this study (or one identical to it) came out 6 months to a year ago, so I'm surprised to read about it here now. It caught my attention because I've studied and played classical guitar (that finger-picking style for those unfamiliar with it) for most of my life. When you play with "10 fingers", the ring finger is in the unenviable position of having to reach the string that's farthest away. The longer the ring finger, I assumed, the easier it was to play and by extension, the better the guitarist.
It turns it out it's not much of an indicator of anything. Since first hearing about the study, I embarked on a study of my own, starting with guitarists, and then extending to just about everyone I met or saw. It's easy to examine someone's hands without being obtrusive, so don't get the idea that I carried around a notebook and measuring instruments. My own observations from a sample set of what I guess would be at least a thousand individuals (most in person, but some on TV, video, pictures, etc.) was the following.
Guitarists, even wickedly fast flamenco guitarists, don't typically have longer index fingers. I was surprised to note that many have hands that appear better suited to construction. The abilities we tend to associated with the male side of the brain (math, logical thinking, spatial perception) don't correspond either. Women that I know to have close to zero of those skills, often have longer ringer fingers. In fact, I've seen more women with longer ring fingers than than men. Men trained in computer science, engineering, or in the architectural fields likewise don't exhibit any similarities, aside from a frequent and obvious unfamiliarity with physical labour.
There's been similar studies that suggest that too much or too little testosterone in the womb is related to sexuality, not enough testorone being associated with an exaggerated interest the performing arts, particularly Broadway show tunes. If that's the case, the athletes I know or have met must all be closet cases because I found few cases where any one of them had a longer ringer finger. Flaming queers, by contrast, typically don't have shorter ones. Go figure.
I would like to believe there is a relationship; that would allow me play victim and say that I never became a concert guitarist because my hands were the wrong shape or size. My opinion is that this kind of "science" can be fun to read about and sometimes helps to make sense of the world around us, but in the end, it's a distraction and has no value at all.
Some writers prefer the notion of organizing everything in your head before typing anything, but that's more memory than I've got. I relied on the ability of the word processor so I could start a paragraph and come back to it later without having to change the paper in my typewriter a huge time boost.
Years ago when I worked for a large law firm, I never ceased to be amazed how the "old timers" (partners who grew up in the days when things like secretarial pools existed) could and regularly would dictate their work in full; the secretary would type it up and that, with the possible addition of some whiteout, was the end of that. By contrast, most of the newer attorneys and paralegals would typically do their work entirely on a computer. A typical transmittal letter ("Please find enclosed blah blah") would require 20 or more minutes of work, subject to any number of further revisions inspired by each successive printing, supervisory review of redlined markups, and repeated spell czechs. To be fair, in that world, every word and punctuation mark takes on significance, but you get the idea.
Similarly, consider that great novels didn't come into existence with the advent of word processing machines. They were laboriously crafted on typewriters, and before that using writing instruments that ranged from ballpoint pens to quills.
My own theory is that we've simply gotten lazy. And the tools we now have at our disposal, while possibly increasing our productivity in certain respects, mostly fill our time and use our energy with superficialities. Put another way, I'm suspicious that the widespread use of wordprocessors has created a state of affairs in which people are "drawing" their documents and stuffing them with bits of disjointed thoughts (to be revised later) instead of actually writing the damned things.
The ability to revise a document on a computer is marvelous, I'll agree, but what if that ability compensates, like 500 monkeys with typewriters, for an innability to think, and by extension, to write? And if that's not the case, how then to explain the current state of general illiteracy (as evidenced by an innability to spell or distinguish certain words) in a population where the use of and reliance on automated spell checking is so widespread?
Garrison Keillor once said that it's better to write "three sharp and funny pages about geese than 300 fat and flabby ones about the human condition." I doubt he used a word processor to come up with that one. Not everyone has a talent for writing, of course. But I suspect that most of those that don't are spending so much of their time adjusting fonts and paragraph styles in their 300 page Word version of the human condition to know how fat and flabby things really are.
Otherwise, I'd say you were onto something. Just think where we'd be today if we elected a President could read and wasn't an ex oil man, a Vice President without ties to Halliburton, or a Secretary of State whose specialty wasn't Russian studies. Come to think of it, if it wasn't real, you'd think only a science fiction writer could come up with that scenario.
system. Cygwin's a great piece of software which is, IMO, let down by its obscure and difficult-to-use setup program. A new, friendlier way of installing and updating cygwin components would be a great asset.
Cywin's setup.exe is a PIA, but hardly unfriendly. It behaves in much the same way as most GUI programs. Short of writing a "wizard", I don't see how it could it made more friendly. Where the setup.exe approach fails is that on the front end, it's not command-line driven, and the backend, well, there really isn't one. My guess is the developers are already working hard as it is, and expecting such an oft-discussed overhaul any time soon is unreasonable.
As for
I intend to package a number of open-source language interpreters with the core software to allow special pre- and post-install scripts, as well as removal scripts. C#Script, Perl, and Python are definites, as is a Cygwin sh interpreter.
I think that's an admirable goal, but what's being proposed? ActiveState distributions? And what all those GNU utilities? Is he proposing native versions of some tiny subset of what everone takes for granted? The core utilities, along with interpreters like Perl, Python, etc. etc., etc. are already included in Cygwin. Just as importantly, you get the benefit of Unix file formats, Unix-style paths, symlinks, shells, and a fairly nifty terminal that together go a hell of a long way to present a sane (and coherent) environment so that you can make use of them.
I do think the article poster is onto something, but I don't think he'll get much farther than providing a small collection of popular programs for Windows users who either don't know any different, or for whom installing something like putty satisfies their needs. Not bad in and of itself, of course. But for everyone else, we'll have to wait for what I hope is the inevitability that Windows will evolve to resemble Unix systems.
Slashdot Mirror
IT was never exempt from communication, as IT is all ABOUT communication. Learning to dress usually means adhering to an arbitarily strict dress code that interferes with the nature of IT work to begin with. Ever try to set up a work station while wearing a suit and tie or something similar? You end up fighting your clothes more than the probelm at hand.
I'm not sure where in the continuum between wearing a suit/tie and not wearing any pants your arbitrarily strict characterisation falls, but it's always amused that if you look at any old photographs of computer rooms in the mainframe era, most everyone is wearing a short or long-sleeved pocketed (for the sliderule, no doubt) shirt and tie. My guess is that if you wore jeans or a T-shirt, you wouldn't be allowed in the building.
Me, I prefer going to work dressed for work. For me, that means a suit and tie. If the work at hand is physical, then I may clip or remove the tie, or just wear cheaper clothes of a similar nature.
Casual dress is a recent development. Getting work done isn't.
X-ray machines, Jet engines, and more all report operating conditions and usage information back to the manufacturer.
And X-ray machines and jet engines are multi-purpose devices that store gobs of personal information?
They aren't sending back any "personal information" like credit card numbers or even identification information.
I'd like to know how you've achieved that conclusion given the fact that you and just about everyone outside of Microsoft lacks meaningful information as to what *is* being sent, in what form, and how.
Someone long ago said "Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind, but certainty is a ridiculous one." But no worries, right?
Some Usenet groups have degraded into nothing but spam havens, and some have just died from lack of traffic. But there are a few that continue to be valuable sources of info. I personally find value in following comp.ai, comp.ai.genetic ...
The entire comp. hierarchy is valuable. For those interested in programming, for example, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.perl.misc, comp.unix.shell are additional groups that alive and kicking and more valuable to just about anyone than most of the rubbish found on the web. For Windows users, the microsoft.public* hierarchy is similarly valuable. So much so that Microsoft themselves offer it as a "service" (LOL) for their users, albeit with a specially designed web front-end.
Spam has always been a problem on USENET, but for those groups where there's lots of activity, it's a minor nuisance. For other groups, the denizens just move on to another empty group.
As for the original deteriorated into porn images, complaint, well, that's a plus for some, right? There's terrabytes of binary data flowing through usenet on a daily basis, so everyone is free to download as much or as little as they want. IMHO, it puts P2P sharing to shame. Then, again, it could be the OP is using their ISP's NNTP servers, so he doesn't get the groups or the binaries or the retention that the rest of us do for a few bucks a month.
RTFA and find out for yourself.
Actually, I've noticed in the last few years that instead of saying RTFM (the value of which advice, incidentally, can't be overstated), is that people post Wiki links instead. My guess is that it may be more useful for those unaccustomed to reading a terse man page and has the added bonus of being a brush-off that appears polite.
Similarly, offering linkies to popular websites is becoming increasingly common. There's more and more good websites, of course, but most people looking for information aren't interested in How It Works explanations (which man pages are meant to document). What these people seem to want are quick How To's instead.
I'd also add that this 98% portion are increasingly (or solely) relying on what's available in their web browser. What's the first thing someone typically does when they need information? Google it. Doesn't matter if they already have on their hard drive a collection of well-written README's, or a comprehensive manual (even in HTML form) and FAQ that was written explictly answer their question. I can't count the number of times I've seen questions that begin with "I searched Google and couldn't find anything."
As for the disproportionate percentage, that shouldn't come as a surprise. Few are qualified to inform or teach, and fewer are drawn to spending their time doing so. Not unlike high school. One teacher, 29 kids waiting for the bell to ring, and one student waiting to talk to the teacher after class.
I think the article is about magnetic storage.
So, same drive, but a new way of writing/reading it.
But it was the beginning of a joining-together of communities of affect in the global organisation of power, the beginning of affiliation rather than territorial location or political domination, as the source of legitimacy for legislation.
Nice words to read, but this could be entitled The Triumph of Optimism over Experience. My gut tells me that despite the underlying Star Trekish optimism in the evolution of our species, and despite our inherent ability to aspire to greater things, nationalism and petty self-interest will prevail as they always have.
That's not to say we can't find new ways of looking at things. Or establish new institutions.
The thing is, there are bigger problems going on in the world. We're literally at war.
LOL. You mean the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam? That's an invasion, not a war. Get over it.
For the Sunni and Shia, it's a war. For the foreign fighters, it's a war. We don't get to call it a war. When you go into other people's neighbourhoods to stir things up or bust heads and don't expect resistance, that's simply A Really Dumb Idea.
Or were you referring to the War on Insert-Your-Favourite-Vague-Concept-Here?
Google is a publicly held company, not a soup kitchen.
So Google's efforts to develop their app is somehow akin to charity? If you're trying to make that argument, you've not done so because it amounts to nothing more than saying a vendor who ignores a subset of their market (non-Windows users) is meeting their fiduciary responsibilities by dismissing it outright. That was said about Firefox users not so long ago and it was proved both wrong and embarrassing.
The OP, on the other hand, articulated clearly what I think is perfectly valid series of observations. None of them is in conflict with making a buck, or whiney as one poster trollishly suggested. Moreover, I think the OP's comments fit well to varying degrees with not only with Google's mission statement, but also their position in a market under constant threat of monopoly power and abuse.
If there's any soup kitchen element to Google behaviour, it's their continuing efforts in offering non-money making betas to the public, or expending efforts and money in an attempt to distinguish themselves in ways that no Fortune 500 company would ever consider.
This is the "half-empty" view. The "half-full" full is that Microsoft welcomes such virtualization in the sense that it's product will be on more computers than ever before ...
;-)
Personally, I'll wager that the "half-empty" view is more correct. Microsoft's history can be described as one defined by a need for complete dominance and control, even where it was inappropriate, unneeded or counter productive. The possibility that, according to the article, they'll be playing "second fiddle", is more apt to send chairs flying than anything else. To say nothing of the corrosive nature of losing monopoly (perceived or otherwise) power.
The other issue is that while it's entirely possible that Microsoft's bottom line won't suffer immediate negative consequences, it will be the case that Apple's bottom line will, by comparison, be enhanced much more so. For every $100 or so going to Microsoft, there's a corresponding $1000 or more heading to Apple.
For me, I've decided my next computer purchase will be a MacBook Pro. If I buy a copy of Vista, it will be as an accessory.
1. Seperate logic from userinterface
2. Seperate into small logical components
3. Store settings in human-readable, human-editable configuration files so you can manage, control or otherwise reproduce them.
I stopped at Win2000. Well, entirely not true. I went with a warezed copy XP for a time (prompted by a need for Cleartype for use on LCD screens), and bumped against activation issues. I concluded that I simply didn't need the hassle. In fact, I didn't need it at all.
Not everyone has that luxury, however, or can avoid living on the Windows treadmill. If in the future I need to run Windows (I'm talking personal use here), it'll be because I bought a Mac. Sure, Microsoft may receive payment for a copy of their software, but I think it says more about the end of Microsoft's hegemony than it says about Apple's growing popularity.
As for the article, I'm amused at the Microsoft's choice of the word "rumors" with respect to delaying purchase. From the fine article:If XP is any indicator (notwithstanding the history of most Microsoft products), I'd suggest that what is good advice (as opposed to rumor) is to wait for SP2.
No, noone can. There is no reasoning behind the bans on Cuba.
I'll take a shot. Voters in Florida.
It's purely emotional.
Might depend on whether you're the one voting, or the one up for re-election.
Personally, I think Cubans (the ones in Florida) should just "get over it". Easy to say not having ever been in their shoes, but then, again, they were never in Castro's shoes (boots) either.
Totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that companies have more "access" to legislators than the electorate does.
While I agree with the sentiment, I think that statement is somewhere between overbroad and naive. Put yourself in the shoes of an elected official (in any level of government) and see if you can answer the Pop Quiz "Whose call would you take?"
(a) Brad and Angelina call to make an appointment to discuss an issue of importance.
(b) A non-profit public interest group calls to advocate their positions on a specific matter of interest.
(c) A vocal and annoying citizens group (one that represents a large voter base) calls to schedule yet another meeting on a series of topics.
(d) A CEO whose business employs several thousand people in your district and generates big tax revenues for the economy calls to schedule an extended lunch appointment.
(e) Numerous well-informed, educated and articulate individuals who want to make the world a better place call to share their opinions.
If you picked (e), congratulations on being well-intentioned, but good luck making up with all those folks (the ones that matter) that are now pissed off. And good luck getting re-elected.
Electoral laws need reform.
Indeed. But getting that done is uphill both ways. Much like getting citizens to actually vote.
As if Bush would ever support software freedom.
As if Bush would understand the concept of freedom, or software.
Sorry to hear. Between all the default settings in the /etc/fonts.conf and your own fonts.conf, it's entirely possible you've missed something. Maybe start with increasing the hinting? One thing I've noticed is that increasing the background ambient lighting (directly behind your monitor) tends to make fonts appear a bit heavier.
Me, I have everything the way I want, but that's only after investing an inordinate amount of time, and then, the final Eureka moment occurred only after some accidental change I honestly don't remember. I default to what most people call "teeny tiny" fonts, so I doubt own settings would satisfy you.
Good luck.
This is what I use on a FreeBSD laptop.
Edit the file (your location will be different) by uncommenting the following and recompiling freetype. IIRC, the above involves patent restrictions so by default, it's not used. Additionally, you can uncomment People claim the results are similar enough to what they get on a Mac, but I can't claim to know with certainty as I customise things to suit my environment and my own preferences. That said, much depends on the fonts you use, and more importantly, the configuration in your ~/.fonts.conf file.
Firefox, I believe, has some settings you can tweak, but I can't provide you with those. Most (all?) config files seem to be checked/rewritten at startup so they're impossible to document properly.
How did it taste?
Probably the same as dolphins -- you know, the stuff you sometimes find in cans of tuna.
Ok, now that everyone feels an even greater sense of disgust and self-loathing, here's a little story to put things in perspective:
Once upon a time (in the Old Country), it was my grandmother's responsibility to prepare chickens for dinner. By prepare, that meant first going out into the yard and grabbing one. People who raise chickens (or keep birds as pets) consider them intelligent and affectionate. I think they're nasty cruel creatures. That said, I was alway amazed to watch my grandmother kill the chickens. Lots of methods for that -- typically a simple wring of the neck, or a knife to the throat. But what I thought was most interesting was what she did before she sent the chicken off to meet its maker, and that was that she would make the sign of the cross and say a small prayer before killing it.
I'm not suggesting that everyone stop to pay hommage to those plastic-wrapped packages of chicken breasts piled in the meat department of your local grocers. or even resurrect the tradition of saying grace before eating. But instead of feeling guilty about killing another living thing, maybe we should pause to consider whether we should really be feeling guilty for being so out of touch that we can't tell the difference anymore, or fully grasp why it's as natural a thing as it is necessary.
It could be that whales are yummy and taste like chicken. But killing one in this day and age is increasingly similar to cutting down trees that are a hundred years old or older for their prized timber. Common sense should tell that you're taking away from your children, and everybody who comes after you.
I watched a recent broadcast on C-SPAN of a House Science and Technology Committee meeting on P2P file sharing. I recall there was a recent Slashdot article on that same meeting (proof positive that few have ever watched C-SPAN, let alone that particular program) that I think is also relevant to DRM.
While I watched, two things struck me. First, that the committee members (some of whom sit on the all-powerful Judiciary Committee) invariably said, with a conviction typically reserved for occasions where one is required to place one's right hand on the bible, that they were very strong believers in intellectual property protection. The silence in the room seemed to suggest that the issue was a black and white one, somewhat akin to being against flag burning, or safe streets and neighbourhoods, or fighting terrorism, and the act of making such statements conferred patriotic bonus points on those who stood up to do so.
Second, despite the fact that all of the panel members (the IT heads of various universities) unanimously agreed (and went on at length to describe the reasons) that technological solutions could offer no guarantees of success, they were pressed upon by more than one committee member as to why they weren't placing a greater emphasis on technological solutions, given that it did offer at least some measure of success, even if it was temporary. After a series of "yes buts", the committee and the panel members agreed to agree that a coordinated technological/enforcement solution in conjunction with an education/policy-based approach was the ideal solution.
That last bit reminded me of what typically occurs in communities where crime is a problem and someone comes up with a New and Improved approach. The enforcement approach hasn't worked, but the police are asked to implement a crackdown. After enough heads are hit or enough people are arrested, the New and Improved solution is gradually put into effect and everyone feels good. It's worth remembering that people who vote typically vote for "law and order" candidates, and elected candidates who concentrate on law and order issues stay elected, irrespective of whether their actions have results, positive or otherwise. The scenario isn't unlike George Bush and his recent surge. The military approach hasn't worked, so the solution? More troops.
It would be satisfying if simplistic to state that DRM is a technological solution that's doomed to failure. You can be sure that the issue of DRM is discussed in boardrooms of media companies, in government, and in the board rooms of any technology company that has an interest in the matter. At those levels, the issue becomes a political one, and people are held accountable for what they do or don't do. Put another way, everyone needs to be seen doing something, even if that something has prior art in the form of a Dilbert cartoon.
So if DRM isn't working, the solution will ultimately be more DRM. Followed by a phased in New and Improved approach that, surprise, most likely won't involve DRM. In that regard, we can say that Steve Jobs may be the only smart guy in the room.
Yes, yes. I submit to your explanation. No doubt, CNN, Fox, VOA, RFA, RFE speak the unqualified truth. Woe to those who question such sources. After all, the US & Europe have a God given monopoly on the truth. And anyone who conflicts with those views must be evil.
Small wonder, then, that Al Jazeera, among others, still doesn't have a US distributor.
I'm not Arab so I doubt I'd be a regular viewer of Arab television, but it would be informative to hear what 50 million or so people who don't consume a regular diet of CNN, FOX, et al are listening to on a daily basis. Or, more importantly, what news stories are covered there that aren't covered elsewhere.
Personally, I've never allowed myself the luxury of trusting that I'm right because everyone around is saying the same thing, or is otherwise in agreement with me. It's harder that way, but the alternative of settling for what passes as informed discussion on "talk radio", for example, is somewhere betweeen suspect and disingenuous at best.
That is false. It actually will protect Europe from ... Iranian launches.
Launches of what? Homemade explosive devices? Propaganda leaflets? A large bowl of hummus? I can see it now. Fifteen athletic Iranian guys carrying a long cylindrical object running at full tilt toward a cliff. Or was that was the Coyote in perpetual war against the evil Roadrunner?
But back to real facts. Russia feels threatened, and rightfully so. Doesn't take a genius to see an aggressively expanding NATO (made up, in part, of some of their former satellites) at their doorstep as something other than problematic.
But it would be better for everyone if Bush would spend more time talking to Putin about this.
Agreed, but despite the fact that the cold war ended years ago, and despite the very real (and recently demonstrated) value of Russia to the US in everything from terrorism to geopolitics, we still refuse to talk to them (except through back channels) or acknowledge their importance. Come to think of it, we don't talk to anybody but our friends. I guess the strategy is to piss everyone off, and threaten anyone who objects.
Why not buy the sheet music and tabs you want, or wait and use the tab/lyric sites operated by the publishers themselves?
Judging from your story about buying a Beatles song book for $10 bucks, I know that you really haven't grasped the issue at hand, and don't play much guitar.
Sheet music is mostly written for piano. It represents a sort of lowest common denominator transcription of the music, like Muzak for singalongs. Guitar "song books" are much the same, but have guitar chords added. You think either represents the music the way it was played in the original song? Not bloodly likely.
Almost all sheet music is wrong. They may get the key correct, and a few of the chords might be correct, but that's the extent of it. You can play, for example, an A minor chord in an almost infinite number of ways. The variables include the number of strings used, the fret position, whether a capo is used, whether a different tuning was used. Different guitarists play in different ways.
The fret position and fingering is usually enough to get you in the right neighborhood. That's what guitar tabs offer and what sheet music can't and doesn't offer. Granted, if we're talking about the Beatles (or Country and Western, folk songs, etc.) where most all songs are played in open position and use very simple strumming or picking, you might get away with the sheet music. That's hardly true for guitarists like Robert Fripp, U2's The Edge, Jimmy Page of yesteryear, or even someone whos entirely derivative like Brian Setzer.
Sheet music is copyrighted tablature. Guitar tabs are reverse engineering.
Hi, I'm a prime number nerd [adjusts glasses]. Actually having a huge male sex organs could lead to great difficulty making sex with most women. It may not enter fully, and requires significantly more foreplay than average to average-big organs.
;-) Trust me. I'm over 6' tall and have ... big hands.
There is no difficulty, and they really don't mind.
My ring finger, by contrast, suffers from being in the short category. The news of this study (or one identical to it) came out 6 months to a year ago, so I'm surprised to read about it here now. It caught my attention because I've studied and played classical guitar (that finger-picking style for those unfamiliar with it) for most of my life. When you play with "10 fingers", the ring finger is in the unenviable position of having to reach the string that's farthest away. The longer the ring finger, I assumed, the easier it was to play and by extension, the better the guitarist.
It turns it out it's not much of an indicator of anything. Since first hearing about the study, I embarked on a study of my own, starting with guitarists, and then extending to just about everyone I met or saw. It's easy to examine someone's hands without being obtrusive, so don't get the idea that I carried around a notebook and measuring instruments. My own observations from a sample set of what I guess would be at least a thousand individuals (most in person, but some on TV, video, pictures, etc.) was the following.
Guitarists, even wickedly fast flamenco guitarists, don't typically have longer index fingers. I was surprised to note that many have hands that appear better suited to construction. The abilities we tend to associated with the male side of the brain (math, logical thinking, spatial perception) don't correspond either. Women that I know to have close to zero of those skills, often have longer ringer fingers. In fact, I've seen more women with longer ring fingers than than men. Men trained in computer science, engineering, or in the architectural fields likewise don't exhibit any similarities, aside from a frequent and obvious unfamiliarity with physical labour.
There's been similar studies that suggest that too much or too little testosterone in the womb is related to sexuality, not enough testorone being associated with an exaggerated interest the performing arts, particularly Broadway show tunes. If that's the case, the athletes I know or have met must all be closet cases because I found few cases where any one of them had a longer ringer finger. Flaming queers, by contrast, typically don't have shorter ones. Go figure.
I would like to believe there is a relationship; that would allow me play victim and say that I never became a concert guitarist because my hands were the wrong shape or size. My opinion is that this kind of "science" can be fun to read about and sometimes helps to make sense of the world around us, but in the end, it's a distraction and has no value at all.
Some writers prefer the notion of organizing everything in your head before typing anything, but that's more memory than I've got. I relied on the ability of the word processor so I could start a paragraph and come back to it later without having to change the paper in my typewriter a huge time boost.
Years ago when I worked for a large law firm, I never ceased to be amazed how the "old timers" (partners who grew up in the days when things like secretarial pools existed) could and regularly would dictate their work in full; the secretary would type it up and that, with the possible addition of some whiteout, was the end of that. By contrast, most of the newer attorneys and paralegals would typically do their work entirely on a computer. A typical transmittal letter ("Please find enclosed blah blah") would require 20 or more minutes of work, subject to any number of further revisions inspired by each successive printing, supervisory review of redlined markups, and repeated spell czechs. To be fair, in that world, every word and punctuation mark takes on significance, but you get the idea.
Similarly, consider that great novels didn't come into existence with the advent of word processing machines. They were laboriously crafted on typewriters, and before that using writing instruments that ranged from ballpoint pens to quills.
My own theory is that we've simply gotten lazy. And the tools we now have at our disposal, while possibly increasing our productivity in certain respects, mostly fill our time and use our energy with superficialities. Put another way, I'm suspicious that the widespread use of wordprocessors has created a state of affairs in which people are "drawing" their documents and stuffing them with bits of disjointed thoughts (to be revised later) instead of actually writing the damned things.
The ability to revise a document on a computer is marvelous, I'll agree, but what if that ability compensates, like 500 monkeys with typewriters, for an innability to think, and by extension, to write? And if that's not the case, how then to explain the current state of general illiteracy (as evidenced by an innability to spell or distinguish certain words) in a population where the use of and reliance on automated spell checking is so widespread?
Garrison Keillor once said that it's better to write "three sharp and funny pages about geese than 300 fat and flabby ones about the human condition." I doubt he used a word processor to come up with that one. Not everyone has a talent for writing, of course. But I suspect that most of those that don't are spending so much of their time adjusting fonts and paragraph styles in their 300 page Word version of the human condition to know how fat and flabby things really are.
It might have helped if the President had carefully read a certain August 6th, 2001 memo titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.
For all we know, he did read the memo.
Otherwise, I'd say you were onto something. Just think where we'd be today if we elected a President could read and wasn't an ex oil man, a Vice President without ties to Halliburton, or a Secretary of State whose specialty wasn't Russian studies. Come to think of it, if it wasn't real, you'd think only a science fiction writer could come up with that scenario.
Cywin's setup.exe is a PIA, but hardly unfriendly. It behaves in much the same way as most GUI programs. Short of writing a "wizard", I don't see how it could it made more friendly. Where the setup.exe approach fails is that on the front end, it's not command-line driven, and the backend, well, there really isn't one. My guess is the developers are already working hard as it is, and expecting such an oft-discussed overhaul any time soon is unreasonable.
As for
I think that's an admirable goal, but what's being proposed? ActiveState distributions? And what all those GNU utilities? Is he proposing native versions of some tiny subset of what everone takes for granted? The core utilities, along with interpreters like Perl, Python, etc. etc., etc. are already included in Cygwin. Just as importantly, you get the benefit of Unix file formats, Unix-style paths, symlinks, shells, and a fairly nifty terminal that together go a hell of a long way to present a sane (and coherent) environment so that you can make use of them.
I do think the article poster is onto something, but I don't think he'll get much farther than providing a small collection of popular programs for Windows users who either don't know any different, or for whom installing something like putty satisfies their needs. Not bad in and of itself, of course. But for everyone else, we'll have to wait for what I hope is the inevitability that Windows will evolve to resemble Unix systems.