As a person who is trying to get into Linux, I'm glad someone brought this issue up.
Coming fresh from a Windows environment to Linux, one of the first things you notice is the plethora of ridiculous and sometimes mystifing program and command names. I realize that to a programmer, code junkie, or any other overly technically inclined individual, the inside joke with the prefixes of G and K everywhere is chuckle-worthy. To everyone else, it seems like either a silly joke or deliberate obfuscation. To a new user, you feel like you're too stupid to get what the point of naming something 'Gaim', 'Xine' or 'LiVES' is. The worst offender (and shining case point) is GIMP.
This is not to say that this problem is universal with Linux software. There are plenty of examples of well-named, easy to remember, and relevant names in the Linux library. OpenOffice, MP3c, and Muse are all well named programs that have some relationship to the work they perform.
My point in all this is to say that if Linux is ever going to become mainstream (and by mainstream, I mean my mother and little sister use it): it's simply got to grow out of the Alpha Geek culture it was created in. I firmly believe the biggest problems with Linux right now is the lack of a truly slick GUI and the God-awful naming conventions. These two issues conspire to make Linux look like an out of control Ham Radio project to the average user. Regardless of the disdain that some people on/. have for average users, they are the people Linux will have to cater to if it will ever be anything more than a robust server platform and a hacker playground. It's a exercise in futility to attempt and point out the disassociative names used in Windows programs because more than a few of them already have become so popular that they have become synonyms of the functions they perform. Linux doesn't have that luxury. The attitude that these kinds of issues are only problems to people who haven't 'learned' Linux will keep Linux on the back burner.
Too bad I've got such horrible Karma, I doubt anyone will ever see this.
Nurses, teachers, etc have a healthier attitude about sex. More likely the women are on top (or at least have a varied sex life). Girl wins.
Engineers are more conservative, so more likely to be on top. Boy wins.
I fail to see how you can prove the basis of this ridiculous argument. Where are you getting this data on the sexual positions of Nurses (or Engineers for that matter). There are only a few professions I can think of where we could say, for certain, what positions are employed. And that's only because it's on video. What happens if *gasp* an Engineer marries a Nurse? What kind of unnatural offspring would that union produce? My god, we're professional Slashdotters here, people. Let's leave blind, ignorant conjecture to the media.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics
on
Johnny Can So Program
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
From TFA: Start with what it means statistically to perform well in this contest today. News.com didn't tell you that the number of teams competing has grown nearly sevenfold from 1994 through 2005. In other words, for a team to finish at, say, third place, in 1994 would be equivalent to finishing 21st this year. So a hypothetical team that News.com would have lauded in 1994 would now be dismissed as having badly "slipped" in 2005, even though it would be of the same quality.
You mean these contests are get harder when there are more contestants? I agree with most of this essay, but here he's trying to prop up BS with useless statistics. 3rd place, 11 years ago does not equal 21st place this year. It equals 3rd place.
It certainly doesn't mean the same level of quality was required of a third place contestant 11 years ago is required today. Logically, it stands to reason that it would be easier (with seven times fewer contestants) to get 3rd place 11 years ago. The bottom line is, if we're so good, why haven't we won in the last 8 years?
...that this thread is a microcomsic snapshot of why there is a an ever-present war between reglious philosophy and scientific theory. I honestly believe that a deep reason for the division lies with us, followers of science. We are willing to go anywhere, try anything, to prove or disprove a theory, to understand better how our world functions. But most of us flatly refuse to view spirituality with anything but contempt. I know I've been that way for most of my adult life. It's been suggested to me countless times that the need for Gods and religions in humanity is due in large part to ignorance about the world around us. Ignorance and fear.
To quote Feynman: "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. "
I feel that most of us believe that a well-informed and educated society will have no place for Gods, no place for unexplained awe, over and above the numbers. But, as an astrophysist, while I find it hard to swallow a "God", I can easily see between the numbers a higher order of intellect staring back at us.
I'm surprised that anyone who really attempts to understand our Universe through the sciences, can look at the body of data that we have up to this point and seriously hold onto the belief that all these things just fell into place with no intelligence. Especially when we hold intellect in such high esteem ourselves! Lack of intelligent construction usually ends in chaos. Any cursory look at our world leads me to believe that there are things that we (as scientists) have not even started looking for. My major focus of study is the GUT (Grand Unifed Theory) and as such, requires me to be well versed in a very large number of disciplines. One thing I have seen in the 10 years of study, is that Science is missing something important. Big and important. It's common knowledge that the GUT is going to be simple. Very simple. I think that religious philosophy is a field that few of us dare to venture into impartially and seriously. I freely admit that it's hard to look at modern religions without dismissing most of it at political grandstanding. However, in a couple hundred years we may be looked upon as fools for missing something that been in front of (and occasionally in the way of) us for a very long time.
For the record, I'm very much against formalized religions, named Gods, "Holy" texts or any other contrived structure on the Universe. The are, in my mind not natural obfuscutions and by extension a hinderance on finding out what all of this is really about. Following the sentiment of Douglas Adams, I think that perhaps religions are staring at the 42 on the page but have no idea what the question is.
You certainly don't have to agree with me. But, if you look at the beauty of an evening sky, and truly understand (even part of) it's complexity, it's difficult to believe this all these rules just fell into place, and all the matter fell in behind it.
We shouldn't so quickly and easily dismiss spirituality because of the fools who use it for personal or social gain. I don't believe that the definition of science which has stood for longer then the state of Kansas itself should be changed to suit a temporary religious minority. But, perhaps it would do us some good to have alternate theories on creation out there. It would encourage us to look at the situation again. Maybe that's what we really need.
Law enforcement, both police and judges, must feel they are on the same side and under siege by the forces of crime.
Damn. I wasn't aware we were all living in a comic book. There are no "Forces of Crime" out there lurking that the police and judges need to gang up on and bend the intent of laws against. There's a reason we have a Judicial system that is not tied to the Law enforcement system. If judges and law enforcement were on the same side, we wouldn't have trials, just allegations and then summary executions of punishment.
A judge's main purpose is to interpret law, and through that interpretation, validate or invalidate enforcement. Anything near 100% of approvals for these kinds of warrants is ridiculous. That indicates that judges are handing out unchecked police powers, and that should concern you.
Remember, the cops don't need to tap your phone if they already have enough evidence to convict you! And if they don't have enough evidence to convict you of criminal activities without damning phone records, they probably don't have much of a case!
What if Utah passed a state constitutional amendment that let the authorities run roughshod over your rights... tap your phones, put cameras in your house, break in at any time to search and seize your property.
that would be unconstitutional and I would expect the federal courts to overturn the beliefs of the supermajority in Utah.
They already can, all they have to do is call you a "Terrorist". God bless Amerikka.
I'm a designer (print/multimedia/web) by profession and have been for years. To say that Adobe and Macromedia aren't in direct competition is lunacy. Look at the creative suites the two companies offer, with few exceptions, both present programs that do the same thing.
The major differences between the two programs of the same type is how efficiently you can accomplish tasks and how much control you have over what you design. In reality, a good designer can make virtually identical pieces using products from either company. The only major difference is the time required to do it. The design community is used to the fact that there are things that Adobe has perfected and the same holds true for Macromedia. Truth is, outside of some minor annoyances, they work very well together. In any design firm in the world, you'll be able to find offerings from both.
In the world of core graphic design software, there are only two players: Adobe and Macromedia. Without including 3D programs or strict painting programs (which are typically marginalized in most standard print or online applications) no other company comes close.
When all is said and done, this merger is MAJOR. No one can argue that a merger between the two companies could easily produce the "end-all" design suite. I don't know that that scenario is in our best intrests, though. I firmly believe that design has blossomed as much as it has in the last 10 years for print, multimedia and web because there has been at least moderately healthly competition between these two. Removing competition from the playing field is never good for consumers. As for the alternatives out there, I've tried most, and I've gotta give most of them two thumbs way down. As much as I love Linux, open source solutions, and start-up underdogs (and I do love them) you'd be crazy in a business where time is always critical to go with anything less the best.
Poor Nintendo, I'm sure everyone remembers when they were the only game in town. They lost their lead and their market share when they refused to grow up when we grew up. I mean you can't make games for 10yr olds forever. It's never a good thing when your CEO is aiming for second place but,It's good to see Nintendo's head is at least out of the sand. I just wonder if they have enough time to save themselves from utter mediocrity.
Oh please Lord, someone tell the developers the war ended 60 years ago....
They are great games to be sure, but honestly, they've beat the life out of this showboat...
Slashdot Mirror
As a person who is trying to get into Linux, I'm glad someone brought this issue up.
Coming fresh from a Windows environment to Linux, one of the first things you notice is the plethora of ridiculous and sometimes mystifing program and command names. I realize that to a programmer, code junkie, or any other overly technically inclined individual, the inside joke with the prefixes of G and K everywhere is chuckle-worthy. To everyone else, it seems like either a silly joke or deliberate obfuscation. To a new user, you feel like you're too stupid to get what the point of naming something 'Gaim', 'Xine' or 'LiVES' is. The worst offender (and shining case point) is GIMP.
This is not to say that this problem is universal with Linux software. There are plenty of examples of well-named, easy to remember, and relevant names in the Linux library. OpenOffice, MP3c, and Muse are all well named programs that have some relationship to the work they perform.
My point in all this is to say that if Linux is ever going to become mainstream (and by mainstream, I mean my mother and little sister use it): it's simply got to grow out of the Alpha Geek culture it was created in. I firmly believe the biggest problems with Linux right now is the lack of a truly slick GUI and the God-awful naming conventions. These two issues conspire to make Linux look like an out of control Ham Radio project to the average user. Regardless of the disdain that some people on /. have for average users, they are the people Linux will have to cater to if it will ever be anything more than a robust server platform and a hacker playground. It's a exercise in futility to attempt and point out the disassociative names used in Windows programs because more than a few of them already have become so popular that they have become synonyms of the functions they perform. Linux doesn't have that luxury. The attitude that these kinds of issues are only problems to people who haven't 'learned' Linux will keep Linux on the back burner.
Too bad I've got such horrible Karma, I doubt anyone will ever see this.
at the utter irony of /. posting an article about wasting time at work. The paradoxicalness is hurting my head. I need to sit down...
I fail to see how you can prove the basis of this ridiculous argument. Where are you getting this data on the sexual positions of Nurses (or Engineers for that matter). There are only a few professions I can think of where we could say, for certain, what positions are employed. And that's only because it's on video. What happens if *gasp* an Engineer marries a Nurse? What kind of unnatural offspring would that union produce? My god, we're professional Slashdotters here, people. Let's leave blind, ignorant conjecture to the media.
You mean these contests are get harder when there are more contestants? I agree with most of this essay, but here he's trying to prop up BS with useless statistics. 3rd place, 11 years ago does not equal 21st place this year. It equals 3rd place.
It certainly doesn't mean the same level of quality was required of a third place contestant 11 years ago is required today. Logically, it stands to reason that it would be easier (with seven times fewer contestants) to get 3rd place 11 years ago. The bottom line is, if we're so good, why haven't we won in the last 8 years?
...that this thread is a microcomsic snapshot of why there is a an ever-present war between reglious philosophy and scientific theory. I honestly believe that a deep reason for the division lies with us, followers of science. We are willing to go anywhere, try anything, to prove or disprove a theory, to understand better how our world functions. But most of us flatly refuse to view spirituality with anything but contempt. I know I've been that way for most of my adult life. It's been suggested to me countless times that the need for Gods and religions in humanity is due in large part to ignorance about the world around us. Ignorance and fear.
To quote Feynman: "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. "
I feel that most of us believe that a well-informed and educated society will have no place for Gods, no place for unexplained awe, over and above the numbers. But, as an astrophysist, while I find it hard to swallow a "God", I can easily see between the numbers a higher order of intellect staring back at us.I'm surprised that anyone who really attempts to understand our Universe through the sciences, can look at the body of data that we have up to this point and seriously hold onto the belief that all these things just fell into place with no intelligence. Especially when we hold intellect in such high esteem ourselves! Lack of intelligent construction usually ends in chaos. Any cursory look at our world leads me to believe that there are things that we (as scientists) have not even started looking for. My major focus of study is the GUT (Grand Unifed Theory) and as such, requires me to be well versed in a very large number of disciplines. One thing I have seen in the 10 years of study, is that Science is missing something important. Big and important. It's common knowledge that the GUT is going to be simple. Very simple. I think that religious philosophy is a field that few of us dare to venture into impartially and seriously. I freely admit that it's hard to look at modern religions without dismissing most of it at political grandstanding. However, in a couple hundred years we may be looked upon as fools for missing something that been in front of (and occasionally in the way of) us for a very long time.
For the record, I'm very much against formalized religions, named Gods, "Holy" texts or any other contrived structure on the Universe. The are, in my mind not natural obfuscutions and by extension a hinderance on finding out what all of this is really about. Following the sentiment of Douglas Adams, I think that perhaps religions are staring at the 42 on the page but have no idea what the question is.
You certainly don't have to agree with me. But, if you look at the beauty of an evening sky, and truly understand (even part of) it's complexity, it's difficult to believe this all these rules just fell into place, and all the matter fell in behind it.
We shouldn't so quickly and easily dismiss spirituality because of the fools who use it for personal or social gain. I don't believe that the definition of science which has stood for longer then the state of Kansas itself should be changed to suit a temporary religious minority. But, perhaps it would do us some good to have alternate theories on creation out there. It would encourage us to look at the situation again. Maybe that's what we really need.
Damn. I wasn't aware we were all living in a comic book. There are no "Forces of Crime" out there lurking that the police and judges need to gang up on and bend the intent of laws against. There's a reason we have a Judicial system that is not tied to the Law enforcement system. If judges and law enforcement were on the same side, we wouldn't have trials, just allegations and then summary executions of punishment.
A judge's main purpose is to interpret law, and through that interpretation, validate or invalidate enforcement. Anything near 100% of approvals for these kinds of warrants is ridiculous. That indicates that judges are handing out unchecked police powers, and that should concern you.
Remember, the cops don't need to tap your phone if they already have enough evidence to convict you! And if they don't have enough evidence to convict you of criminal activities without damning phone records, they probably don't have much of a case!
the Post Office doesn't have a RBL for AOL CD's...
What if Utah passed a state constitutional amendment that let the authorities run roughshod over your rights... tap your phones, put cameras in your house, break in at any time to search and seize your property. that would be unconstitutional and I would expect the federal courts to overturn the beliefs of the supermajority in Utah.
They already can, all they have to do is call you a "Terrorist". God bless Amerikka.I'm a designer (print/multimedia/web) by profession and have been for years. To say that Adobe and Macromedia aren't in direct competition is lunacy. Look at the creative suites the two companies offer, with few exceptions, both present programs that do the same thing.
Photoshop & Fireworks = Raster editors
Flash & After Effects & LiveMotion = Motion graphic editors
Dreaweaver & GoLive = Extended HTML WYSIWYG editors
Illustrator & Freehand = Vector editors
The major differences between the two programs of the same type is how efficiently you can accomplish tasks and how much control you have over what you design. In reality, a good designer can make virtually identical pieces using products from either company. The only major difference is the time required to do it. The design community is used to the fact that there are things that Adobe has perfected and the same holds true for Macromedia. Truth is, outside of some minor annoyances, they work very well together. In any design firm in the world, you'll be able to find offerings from both.
In the world of core graphic design software, there are only two players: Adobe and Macromedia. Without including 3D programs or strict painting programs (which are typically marginalized in most standard print or online applications) no other company comes close.
When all is said and done, this merger is MAJOR. No one can argue that a merger between the two companies could easily produce the "end-all" design suite. I don't know that that scenario is in our best intrests, though. I firmly believe that design has blossomed as much as it has in the last 10 years for print, multimedia and web because there has been at least moderately healthly competition between these two. Removing competition from the playing field is never good for consumers. As for the alternatives out there, I've tried most, and I've gotta give most of them two thumbs way down. As much as I love Linux, open source solutions, and start-up underdogs (and I do love them) you'd be crazy in a business where time is always critical to go with anything less the best.
Just my two credits.
Poor Nintendo, I'm sure everyone remembers when they were the only game in town. They lost their lead and their market share when they refused to grow up when we grew up. I mean you can't make games for 10yr olds forever. It's never a good thing when your CEO is aiming for second place but,It's good to see Nintendo's head is at least out of the sand. I just wonder if they have enough time to save themselves from utter mediocrity.
Oh please Lord, someone tell the developers the war ended 60 years ago.... They are great games to be sure, but honestly, they've beat the life out of this showboat...