That does still leave the question of whether or not there is some correlation between violent video games and violence in real life. Just as there is legislation assigning a certain amount of blame for actions contributing to a crime, it is worth trying to know (not sure it can be definitively known) if the correlation exists and is statistically significant, and is causal.
If only parenting were a science, and monitoring and interacting with children were something all parents would do. But, from personal experience, it can be difficult at best, impossible at worst to do this. Unfettered access to all kinds of influences is almost pro-actively flooding the senses and decision making channels of youth today, and parently alone may not be enough.
So, back to legislation -- I don't think I'd ever want to tell game makers what games they can or cannot make, but if there IS a link between their games and the actions of people (not even just children), they contribute.... Make the game if you will, but accept responsibility at some level for the game you create. (This is not that uncommon... bar owners can be found liable for continuing to give alcohol to someone who is extremely intoxicated and later involved in a serious accident.)
The OP says Tim Buckley, of the webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del, had the chance
to put forth an opposing viewpoint.
To the crux of the whole matter, here is his viewpoint:
Q:Is there a
correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent
manner?
A (Buckley): I don't believe so. I think that if someone plays a video game, and then
goes out and harms another human being, or themselves because of what they
just saw in the video game, they were screwed up in the head long before
they got their hands on a controller. In my profession I have met thousands
and thousands of gamers, all of whom have played the same type of violent
video games that I have, and we've managed not to kill each other.
There you have it. Tim Buckley has rebutted the stance (backed up by
various studies, by his own admission) that violent video games correlate
with violent actions. He doesn't believe so.
Hopefully in the future coverage we'll get some more objective
rebuttals... Perhaps, "I've never seen a case of violence related to video
games...", or "Those people who think video game violence correlates to acts
of violence are stupid".
Kidding aside, I've never played GTA, but saw clips of it on a news
segment on TV (the state is considering a law assigning a certain
contributory negligence for crimes committed as a result of watching video
games (not saying I'm for that law)). The clips of GTA left me feeling
disturbed. I've seen violence in movies and had differing levels of
reaction to movie violence, but there may be something to be said about the
setting of a movie, and the passive nature of the viewers' interaction with
a movie. On the other hand, what I saw with GTA was a young person pressing
buttons, using body english and "connecting" with a brutal sequence of
shootings, and then a realistic beating of a "prostitute" with a golf club
(complete with grunts of exertion from the perp, to screams of pain from the
prostitute).
I don't know if this kind of game does have an effect, but I believe it
might, and even may have a high probability of having an effect. At least
it needs to be studied. I only know anecdotally I came away from only
watching clips from the game and had a much more vicarious and disturbed
feeling of having experienced violence.
For the record, I don't think it is how tech-savvy a manager is that predicts how effective he (or she) will be. The very best manager I've ever worked with (actually there are two) wasn't technically adept, at all. But her most redeeming and valuable characteristics included:
intellectual curiosity
a keen sense of time
fairness
ability to make decisions and stick to them
great instinct
On the other hand some of the very worst management I've ever worked with was quite technically savvy... but had no common sense about what managing a project (or company) meant.
Bottom line, while having good technical background may be useful, I don't think it has much relationship with the ability of someone to lead or manage. I think really good managers have good instincts, and my anecdotal experiences in life tell me these aren't traits one teaches... They know how to beg, borrow, barter, steal, and massage team members.... and do it intelligently and fairly and with dispatch.
I remember in one of my first code reviews a peer dressed me down for writing "inefficient" code, specifically, I think it was my "while" constructs. I was dumbfounded! I was given the lecture on compiler optimizations, blah, blah, blah. I dug in and claimed bullhockey -- it was more important to understand the code, not even necessarily for other coders, but for one's self should one have to revisit code after a long absence.
I know compiler theory, and that's basically what it is... if you write code to home in on compiler efficiency, you're doing it on theory, you don't necessarily know your compiler will do what you think it will. And for those of you who "do", you don't know where else your code will go and be compiled. You run the risk of propogating obtuse code (submit to Obfuscated Code...).
Besides, there's nothing like aging code to improve efficiency... for some reason my code is written so well, it runs twice as fast about every 18 months.
And, per another poster, code not worth timing is not worth optimizing... I've never known a bit-head who "optimizes" C-code to time it to verify its improved efficiency.
I remember in one of my first code reviews a peer dressed me down for writing "inefficient" code, specifically, I think it was my "while" constructs. I was dumbfounded! I was given the lecture on compiler optimizations, blah, blah, blah. I dug in and claimed bullhockey -- it was more important to understand the code, not even necessarily for other coders, but for one's self should one have to revisit code after a long absence.
I know compiler theory, and that's basically what it is... if you write code to home in on compiler efficiency, you're doing it on theory, you don't necessarily know your compiler will do what you think it will. And for those of you who "do", you don't know where else your code will go and be compiled. You run the risk of propogating obtuse code (submit to Obfuscated Code...).
Besides, there's nothing like aging code to improve efficiency... for some reason my code is written so well, it runs twice as fast about every 18 months.
And, per another poster, code not worth timing is not worth optimizing... I've never known a bit-head who "optimizes" C-code to time it to verify its improved efficiency.
This may seem to over simplify the problem, but in real life experience I've found this approach works.
I remember in one of my first code reviews a peer dressed me down for writing "inefficient" code, specifically, I think it was my "while" constructs. I was dumbfounded! I was given the lecture on compiler optimizations, blah, blah, blah. I dug in and claimed bullhockey -- it was more important to understand the code, not even necessarily for other coders, but for one's self should one have to revisit code after a long absence.
I know compiler theory, and that's basically what it is... if you write code to home in on compiler efficiency, you're doing it on theory, you don't necessarily know your compiler will do what you think it will. And for those of you who "do", you don't know where else your code will go and be compiled. You run the risk of propogating obtuse code (submit to Obfuscated Code...).
Besides, there's nothing like aging code to improve efficiency... for some reason my code is written so well, it runs twice as fast about every 18 months.
And, per another poster, code not worth timing is not worth optimizing... I've never known a bit-head who "optimizes" C-code to time it to verify its improved efficiency.
The most damaging aspect of all from this "comparison" isn't so much the results... The/. posters have given many excellent rebuttals to this, it's hardly worth more rehashing.
I think the most damage to the reputation and progress of linux is that this comparison gets the imprimatur of syndication and publication in "respected" newspapers. (Of course, nestled in the byline, one may notice the AP reporter is from Seattle, hmmmmmmm). For those who may not have read the article, it is worth the read.... and if you have thoughts about this (as in, IMO, it's a puff piece for Microsoft), note that the column thoughtfully includes the e-mail address (I'll include here for even MORE convenience: Brier Dudley) for the reader to easily contact the reporter...
..., It's been over a decade since the first browser - and all we have to show for it from Microsoft, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla put together is what? A new way of doing tables and tabs!,...
I just can't let that one skate...
A large chunk of useful energy, time, innovation has been lost in the last 10 years, attributable largely (IMO) to Microsoft. Consider that Microsoft didn't jump into the browser wars to innovate, but instead to choke off Netscape's air supply, and gain dominance in the browser market... This they did with typical Microsoft elan.
A speed bump for browser innovation to be sure, since Microsoft's crippling blow to the rest of the marketplace guaranteed, -- with their dominance, -- no further innovation would be necessary.... why would Microsoft continue to innovate?, They didn't have to!
It is only the tenacity and grit and determination of the decimated browser marketplace that kept Netscape, et. al., alive. And from those dedicated other parties we got: tabbed browsing..., blocked popups, and more.
Had the last ten years not been handicapped so severely by Microsoft's swift and nearly fatal blow to browser competition, there would have been ZERO innovation. (Interestingly, now that there is gathering momentum with Firefox, Microsoft has seen fit to create the IE Team-Redux. For further browser innovation? What do YOU think?).
The most damaging aspect of all from this "comparison" isn't so much the results... The/. posters have given many excellent rebuttals to this, it's hardly worth more rehashing.
I think the most damage to the reputation and progress of linux is that this comparison gets the imprimatur of syndication and publication in "respected" newspapers. (Of course, nestled in the byline, one may notice the AP reporter is from Seattle, hmmmmmmm). For those who may not have read the article, it is worth the read.... and if you have thoughts about this (as in, IMO, it's a puff piece for Microsoft), note that the column thoughtfully includes the e-mail address (I'll include here for even MORE convenience: Brier Dudley) for the reader to easily contact the reporter...
Good to hear -- I was pretty much aware that some industries not only do this sort of quality, but are REQUIRED to do so. I used to consult for a firm that made implantable heart devices (essentially a defibrillator), and they used the same process. Interestingly (to me) at the time, some of the engineers were Microsoft advocates, and wanted to do the entire development and implementation in Windows. Turns out, the level of certification for Windows (NT at the time) didn't exist -- the government wouldn't even permit them to try it. Phew!
..., Most auto manufacturers are EXTREMELY anal about the reliability of their parts
That's good to hear... at least about the reliability of their parts. But the most reliable never-ever-ever-fail processor is only as good as the software running on it.... I guess from my perspective, the scary part is the attitude I'm seeing around the software, not the hardware.
..., I don't care if I have to reboot my car. I understand that with advances in systems, there comes problems, and as long as I can reboot it as easily as my PC, thats fine. And it needs to have a lot of redundancy built in so that not only does it not disrupt my driving, but I can do it on the fly too,....
I concur with another reply to this comment. I find it interesting we've come to a level of quality in our technology that consumers actually expect and assume things will need to be rebooted. As for the OP of this reply, if one would be expecting and not minding a reboot as normal activity, how would one at the same time expect reliability such as "a lot of redundancy" to co-exist? If something is ill-behaved enough to likely require reboots, it IMO is equally likely to not have reliable redundancy.
In the IT industry, I've encountered people who found something to work reliably 999 times out of 1000 to be good reliability (I used to work at microsoft -- many of them considered that good). But when you start talking about my car, I really think reliability needs to be essentially perfect. God help us if we start seeing this attitude in jet and airplane technology. (If we had.999 reliability in takeoffs and landings, guess how many crashes (literally) there would be every day!)
..., But if you're baffled by people's adherence to MS Office, then you've never used this kind of software in a real-world environment. Being able to pass a file around without interopeability problems is crucial.
I am STILL baffled... I have attended meetings where I worked where people literally were not able to print or view agendas, etc. ahead of the meeting because of the incompatibilities among the microsoft applications! Were it not so counter-productive to the work at hand, it would have been funny. (And this was/is an almost every-meeting event.)
I for one have been burned by this.... I wanted to record a show, and because NBC had stepped on the time frame, my tivo complained and said it conflicted with NBC's ER, and did I want to cancel the ER recording. In this case, it was an easy answer.... yes, not so much because I really, really wanted to watch the show I was asking to record, but because I found it so annoying to get snagged by the NBC trick. I knew eventually I would encounter this, having seen the perturbed time schedules and had resolved to respond thusly.
I then wrote a polite but firmly worded letter to NBC telling them that while I was only one person, I was cancelling my tivo season pass for ER and would not be a viewer again until they dispensed with the cuteness. I don't suppose that will have had any effect -- I am only one viewer, but if people would voice their annoyance.... maybe it would help.
As an aside, yes it is easy to work around this... and easy enough to put in manual overrides to get what you want to watch, but the entire point (okay one of the big points) of tivo is its ability to handle everything for you. If I wanted to enter times and channels and babysit the schedule, I'd have just gotten a $90 vcr. Go figure.
(OTOH: I suppose there really is the possibility the writing skills and scheduling are so finely honed at NBC they really do need to schedule down to the minute....:-) (sorry about the smiley)...:-( (and the frowny))
OTOH, the CLI answer *could* just as easily be anything, and it can be pretty hard to find if you don't know....
Actually, in the context of the discussion it couldn't be anything, it was being discussed as "wc", and that is mainly the point. It was "wc" (we're basically talking unix/posix 1003.2 here) in the early seventies, and it's "wc" today. And it does essentially the same thing today as then.
Compare that with using a GUI, and I might say, I don't remember exactly where 'word count' is, but quickly scrolling through the menus will find it in any decent word processor. Usually, if there are any options to be found, it'll be apparent-- I won't need to RTFM.
Maybe it's just two different ways of approaching the interface.... Scrolling through menus doesn't work well for me.... Yes, I remember the option or tool was "stats", or "word count", or "properties".... and I begin my treasure hunt. Unfortunately, most GUI apps seem to have everything AND the kitchen sink, so that search can take a long time. OTOH, for me, I find it much easier to type "wc fname"..... Done! Don't have to look for it.... don't have to RTFM.... Again the context here is we know what we're going to use, so there isn't a requirement to learn it.
I see we agree on the menus..., and I don't think we're that far separated on philosophy.
Yes, you found it.... I've found it, many times! But why would we even have to go through this hoop in the first place? The crowning achievements I'm seeing in posters is, "I found it!", which misses the point. In WORD, and most other MS products, learning how, when, where, and why typically isn't sufficient to "know" the interface -- they're always changing it -- and we're always having to re-learn it. I can do that, I can deal with it, but why should I have to?
Learn it once, that should be all you have to know.
And, again to my point about the chevron menus -- it wasn't that the problem is/was insoluble, just that it even exists in the first place. Plus, it really does become a pain trying to help people, especially over the phone.
Already I'm seeing in the posts exactly what and why CLI users throw up their hands trying to deal with GUI.... and "wc" is a pretty good example. When the OP asked Think: do you know how to count the words in a Word file?, I knew without even reading on in the posts I was going to encounter (and, I did):
at least two versions/ways to do wc in a word doc within the first 10 posts, and....
a real attitude from the anointed who had the "answer".
For those who didn't bother to sign up for the clue, the question was mostly rhetorical, and was an example of the diff between CLI and GUI. I know my immediate response wasn't, "I know EXACTLY how to do that in word," but rather, "Hmmmmm, I know I've solved that and found that "option" SOMEWHERE in word before, but I don't remember exactly where..."
OTOH, were you to ask CLI users the same question.... they would all know exactly how to use wc, and interestingly enough, had you asked the same question to the CLI users over the past fifteen years you would have gotten the same answers. So, in addition to a simple answer, CLI is a consistent one.
P.S.And don't even get me started about the menus with chevrons! Assuming for the sake of argument we are talking about the current version of WORD, have YOU ever tried to walk someone through this kind of stuff over the phone? With MS' genius implementation of self-modifying menus, you could "claim" something is in a menu when trying to help someone when in fact because of their use menus, their menu is completely different from yours.
I have 1300 CD's, accumulated over many years. My Karma doesn't even come close to being able to hold that much music. Do I wish it could? You bet! Am I a niche market? For now, probably.
But, there are so many more ways to use disk storage than music, and these devices are finally branching out in cool ways, with nice quality color screens, and the ability to display photos, and digital video. For now, while to some 20G may seem extreme, there is still a need for growing storage and will be for some time.
As to whether it should be moving-parts technology like hard drives, I tend to agree the fewer moving parts the better. But the newer technology for small reliable drives has become quite good (not perfect) and will get better. Eventually we may see some breakthroughs that allow either rock-solid reliable HD's, or some kind of memory devices that have no moving parts. Either way, I'll be happy.
I also had a 110 (actually 110 + 1), and a 400 CD changer both of which had the random function. But, I didn't find it totally satisfactory. Most notably the noise when changing disks, and also the delay between songs.
I also have the Karma now (it was a gift), and I LOVE it! What maybe isn't clear in the original article is the user doesn't just turnn on the Karma in random mode and let it play for four hours. The Karma has a DJ "wizard", and you can ask it to generate playlists for you based on criteria. Some examples, but not limited to:
length of playing time you want your playlist to cover
exclusion (don't put any songs I've listened to on the playlist from the last xx days)
genre of music selected for your playlist
linear, repeat, shuffle (random) playing of items from playlist
"popularity" of songs (put songs into playlist from the top xx listened-to songs)
year music is from
"oldies" (add songs to playlist which I haven't listened to in the last xx days or weeks)
My CD changers served me well, but I welcome the change and improvement... (for example, it is really nice to be able to slip the Karma out of its dock, and go out and do yard work with the same selection of songs as what I had indoors. Additionally, even recording mp3's at 192K, I have a 2/3 full Karma with almost 200 CD's
Also, instead of a 30 lb. (fully loaded) changer taking up lots of space in my cabinet, the Karma is itsy-bitsy, and can be put anywhere.
Not saying your changer isn't plenty good, but if you ever get the opportunity (fits your budget, a good friend gives you one:-), blah, blah, blah), go for it... you won't be disappointed.
This poster may be a fan of the x86 architecture, but for me it is a tipoff of pop-technology.
Have you ever programmed at the assembly level for x86?!? This technology has essentially been kludge upon kludge (IMO) for years. I've always marvelled it works at all.
Compare and contrast to some of the Apple chips, especially and specifically the Motorola architecture. A dream to code for, and nicely architected. I could write a compiler for the Motorola architecture in a day.
So, what are the criteria for this affection, or affinity? Maybe the price? Maybe the mainstream nature of the chips? As for whether to switch if OSX were implemented on x86, it'd sure be tempting I guess if it were price competitive.
Yes, the public can enjoy much higher quality... but they don't demand it. I can't count the number of friends/acquaintences I know whose entertainment systems are nice, but low tech compared to what's available. 5.1, 7.1, digital outputs, etc. just aren't that important to the masses. But, a tivo can be had and setup for about the price of a mid-range vcr, and the benefits are tremendous. Add to it the ability to seamlessly add movies via netflix, I think the general populace will respond to that convenience.
Again, to my main posted point, Tivo keeps a finger on the pulse of the manifest demand, and seems to have a knack for having the more sophisticated technology ready when the demand is there.
I think it can and will. Tivo has been progressive and creative and way out ahead of the curve (I believe I had one of the very first Tivo's six years ago) while at the same time maintaining conservative sanity, i.e., not spending too much time on the bleeding edge of the TV standards too early. Hence, while HDTV has been around for a LONG time, Tivo has only this year rolled out their HDTV offerings.
While some demand digital outputs, and 5.1, and 7.1, the masses will respond (IMO). Tivo will be there when the curve lifts them to natural buoyancy and the market is ready to drive the demand. But (again, IMO), to borrow a context from Jesus Jones, "right here, right now" the market will be just fine without the 5.1 and 7.1 digital output. But Tivo will be there when it's time.
Slashdot Mirror
That does still leave the question of whether or not there is some correlation between violent video games and violence in real life. Just as there is legislation assigning a certain amount of blame for actions contributing to a crime, it is worth trying to know (not sure it can be definitively known) if the correlation exists and is statistically significant, and is causal.
If only parenting were a science, and monitoring and interacting with children were something all parents would do. But, from personal experience, it can be difficult at best, impossible at worst to do this. Unfettered access to all kinds of influences is almost pro-actively flooding the senses and decision making channels of youth today, and parently alone may not be enough.
So, back to legislation -- I don't think I'd ever want to tell game makers what games they can or cannot make, but if there IS a link between their games and the actions of people (not even just children), they contribute.... Make the game if you will, but accept responsibility at some level for the game you create. (This is not that uncommon... bar owners can be found liable for continuing to give alcohol to someone who is extremely intoxicated and later involved in a serious accident.)
To the crux of the whole matter, here is his viewpoint:
Q:Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?
A (Buckley): I don't believe so. I think that if someone plays a video game, and then goes out and harms another human being, or themselves because of what they just saw in the video game, they were screwed up in the head long before they got their hands on a controller. In my profession I have met thousands and thousands of gamers, all of whom have played the same type of violent video games that I have, and we've managed not to kill each other.
There you have it. Tim Buckley has rebutted the stance (backed up by various studies, by his own admission) that violent video games correlate with violent actions. He doesn't believe so.
Hopefully in the future coverage we'll get some more objective rebuttals... Perhaps, "I've never seen a case of violence related to video games...", or "Those people who think video game violence correlates to acts of violence are stupid".
Kidding aside, I've never played GTA, but saw clips of it on a news segment on TV (the state is considering a law assigning a certain contributory negligence for crimes committed as a result of watching video games (not saying I'm for that law)). The clips of GTA left me feeling disturbed. I've seen violence in movies and had differing levels of reaction to movie violence, but there may be something to be said about the setting of a movie, and the passive nature of the viewers' interaction with a movie. On the other hand, what I saw with GTA was a young person pressing buttons, using body english and "connecting" with a brutal sequence of shootings, and then a realistic beating of a "prostitute" with a golf club (complete with grunts of exertion from the perp, to screams of pain from the prostitute).
I don't know if this kind of game does have an effect, but I believe it might, and even may have a high probability of having an effect. At least it needs to be studied. I only know anecdotally I came away from only watching clips from the game and had a much more vicarious and disturbed feeling of having experienced violence.
For the record, I don't think it is how tech-savvy a manager is that predicts how effective he (or she) will be. The very best manager I've ever worked with (actually there are two) wasn't technically adept, at all. But her most redeeming and valuable characteristics included:
On the other hand some of the very worst management I've ever worked with was quite technically savvy... but had no common sense about what managing a project (or company) meant.
Bottom line, while having good technical background may be useful, I don't think it has much relationship with the ability of someone to lead or manage. I think really good managers have good instincts, and my anecdotal experiences in life tell me these aren't traits one teaches... They know how to beg, borrow, barter, steal, and massage team members.... and do it intelligently and fairly and with dispatch.
I remember in one of my first code reviews a peer dressed me down for writing "inefficient" code, specifically, I think it was my "while" constructs. I was dumbfounded! I was given the lecture on compiler optimizations, blah, blah, blah. I dug in and claimed bullhockey -- it was more important to understand the code, not even necessarily for other coders, but for one's self should one have to revisit code after a long absence.
I know compiler theory, and that's basically what it is... if you write code to home in on compiler efficiency, you're doing it on theory, you don't necessarily know your compiler will do what you think it will. And for those of you who "do", you don't know where else your code will go and be compiled. You run the risk of propogating obtuse code (submit to Obfuscated Code...).
Besides, there's nothing like aging code to improve efficiency... for some reason my code is written so well, it runs twice as fast about every 18 months.
And, per another poster, code not worth timing is not worth optimizing... I've never known a bit-head who "optimizes" C-code to time it to verify its improved efficiency.
I remember in one of my first code reviews a peer dressed me down for writing "inefficient" code, specifically, I think it was my "while" constructs. I was dumbfounded! I was given the lecture on compiler optimizations, blah, blah, blah. I dug in and claimed bullhockey -- it was more important to understand the code, not even necessarily for other coders, but for one's self should one have to revisit code after a long absence.
I know compiler theory, and that's basically what it is... if you write code to home in on compiler efficiency, you're doing it on theory, you don't necessarily know your compiler will do what you think it will. And for those of you who "do", you don't know where else your code will go and be compiled. You run the risk of propogating obtuse code (submit to Obfuscated Code...).
Besides, there's nothing like aging code to improve efficiency... for some reason my code is written so well, it runs twice as fast about every 18 months.
And, per another poster, code not worth timing is not worth optimizing... I've never known a bit-head who "optimizes" C-code to time it to verify its improved efficiency.
This may seem to over simplify the problem, but in real life experience I've found this approach works.
What if I use ncurses? I've been using ncurses for years now and actually prefer it to curses. Can I still get fined for using this?
I remember in one of my first code reviews a peer dressed me down for writing "inefficient" code, specifically, I think it was my "while" constructs. I was dumbfounded! I was given the lecture on compiler optimizations, blah, blah, blah. I dug in and claimed bullhockey -- it was more important to understand the code, not even necessarily for other coders, but for one's self should one have to revisit code after a long absence.
I know compiler theory, and that's basically what it is... if you write code to home in on compiler efficiency, you're doing it on theory, you don't necessarily know your compiler will do what you think it will. And for those of you who "do", you don't know where else your code will go and be compiled. You run the risk of propogating obtuse code (submit to Obfuscated Code...).
Besides, there's nothing like aging code to improve efficiency... for some reason my code is written so well, it runs twice as fast about every 18 months.
And, per another poster, code not worth timing is not worth optimizing... I've never known a bit-head who "optimizes" C-code to time it to verify its improved efficiency.
I think the most damage to the reputation and progress of linux is that this comparison gets the imprimatur of syndication and publication in "respected" newspapers. (Of course, nestled in the byline, one may notice the AP reporter is from Seattle, hmmmmmmm). For those who may not have read the article, it is worth the read.... and if you have thoughts about this (as in, IMO, it's a puff piece for Microsoft), note that the column thoughtfully includes the e-mail address (I'll include here for even MORE convenience: Brier Dudley) for the reader to easily contact the reporter...
I just can't let that one skate...
A large chunk of useful energy, time, innovation has been lost in the last 10 years, attributable largely (IMO) to Microsoft. Consider that Microsoft didn't jump into the browser wars to innovate, but instead to choke off Netscape's air supply, and gain dominance in the browser market... This they did with typical Microsoft elan.
A speed bump for browser innovation to be sure, since Microsoft's crippling blow to the rest of the marketplace guaranteed, -- with their dominance, -- no further innovation would be necessary.... why would Microsoft continue to innovate?, They didn't have to!
It is only the tenacity and grit and determination of the decimated browser marketplace that kept Netscape, et. al., alive. And from those dedicated other parties we got: tabbed browsing..., blocked popups, and more.
Had the last ten years not been handicapped so severely by Microsoft's swift and nearly fatal blow to browser competition, there would have been ZERO innovation. (Interestingly, now that there is gathering momentum with Firefox, Microsoft has seen fit to create the IE Team-Redux. For further browser innovation? What do YOU think?).
I think the most damage to the reputation and progress of linux is that this comparison gets the imprimatur of syndication and publication in "respected" newspapers. (Of course, nestled in the byline, one may notice the AP reporter is from Seattle, hmmmmmmm). For those who may not have read the article, it is worth the read.... and if you have thoughts about this (as in, IMO, it's a puff piece for Microsoft), note that the column thoughtfully includes the e-mail address (I'll include here for even MORE convenience: Brier Dudley) for the reader to easily contact the reporter...
Careful! You're treading very close to the new Staples (tm) "EASY" button! And therefore, I suspect, very likely to be sued!
Not to mention the decision on the part of amazon.com to also vest heavily in linux technology.
Good to hear -- I was pretty much aware that some industries not only do this sort of quality, but are REQUIRED to do so. I used to consult for a firm that made implantable heart devices (essentially a defibrillator), and they used the same process. Interestingly (to me) at the time, some of the engineers were Microsoft advocates, and wanted to do the entire development and implementation in Windows. Turns out, the level of certification for Windows (NT at the time) didn't exist -- the government wouldn't even permit them to try it. Phew!
That's good to hear... at least about the reliability of their parts. But the most reliable never-ever-ever-fail processor is only as good as the software running on it.... I guess from my perspective, the scary part is the attitude I'm seeing around the software, not the hardware.
I concur with another reply to this comment. I find it interesting we've come to a level of quality in our technology that consumers actually expect and assume things will need to be rebooted. As for the OP of this reply, if one would be expecting and not minding a reboot as normal activity, how would one at the same time expect reliability such as "a lot of redundancy" to co-exist? If something is ill-behaved enough to likely require reboots, it IMO is equally likely to not have reliable redundancy.
In the IT industry, I've encountered people who found something to work reliably 999 times out of 1000 to be good reliability (I used to work at microsoft -- many of them considered that good). But when you start talking about my car, I really think reliability needs to be essentially perfect. God help us if we start seeing this attitude in jet and airplane technology. (If we had .999 reliability in takeoffs and landings, guess how many crashes (literally) there would be every day!)
I am STILL baffled... I have attended meetings where I worked where people literally were not able to print or view agendas, etc. ahead of the meeting because of the incompatibilities among the microsoft applications! Were it not so counter-productive to the work at hand, it would have been funny. (And this was/is an almost every-meeting event.)
I then wrote a polite but firmly worded letter to NBC telling them that while I was only one person, I was cancelling my tivo season pass for ER and would not be a viewer again until they dispensed with the cuteness. I don't suppose that will have had any effect -- I am only one viewer, but if people would voice their annoyance.... maybe it would help.
As an aside, yes it is easy to work around this... and easy enough to put in manual overrides to get what you want to watch, but the entire point (okay one of the big points) of tivo is its ability to handle everything for you. If I wanted to enter times and channels and babysit the schedule, I'd have just gotten a $90 vcr. Go figure.
(OTOH: I suppose there really is the possibility the writing skills and scheduling are so finely honed at NBC they really do need to schedule down to the minute.... :-) (sorry about the smiley)... :-( (and the frowny))
Actually, in the context of the discussion it couldn't be anything, it was being discussed as "wc", and that is mainly the point. It was "wc" (we're basically talking unix/posix 1003.2 here) in the early seventies, and it's "wc" today. And it does essentially the same thing today as then.
Compare that with using a GUI, and I might say, I don't remember exactly where 'word count' is, but quickly scrolling through the menus will find it in any decent word processor. Usually, if there are any options to be found, it'll be apparent-- I won't need to RTFM.
Maybe it's just two different ways of approaching the interface.... Scrolling through menus doesn't work well for me.... Yes, I remember the option or tool was "stats", or "word count", or "properties".... and I begin my treasure hunt. Unfortunately, most GUI apps seem to have everything AND the kitchen sink, so that search can take a long time. OTOH, for me, I find it much easier to type "wc fname"..... Done! Don't have to look for it.... don't have to RTFM.... Again the context here is we know what we're going to use, so there isn't a requirement to learn it.
I see we agree on the menus..., and I don't think we're that far separated on philosophy.
Yes, you found it.... I've found it, many times! But why would we even have to go through this hoop in the first place? The crowning achievements I'm seeing in posters is, "I found it!", which misses the point. In WORD, and most other MS products, learning how, when, where, and why typically isn't sufficient to "know" the interface -- they're always changing it -- and we're always having to re-learn it. I can do that, I can deal with it, but why should I have to?
Learn it once, that should be all you have to know.
And, again to my point about the chevron menus -- it wasn't that the problem is/was insoluble, just that it even exists in the first place. Plus, it really does become a pain trying to help people, especially over the phone.
Already I'm seeing in the posts exactly what and why CLI users throw up their hands trying to deal with GUI.... and "wc" is a pretty good example. When the OP asked Think: do you know how to count the words in a Word file?, I knew without even reading on in the posts I was going to encounter (and, I did):
For those who didn't bother to sign up for the clue, the question was mostly rhetorical, and was an example of the diff between CLI and GUI. I know my immediate response wasn't, "I know EXACTLY how to do that in word," but rather, "Hmmmmm, I know I've solved that and found that "option" SOMEWHERE in word before, but I don't remember exactly where..."
OTOH, were you to ask CLI users the same question.... they would all know exactly how to use wc, and interestingly enough, had you asked the same question to the CLI users over the past fifteen years you would have gotten the same answers. So, in addition to a simple answer, CLI is a consistent one.
P.S.And don't even get me started about the menus with chevrons! Assuming for the sake of argument we are talking about the current version of WORD, have YOU ever tried to walk someone through this kind of stuff over the phone? With MS' genius implementation of self-modifying menus, you could "claim" something is in a menu when trying to help someone when in fact because of their use menus, their menu is completely different from yours.
I have 1300 CD's, accumulated over many years. My Karma doesn't even come close to being able to hold that much music. Do I wish it could? You bet! Am I a niche market? For now, probably.
But, there are so many more ways to use disk storage than music, and these devices are finally branching out in cool ways, with nice quality color screens, and the ability to display photos, and digital video. For now, while to some 20G may seem extreme, there is still a need for growing storage and will be for some time.
As to whether it should be moving-parts technology like hard drives, I tend to agree the fewer moving parts the better. But the newer technology for small reliable drives has become quite good (not perfect) and will get better. Eventually we may see some breakthroughs that allow either rock-solid reliable HD's, or some kind of memory devices that have no moving parts. Either way, I'll be happy.
I also had a 110 (actually 110 + 1), and a 400 CD changer both of which had the random function. But, I didn't find it totally satisfactory. Most notably the noise when changing disks, and also the delay between songs.
I also have the Karma now (it was a gift), and I LOVE it! What maybe isn't clear in the original article is the user doesn't just turnn on the Karma in random mode and let it play for four hours. The Karma has a DJ "wizard", and you can ask it to generate playlists for you based on criteria. Some examples, but not limited to:
My CD changers served me well, but I welcome the change and improvement... (for example, it is really nice to be able to slip the Karma out of its dock, and go out and do yard work with the same selection of songs as what I had indoors. Additionally, even recording mp3's at 192K, I have a 2/3 full Karma with almost 200 CD's
Also, instead of a 30 lb. (fully loaded) changer taking up lots of space in my cabinet, the Karma is itsy-bitsy, and can be put anywhere.
Not saying your changer isn't plenty good, but if you ever get the opportunity (fits your budget, a good friend gives you one :-), blah, blah, blah), go for it... you won't be disappointed.
This poster may be a fan of the x86 architecture, but for me it is a tipoff of pop-technology.
Have you ever programmed at the assembly level for x86?!? This technology has essentially been kludge upon kludge (IMO) for years. I've always marvelled it works at all.
Compare and contrast to some of the Apple chips, especially and specifically the Motorola architecture. A dream to code for, and nicely architected. I could write a compiler for the Motorola architecture in a day.
So, what are the criteria for this affection, or affinity? Maybe the price? Maybe the mainstream nature of the chips? As for whether to switch if OSX were implemented on x86, it'd sure be tempting I guess if it were price competitive.
Yes, the public can enjoy much higher quality... but they don't demand it. I can't count the number of friends/acquaintences I know whose entertainment systems are nice, but low tech compared to what's available. 5.1, 7.1, digital outputs, etc. just aren't that important to the masses. But, a tivo can be had and setup for about the price of a mid-range vcr, and the benefits are tremendous. Add to it the ability to seamlessly add movies via netflix, I think the general populace will respond to that convenience.
Again, to my main posted point, Tivo keeps a finger on the pulse of the manifest demand, and seems to have a knack for having the more sophisticated technology ready when the demand is there.
You are correct, time will tell.
I think it can and will. Tivo has been progressive and creative and way out ahead of the curve (I believe I had one of the very first Tivo's six years ago) while at the same time maintaining conservative sanity, i.e., not spending too much time on the bleeding edge of the TV standards too early. Hence, while HDTV has been around for a LONG time, Tivo has only this year rolled out their HDTV offerings.
While some demand digital outputs, and 5.1, and 7.1, the masses will respond (IMO). Tivo will be there when the curve lifts them to natural buoyancy and the market is ready to drive the demand. But (again, IMO), to borrow a context from Jesus Jones, "right here, right now" the market will be just fine without the 5.1 and 7.1 digital output. But Tivo will be there when it's time.