Wrong. The mistake that Microsoft made with the translation of male and female options to Spanish is one that would have been caught easily during QA testing if they had anyone who speaks Spanish in their testing labs. From this mistake it's obvious that they simply did a dictionary translation and there was no one checking the machine translation.
As I said before, it's all about context. No machine is currently capable of perfectly translating a phrase from one language to another because of context. For that you need human intelligence, and it's why any software that is translated from one language to another needs to be verified by a native speaker. You can't rely only on automatic tools. Microsoft didn't do their work and therefore they were at fault.
It's true that the Spanish word "coger" can mean to pick up something or someone, or it can mean to have intercourse with someone, it all dependes on context. But the same can be said of the English word "screw." Fact is, all languages have words whose meanings depend on the way they're used.
It seems to me incredible that a company as big as Microsoft would not have on staff a native Spanish speaker to check their translations. It's not that hard to find a Spanish-speaking person in the US. I guess it's a reflection on how much they value their non-English speaking customers.
In my previous post, the formatting was obliterated. Here it is again:
If Linux developers really want to simplify software installation, they should move beyond the idea of a unified installer, and instead move to the idea of a drag and drop installation.
Software installation shouldn't be harder than a drag and drop operation. There are no technical reasons why it shouldn't be possible to install an application just by dragging it to your hard disk. It should even be possible to install system wide applications through drag and drop. But none of the OS companies have made it a priority to provide this level of simplicity.
OS X does have some limited drag and drop functionality for installing simple applications, but any application that can be classified as a system application is going to end up copying files all over your hard disk. And because of the myth that Mac applications don't need an uninstaller, removing system applications is a painful process.
I would like to use an OS that would allow me to:
1. Install Applications by dragging and dropping a single file (or folder).
2. Store all application settings in a single directory structure that could be easily copied or moved along with the application.
3. Remove completely any application by deleting its file (or folder), and its settings directory.
4. Copy or move any application just by copying its file (or folder), and its settings directory.
5. It shouldn't matter if the application is a simple Greetting Card printer, or a complex system wide OS extension. It should work the same.
Storage space and processor speed is no longer a concern with today's computers. Applications should be as self-contained as possible, only requiring those external libraries that are guaranteed to always be available in the OS.
If the above ideas were implemented in Linux, it would put it above and beyond all other Operating Systems in software installation simplicity.
One final note: As a developer I'm aware that implementing a universal drag and drop installation mechanism would be complicated because of Operating Systems reliance on shared configuration databases like the Registry in Windows, or GConf in Gnome. That's why a universal drag and drop installation feature would require big changes in how these shared configuration databases work. Instead of a single monolithic database, it would have to be some sort of distributed database where each application would have its own copy or branch, and then this branch would be merged into a virtual global database, with the OS automatically taking care of any conflicts.
If Linux developers really want to simplify software installation, they should move beyond the idea of a unified installer, and instead move to the idea of a drag and drop installation.
Software installation shouldn't be harder than a drag and drop operation. There are no technical reasons why it shouldn't be possible to install an application just by dragging it to your hard disk. It should even be possible to install system wide applications through drag and drop. But none of the OS companies have made it a priority to provide this level of simplicity.
OS X does have some limited drag and drop functionality for installing simple applications, but any application that can be classified as a system application is going to end up copying files all over your hard disk. And because of the myth that Mac applications don't need an uninstaller, removing system applications is a painful process.
I would like to use an OS that would allow me to:
1. Install Applications by dragging and dropping a single file (or folder).
2. Store all application settings in a single directory structure that could be easily copied or moved along with the application.
3. Remove completely any application by deleting its file (or folder), and its settings directory.
4. Copy or move any application just by copying its file (or folder), and its settings directory.
5. It shouldn't matter if the application is a simple Greetting Card printer, or a complex system wide OS extension. It should work the same.
Storage space and processor speed is no longer a concern with today's computers. Applications should be as self-contained as possible, only requiring those external libraries that are guaranteed to always be available in the OS.
If the above ideas were implemented in Linux, it would put it above and beyond all other Operating Systems in software installation simplicity.
One final note: As a developer I'm aware that implementing a universal drag and drop installation mechanism would be complicated because of Operating Systems reliance on shared configuration databases like the Registry in Windows, or GConf in Gnome. That's why a universal drag and drop installation feature would require big changes in how these shared configuration databases work. Instead of a single monolithic database, it would have to be some sort of distributed database where each application would have its own copy or branch, and then this branch would be merged into a virtual global database, with the OS automatically taking care of any conflicts.
The illegal spam problem is never going to be fixed completely with just a technical solution. The only solution that will work is going to have to be an economic one. One day we will have to pay to get rid of illegal spam.
But I don't think the University of Michigan solution is going to work, because there is too much risk for the sender of email. Let's say that everyone sets their escrow level at $10. To send email to 10 people I've never corresponded with would then require me to put $100 in escrow. That would definitely make me anxious, and it might even turn out to be very expensive if they all decide that they don't like my email. There are too many unknowns in this solution to be practical.
I think most people wouldn't mind paying to send unsolicited email if they knew in advance how much it would cost them, and the amount was reasonably small. For example, if I had to pay 25 cents for each unsolicited email I sent, then sending email to 10 people who don't know me, would only cost me $2.50. The cost would be small and up-front compared with the $100 needed with the escrow scheme.
So we basically need the equivalent of a postal system for email. Legitimate businesses would still be able to send unsolicited email, but it would cost them, just like sending physical mail costs them right now. Email between people who know each other would still be free through the use of white lists. There is no reason why anonymity couldn't be implemented in such a system. If I can go to the post office and purchase a stamp to mail a letter with no return address, I should be able to do the same thing electronically.
And for those who say that such a system would never catch on, I have to say that we really don't know if it would work or not. New communication mediums need time to become popular. It only needs a few pioneering users who switch to the new system and reject all email sent to them that wasn't payed for. Slowly, people who correspond with these first users might adopt the new system too, and in a few years we could all be using it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. The mistake that Microsoft made with the translation of male and female options to Spanish is one that would have been caught easily during QA testing if they had anyone who speaks Spanish in their testing labs. From this mistake it's obvious that they simply did a dictionary translation and there was no one checking the machine translation. As I said before, it's all about context. No machine is currently capable of perfectly translating a phrase from one language to another because of context. For that you need human intelligence, and it's why any software that is translated from one language to another needs to be verified by a native speaker. You can't rely only on automatic tools. Microsoft didn't do their work and therefore they were at fault.
It's true that the Spanish word "coger" can mean to pick up something or someone, or it can mean to have intercourse with someone, it all dependes on context. But the same can be said of the English word "screw." Fact is, all languages have words whose meanings depend on the way they're used.
It seems to me incredible that a company as big as Microsoft would not have on staff a native Spanish speaker to check their translations. It's not that hard to find a Spanish-speaking person in the US. I guess it's a reflection on how much they value their non-English speaking customers.
In my previous post, the formatting was obliterated. Here it is again:
If Linux developers really want to simplify software installation, they should move beyond the idea of a unified installer, and instead move to the idea of a drag and drop installation.
Software installation shouldn't be harder than a drag and drop operation. There are no technical reasons why it shouldn't be possible to install an application just by dragging it to your hard disk. It should even be possible to install system wide applications through drag and drop. But none of the OS companies have made it a priority to provide this level of simplicity.
OS X does have some limited drag and drop functionality for installing simple applications, but any application that can be classified as a system application is going to end up copying files all over your hard disk. And because of the myth that Mac applications don't need an uninstaller, removing system applications is a painful process.
I would like to use an OS that would allow me to:
1. Install Applications by dragging and dropping a single file (or folder).
2. Store all application settings in a single directory structure that could be easily copied or moved along with the application.
3. Remove completely any application by deleting its file (or folder), and its settings directory.
4. Copy or move any application just by copying its file (or folder), and its settings directory.
5. It shouldn't matter if the application is a simple Greetting Card printer, or a complex system wide OS extension. It should work the same.
Storage space and processor speed is no longer a concern with today's computers. Applications should be as self-contained as possible, only requiring those external libraries that are guaranteed to always be available in the OS.
If the above ideas were implemented in Linux, it would put it above and beyond all other Operating Systems in software installation simplicity.
One final note: As a developer I'm aware that implementing a universal drag and drop installation mechanism would be complicated because of Operating Systems reliance on shared configuration databases like the Registry in Windows, or GConf in Gnome. That's why a universal drag and drop installation feature would require big changes in how these shared configuration databases work. Instead of a single monolithic database, it would have to be some sort of distributed database where each application would have its own copy or branch, and then this branch would be merged into a virtual global database, with the OS automatically taking care of any conflicts.
Thanks.
If Linux developers really want to simplify software installation, they should move beyond the idea of a unified installer, and instead move to the idea of a drag and drop installation. Software installation shouldn't be harder than a drag and drop operation. There are no technical reasons why it shouldn't be possible to install an application just by dragging it to your hard disk. It should even be possible to install system wide applications through drag and drop. But none of the OS companies have made it a priority to provide this level of simplicity. OS X does have some limited drag and drop functionality for installing simple applications, but any application that can be classified as a system application is going to end up copying files all over your hard disk. And because of the myth that Mac applications don't need an uninstaller, removing system applications is a painful process. I would like to use an OS that would allow me to: 1. Install Applications by dragging and dropping a single file (or folder). 2. Store all application settings in a single directory structure that could be easily copied or moved along with the application. 3. Remove completely any application by deleting its file (or folder), and its settings directory. 4. Copy or move any application just by copying its file (or folder), and its settings directory. 5. It shouldn't matter if the application is a simple Greetting Card printer, or a complex system wide OS extension. It should work the same. Storage space and processor speed is no longer a concern with today's computers. Applications should be as self-contained as possible, only requiring those external libraries that are guaranteed to always be available in the OS. If the above ideas were implemented in Linux, it would put it above and beyond all other Operating Systems in software installation simplicity. One final note: As a developer I'm aware that implementing a universal drag and drop installation mechanism would be complicated because of Operating Systems reliance on shared configuration databases like the Registry in Windows, or GConf in Gnome. That's why a universal drag and drop installation feature would require big changes in how these shared configuration databases work. Instead of a single monolithic database, it would have to be some sort of distributed database where each application would have its own copy or branch, and then this branch would be merged into a virtual global database, with the OS automatically taking care of any conflicts.
The illegal spam problem is never going to be fixed completely with just a technical solution. The only solution that will work is going to have to be an economic one. One day we will have to pay to get rid of illegal spam.
But I don't think the University of Michigan solution is going to work, because there is too much risk for the sender of email. Let's say that everyone sets their escrow level at $10. To send email to 10 people I've never corresponded with would then require me to put $100 in escrow. That would definitely make me anxious, and it might even turn out to be very expensive if they all decide that they don't like my email. There are too many unknowns in this solution to be practical.
I think most people wouldn't mind paying to send unsolicited email if they knew in advance how much it would cost them, and the amount was reasonably small. For example, if I had to pay 25 cents for each unsolicited email I sent, then sending email to 10 people who don't know me, would only cost me $2.50. The cost would be small and up-front compared with the $100 needed with the escrow scheme.
So we basically need the equivalent of a postal system for email. Legitimate businesses would still be able to send unsolicited email, but it would cost them, just like sending physical mail costs them right now. Email between people who know each other would still be free through the use of white lists. There is no reason why anonymity couldn't be implemented in such a system. If I can go to the post office and purchase a stamp to mail a letter with no return address, I should be able to do the same thing electronically.
And for those who say that such a system would never catch on, I have to say that we really don't know if it would work or not. New communication mediums need time to become popular. It only needs a few pioneering users who switch to the new system and reject all email sent to them that wasn't payed for. Slowly, people who correspond with these first users might adopt the new system too, and in a few years we could all be using it.
Ignacio.