It seems odd people say things like this so often. Suspension of disbelief is, yes, a necessary part of science fiction. But just because we are instructed to accept that there are aliens, there is the possibility of interstellar travel, etc etc, does not mean we should believe that anything less fantastic is also possible - that's ludicrous. The hallmark, to me, of good sci-fi, is when the only thing that is fantastic is actual science fiction bit. Everything else should work just as it does in the real world. People shouldn't make fancy speeches on the spur of the moment, getting the girl should not be automatic, and user interfaces should be sensible. "Sci-Fi" is not an excuse for everything to be unbelievable - only certain categories of things.
My analogy makes perfect sense. It's a fact that a GUI is easier than a command-line for users. You like the command-line and assume people just aren't used to it, but for most people, the command-line is horrible. Hence, for them it's like saying they're not used to being punched in the face for three hours.
It is undeniable, except by stubborn morons, that the command line gets easier to use with time, and is easier than the GUI in certain cases. This does not mean it is better in every situation, or even overall.
I acknowledge your lack of a counterargument.
Logical. I acknowledge the lack of an argument to counter.
The newcomer to either operating system will begin by asking "What the hell is download?" Synaptic/Download.com - they're just names. You tell them to click on the icon that looks like this, or the menu item called synaptic, or type "www.download.com" into the bar in the program they're told to click on. From then, I would say synaptic is simpler than download.com, from what I remember of it - no installation programs, no separate download/install process, and so on. At any rate, synaptic is not more complex than download.com, and has advantages in terms of compatibility, and that all the programs are free, not crippleware.
That's like saying people don't like getting teeth removed because they're not used to it.
What a load of rubbish. If you want to say that you think the command line is awful, go ahead and say it, with reason. My claim is (obviously) that it's not that bad, once you're used to it. Simply asserting things with a poor analogy does not bring about the truth.
I remember reading that Santa was gay. It must be true.
Ah, I see, you're one of those people. Fine. Come back when you have something to say.
But users only throw a wobbly at a command line because they're not used to it. I remember reading that CLIs are generally thought to be easiest for completely new users. And of course, everyone coped when there was no GUI available. Not only can newbies succeed with the command line, there are plenty of GUI tools, too. The OP has a point in some circumstances, but this does not always apply. Last week I saw someone playing "neverball" on Fedora, but didn't notice the name of the game. A few days later, I thought it looked nifty, so I searched through synaptic for "ball," scroll through the list of applications, find the one I'm looking for, click "install," "OK," and there it is. In my opinion, that is simpler than what I might have to do on windows - put the CD in, setup, jump through some hoops including where to install, etc, maybe open a readme, reboot, blabla.
And of course, let's not forget that games that work on linux are often not built with linux as a priority, and are almost certainly not built with your distro in mind, unless it's redhat, maybe. This does not mitigate the fact that the installation is tricky, but it would do to compare like with like.
As I say, there are some nice thought experiments, especially in the first film, but once it starts harping on about reason and decision, it gets silly.
Which is fine, unless you're of a philosophical inclination. Similar to poor science fiction, in this respect; good sci-fi will make up techno-babble that makes partial sense, and is grounded in reality. It will ask you to suspend disbelief for certain things, but in all other respects, is entirely believable. Bad sci-fi, you start to pick holes in the "scientific" veil that clouds the plot.
The Matrix films don't involve much real philosophy beyond the brain in a vat thought experiment. After that, it's not really philosophy, merely, "deep." i.e. it sounds nice, but means nothing.
Not only that, but I don't really care that a designer's creativity is stifled when he comes to place the specs or whatever. The artwork will still be original, the title will be displayed... Who cares?
For sake of succinctness, in my experience, most of our scientific theories are presented as fact. Have we proven that photosynthesis takes place in the mechanism we believe it does? How about that cells have a phospholipid bilayer? That the universal law of gravitation is universal? All of these are presented as facts, but, in reality, we have simply made repeated observations that imply they are true, and none that imply they are not.
Seriously. 'Racist' is not a free pass to being right. It's a fact (by which I mean, of course, I asked a couple of people who agreed with me) that people from one race find it more difficult to differentiate the faces of another. This is not racist, since I make no comments about the races involved - and that is completely irrespective of whether you happen to agree with what I claim. Even worse, whether or not I made a racist comment is also irrelevant - making the majority of your post ad hominem fluff. In the same vein, your "anonymous mass" comment is probably testament to your own prejucides, and it certainly isn't relevant to the argument. I'm sure if I spent more time living somewhere with more black people than where I do now, which is basically white middle class suburb, I'd find it easier, and likewise with music - the important point.
I do not spend my entire life examining music, or listening to it. If I did, I would have a sharper ear. Perhaps I could tell the difference between a concert and a recording - I don't know, since I don't generally make detailed comparisons. Frankly, I don't care. The point is that I am more easily satisfied than I would be, were I a sound engineer or so, and could more easily make the distinction between and The expansion and question to which more attention should be paid than any example is whether I am then in a better position, in the context of music, than the sound engineer, because it takes less to make me happy. Whether, as the sound engineer, my greater appreciation makes up for the greater effort required for entertainment.
If I went to a concert, and the listened to the same concert recorded, played back through OK speakers and compressed to MP3, I would be hard pushed to tell the difference. It's not that one has never experienced the difference, it's that one cannot detect it - much as caucasians cannot differentiate black faces as well other white faces. (Or at least, I have that difficulty)
The real question, at least for me, is whether it's better to be blissfully ignorant? No offence intended, since I'm guilty of it too, although in other areas, but is such snobbery really worthwhile? I can go to the cinema and enjoy it even if more picky people find it a waste of time; thus I am more easily entertained, and will presumably be happier, at least as far as films go. If I were as elitist as the film critics, I would surely find it much more difficult to enjoy this.
I mean vest --> west. Or often, I hear german folks say "werry" instead of very. This is the basis of the German prince in Blackadder saying, "Sorry to inconwenience you."
I guess that's why I hear German people say bullshit and fuck so often.. It was quite disturbing the first time, especially with the force they are spoken with!
I've never heard handy used to mean handjob, but it's odd how many germans say handy. We were told what it means early on, though, so I just ignore it usually. What's also odd is the pronunciation of 'V' as 'W' (you'd expect german people to say W as V not the other way around)
It's hardly a stringent analogy, but the idea is correct. If you use GPL code in your work, you have to GPL it - that is the idea that the term 'viral' embodies, here, and by denying that the GPL is viral you implicitly deny what the analogy is actually trying to convey.
In case you never noticed, the police do patrol. But if the police can have a camera which directs them to the scene of a likely crime, how is that worse than patrolling around somewhere where they often won't see anything? Funnily enough, it's impractical to have police covering every busy corner in a city. CCTV on the other hand, is quite possible to set up.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems odd people say things like this so often. Suspension of disbelief is, yes, a necessary part of science fiction. But just because we are instructed to accept that there are aliens, there is the possibility of interstellar travel, etc etc, does not mean we should believe that anything less fantastic is also possible - that's ludicrous. The hallmark, to me, of good sci-fi, is when the only thing that is fantastic is actual science fiction bit. Everything else should work just as it does in the real world. People shouldn't make fancy speeches on the spur of the moment, getting the girl should not be automatic, and user interfaces should be sensible. "Sci-Fi" is not an excuse for everything to be unbelievable - only certain categories of things.
Use XML/Subset of XHTML (a la jabber messages) - the parser throws an error or ignores anything that isn't in its list of commands.
It is undeniable, except by stubborn morons, that the command line gets easier to use with time, and is easier than the GUI in certain cases. This does not mean it is better in every situation, or even overall.
Logical. I acknowledge the lack of an argument to counter.
The newcomer to either operating system will begin by asking "What the hell is download?" Synaptic/Download.com - they're just names. You tell them to click on the icon that looks like this, or the menu item called synaptic, or type "www.download.com" into the bar in the program they're told to click on. From then, I would say synaptic is simpler than download.com, from what I remember of it - no installation programs, no separate download/install process, and so on. At any rate, synaptic is not more complex than download.com, and has advantages in terms of compatibility, and that all the programs are free, not crippleware.
What a load of rubbish. If you want to say that you think the command line is awful, go ahead and say it, with reason. My claim is (obviously) that it's not that bad, once you're used to it. Simply asserting things with a poor analogy does not bring about the truth.
Ah, I see, you're one of those people. Fine. Come back when you have something to say.
And of course, let's not forget that games that work on linux are often not built with linux as a priority, and are almost certainly not built with your distro in mind, unless it's redhat, maybe. This does not mitigate the fact that the installation is tricky, but it would do to compare like with like.
As I say, there are some nice thought experiments, especially in the first film, but once it starts harping on about reason and decision, it gets silly.
Why would you have an area as a radius?
Nobody writes jokes in base 13
Which is fine, unless you're of a philosophical inclination. Similar to poor science fiction, in this respect; good sci-fi will make up techno-babble that makes partial sense, and is grounded in reality. It will ask you to suspend disbelief for certain things, but in all other respects, is entirely believable. Bad sci-fi, you start to pick holes in the "scientific" veil that clouds the plot.
The Matrix films don't involve much real philosophy beyond the brain in a vat thought experiment. After that, it's not really philosophy, merely, "deep." i.e. it sounds nice, but means nothing.
That's disgusting.
Not only that, but I don't really care that a designer's creativity is stifled when he comes to place the specs or whatever. The artwork will still be original, the title will be displayed... Who cares?
If I had been drinking coffee, I would have sprayed it on my keyboard. Not often a troll becomes funny!
For sake of succinctness, in my experience, most of our scientific theories are presented as fact. Have we proven that photosynthesis takes place in the mechanism we believe it does? How about that cells have a phospholipid bilayer? That the universal law of gravitation is universal? All of these are presented as facts, but, in reality, we have simply made repeated observations that imply they are true, and none that imply they are not.
Either that or correct speed is not the mean speed. Hooray for statistics.
Seriously. 'Racist' is not a free pass to being right. It's a fact (by which I mean, of course, I asked a couple of people who agreed with me) that people from one race find it more difficult to differentiate the faces of another. This is not racist, since I make no comments about the races involved - and that is completely irrespective of whether you happen to agree with what I claim. Even worse, whether or not I made a racist comment is also irrelevant - making the majority of your post ad hominem fluff. In the same vein, your "anonymous mass" comment is probably testament to your own prejucides, and it certainly isn't relevant to the argument. I'm sure if I spent more time living somewhere with more black people than where I do now, which is basically white middle class suburb, I'd find it easier, and likewise with music - the important point.
I do not spend my entire life examining music, or listening to it. If I did, I would have a sharper ear. Perhaps I could tell the difference between a concert and a recording - I don't know, since I don't generally make detailed comparisons. Frankly, I don't care. The point is that I am more easily satisfied than I would be, were I a sound engineer or so, and could more easily make the distinction between and The expansion and question to which more attention should be paid than any example is whether I am then in a better position, in the context of music, than the sound engineer, because it takes less to make me happy. Whether, as the sound engineer, my greater appreciation makes up for the greater effort required for entertainment.
If I went to a concert, and the listened to the same concert recorded, played back through OK speakers and compressed to MP3, I would be hard pushed to tell the difference. It's not that one has never experienced the difference, it's that one cannot detect it - much as caucasians cannot differentiate black faces as well other white faces. (Or at least, I have that difficulty)
The real question, at least for me, is whether it's better to be blissfully ignorant? No offence intended, since I'm guilty of it too, although in other areas, but is such snobbery really worthwhile? I can go to the cinema and enjoy it even if more picky people find it a waste of time; thus I am more easily entertained, and will presumably be happier, at least as far as films go. If I were as elitist as the film critics, I would surely find it much more difficult to enjoy this.
That is quite clearly not true if you do things sensibly. Power laws say that (x^(1/2))^2 = x^((1/2)*2) = x^1 = x
I mean vest --> west. Or often, I hear german folks say "werry" instead of very. This is the basis of the German prince in Blackadder saying, "Sorry to inconwenience you."
I guess that's why I hear German people say bullshit and fuck so often.. It was quite disturbing the first time, especially with the force they are spoken with!
I've never heard handy used to mean handjob, but it's odd how many germans say handy. We were told what it means early on, though, so I just ignore it usually. What's also odd is the pronunciation of 'V' as 'W' (you'd expect german people to say W as V not the other way around)
It's hardly a stringent analogy, but the idea is correct. If you use GPL code in your work, you have to GPL it - that is the idea that the term 'viral' embodies, here, and by denying that the GPL is viral you implicitly deny what the analogy is actually trying to convey.
In case you never noticed, the police do patrol. But if the police can have a camera which directs them to the scene of a likely crime, how is that worse than patrolling around somewhere where they often won't see anything? Funnily enough, it's impractical to have police covering every busy corner in a city. CCTV on the other hand, is quite possible to set up.