A friend of mine showed me MS-Windows Media Center, as displayed through his XBox 360. The menu system was *very* similar to XMB, only arranged horizontally, and much more cluttered.
Unlike Betamax, Blu-Ray is not just Sony. The original tech was developed by Sony and Pioneer, with final contributions by several other companies. Though still proprietary, Blu-Ray is a true multi-vendor format, with more companies involved than HD-DVD (which is primarily owned by Toshiba and NEC).
So, I don't mind seeing Blu-Ray win. It's the technically-superior format, though the players are currently more expensive. (That should change as production volume increases.)
As far as Betamax: it was arguably technically superior to VHS, but it was owned only by Sony, and so deserved the waterboarding it received, followed by a merciful death.
Strange how a discussion about the link between liberty and artistic expression degenerates into a simplistic two-sided rant about money.
The world is much more complex than simply, "musicians should be paid." If that were true, they'd actually get *paid* for their artistic output, rather than the middle-man. The discussion of musicians and payment is a simple one of business models, which may or may not work in an emerging culture where freedom of speech allows easy copying and distribution.
The discussion as framed is more about the curtailing of liberty and freedom in subservience to the interests of big business, due to the strawman of copyright infringement. As this also serves the interest of government (the constant surveillance of citizens), it's easy enough for these cartels to get their way, at the expense of culture and individuals.
I personally believe that individuals are more important than business. I am also of the opinion that businesses are actually *hurting* the economy by insisting on their own dominance. But that is secondary. The real issue is liberty (and by extension, democracy), and whether or not we'll give that up.
*BSD also uses copyright, but that's because both GNU/Linux and *BSD operate within the framework of copyright. They *both* use the current system to work around the current (ab)use of the system.
They both have very different aims, politically. GPL-licensed works are inherently more idealistic and political in nature. *BSD-licensed works are inherently closer to public domain works. (The major difference is copyright attribution.) Both turn the whole "copyright" ideal on its head.
However, the politics of the GPL are specifically anti-copyright. (Or pro-copyright, in the sense that *everyone* has the right to copy.) The GPL's strength and ingeniousness is in its use of the copyright system against itself.
We replaced lords and kings with the super-rich. The major difference between then and now is perception.
Even in the past, there was the chance for "bettering" yourself-- getting yourself a knighthood, for instance. Most peasants really didn't have that chance, just as the current poor have no real chance to better themselves. Some do, certainly, but there are only a few slots available for betterment.
It's not just "fucking music files." This is about the concept of ownership of ideas. This is about the ownership of culture, the very framework of our society. (There is an intimate relationship between art, ideas, and culture.)
Anyway, we still have the assholes, and they still stand on the heads of those less fortunate than themselves. Now, property rights might not belong to those with the biggest swords or guns, but they *do* belong to those with the biggest bank account. It's less bloody, and probably a better proposition. But just because the serfs aren't beat bloody by their lords doesn't mean they aren't serfs just the same.
The ribbon just reminded me of the toolbar in iWorks. Maybe it's the organization, or the simplicity or the layout. There's just something to it that seems reminiscent of iWorks.
Really, I should've mentioned Adobe's recent products, which are more of a direct rip-off than the iWorks stuff. I guess I'm just more sensitized to iWorks since I've been using it (and been very impressed by it).
There's a difference between "borrowing" and "ripping off." Usually it's involved in the character of the person doing the deed.
In Microsoft's case, they rip off. They don't really even improve. They have built a (very successful) business around stealing other peoples' ideas, while contributing *nothing* back. It's not like they are building on the work of others. They copy the works of others, and pretend *they* invented it. They don't give credit (part of the obligation of "borrowing"). They don't admit they are taking. They have a "not invented here" mentality when it comes to execution, but they definitely follow a "wait 'til the market proves it" mentality when following creativity.
So, they are risk-averse. (Understandable.) They are no creative. (Many companies aren't.) The problem is when they try to take claim, either implicitly or explicitly, for other people's inventions. *That's* the problem.
It's not BS. It's truth. In literature, we call it plagiarism. That's where Microsoft has been most successful. (To the point where I've heard *many times* that Microsoft invented the Internet.) They are good at stealing ideas, but very bad about giving ideas back.
Well, it's not twice the approval rating. It's a couple of percentage points above the Republican congresscritters, and a few points below the Democrat congresscritters.
But I get your point. And I agree.
I'm glad the "cost" you recognize is their effectiveness in actually doing something, rather than actual dollar amounts. That raises the discussion to a whole new level.
A level which, I'm afraid, a slashdot thread isn't sufficient. I wish we had a better, longer-lived, better-organized forum for addressing issues like this.
Okay, how's this for evidence: votes weren't counted.
People voted for Ron Paul. (Not my candidate of choice, but there you go.) They reported no votes. People complained.
That is *evidence* that something is wrong.
Now, as far as the statistics go, significant variance in statistics is evidence. It's enough to support many physics theories (one of the hardest science disciplines you'll find). You might need more evidence to prove something is amiss, but even statistical variance is enough evidence to warrant investigation.
Science is really an epistemology. But we teach the knowledge gained by science as if it *were* science.
I agree. The scientific method should underscore all scientific teachings. Then we could judge the pile of stones as a house only when it is truly a house.
The difference is, macroeconomics and tax laws are not fundamental to existence. And as far as grasping the basic concepts of evolution by natural selection-- how hard is it? Kids know this stuff intuitively. They live with it all the time. The big kid may be able to bully them on the playground, but the smart kids kick the bully's ass in math. Different environment, different advantages.
The battle between parents and schools is only there because there are political bodies (Design Institute, and others) that push their political agenda. And I, for one, am not about to give in to them. As soon as you stop fighting, they win. The controversy is artificial. Letting kids grow up without being exposed to evolution is tantamount to giving in to DI and their pet project, Intelligent Design.
Believe me. I know, from first-hand experience. I was married to a fundie. We had a kid. She's smart, and she's willing to listen to her dad. But because I ignored her education in the formative years of her life (out of necessity, really), she is not willing to accept anything but creationism. It's how she was raised.
We can't ignore this. Controversy or no, we have to fight it.
My point was, you get all the bad things with C (the anal-retentive nature of memory management), but none of the good things of OO programming (the ability to almost ignore memory management, plus the well-defined and easily-implemented interfaces to the objects).
That's all I was saying.
I love C. The C memory model is dead simple, and I like that. If you make it, you clean it up. Or, part of the interface contract is that the library makes it, but the client cleans it up. Either way, the clean-up duties are clear. But they're also hard to manage. That's fine with me. But I can't say that it's *easy*. Sure, when it's simple, it's easy. But there are always the edge cases that screw things up.
Anyway. I love C. It's probably my favorite language.
No, really. I'm tired of answering your fucking phone.
Perhaps you might have been "insightful" two years ago, but Linux (and FOSS in general) is much more accepted and deployed in real-life situations these days. Nowadays, especially with Vista, people are serious when they talk about switching to Linux. It's no longer a negotiation tactic. It's *fact*. It's honest.
I've helped with Linux migrations for businesses that didn't even know Linux existed two years ago. Believe me, people are *tired* of taking it up the ass from Microsoft.
The MS-Office 2007 interface isn't really innovative. It's more the bastard love-child of several new interfaces, including (but not limited to) Apple's iWork interface. So it's not new, it's not innovative.
It's better, that's for sure. But really, MS has done what they've always done: based their work on others', and called it their own.
Darwinism (the theory of evolution by natural selection) is a theory the same way that gravity is a theory. (Believe it or not, there are things about gravity we don't understand.) That is, it has been proven so often, and in so many ways, it's no longer questioned, and many medical advances have been made by the assumption of its correctness.
This whole, "Darwinism is just a theory," is part of the Discovery Institute's "teach to the controversy" approach. They muddle the science of evolution to the point where even well-established words like "theory" are up for debate. ("It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.")
In science, a theory is an hypothesis that has withstood experimental evidence. In science, an experiment is a prediction that is negatable. That is, it's a prediction that can be proven wrong. The theory of evolution by natural selection has made many predictions, and in every case where the results of the predictions are known, the predictions have been positive. So, Darwinism is an hypothesis that has withstood testing. It is a theory.
The distinction between a theory and an hypothesis is important. Scientists assume a theory is correct, and base *other* hypothesis on the correctness of the theory. This is important, as many accepted theories have crumbled in the face of the results of experiments for other hypothesis. This is what happened with Newtonian physics-- although not incorrect, Newton's laws were proven to be specific applications of quantum physics and relativity within a certain domain (moderately sized objects traveling at relatively slow speeds in relation to the observer).
Until there is another field of scientific study to modify or usurp how we view evolutionary biology, Darwinism isn't just "another theory." It is *the* theory that underpins our entire understanding of genetics, physiology, ecology, and sociology (as well as many other *ologies.)
Now, as to the rest of your (non-sequitur) post: damned straight. That's one of the flaws (and greatest strengths) of democracy. The generally-accepted stupidities of our nation (or county or state) get magnified a hundred times and become ensconced in stupid policy. And that's why it's up to us to change understanding for the better, and policy to reflect our better understanding.
And we start by checking our own repetition of the generally-accepted falsehoods, like "Evolution is just a theory," as if it were on a par with Jim-boy's theory of the vast government UFO/bigfoot conspiracy.
My point is there is so much in general science that can be studied, and can give a good foundation to students that there is no need to keep fueling the controversy by trying to stick evolution into the mix...
Yes. Let's stop the controversy by ignoring it. Good idea.
Y'know what I find most disturbing? That people have such little faith in God that they think something like evolution could perhaps challenge His existence. Do they really believe that *intentional ignorance* is the way to salvation? (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist, so I don't really know the answer to that question. I just know that if their faith in God is threatened by knowledge, I'm glad I don't believe in Him.)
The theory of evolution existed before Darwin. Many of the biologists of the day had already come to the conclusion that life evolved. They just had no clue about the *mechanism.* Darwin worked that out over many years. There was no "Eureka!" moment for him, not on Galapagos nor the voyage home. it came on him inexorably, and changed his belief in many things, including the origin of life.
The theory of evolution by natural selection has predicted many things, and those many things have supported the theory. So far, there is *not one thing* that has contradicted this theory. So far, all we get are variations on, "Oh yeah? Well, the eye is so complex, it couldn't have evolved."
Ignoring evolution in primary and secondary education institutions is about as wise as ignoring mathematics. It's fundamental to our entire life and civilization. In fact, I would say evolution is the single most important science subject to teach our children, as much of the science-based policy in the upcoming years will be based around genetics and other biology-based sciences.
As evolution is as fundamental to biology as gravity is to Newtonian physics, I believe it's extremely important to end this "controversy" once and for all. Until we eliminate these religion-based attacks against the teaching of evolution, we are in danger of raising a generation of ignoramuses incapable of understanding some of the most important social debates and issues.
...as they lean lefter with their preferences for taxing and spending?
I like how this gets all thrown around, as if the Dems outspend the Repubs, and out-tax, too.
Although I agree we could certainly cut down the theatrics, they are hardly expensive. "Expensive" is the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, with no real study into whether or not a new department would be effective or not. (It doesn't seem to be.) "Expensive" is spending 3 times the rest of the world combined on military. (*Not* on defense, as we've moved passed defensiveness and into aggression over the last decade.) "Expensive" is a war that is quickly approaching $500,000,000,000 direct cost, with a cost to our economy that is only now being seen. (Seems we are likely entering into a recession.)
As for change, if you bother following up on certain candidates (say, Obama), you'd realize what they intend to change. Obama states he intends to reverse the erosion of civil liberty. He intends to stay in Iraq for now, with the philosophy of, "You broke it, you bought it," but intends to take a different, less aggressive approach. Try reading what the candidates *actually* say, and you'll see what they intend to change. It's not just a vague word. Most of them have concrete plans that you can read and evaluate yourself.
When you talk about re-prioritizing the budget, *any* budget, you don't just slice out the stuff that costs a nickel. You look at the stuff that is really costing you. Can't live on your budget? Cut out the big things. Can't afford that new $250k house? Time to sell it and move into a $100k house. Can't afford to eat out every night? Try cooking at home, on a budget.
Or, you try to increase your income.
Those are your choices. "Tax and spend" means "increase your income." "Balancing the budget" (a term I haven't heard in 7 years) means cutting down your expenses.
What the current administration is doing is this: they are spending as if their credit will go on forever. It's like being on a $30k/year job, but spending as if you were on a $100k/year job by using your credit cards. You can't go on like that forever, and when it catches up to you, you are *so* fucked. And it always catches up to you.
Complaining about the cost of the baseball inquiries when we're in a $275M/day senseless war is like complaining because your spouse bought a $.25 chocolate at the checkout stand. In the long run, though it does cost money, it's nothing compared to that $1250/mo mortgage.
C++ sucks. It's a half-assed attempt at an object-oriented language, combining the easy memory model of C with the simple OO model of Simula. I used to think the only good thing about C++ was templates. Then I figured out that templates suck, too, because they're damned near impossible to debug, for most non-trivial bugs.
I fuckin' *hate* C++. I'd much rather have to code straight C while being punched repeatedly by a baboon.
Objective-C is much less ugly. But then, so is LISP. (Actually, LISP is a damned good language. It's just not *pretty*, in a strictly aesthetic sense.)
So, to not be snide, there are *many* people who still code in C. There are many objective reasons to avoid C++. (This *was* about C++, wasn't it?)
I wonder how much credit we can attribute to voter complacency...
In any case, I don't understand all the fuss. Obama and Clinton were awarded the same number of delegates. This whole mess only matters to the media and spin people.
Because we're trying to be be sure democracy (in whatever perverted form as practiced by the US) survives?
Keep in mind the perception of winning is essential during the primaries. The states that hold their primaries later will be influenced by the outcome of the earlier primaries. That's why Iowa and New Hampshire are so important. If Obama had taken the NH primary as well, undecided Democrats in other states would be tempted to vote for the apparent front-runner.
Even the slightest hint of corruption in the democratic process should be investigated, evaluated, and judged. Democracy will only survive under a microscope.
This matters to me. I'm not interested in spin. I'm interested in a voting process that is transparent, accurate, and verifiable. If the Diebold-style of voting machine is none of these things, then it is our duty as US citizens (for those of us who are US citizens) to prove it, and mandate a better system.
Remember all those times when you have to clean up your parents/in-law/friends computers because they get compromised by this crap?
Yeah. See, that makes us part of the problem. We are facilitating it by cleaning up after it.
Instead, it's time to do a mass computer intervention. The next time your parents/gf/bf/in-laws/friends call you to clean up their computer, tell them they are on their own. Suggest they purchase a Mac next time. Or, tell them you'll help them install Linux or your favorite BSD flavor, or even (if you are so inclined and so insane) Open Solaris. Explain that you cannot continue to enable their dependence on a terrible drug, and that it hurts you to watch them slowly destroy themselves.
C'mon, Slashdot! We have strength in numbers. Let's turn this epidemic around. We'll be saving the sanity and minds of our friends and family, giving ourselves back some free time, and generally helping the world.
This will help in other ways, too. Almost all spam is sent from MS-Windows zombies. Let's get our family clean first, and work on the rest later.
It's called computer *science.* It's supposed to be theoretical first, practical later. You don't see chemistry classes dumbed down for the sake of the industry, except when you're taking a class specific to working in the industry. Yet chemists have no problem finding employment.
It seems what all y'all want is to provide another educational track. Rather like the distinction between mechanical engineering and sniv... civil engineering, it seems there's a demand for computer *science* (those who wish to understand the discipline as completely as an individual can), and computer *programming* (in which an individual learns C# + Visual Studio 2010).
Those in the first category won't have problems finding employment, at least assuming they have any kind of skill, and can figure out for themselves how to apply it to a particular problem. The second group will find themselves losing out to overseas programmers who have exactly the same skillset, but will work for 1/5th the wage.
I've worked in the industry for 18 years, and worked with computers for 27. In all that time, the *best* people have had a firm, fundamental, abstract understanding of computers. They were trained as computer scientists, rather than as Java programmers. In general, those who have been trained as programmers first and computer scientists second have a harder time adapting to unique situations, and have difficulty thinking of solutions that are both creative and sound.
Programming is a tool in the service of an engineering goal. Focusing on programming as an end to itself is like training carpenters by teaching them only how to use the hammer and saw.
A lot of fanboi-ism is based on the same drive that makes people root for a football team. "Hell, yeah, the Bears are gonna take the Superbowl!" (Superbowl and Bears are both football things, right?)
I'm definitely a PS3 fanboi. (I love the Wii, too. It's *fun*! Mostly I just want to see the XBox die the horrible, bloody, faintly embarrassing death it deserves. Die, XBox, die!) I'm also, to a certain extent, a Linux fanboi. (I recommend Macs to anyone who asks my advice, though. Why? Because I'll end up supporting the damned thing, and I end up helping MS-Windows users a *lot* more frequently than I end up helping Mac users.)
So, as a Linux fanboi, I really wish to see my team take the Superbowl. I know the stats, and I can use it to defend my hopes and desires. Linux does, after all, hold the record for rushing. And if you try to defend the pathetic record of MS-Windows, I'll club you over the head with my Heisman trophy. (Okay, technically it's not *my* Heisman trophy, it's OJ's. He's a Linux user too. Don't piss him off, or he'll go all Sweeney Todd on your ass.)
Really, though, there's a certain amount of economic inevitability with it. As the commoditization of the operating system drives the per-unit cost toward zero, the only way to make money of the OS is to use it as a value-add (gah! I can't believe I just said that!) to hardware (Apple's approach) or to give it away expecting nothing in return. Eventually, this is what Microsoft is going to have to do, in order to maintain sales of MS-Office and their various server products. (Notice the $3 crippled version of MS-Windows offered overseas. This per-unit cost is *significantly* closer to $0 than the $100+ retail cost.) So really, they will expect sales of other products in return, but the net effect is the same: a near-zero-cost OS.
The problem is that it's not just the operating system. The entire software stack is getting the free software treatment. The only question is, can this development model sustain itself for all pieces of software? If so, Microsoft is in for a world of hurt.
I mean, that's assuming they even make it to the play-offs this year. Their offense is looking kinda weak.
Slashdot Mirror
A friend of mine showed me MS-Windows Media Center, as displayed through his XBox 360. The menu system was *very* similar to XMB, only arranged horizontally, and much more cluttered.
I guess plagiarism is the best form of flattery.
Unlike Betamax, Blu-Ray is not just Sony. The original tech was developed by Sony and Pioneer, with final contributions by several other companies. Though still proprietary, Blu-Ray is a true multi-vendor format, with more companies involved than HD-DVD (which is primarily owned by Toshiba and NEC).
So, I don't mind seeing Blu-Ray win. It's the technically-superior format, though the players are currently more expensive. (That should change as production volume increases.)
As far as Betamax: it was arguably technically superior to VHS, but it was owned only by Sony, and so deserved the waterboarding it received, followed by a merciful death.
Strange how a discussion about the link between liberty and artistic expression degenerates into a simplistic two-sided rant about money.
The world is much more complex than simply, "musicians should be paid." If that were true, they'd actually get *paid* for their artistic output, rather than the middle-man. The discussion of musicians and payment is a simple one of business models, which may or may not work in an emerging culture where freedom of speech allows easy copying and distribution.
The discussion as framed is more about the curtailing of liberty and freedom in subservience to the interests of big business, due to the strawman of copyright infringement. As this also serves the interest of government (the constant surveillance of citizens), it's easy enough for these cartels to get their way, at the expense of culture and individuals.
I personally believe that individuals are more important than business. I am also of the opinion that businesses are actually *hurting* the economy by insisting on their own dominance. But that is secondary. The real issue is liberty (and by extension, democracy), and whether or not we'll give that up.
*BSD also uses copyright, but that's because both GNU/Linux and *BSD operate within the framework of copyright. They *both* use the current system to work around the current (ab)use of the system.
They both have very different aims, politically. GPL-licensed works are inherently more idealistic and political in nature. *BSD-licensed works are inherently closer to public domain works. (The major difference is copyright attribution.) Both turn the whole "copyright" ideal on its head.
However, the politics of the GPL are specifically anti-copyright. (Or pro-copyright, in the sense that *everyone* has the right to copy.) The GPL's strength and ingeniousness is in its use of the copyright system against itself.
We replaced lords and kings with the super-rich. The major difference between then and now is perception.
Even in the past, there was the chance for "bettering" yourself-- getting yourself a knighthood, for instance. Most peasants really didn't have that chance, just as the current poor have no real chance to better themselves. Some do, certainly, but there are only a few slots available for betterment.
It's not just "fucking music files." This is about the concept of ownership of ideas. This is about the ownership of culture, the very framework of our society. (There is an intimate relationship between art, ideas, and culture.)
Anyway, we still have the assholes, and they still stand on the heads of those less fortunate than themselves. Now, property rights might not belong to those with the biggest swords or guns, but they *do* belong to those with the biggest bank account. It's less bloody, and probably a better proposition. But just because the serfs aren't beat bloody by their lords doesn't mean they aren't serfs just the same.
The ribbon just reminded me of the toolbar in iWorks. Maybe it's the organization, or the simplicity or the layout. There's just something to it that seems reminiscent of iWorks.
Really, I should've mentioned Adobe's recent products, which are more of a direct rip-off than the iWorks stuff. I guess I'm just more sensitized to iWorks since I've been using it (and been very impressed by it).
There's a difference between "borrowing" and "ripping off." Usually it's involved in the character of the person doing the deed.
In Microsoft's case, they rip off. They don't really even improve. They have built a (very successful) business around stealing other peoples' ideas, while contributing *nothing* back. It's not like they are building on the work of others. They copy the works of others, and pretend *they* invented it. They don't give credit (part of the obligation of "borrowing"). They don't admit they are taking. They have a "not invented here" mentality when it comes to execution, but they definitely follow a "wait 'til the market proves it" mentality when following creativity.
So, they are risk-averse. (Understandable.) They are no creative. (Many companies aren't.) The problem is when they try to take claim, either implicitly or explicitly, for other people's inventions. *That's* the problem.
It's not BS. It's truth. In literature, we call it plagiarism. That's where Microsoft has been most successful. (To the point where I've heard *many times* that Microsoft invented the Internet.) They are good at stealing ideas, but very bad about giving ideas back.
Well, it's not twice the approval rating. It's a couple of percentage points above the Republican congresscritters, and a few points below the Democrat congresscritters.
But I get your point. And I agree.
I'm glad the "cost" you recognize is their effectiveness in actually doing something, rather than actual dollar amounts. That raises the discussion to a whole new level.
A level which, I'm afraid, a slashdot thread isn't sufficient. I wish we had a better, longer-lived, better-organized forum for addressing issues like this.
Okay, how's this for evidence: votes weren't counted.
People voted for Ron Paul. (Not my candidate of choice, but there you go.) They reported no votes. People complained.
That is *evidence* that something is wrong.
Now, as far as the statistics go, significant variance in statistics is evidence. It's enough to support many physics theories (one of the hardest science disciplines you'll find). You might need more evidence to prove something is amiss, but even statistical variance is enough evidence to warrant investigation.
Thanks. This is *exactly* what I should've written in the first place.
I'm gonna plagiarize you from now on.
Excellent point.
Science is really an epistemology. But we teach the knowledge gained by science as if it *were* science.
I agree. The scientific method should underscore all scientific teachings. Then we could judge the pile of stones as a house only when it is truly a house.
You win, fair and square.
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.
The difference is, macroeconomics and tax laws are not fundamental to existence. And as far as grasping the basic concepts of evolution by natural selection-- how hard is it? Kids know this stuff intuitively. They live with it all the time. The big kid may be able to bully them on the playground, but the smart kids kick the bully's ass in math. Different environment, different advantages.
The battle between parents and schools is only there because there are political bodies (Design Institute, and others) that push their political agenda. And I, for one, am not about to give in to them. As soon as you stop fighting, they win. The controversy is artificial. Letting kids grow up without being exposed to evolution is tantamount to giving in to DI and their pet project, Intelligent Design.
Believe me. I know, from first-hand experience. I was married to a fundie. We had a kid. She's smart, and she's willing to listen to her dad. But because I ignored her education in the formative years of her life (out of necessity, really), she is not willing to accept anything but creationism. It's how she was raised.
We can't ignore this. Controversy or no, we have to fight it.
My point was, you get all the bad things with C (the anal-retentive nature of memory management), but none of the good things of OO programming (the ability to almost ignore memory management, plus the well-defined and easily-implemented interfaces to the objects).
That's all I was saying.
I love C. The C memory model is dead simple, and I like that. If you make it, you clean it up. Or, part of the interface contract is that the library makes it, but the client cleans it up. Either way, the clean-up duties are clear. But they're also hard to manage. That's fine with me. But I can't say that it's *easy*. Sure, when it's simple, it's easy. But there are always the edge cases that screw things up.
Anyway. I love C. It's probably my favorite language.
They want their excuse back.
No, really. I'm tired of answering your fucking phone.
Perhaps you might have been "insightful" two years ago, but Linux (and FOSS in general) is much more accepted and deployed in real-life situations these days. Nowadays, especially with Vista, people are serious when they talk about switching to Linux. It's no longer a negotiation tactic. It's *fact*. It's honest.
I've helped with Linux migrations for businesses that didn't even know Linux existed two years ago. Believe me, people are *tired* of taking it up the ass from Microsoft.
The MS-Office 2007 interface isn't really innovative. It's more the bastard love-child of several new interfaces, including (but not limited to) Apple's iWork interface. So it's not new, it's not innovative.
It's better, that's for sure. But really, MS has done what they've always done: based their work on others', and called it their own.
Although Darwinism is just a theory...
Darwinism (the theory of evolution by natural selection) is a theory the same way that gravity is a theory. (Believe it or not, there are things about gravity we don't understand.) That is, it has been proven so often, and in so many ways, it's no longer questioned, and many medical advances have been made by the assumption of its correctness.
This whole, "Darwinism is just a theory," is part of the Discovery Institute's "teach to the controversy" approach. They muddle the science of evolution to the point where even well-established words like "theory" are up for debate. ("It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.")
In science, a theory is an hypothesis that has withstood experimental evidence. In science, an experiment is a prediction that is negatable. That is, it's a prediction that can be proven wrong. The theory of evolution by natural selection has made many predictions, and in every case where the results of the predictions are known, the predictions have been positive. So, Darwinism is an hypothesis that has withstood testing. It is a theory.
The distinction between a theory and an hypothesis is important. Scientists assume a theory is correct, and base *other* hypothesis on the correctness of the theory. This is important, as many accepted theories have crumbled in the face of the results of experiments for other hypothesis. This is what happened with Newtonian physics-- although not incorrect, Newton's laws were proven to be specific applications of quantum physics and relativity within a certain domain (moderately sized objects traveling at relatively slow speeds in relation to the observer).
Until there is another field of scientific study to modify or usurp how we view evolutionary biology, Darwinism isn't just "another theory." It is *the* theory that underpins our entire understanding of genetics, physiology, ecology, and sociology (as well as many other *ologies.)
Now, as to the rest of your (non-sequitur) post: damned straight. That's one of the flaws (and greatest strengths) of democracy. The generally-accepted stupidities of our nation (or county or state) get magnified a hundred times and become ensconced in stupid policy. And that's why it's up to us to change understanding for the better, and policy to reflect our better understanding.
And we start by checking our own repetition of the generally-accepted falsehoods, like "Evolution is just a theory," as if it were on a par with Jim-boy's theory of the vast government UFO/bigfoot conspiracy.
My point is there is so much in general science that can be studied, and can give a good foundation to students that there is no need to keep fueling the controversy by trying to stick evolution into the mix...
Yes. Let's stop the controversy by ignoring it. Good idea.
Y'know what I find most disturbing? That people have such little faith in God that they think something like evolution could perhaps challenge His existence. Do they really believe that *intentional ignorance* is the way to salvation? (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist, so I don't really know the answer to that question. I just know that if their faith in God is threatened by knowledge, I'm glad I don't believe in Him.)
The theory of evolution existed before Darwin. Many of the biologists of the day had already come to the conclusion that life evolved. They just had no clue about the *mechanism.* Darwin worked that out over many years. There was no "Eureka!" moment for him, not on Galapagos nor the voyage home. it came on him inexorably, and changed his belief in many things, including the origin of life.
The theory of evolution by natural selection has predicted many things, and those many things have supported the theory. So far, there is *not one thing* that has contradicted this theory. So far, all we get are variations on, "Oh yeah? Well, the eye is so complex, it couldn't have evolved."
Ignoring evolution in primary and secondary education institutions is about as wise as ignoring mathematics. It's fundamental to our entire life and civilization. In fact, I would say evolution is the single most important science subject to teach our children, as much of the science-based policy in the upcoming years will be based around genetics and other biology-based sciences.
As evolution is as fundamental to biology as gravity is to Newtonian physics, I believe it's extremely important to end this "controversy" once and for all. Until we eliminate these religion-based attacks against the teaching of evolution, we are in danger of raising a generation of ignoramuses incapable of understanding some of the most important social debates and issues.
Bottom line, if the airlines don't know who you are, I don't want you on a plane with me.
Well, hell, I can beat that. If you're willing to give up liberty, I don't want you in this country with me.
...as they lean lefter with their preferences for taxing and spending?
I like how this gets all thrown around, as if the Dems outspend the Repubs, and out-tax, too.
Although I agree we could certainly cut down the theatrics, they are hardly expensive. "Expensive" is the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, with no real study into whether or not a new department would be effective or not. (It doesn't seem to be.) "Expensive" is spending 3 times the rest of the world combined on military. (*Not* on defense, as we've moved passed defensiveness and into aggression over the last decade.) "Expensive" is a war that is quickly approaching $500,000,000,000 direct cost, with a cost to our economy that is only now being seen. (Seems we are likely entering into a recession.)
As for change, if you bother following up on certain candidates (say, Obama), you'd realize what they intend to change. Obama states he intends to reverse the erosion of civil liberty. He intends to stay in Iraq for now, with the philosophy of, "You broke it, you bought it," but intends to take a different, less aggressive approach. Try reading what the candidates *actually* say, and you'll see what they intend to change. It's not just a vague word. Most of them have concrete plans that you can read and evaluate yourself.
When you talk about re-prioritizing the budget, *any* budget, you don't just slice out the stuff that costs a nickel. You look at the stuff that is really costing you. Can't live on your budget? Cut out the big things. Can't afford that new $250k house? Time to sell it and move into a $100k house. Can't afford to eat out every night? Try cooking at home, on a budget.
Or, you try to increase your income.
Those are your choices. "Tax and spend" means "increase your income." "Balancing the budget" (a term I haven't heard in 7 years) means cutting down your expenses.
What the current administration is doing is this: they are spending as if their credit will go on forever. It's like being on a $30k/year job, but spending as if you were on a $100k/year job by using your credit cards. You can't go on like that forever, and when it catches up to you, you are *so* fucked. And it always catches up to you.
Complaining about the cost of the baseball inquiries when we're in a $275M/day senseless war is like complaining because your spouse bought a $.25 chocolate at the checkout stand. In the long run, though it does cost money, it's nothing compared to that $1250/mo mortgage.
Fuck, yes.
C++ sucks. It's a half-assed attempt at an object-oriented language, combining the easy memory model of C with the simple OO model of Simula. I used to think the only good thing about C++ was templates. Then I figured out that templates suck, too, because they're damned near impossible to debug, for most non-trivial bugs.
I fuckin' *hate* C++. I'd much rather have to code straight C while being punched repeatedly by a baboon.
Objective-C is much less ugly. But then, so is LISP. (Actually, LISP is a damned good language. It's just not *pretty*, in a strictly aesthetic sense.)
So, to not be snide, there are *many* people who still code in C. There are many objective reasons to avoid C++. (This *was* about C++, wasn't it?)
I wonder how much credit we can attribute to voter complacency...
In any case, I don't understand all the fuss. Obama and Clinton were awarded the same number of delegates. This whole mess only matters to the media and spin people.
Because we're trying to be be sure democracy (in whatever perverted form as practiced by the US) survives?
Keep in mind the perception of winning is essential during the primaries. The states that hold their primaries later will be influenced by the outcome of the earlier primaries. That's why Iowa and New Hampshire are so important. If Obama had taken the NH primary as well, undecided Democrats in other states would be tempted to vote for the apparent front-runner.
Even the slightest hint of corruption in the democratic process should be investigated, evaluated, and judged. Democracy will only survive under a microscope.
This matters to me. I'm not interested in spin. I'm interested in a voting process that is transparent, accurate, and verifiable. If the Diebold-style of voting machine is none of these things, then it is our duty as US citizens (for those of us who are US citizens) to prove it, and mandate a better system.
Remember all those times when you have to clean up your parents/in-law/friends computers because they get compromised by this crap?
Yeah. See, that makes us part of the problem. We are facilitating it by cleaning up after it.
Instead, it's time to do a mass computer intervention. The next time your parents/gf/bf/in-laws/friends call you to clean up their computer, tell them they are on their own. Suggest they purchase a Mac next time. Or, tell them you'll help them install Linux or your favorite BSD flavor, or even (if you are so inclined and so insane) Open Solaris. Explain that you cannot continue to enable their dependence on a terrible drug, and that it hurts you to watch them slowly destroy themselves.
C'mon, Slashdot! We have strength in numbers. Let's turn this epidemic around. We'll be saving the sanity and minds of our friends and family, giving ourselves back some free time, and generally helping the world.
This will help in other ways, too. Almost all spam is sent from MS-Windows zombies. Let's get our family clean first, and work on the rest later.
Hey, this is fun.
It's called computer *science.* It's supposed to be theoretical first, practical later. You don't see chemistry classes dumbed down for the sake of the industry, except when you're taking a class specific to working in the industry. Yet chemists have no problem finding employment.
It seems what all y'all want is to provide another educational track. Rather like the distinction between mechanical engineering and sniv... civil engineering, it seems there's a demand for computer *science* (those who wish to understand the discipline as completely as an individual can), and computer *programming* (in which an individual learns C# + Visual Studio 2010).
Those in the first category won't have problems finding employment, at least assuming they have any kind of skill, and can figure out for themselves how to apply it to a particular problem. The second group will find themselves losing out to overseas programmers who have exactly the same skillset, but will work for 1/5th the wage.
I've worked in the industry for 18 years, and worked with computers for 27. In all that time, the *best* people have had a firm, fundamental, abstract understanding of computers. They were trained as computer scientists, rather than as Java programmers. In general, those who have been trained as programmers first and computer scientists second have a harder time adapting to unique situations, and have difficulty thinking of solutions that are both creative and sound.
Programming is a tool in the service of an engineering goal. Focusing on programming as an end to itself is like training carpenters by teaching them only how to use the hammer and saw.
A lot of fanboi-ism is based on the same drive that makes people root for a football team. "Hell, yeah, the Bears are gonna take the Superbowl!" (Superbowl and Bears are both football things, right?)
I'm definitely a PS3 fanboi. (I love the Wii, too. It's *fun*! Mostly I just want to see the XBox die the horrible, bloody, faintly embarrassing death it deserves. Die, XBox, die!) I'm also, to a certain extent, a Linux fanboi. (I recommend Macs to anyone who asks my advice, though. Why? Because I'll end up supporting the damned thing, and I end up helping MS-Windows users a *lot* more frequently than I end up helping Mac users.)
So, as a Linux fanboi, I really wish to see my team take the Superbowl. I know the stats, and I can use it to defend my hopes and desires. Linux does, after all, hold the record for rushing. And if you try to defend the pathetic record of MS-Windows, I'll club you over the head with my Heisman trophy. (Okay, technically it's not *my* Heisman trophy, it's OJ's. He's a Linux user too. Don't piss him off, or he'll go all Sweeney Todd on your ass.)
Really, though, there's a certain amount of economic inevitability with it. As the commoditization of the operating system drives the per-unit cost toward zero, the only way to make money of the OS is to use it as a value-add (gah! I can't believe I just said that!) to hardware (Apple's approach) or to give it away expecting nothing in return. Eventually, this is what Microsoft is going to have to do, in order to maintain sales of MS-Office and their various server products. (Notice the $3 crippled version of MS-Windows offered overseas. This per-unit cost is *significantly* closer to $0 than the $100+ retail cost.) So really, they will expect sales of other products in return, but the net effect is the same: a near-zero-cost OS.
The problem is that it's not just the operating system. The entire software stack is getting the free software treatment. The only question is, can this development model sustain itself for all pieces of software? If so, Microsoft is in for a world of hurt.
I mean, that's assuming they even make it to the play-offs this year. Their offense is looking kinda weak.