This is true to a point, but this far emphasizes the generosity of the United States.
Certainly America could potentially provide more aid. However, according to your article, the American government provides a quarter of all development assistance monies. Further, Americans are second (to the Irish) in percent of annual income donated. Coming from such a large and high-income country, this represents a huge outpouring of wealth.
A starving individual will certainly choose food over a laptop, but not all third-world countries are teeming with starving people rather most countries have a potential for a rising middle-class who lack the education and information necessary. The choice isn't between a laptop or a fish, it's the choice between a livelihood dependent on foreign food-supplies or a life of opportunity and all of its residual benefits.
I never argued that the only problem facing the third world is hunger. I merely stated that more money is needed to combat starvation.
I'm certainly not against the promotion of education. I'm merely pointing out that food is more important than laptops for those who are in imminent danger of death from starvation, a point dismissed by the post I was replying to.
Now, take this comparison further and note that Linux is generally relegated to use by the technologically adept. The vast majority of users prefer the comfort of Windows.
Having a non-standard system diminishes the ability of the average user to comfortably operate the majority of PCs. The definition of "standard system" does not have to be privately controlled. However, the homogeneity of Windows is, in general, a positive feature.
The general consensus here is that any "anti-monopolistic" action is a Good Thing. Yet it is important to remember that the true public good is not ideologically consistent. Acting upon ideals can, at times, be foolish. Remember: "All that glisters is not gold."
Do you really believe that releasing a Windows kernel and relying upon various OEMs to add third party software is a logical solution? Will doing so help the end-user experience and abet productivity? Or will the change in distribution model lead to the same fragmentation that's evident in Linux? The many options available to Linux users is, to them, a great feature that reflects their control over the operating system. However, a multitude of configurations is anathema to the habits of the majority of computer users.
Further, it is difficult to imagine Microsoft significantly dropping the price of Windows. Thus, a "Windows kernel distribution" would cost more than a standard copy of Windows due to the third party software.
In situations such as these, it is important to consider every consequence of a supposedly desirable outcome.
Admittedly, the only hard figures come from Microsoft, a biased source.
However, it was never my intention to prove that the XBox 360 is not a defective product. I am merely asserting that you are claiming massive and fictional failure rates based on no statisticaly significant evidence whatsoever.
Prove it. I can point to things. What can you do?
I can demonstrate that you are pointing to meaningless "things". Internet forums and initial, unresearched media claims are empty evidence.
As I said in my initial response, we can just wait to see how many crying kids @ christmas stories we see in 20 days.
Indeed, another very significant measure. Let us also tabulate the number of children who end up crying after not receiving an XBox. We can then compare these figures with the number of kids who are holding out for a PS3 or a Revolution, thereby creating an orgy of inanity.
You are, of course, allowed to believe what you will about the XBox 360.
However, you have nothing besides exasperated arm waving to support your original post:
Even a 3% defect rate(if it's that low, how many of these things were bought for people for christmas? Something like 10% of the initial stock was sold new-in-box on EBay, most of those are definately for christmas. And forums are showing 10-15% defect levels on the stuff that was actually opened.
You clearly want to portray the XBox 360 as being a defective product when all the hard evidence supports average to below average failure rates. Your evidential use of individual media claims and forum postings is quite entertaining.
Actually, forums are a bit more useful. If you can find 10,000 seperate online identities bitching about the same problem in a device that only shipped 400,000 units just before christmas, you know one of two things: It either has an enormous defect rate and people are justifiably irate about it, or a competitor is paying some viral marketers to give that impression.
Wow. Let's try this:
If you can find 10,000 crazies on the internet claiming to have had contact with aliens, you know one of two things: either aliens love spending time with strange people, or all supposed encounters are made up.
Meaningless statistical inferences are wicked fun.
Of course other languages have phrases similar to "How are you".
Note that I said other languages "use" (not just "have") a phrase similar to "How are you." If you could have been "arsed" to actually read the first sentence of my post, you might have saved yourself some time.
I used a British source for Wie geht's, assuming it would be accurate. Perhaps it is not.
However, French speakers definitely use "Ca va," so the your point about mainland Europeans not using such greetings is incorrect.
Secondly, I think it's obvious that almost every language uses some sort of construct that allows two people to pleasantly enter into a conversation. I am merely pointing out the shallowness of using the American employment of "How are you" (a phrase which, as you say, is also used by the British and Irish) as evidence that Americans do not say what they think.
How exactly is the PC revolution all thanks to Microsoft and their "ease of use for novices"? The PC revolution was well underway before the existence of Windows. I remember helping customers use software I'd written for their 286 notebook luggables running DOS 3 well before Windows made it with WFW.
Note that I specifically said "in part." I am not arguing that Windows created the PC revolution, only that it played an important role. Do you really disagree, or do you just love blowing things out of proportion?
I've converted MANY friends and family to Linux and I have far less support calls than with Windows. You see, the problem lies in the "Power Users" group... Your average Joe User can happily use a setup Linux machine without noticing too much difference because using Thunderbird/Firefox/OO on *nix is not much different to Outlook/IE/Office on Windows (seriously, how many of those whizbang office features do you think your average person uses?).
Not everyone has a dedicated tech support person. See the other reply to your post for an example of someone who has had difficulty adopting Linux.
You see, the problem lies in the "Power Users" group - people who think they know about computers when in actual fact they only really think they know about Windows.
Apparently OO doesn't provide grammatical advice. As your sentence made no sense, I have no refutation. However, I agree with you that the problem stems from "Power Users": those who have developed a working knowledge of Linux and cannot understand the difficulties faced by novices.
The people that do write the software HAVE NO INTEREST IN DEFEATING MICROSOFT. How does having a bunch of whining Windows ex-pats looking to save money help the F/OSS world at all?
Every heard of a guy named Stallman? He's a well known developer and I'm pretty sure he has plenty of interest in "DEFEATING MICROSOFT."
What does the F/OSS world have to gain from "whining Windows ex-pats"? How about that when less money, market, and mindshare go to Microsoft (and consequentially other closed-source vendors), the position of open source is strengthened? And everyone knows that more open source means more civil liberties and other goodies, leading eventually to strawberry fields forever. At least according to Stallman et al.
This Bove character would be better off writing a book on diplomacy for the F/OSS community. The "figureheads" of the movement seem quite courteous and well-intentioned. The general followers use phrases like "whining Windows ex-pats" and come off as total assholes.
Of course, we don't know what the world's economies would look like without Microsoft, but from a European perspective (I'm English) a lot less money would be going overseas to an American corporation which could only be good.
I think it's well agreed upon that the proliferation of PCs is at least in part due to Microsoft, whose products are easy to use, even for novices. No matter what you want to think, Linux is NOT easy for inexperienced users.
If you really want less money to go to Microsoft, good sir, then I suggest you run down to the pub, gather up all your friends, and get to work on a product that genuinely replaces Windows. A product that gets the job done on high-end servers, cheap notebooks, and PDAs. A product that may not be perfect (or even close) but one that makes sense to the AVERAGE user. I wish you good luck, and remember: Linux does not meet the above requirements.
If you manage to get past the first challenge, then take a night off. Take a shower (if you're into that sort of thing), go out and get pissed (or is it sodded? or both?), but don't stay out too late, because you still need to create a Microsoft Office replacement.
Or maybe you should reconsider your anti-evangelism stance?
Popular media starring "geeks" are nothing new. See Egon Spengler and Louis from Ghostbusters. See Erkel (if you must). Or Melvin Belvin (Happy Days). Or this delightful spread of Mr. Gates.
If anything, "geekdom," in America at least, is in decline. During the space race, NASA engineers were revered. Now they are the subject of mockery. There was a time when the public was excited about the release of new American cars. And as the summary states, computer science is less enticing to young scholars.
Two poorly crafted calendars and a movie starring a geek who is enjoyable because he is amusing (to some) do not a watershed moment make. "Vote For Pedro" shirts are an homage to MTV (the organization that produced and popularized the film) that have nothing to do with reading engineering texts for fun, spending all your spare time programming, or being the proud owner of a slide rule.
I've also heard that its more efficient to leave your computer on all the time because the amount it costs in wear and tear on your computer is more than the power saved by doing it. Anyone hear of this rumor or know anything about it?
The argument is that thermal stress from turning the cooled-down PC on wears components out. I've seen many arguments for and against leaving a computer on all the time. This page details a few of them.
Interestingly enough, according to the web page it is more important to turn off the monitor than the PC.
From the article (which is very much worth the read):
Sabnis's solution was to build a dye molecule from an unstable base structure called a lactone ring that functions much like a box. When the ring is open, the molecule absorbs all visible light save for one color--the color of the bubble. But add air, water or pressure, and the box closes, changing the molecule's structure so that it lets visible light pass straight through.
Mueller has published an opinion piece on popular tech news blog Slashdot, in which he argues that companies who pledge not to use their patents against Linux are guilty of 'cheap PR plays'.
As opposed to the not-at-all-cheap PR play at hand? But hey, Mueller's "customer advisor people speak to people." Very comperehensive.
Among the companies that don't support the Patent Commons initiative are Microsoft, HP, and Oracle. The article mentions the claim that Linux potentially violates 283 patents. Unfortunately the list of infringements was not released, but wouldn't the OSDL be wise to do some research in order to determine the validity of the claim? Then they would know for certain if any of the supposedly sullied patents belong to the above corporations.
"They don't just want to make toys, they want to make MRI machines and jumbo jets. Just as the center of manufacturing moved from Europe to the U.S., they want to keep it moving to Asia.
So let them. Europe's economic irrelevance has to do with poor organization and post-war devastation. This does not have to happen to America.
The further development of Asian (more specifically global) manufacturing is unstoppable. This is not a bad thing. America's response will (hopefully) be increased automation and higher quality (as in German automobiles). The great thing about Asia is cheap labor. So reduce labor as a factor and you can come out ahead.
He also pointed to statistics that show the United States graduating only 4,400 mathematics and science PhDs each year compared with 24,900 math and science PhDs for greater Asia.
This is an idiotic numbers game. Pursuing a PhD in mathematics or science requires a certain constitution. Urging more Americans to consider such degrees is unlikely to produce a wealth of qualified candidates. And besides, a Harvard PhD will tell you that he's worth at least 10 PhDs from God-Knows-Where in Asia (this is a joke).
In response to the looming crisis, Romney pointed to some specific problems and proposed some remedies. He said we must close the educational achievement gap between racial groups in the United States. "The education gap is the civil rights issue of our age." He also said all U.S. students must raise their standing compared with students in other industrialized countries.
This is the only credible solution presented by Mr. Romney (the OpenDocument initiative is interesting but it has nothing to do with innovation). And it is a very unconvincing one. Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on students with the DEMONSTRATED potential to succeed? The education gap (which is a POVERTY issue, not a racial issue) is obviously a detriment to free society. But come on: it has nothing to do with high tech. A vague improvment in the general intelligence of the public will not change drastically the ability of American research and design.
I find it most amusing that Mr. Romney praises Asians for being "hard working" and "ambitious" but does not encourage instilling those qualities in American youths. Increasing the salaries of educators (which should be done for ALL educators on general principles) based on their performance is a terribly uncomprehensive plan. Implement this and students will be demonstrably better at whatever metric is used to determine which teachers deserve raises. What a wonderfully superficial improvement! Until more children are motivated (by their parents and their community) to excel at school, nothing will change.
How can this be done? I dunno, I'm not a Governor =).
The ribbon interface is a refreshing change from the old menus.
Assuming you have never used Office 12 and noting that the linked article asserts that the changes are POSITIVE, I claim that your opinion on the matter has absolutely NO VALUE as an indicator of how users will receive this product. Good effort, though.
But who do we see hold the majority of software patents? Large software companies. And so, the whole system is turned on it's head. Companies with a lot of resources, who can out-market (spending lots of money on ad campaigns, etc), out-lobby, and out-patent (patents are very expensive, and so only people with a lot of money to burn on patents can afford to get a lot of patents) most of the small and mid-size players.
This is by far the most compelling argument against software patents. The only defense I present is as follows: in a capitalistic society, wealth will always congeal around large corporations. This wealth includes all sorts of property, physical and intellectual. Whether or not the system itself is just belongs to another debate.
Take for example the Amazon.com infamous one-click patent. The reason so many people were in an uproar about it is that, fundamentally, they were using html and cgi the way html and cgi were designed to be used (that is, present users with a form, and when the user clicks on something on that form, the form is processed and some software is triggered to run on the server).
The Amazon patent is notably ludicrous, and a few seconds at the USPTO search site will turn up other jokes. To counter, here are two software patents that I believe are valid: one; two. Both software patents relate to larger systems and seem to be innovative solutions to their respective problems (seem to be because I am unfortunately a chemistry dunce).
Finally, it's arguable whether the first person/company to implement a specific idea should have a monopoly on that idea, when many others may have had the same idea, and just come to market a few months later. Most of the times, ideas are not that original - but specific implementations might be.
Patents are intended to encourage people to get out an invent. Suppose you and I simultaneously have the same great idea. I play around with it in my head for a few months. You, on the other hand, work scrupulously in your laboratory, determining a way to turn the idea into reality (and crafting your patent application). Are you not more deserving of the patent than I? Remember, a patent rewards both innovation and hard work.
There are many many patents that have been applied for not for their inherent market value, but simply their value as a stick with which to beat the hell out of your competition, by creating an artificial barrier to entry into a particular market, or into any market.
This is an unequivocal drawback. The advent of ventures formed with the sole intent of gathering and litigating patents is certainly discouraging. Again, I assert that the USPTO needs a major overhaul. I've seen it suggested that only patents that are "acted upon" should be considered valid. This seems to be a reasonable adjustment.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a great post.
Patents need to be thrown out. If we want to reward inventors using a "First to invent" scheme, let's do it fairly, and introduce competitions and bonuses for specific, named, inventions that are generally wanted. The X-Prize was a reasonable idea. An eighteen-year monopoly on space wouldn't be. Those who promote patents think the latter would be more legitimate, reasonable, and required, than the former.
I agree with you that a "race" is helpful in generating innovation. But what did the X-Prize competition really amount to? The only contenders that stood a chance were funded by corporate moguls (Paul Allen in SpaceShipOne's case). Isn't a barrier to entry one of the detriments of patents?
Further, claiming that the patent system is akin to giving the first private venture to space an "eighteen-year monopoly" is a bit excessive. In fact, the X-Prize competition itself resulted in at least one patent application being filed (from this Space.com article):
However, the configuration designed by Scaled Composites for SpaceShipOne is unique with its fuel case and nozzle cantilevered off the main oxidizer tank - forming part of the vehicle's aft fuselage. Rutan has applied for a patent given this new design.
I am not asserting that the patent system is perfect - or even close - but I do believe that it is effective in generating a will to invest the time and resources necessary for even the simplest of modern inventions.
It seems clear that patent pools are merely a sleight of hand performed by inevitably pro-patent organizations to gain the favor of the open source community.
Yet I still can't grasp what exactly is wrong with software patents.
Why should software companies be unallowed to protect their means and methods of innovation? Obvious patents are always wrong and unfortunately are granted every day. This is a major malfunction of the USPTO that must be addressed. However, the design of a large software system is hardly a simple algorithm. Every industry recognizes that processes, recipies, and systems may be patented. So what is it that makes software any different?
I understand that it is the dream of the "open" movement to turn IT into a service industry, however I believe this would have unfortunate consequences for both producers and consumers. Without the ability to shield innovation through patents, the software industry would have less reason to research and advance, and less means to support its constituents. It is admirable that developers worldwide embrace the open source ethos. But it is reckless to assume that all developers share those ideals.
I have read ESR's Cathedral and Stallman's Software Should Not Have Owners and find them optimistic at best. Mr. Muller is cast from the same mold. From NoSoftwarePatents.com:
Patents on software restrict the freedom of expression, and that freedom is too important to be sacrificed to the "patent mafia" and big industry lobbyism. There are some who say that software is "engineered". In practice, software is written. A computer program consists of words, numbers, and mathematical symbols.
This is why obvious things (such as simple algorithms) should not be patentable. Software is indeed "written," however software systems follow a larger vision. The turning of a screw is not patentable, but a method of connecting parts (turn by turn by turn) to create a greater whole is.
I know this post is anathema to the local mindset, but I hope to get one or two serious responses =/.
Thank you for showing me to the light after all these years in the dark. I am no longer scared to use my computer.
Glad to be of service.
In all honesty, though, I think you're naive to be so dismissive of usability. Interface design isn't discussed much 'round these parts because Slashdot has a highly computer literate readership. Yet the general population (as another poster said) is much different.
If you'd actually read either link I posted, you'd see that Fitts's Law does not state that all buttons should be at the edges of the screen. Fitts's law is merely a mathematical observation about the capabilities of the human motor system. Furthermore, the foundation study was done on untrained individuals. Thus, Fitts's law is of special importance to novice users.
Initiatives like the $100 Laptop should focus heavily on HID. I understand the rejection of OSX due to the closed nature of some of its components. However, Red Hat has its own set of disadvantages, most of which relate to usability. Remember, they aren't handing these machines out to the Slashdot crowd. Not every child is a budding RHCE.
There's a simple and well-tested reason: Fitts's Law.
Objects at the edges of the screen are easiest for a user to access because the pointer is restrained from moving past them. The upper edge of the screen is the ocean front of GUI design because (among other reasons) that's where the menus always are.
In this respect, Mac OS is a sort of commune: every application has access to the superior menu location. Note that the Windows taskbar makes it more difficult to access the program menu: more "aim" is required.
Edges (e.g. menubar in Mac OS) and corners of the computer display are particularly easy to acquire because the pointer remains at the screen edge regardless of how much further the mouse is moved, thus can be considered as having infinite width.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean aid in total. The post I was replying to insinuated that America does nothing to help the rest of the world.
Certainly it is easy for America to provide enormous sums of foregin aid. However, this should not demean the fact that the aid is given.
I'm certainly not against the promotion of education. I'm merely pointing out that food is more important than laptops for those who are in imminent danger of death from starvation, a point dismissed by the post I was replying to.
Further, please note that the $100 laptop initiative that you are supporting originated at an American university.
Finally, the United States provides more foreign aid than any other country in the world. Far more.
Now, take this comparison further and note that Linux is generally relegated to use by the technologically adept. The vast majority of users prefer the comfort of Windows.
Having a non-standard system diminishes the ability of the average user to comfortably operate the majority of PCs. The definition of "standard system" does not have to be privately controlled. However, the homogeneity of Windows is, in general, a positive feature.
The general consensus here is that any "anti-monopolistic" action is a Good Thing. Yet it is important to remember that the true public good is not ideologically consistent. Acting upon ideals can, at times, be foolish. Remember: "All that glisters is not gold."
Do you really believe that releasing a Windows kernel and relying upon various OEMs to add third party software is a logical solution? Will doing so help the end-user experience and abet productivity? Or will the change in distribution model lead to the same fragmentation that's evident in Linux? The many options available to Linux users is, to them, a great feature that reflects their control over the operating system. However, a multitude of configurations is anathema to the habits of the majority of computer users.
Further, it is difficult to imagine Microsoft significantly dropping the price of Windows. Thus, a "Windows kernel distribution" would cost more than a standard copy of Windows due to the third party software.
In situations such as these, it is important to consider every consequence of a supposedly desirable outcome.
However, it was never my intention to prove that the XBox 360 is not a defective product. I am merely asserting that you are claiming massive and fictional failure rates based on no statisticaly significant evidence whatsoever. I can demonstrate that you are pointing to meaningless "things". Internet forums and initial, unresearched media claims are empty evidence. Indeed, another very significant measure. Let us also tabulate the number of children who end up crying after not receiving an XBox. We can then compare these figures with the number of kids who are holding out for a PS3 or a Revolution, thereby creating an orgy of inanity.
However, you have nothing besides exasperated arm waving to support your original post: You clearly want to portray the XBox 360 as being a defective product when all the hard evidence supports average to below average failure rates. Your evidential use of individual media claims and forum postings is quite entertaining.
However, there's no need to bother with a NEXT.
If you can find 10,000 crazies on the internet claiming to have had contact with aliens, you know one of two things: either aliens love spending time with strange people, or all supposed encounters are made up.
Meaningless statistical inferences are wicked fun.
I used a British source for Wie geht's, assuming it would be accurate. Perhaps it is not.
However, French speakers definitely use "Ca va," so the your point about mainland Europeans not using such greetings is incorrect.
Secondly, I think it's obvious that almost every language uses some sort of construct that allows two people to pleasantly enter into a conversation. I am merely pointing out the shallowness of using the American employment of "How are you" (a phrase which, as you say, is also used by the British and Irish) as evidence that Americans do not say what they think.
What language doesn't use a phrase similar to "How are you?"
The French have Ca va (add the cedilla in your mind).
The British also use how are you.
The Spanish language uses its own version.
The Germans have Wie geht's?.
Either you're just making stuff up or you hang out with a bunch of inconsiderate assholes. And, yes, that's what I really think.
Every heard of a guy named Stallman? He's a well known developer and I'm pretty sure he has plenty of interest in "DEFEATING MICROSOFT."
What does the F/OSS world have to gain from "whining Windows ex-pats"? How about that when less money, market, and mindshare go to Microsoft (and consequentially other closed-source vendors), the position of open source is strengthened? And everyone knows that more open source means more civil liberties and other goodies, leading eventually to strawberry fields forever. At least according to Stallman et al.
This Bove character would be better off writing a book on diplomacy for the F/OSS community. The "figureheads" of the movement seem quite courteous and well-intentioned. The general followers use phrases like "whining Windows ex-pats" and come off as total assholes.
I think it's well agreed upon that the proliferation of PCs is at least in part due to Microsoft, whose products are easy to use, even for novices. No matter what you want to think, Linux is NOT easy for inexperienced users.
If you really want less money to go to Microsoft, good sir, then I suggest you run down to the pub, gather up all your friends, and get to work on a product that genuinely replaces Windows. A product that gets the job done on high-end servers, cheap notebooks, and PDAs. A product that may not be perfect (or even close) but one that makes sense to the AVERAGE user. I wish you good luck, and remember: Linux does not meet the above requirements.
If you manage to get past the first challenge, then take a night off. Take a shower (if you're into that sort of thing), go out and get pissed (or is it sodded? or both?), but don't stay out too late, because you still need to create a Microsoft Office replacement.
Or maybe you should reconsider your anti-evangelism stance?
Popular media starring "geeks" are nothing new. See Egon Spengler and Louis from Ghostbusters. See Erkel (if you must). Or Melvin Belvin (Happy Days). Or this delightful spread of Mr. Gates.
If anything, "geekdom," in America at least, is in decline. During the space race, NASA engineers were revered. Now they are the subject of mockery. There was a time when the public was excited about the release of new American cars. And as the summary states, computer science is less enticing to young scholars.
Two poorly crafted calendars and a movie starring a geek who is enjoyable because he is amusing (to some) do not a watershed moment make. "Vote For Pedro" shirts are an homage to MTV (the organization that produced and popularized the film) that have nothing to do with reading engineering texts for fun, spending all your spare time programming, or being the proud owner of a slide rule.
Interestingly enough, according to the web page it is more important to turn off the monitor than the PC.
Among the companies that don't support the Patent Commons initiative are Microsoft, HP, and Oracle. The article mentions the claim that Linux potentially violates 283 patents. Unfortunately the list of infringements was not released, but wouldn't the OSDL be wise to do some research in order to determine the validity of the claim? Then they would know for certain if any of the supposedly sullied patents belong to the above corporations.
But hey, his people speak to people.
The further development of Asian (more specifically global) manufacturing is unstoppable. This is not a bad thing. America's response will (hopefully) be increased automation and higher quality (as in German automobiles). The great thing about Asia is cheap labor. So reduce labor as a factor and you can come out ahead. This is an idiotic numbers game. Pursuing a PhD in mathematics or science requires a certain constitution. Urging more Americans to consider such degrees is unlikely to produce a wealth of qualified candidates. And besides, a Harvard PhD will tell you that he's worth at least 10 PhDs from God-Knows-Where in Asia (this is a joke). This is the only credible solution presented by Mr. Romney (the OpenDocument initiative is interesting but it has nothing to do with innovation). And it is a very unconvincing one. Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on students with the DEMONSTRATED potential to succeed? The education gap (which is a POVERTY issue, not a racial issue) is obviously a detriment to free society. But come on: it has nothing to do with high tech. A vague improvment in the general intelligence of the public will not change drastically the ability of American research and design.
I find it most amusing that Mr. Romney praises Asians for being "hard working" and "ambitious" but does not encourage instilling those qualities in American youths. Increasing the salaries of educators (which should be done for ALL educators on general principles) based on their performance is a terribly uncomprehensive plan. Implement this and students will be demonstrably better at whatever metric is used to determine which teachers deserve raises. What a wonderfully superficial improvement! Until more children are motivated (by their parents and their community) to excel at school, nothing will change.
How can this be done? I dunno, I'm not a Governor =).
If it takes you ten minutes to click on "Tools" follwed by "AutoCorrect Options" then you need to turn your mouse sensitivity up.
WAY up.
Or you could just stop exaggerating...
Thank you for taking the time to write such a great post.
Further, claiming that the patent system is akin to giving the first private venture to space an "eighteen-year monopoly" is a bit excessive. In fact, the X-Prize competition itself resulted in at least one patent application being filed (from this Space.com article): I am not asserting that the patent system is perfect - or even close - but I do believe that it is effective in generating a will to invest the time and resources necessary for even the simplest of modern inventions.
Yet I still can't grasp what exactly is wrong with software patents.
Why should software companies be unallowed to protect their means and methods of innovation? Obvious patents are always wrong and unfortunately are granted every day. This is a major malfunction of the USPTO that must be addressed. However, the design of a large software system is hardly a simple algorithm. Every industry recognizes that processes, recipies, and systems may be patented. So what is it that makes software any different?
I understand that it is the dream of the "open" movement to turn IT into a service industry, however I believe this would have unfortunate consequences for both producers and consumers. Without the ability to shield innovation through patents, the software industry would have less reason to research and advance, and less means to support its constituents. It is admirable that developers worldwide embrace the open source ethos. But it is reckless to assume that all developers share those ideals.
I have read ESR's Cathedral and Stallman's Software Should Not Have Owners and find them optimistic at best. Mr. Muller is cast from the same mold. From NoSoftwarePatents.com: This is why obvious things (such as simple algorithms) should not be patentable. Software is indeed "written," however software systems follow a larger vision. The turning of a screw is not patentable, but a method of connecting parts (turn by turn by turn) to create a greater whole is.
I know this post is anathema to the local mindset, but I hope to get one or two serious responses =/.
In all honesty, though, I think you're naive to be so dismissive of usability. Interface design isn't discussed much 'round these parts because Slashdot has a highly computer literate readership. Yet the general population (as another poster said) is much different.
If you'd actually read either link I posted, you'd see that Fitts's Law does not state that all buttons should be at the edges of the screen. Fitts's law is merely a mathematical observation about the capabilities of the human motor system. Furthermore, the foundation study was done on untrained individuals. Thus, Fitts's law is of special importance to novice users.
Initiatives like the $100 Laptop should focus heavily on HID. I understand the rejection of OSX due to the closed nature of some of its components. However, Red Hat has its own set of disadvantages, most of which relate to usability. Remember, they aren't handing these machines out to the Slashdot crowd. Not every child is a budding RHCE.
Objects at the edges of the screen are easiest for a user to access because the pointer is restrained from moving past them. The upper edge of the screen is the ocean front of GUI design because (among other reasons) that's where the menus always are.
In this respect, Mac OS is a sort of commune: every application has access to the superior menu location. Note that the Windows taskbar makes it more difficult to access the program menu: more "aim" is required.
See this and this.
From the Wikipedia article:
Is this the Dave Taylor of id Software/Crack.com fame?
If I recall correctly, he was id Software's resident "Unix Guru" for a time. What a change of pace.
IDDT forever =).