I guess that by Ep III, you're supposed to feel like the empire has already won. You could have scenes of Yoda setting up his house on Degoba or Luke growing up, or maybe Vadar standing on his ship, flying around. You could have it focus on the rebellion, but then there's no Jedi/Sith action, which is probably what people want.
I do think continuing the clone wars is a bit of a dead horse. Even before the prequels were released, we knew Anakin would turn into Vadar, which I thought made the stories less interesting. But now, we even know how he becomes Vadar. We know what happens, and I thought the old Clone Wars cartoon did a good job bridging the gap between Ep II and Ep III, so it's not clear why you'd revisit that time at all.
It seems to me that, if Lucas were interested in doing something worthwhile, he'd drop the idea that it's all about Anakin. Anakin isn't even a compelling character. They could make the series about Luke/Leia/Han after RotJ, or about the Jedi/Sith in a different time (KotOR), or some other story entirely.
I would think that part of the problem is that Microsoft can arrange things so you're punished for using an alternative OS or alternative browser. I remember when Mozilla was young and Firefox wasn't even Firefox yet, and a whole lot of web pages wouldn't render properly in anything but Internet Explorer. 10% of the market would mean that people were using it in spite of this problem, and that web designers would need to support these browsers, and therefore it would be a big win.
You have similar situations with the OS-- if 10% of the desktop market were Linux, you'd see a lot more hardware and software supporting Linux, which would mean that 10% would be able to grow. But what does 10% of the MP3 market mean? What would that change? You'd expect that MS, with all their muscle, could get 10% by hook or by crook. That they haven't managed that yet looks bad.
I find it hard to believe that if you filter out spam, news digests, etc. and are down to personal communications, that you are honestly getting too many unless you're the president.
and if you are the president, you can have the your political aides 'lose' your email anyway.
For instance he does have complete control over Linux (the kernel), but has little to no influence over the actual distributions.
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? He may have control over the official kernel, but because he doesn't control the distributions, he doesn't have any control over what the kernel looks like in the distributions except insofar as they choose to stick with the official kernel.
So, ultimately, he doesn't have complete control over Linux (the kernel). People can do whatever they want with the kernel. That's the whole point.
Even if you don't use either company's products, you still might care on the basis that each company is influential, powerful, and trying to compete with the product of your choice. Sometimes it's good to know your enemies.
While you have a bit of a point, I don't think Linus is the right choice. I don't want to downplay his contribution or anything, but he's more of a programmer and more specifically a kernel hacker. Jobs and Gates are the businessmen who run the companies and oversee the product vision.
So Linus, the head Mac kernel guy, and the head Vista kernel guy might be interesting. Shuttleworth might be a better guy to line up with Jobs and Gates.
The problem comes when the managerial-type tries to dictate to the techie how exactly to do a job.
That's called "micromanagement" and is generally considered a crappy management style. A manager really should be creating an environment where those with expertise on a given question can give their opinion and then you listen to the opinions of your team members. A bad manager doesn't listen to those with expertise and would prefer to go by his own opinion, even if it's ignorant.
I think it's true that unexperienced managers are often bad managers, and a fresh-out-of-college MBA with no experience is likely to be... well, kind of good-for-nothing until he/she gets some experience in something. Most kids, fresh out of college and with no experience, are kind of problematic.
However, I think it'd be a mistake to think that a manager should be required to be an experienced technical person in the respective field. Often, the skills of being the techie guru and the skills of managing people/projects/resources are different. Great tech people often have to be very focussed and detail oriented, while managers have to look at the big picture, schedule things, allocate resources, deal with people/politics, and be willing to let others deal with the details (and not micromanage).
Ideally, tech people and managerial-types would each do the work that the other didn't want to do. It often fails to work out that way.
Preferring managerial positions over technical positions isn't necessarily lazy. Both positions might be easy or hard, depending partially on how good a job you do. They're really different kinds of work, requiring different skills, and people who enjoy one sort of work might not enjoy the other sort. It might be that people who prefer managerial work are recognizing something about their own strengths and weaknesses and choosing the job that's appropriate for them.
Of course, I'll acknowledge that some people just want to be "the boss" for the money and power it will give them. However, as someone who has had technical jobs and managerial jobs, I'd say my technical jobs were easier. I knew what I had to do and I could just come in, work on that, and go home.
Sure. Yes. It should hopefully help people. And I think it is key to the whole idea that the systems aren't closed up, locked down, proprietary systems that people would be unable to alter.
However, there are many people who... I don't know if I can characterize it properly, but I might satirize the attitude as, "Oh these poor people with distended bellies and no computers. How will they ever put music on their iPods or surf for porn?"
It wouldn't necessarily benefit anyone to dump a shitload of computers on Africa, just like throwing computers into classrooms don't necessarily help education. The important (good) thing about the OLPC project is that they're considering the problems that these countries face and building custom systems from scratch to address these difficulties. I'm not an expert on the project, but everything I've read indicates that it's fairly thoughtful and sober rather than naive enthusiasm for "technology" and "modernization".
Oh, to be clear, i have no intention of criticizing the OLPC project. I think it's a great project. My joke was more about the general attempts to "modernize less-developed countries", and the expectations and motivations involved in that process.
If Intel strong-arms the OLPC project into oblivion but continues to provide the same "philanthropic", so to speak, service, don't the children still benefit?
While I agree that we shouldn't feel OLPC needs to be the only platform available to these people, I think your question indicates the source of people's concern: What if Intel strong-arms the OLPC project into oblivion but then does not continue to provide the same philanthropic service?
If Slashdotters don't figure out a way to reproduce alone, they'll be worse than obsolete, they'll be extinct. We sure as hell won't find anyone else who'll reproduce with us.
It may be an odd coincidence. It may mean you're experiencing part of a long-term climate cycle. It could be part of your climate shifting. The pattern may be due to global warming.
However, I doubt either you or I are qualified or have sufficient data to determine which of those things it is. We could guess, but that ain't science.
It might, but then again what makes you think they'd move from corn to something healthier? I read somewhere (don't remember where) that Coca Cola was indeed looking to other sources of sweetener as corn syrup has become more expensive. However, they were looking into other, more synthetic ways of creating sugar.
Depends... I suppose that might be faster if you're trying to argue, "I'm not insane." Of course, the original claim that you're not insane would have probably been an exaggeration, so....
I would like to live in the world you imagine, but it's hard to reconcile that idea with the popularity of "young Earth" creationism. Religion and pseudoscience do what you call the fastest way to lose an argument, yet in the minds of many Americans they haven't lost...
I don't really want to bring the conversation in this direction, but since you brought it up:
I think people who get extremely angry about creationists do just the thing I'm talking about when arguing in favor of evolution. They try to argue that the evidence of evolution proves the non-existence of God, they argue as though you cannot doubt a single aspect of current evolutionary theory, they argue that no sane person could believe a god had anything to do with the creation of human beings, and they claim that creationism has been disproved.
In fact, there are many different theories that all get referred to as "creationism", and most of them have not been disproved because most of them cannot be disproved. This is a sign that the theories are not scientific theories. No one has proven the non-existence of God, and no one will prove or disprove the existence of God, which is a good indication that He is not the subject of science. And, in fact, their are a myriad of ways that a person could believe evolution has taken place, yet also believe God is real, and also believe that God had some part of creating life and creating human beings.
To go further, I'd say that you are guilty of exaggerating and overstating your case: you imply that religion is inherently faulty and poor grounds for argumentation. However, religion can be relevant in many non-scientific discussions on a wide variety of subjects, but the sort of thinking that goes on in religion is not a good model for scientific investigation. Similarly, the scientific method is a very good model for investigations into scientific subjects, but it falters in some other areas of thought.
My point is, arguments/discussions can be very helpful to both sides when we shake off our adversarial hostility, quit trying to prove each other "wrong" in order to "win" the argument, and we talk to each other like human beings. If your position is right and your argument is good, you shouldn't need artificial exaggerations to prove your point.
Even so, it's true that some people will never do this. Some people will continue to make dishonest arguments and some people will fail to listen to even the best and most correct argument. Still, on the whole, there are few advantages in an argument stronger than credibility and correctness. Don't throw them away so easily.
I think this is very important for people to remember. I forget who said it first, but the fastest way to lose an argument is to exaggerate. Even if you're right, if you're blatantly obvious about exaggerating your own points and failing to acknowledge your opponents points, people won't believe you. Even if you're right.
When dealing with a topic like global warming, credibility is incredibly important because almost no one (by which I mean among laymen) understands the science. Even relative to other sciences, studying climate and weather is incredibly complex and imprecise. So in order to preserve the credibility of those warning us about global warming-- people, please don't exaggerate. Don't try to convince people of things you yourself don't understand. Don't predict unlikely worst-case scenarios when the likely scenarios are bad enough. Just make honest arguments about only the things you understand, admit to the places where your understanding is unclear, and settle down on the hype.
If we exercised this sort of restraint, our arguments on a wide variety of subjects would probably be more productive. I say "probably" only because I'm basing this on nothing wider than my own personal experience. When you overstate your points and exaggerate the support for your arguments, you're only giving your opponents ammunition to shoot you down.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that by Ep III, you're supposed to feel like the empire has already won. You could have scenes of Yoda setting up his house on Degoba or Luke growing up, or maybe Vadar standing on his ship, flying around. You could have it focus on the rebellion, but then there's no Jedi/Sith action, which is probably what people want.
I do think continuing the clone wars is a bit of a dead horse. Even before the prequels were released, we knew Anakin would turn into Vadar, which I thought made the stories less interesting. But now, we even know how he becomes Vadar. We know what happens, and I thought the old Clone Wars cartoon did a good job bridging the gap between Ep II and Ep III, so it's not clear why you'd revisit that time at all.
It seems to me that, if Lucas were interested in doing something worthwhile, he'd drop the idea that it's all about Anakin. Anakin isn't even a compelling character. They could make the series about Luke/Leia/Han after RotJ, or about the Jedi/Sith in a different time (KotOR), or some other story entirely.
I would think that part of the problem is that Microsoft can arrange things so you're punished for using an alternative OS or alternative browser. I remember when Mozilla was young and Firefox wasn't even Firefox yet, and a whole lot of web pages wouldn't render properly in anything but Internet Explorer. 10% of the market would mean that people were using it in spite of this problem, and that web designers would need to support these browsers, and therefore it would be a big win.
You have similar situations with the OS-- if 10% of the desktop market were Linux, you'd see a lot more hardware and software supporting Linux, which would mean that 10% would be able to grow. But what does 10% of the MP3 market mean? What would that change? You'd expect that MS, with all their muscle, could get 10% by hook or by crook. That they haven't managed that yet looks bad.
hmmm... interesting. But where does your trust go when it's loosed?
I mean a database engine to manage bookmarks seems like overkill to me.
Well, it is a 'lite' database engine...?
I find it hard to believe that if you filter out spam, news digests, etc. and are down to personal communications, that you are honestly getting too many unless you're the president.
and if you are the president, you can have the your political aides 'lose' your email anyway.
For instance he does have complete control over Linux (the kernel), but has little to no influence over the actual distributions.
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? He may have control over the official kernel, but because he doesn't control the distributions, he doesn't have any control over what the kernel looks like in the distributions except insofar as they choose to stick with the official kernel.
So, ultimately, he doesn't have complete control over Linux (the kernel). People can do whatever they want with the kernel. That's the whole point.
What hardware platforms does Stallman have control over? Of what operating systems does he have decision-making power over the design?
Even if you don't use either company's products, you still might care on the basis that each company is influential, powerful, and trying to compete with the product of your choice. Sometimes it's good to know your enemies.
While you have a bit of a point, I don't think Linus is the right choice. I don't want to downplay his contribution or anything, but he's more of a programmer and more specifically a kernel hacker. Jobs and Gates are the businessmen who run the companies and oversee the product vision.
So Linus, the head Mac kernel guy, and the head Vista kernel guy might be interesting. Shuttleworth might be a better guy to line up with Jobs and Gates.
The problem comes when the managerial-type tries to dictate to the techie how exactly to do a job.
That's called "micromanagement" and is generally considered a crappy management style. A manager really should be creating an environment where those with expertise on a given question can give their opinion and then you listen to the opinions of your team members. A bad manager doesn't listen to those with expertise and would prefer to go by his own opinion, even if it's ignorant.
I think it's true that unexperienced managers are often bad managers, and a fresh-out-of-college MBA with no experience is likely to be... well, kind of good-for-nothing until he/she gets some experience in something. Most kids, fresh out of college and with no experience, are kind of problematic.
However, I think it'd be a mistake to think that a manager should be required to be an experienced technical person in the respective field. Often, the skills of being the techie guru and the skills of managing people/projects/resources are different. Great tech people often have to be very focussed and detail oriented, while managers have to look at the big picture, schedule things, allocate resources, deal with people/politics, and be willing to let others deal with the details (and not micromanage).
Ideally, tech people and managerial-types would each do the work that the other didn't want to do. It often fails to work out that way.
Preferring managerial positions over technical positions isn't necessarily lazy. Both positions might be easy or hard, depending partially on how good a job you do. They're really different kinds of work, requiring different skills, and people who enjoy one sort of work might not enjoy the other sort. It might be that people who prefer managerial work are recognizing something about their own strengths and weaknesses and choosing the job that's appropriate for them.
Of course, I'll acknowledge that some people just want to be "the boss" for the money and power it will give them. However, as someone who has had technical jobs and managerial jobs, I'd say my technical jobs were easier. I knew what I had to do and I could just come in, work on that, and go home.
Because geeky IT guys are trying to figure out how to lure more women into their dungeons.
Sure. Yes. It should hopefully help people. And I think it is key to the whole idea that the systems aren't closed up, locked down, proprietary systems that people would be unable to alter.
However, there are many people who... I don't know if I can characterize it properly, but I might satirize the attitude as, "Oh these poor people with distended bellies and no computers. How will they ever put music on their iPods or surf for porn?"
It wouldn't necessarily benefit anyone to dump a shitload of computers on Africa, just like throwing computers into classrooms don't necessarily help education. The important (good) thing about the OLPC project is that they're considering the problems that these countries face and building custom systems from scratch to address these difficulties. I'm not an expert on the project, but everything I've read indicates that it's fairly thoughtful and sober rather than naive enthusiasm for "technology" and "modernization".
I guess, but since it was modded "+2 funny", it seems at least a couple people understood it was a joke.
Oh, to be clear, i have no intention of criticizing the OLPC project. I think it's a great project. My joke was more about the general attempts to "modernize less-developed countries", and the expectations and motivations involved in that process.
If Intel strong-arms the OLPC project into oblivion but continues to provide the same "philanthropic", so to speak, service, don't the children still benefit?
While I agree that we shouldn't feel OLPC needs to be the only platform available to these people, I think your question indicates the source of people's concern: What if Intel strong-arms the OLPC project into oblivion but then does not continue to provide the same philanthropic service?
OLPC and this are feel good ideas when too much of this world does have clean drinking water and adequate medicine or food for the day.
But how will we be able to exploit these populations for profit if we don't get them addicted to expensive electronic gadgets?
If Slashdotters don't figure out a way to reproduce alone, they'll be worse than obsolete, they'll be extinct. We sure as hell won't find anyone else who'll reproduce with us.
It may be an odd coincidence. It may mean you're experiencing part of a long-term climate cycle. It could be part of your climate shifting. The pattern may be due to global warming.
However, I doubt either you or I are qualified or have sufficient data to determine which of those things it is. We could guess, but that ain't science.
It might, but then again what makes you think they'd move from corn to something healthier? I read somewhere (don't remember where) that Coca Cola was indeed looking to other sources of sweetener as corn syrup has become more expensive. However, they were looking into other, more synthetic ways of creating sugar.
Depends... I suppose that might be faster if you're trying to argue, "I'm not insane." Of course, the original claim that you're not insane would have probably been an exaggeration, so....
I would like to live in the world you imagine, but it's hard to reconcile that idea with the popularity of "young Earth" creationism. Religion and pseudoscience do what you call the fastest way to lose an argument, yet in the minds of many Americans they haven't lost...
I don't really want to bring the conversation in this direction, but since you brought it up:
I think people who get extremely angry about creationists do just the thing I'm talking about when arguing in favor of evolution. They try to argue that the evidence of evolution proves the non-existence of God, they argue as though you cannot doubt a single aspect of current evolutionary theory, they argue that no sane person could believe a god had anything to do with the creation of human beings, and they claim that creationism has been disproved.
In fact, there are many different theories that all get referred to as "creationism", and most of them have not been disproved because most of them cannot be disproved. This is a sign that the theories are not scientific theories. No one has proven the non-existence of God, and no one will prove or disprove the existence of God, which is a good indication that He is not the subject of science. And, in fact, their are a myriad of ways that a person could believe evolution has taken place, yet also believe God is real, and also believe that God had some part of creating life and creating human beings.
To go further, I'd say that you are guilty of exaggerating and overstating your case: you imply that religion is inherently faulty and poor grounds for argumentation. However, religion can be relevant in many non-scientific discussions on a wide variety of subjects, but the sort of thinking that goes on in religion is not a good model for scientific investigation. Similarly, the scientific method is a very good model for investigations into scientific subjects, but it falters in some other areas of thought.
My point is, arguments/discussions can be very helpful to both sides when we shake off our adversarial hostility, quit trying to prove each other "wrong" in order to "win" the argument, and we talk to each other like human beings. If your position is right and your argument is good, you shouldn't need artificial exaggerations to prove your point.
Even so, it's true that some people will never do this. Some people will continue to make dishonest arguments and some people will fail to listen to even the best and most correct argument. Still, on the whole, there are few advantages in an argument stronger than credibility and correctness. Don't throw them away so easily.
I think this is very important for people to remember. I forget who said it first, but the fastest way to lose an argument is to exaggerate. Even if you're right, if you're blatantly obvious about exaggerating your own points and failing to acknowledge your opponents points, people won't believe you. Even if you're right.
When dealing with a topic like global warming, credibility is incredibly important because almost no one (by which I mean among laymen) understands the science. Even relative to other sciences, studying climate and weather is incredibly complex and imprecise. So in order to preserve the credibility of those warning us about global warming-- people, please don't exaggerate. Don't try to convince people of things you yourself don't understand. Don't predict unlikely worst-case scenarios when the likely scenarios are bad enough. Just make honest arguments about only the things you understand, admit to the places where your understanding is unclear, and settle down on the hype.
If we exercised this sort of restraint, our arguments on a wide variety of subjects would probably be more productive. I say "probably" only because I'm basing this on nothing wider than my own personal experience. When you overstate your points and exaggerate the support for your arguments, you're only giving your opponents ammunition to shoot you down.
Great, now I have a term to describe what's happened to the entire US Federal government. Thanks Bill McGonigle.