And, of course, what will sell this thing is the interface. If Apple lives up to expectations and integrates all these features into a device that feels effortless to use, a lot of people will probably feel that it's the first device of its kind worth owning.
A single format would be beneficial so long as there was a single format which everyone could agree was suitable for their own purposes. It's not clear to me whether that could happen. If you include all the features in the spec that anyone could possibly want, there might be someone else who complains that it's too complicated and bloated for their purposes.
And besides the technical features of the format, it's clear to me that, if you want everyone to use it, it needs to meet certain requirements. It must have no IP issues that require licensing or fees so that it can be implemented without worrying about legal issues. The format must also be documented sufficiently so that anyone can implement the standard as easily as possible.
On the other hand, I'm not sure why we need a single document standard. At least, I wouldn't want someone to try to compel developers to use a standard that is unsuitable unless there's a real reason. I mean, assuming that you have two competing fully-open standards, it doesn't seem to me to be horrible if applications support both. It means a little more effort from the various application developers, but only if they wish to implement both. Otherwise someone could develop a stand-alone converter.
I guess my point is, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't let the choice of open standards work themselves out organically and let people/organizations use/support what they like. On the other hand, I do see a reason why people should stop using closed formats or patent-encumbered formats.
I was hoping someone had made the comment already. My thought upon reading:
"Artyom Khan, one of the reporters who resigned, said restrictions were introduced when new management was imported last month from Channel One, the state television station that documents Mr Putin's every move."
I would extend that and say most people don't care about open source. You might want to argue that they should care, but they don't and probably won't care about the source code per se.
End users generally want something, as you said, that is stable and reliable, that has the features they need, and that they won't have to continually figure things out all over again because someone released a new version.
IT people, on the other hand, tend to want something that has the features their users are looking for (listed above), plus having it be dead-simple to administer, and as close as possible to being "fool proof". And they want it cheap so they can have more room in their budgets for other things.
Managers/executives often just want something with good numbers. They want to be able to talk about how a system has a low TCO and good ROI. And if possible, they want a solution that's safe, in the sense that "No one ever got fired for buying from..." whoever. They want some level of assurance that the product will perform as expected, that there will be professional support, etc.
And then also, you're correct that part of the value of OSS is that there's practically no chance of a licensing problem. Unless the software is free, you have to keep track of the number of licenses and the terms of the license and make sure you don't violate. Worse yet, some software packages make attempts to enforce their own licensing (activation and such) which causes problems in administration.
informal free-thought when not surrounded by other people
I think you're implying something here that is one of the major reasons people don't use speech recognition software: if anyone is around, you feel like a total moron.
You might not realize this, but you probably speak differently than you write. Most of us do, because there are some things that look good in text that sound bad spoken, and vice versa. Also, a lot of composition goes on when writing, and so if you're playing with different word choices so you can see them written out, you just end up sputtering dumb little phrases. It's easier to edit on-the-fly when using a keyboard. And let's not forget that you might not want the people around you to know what you're writing.
Really, lets get this over with: connections should be symmetric, all ports open (upon request). Or, at least, leaving out information about closed ports and slower uplink speeds should be considered false advertising. Leaving out information on artificial caps and failures to actually meet the advertised speed should be considered false advertising as well.
Perhaps it is time that word processors kept twin files - one the actual document, and if the user wants to track changes, another that stores deleted text. Or maybe encrypt the deleted text. It wouldn't keep everyone out of it, but it would keep most people from reading the deleted passages.
In many circles, the way to deal with this is to do your editing in word but to only release documents in PDF. It also has additional benefits: it protects formating, keeps people from making further changes to the distributed version, and PDF is an open format that everyone can read.
I don't feel that Microsoft needs to be destroyed, either. It'd be nice if they started doing some useful work, though. Or at least quit sabotaging other people's work.
One megabyte of hard drive space is 1,000,000 bytes: 10<sup>6</sup> bytes. Operating systems calculate one megabyte as 2<sup>20</sup> bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes.
I didn't know Windows users sold their old hardware more than Mac users. Last I checked when it was time for a new computer
I think that's what he means: that for Mac users, "time for a new computer" is more of a rare occurrence. I don't have anything to cite, but I've read that there have been studies that suggest Mac users keep their computers longer-- and by "keep" that means "keep using them as their main computer".
Even within the past year, I've seen people carrying around 500Mhz Powerbook Ti laptops and really using them. I think I could say something like that for Linux-- I know people who use Debian on old IBM Thinkpads and are happy with those machines-- but I haven't seen someone carrying around a 500 Mhz Windows laptop in the past 5 years or so.
Admittedly, my experience is just anecdotal evidence, but I believe there have been studies that suggest the same thing. It's probably a combination of factors, including the fact that gamers usually run Windows, and gamers are the most likely group to want top-of-the-line systems.
The only reason for Linux and *BSD to run on so many architectures (compared to running on, say, the most used 5 o 10) is the geekness factor.
Not really. I don't know which architectures you have in mind, but a large part of the reason it runs on so many architectures is because people want to use Linux on those architectures. Linux gets used all over the place, even in embedded systems.
Why did Apple start with core duo processors? They could have made a clean break to 64bit x86 hardware, instead of going 32bit and having to migrate later?
I'm not sure why they wouldn't have. Apple doesn't seem to have a big problem with supporting multiple architectures. I could be running OSX on a G4, G5, Intel 32-bit or Intel 64-bit, and I can't really tell the difference except for speed. They needed to make the transition at a specific time, and so they used the best x86 processors available at the time. The transition to 64-bit hasn't really caused any problems.
Apple manages to support 32-bit and 64-bit architectures for both PPC and Intel. Linux supports *tons* of different architectures. Why is it that it's a particular stumbling block for Microsoft and Microsoft developers?
I'm not a developer, so I'll admit that I'm not really that knowledgeable, but it seems to me that if it's too difficult for programmers to support different architectures, the solution isn't to restrict supported architectures, but rather to improve the ability to develop across multiple architectures. Ideally you should be able to develop a program once and have it run on any architecture and on any OS with minimal changes.
If you don't agree, consider that the Intel x86-64bit processors probably won't be around forever. What happens the next time Microsoft decides to change their preferred platform. Do all the old platforms just become obsolete? Shouldn't they be working towards making these sorts of transitions seamless.
Owners of first-generation Intel Macs that used (32-bit only) Core Duo CPUs may not be so happy knowing that Vista will be the last Windows they will be able to run.
This leads me to a few questions:
Of all the people using 32-bit processors, why single out Mac users? Mac users often don't even use Windows at all.
... which leads me to a second question: Is this supposed to be sarcastic?
What makes you think Microsoft will stick to this?
What makes you think we won't all have new computers before Microsoft releases their successor to Vista?
Microsoft is notorious for having high expectations and grand plans, taking too long to execute, and dropping most of their features, improvements, and changes before the end product is released.
Oh, no, I'm sure Microsoft will be releasing various attempts at this sort of technology. They'll try 10 different versions over the next 5 years, and each will have lots of features in it. They will be hard to use, the interfaces will be sluggish and annoying, the features won't fit together well, and none of it will be compatible with anything other than other MS products. There will be geeks who love the devices, but they won't be popular in the mainstream.
Someone else will get to the breakout device first, and it'll be a company that will make everything snappy and make the interface dead-simple to use without getting annoyed.
But isn't free will, by definition, BOTH non-random and non-deterministic?
How do we know that free-will is non-random and non-deterministic? Even if flies followed a very distinct pattern, how would we know they weren't choosing that pattern? If there behavior was random, maybe we could just say they were making random decisions of their own free will.
Slashdot Mirror
But, it's not like it's competition has been stupid, or slow, or is new to the game.
Perhaps the competition hasn't been slow or stupid, but regardless, they've been making shitty products.
And, of course, what will sell this thing is the interface. If Apple lives up to expectations and integrates all these features into a device that feels effortless to use, a lot of people will probably feel that it's the first device of its kind worth owning.
A single format would be beneficial so long as there was a single format which everyone could agree was suitable for their own purposes. It's not clear to me whether that could happen. If you include all the features in the spec that anyone could possibly want, there might be someone else who complains that it's too complicated and bloated for their purposes.
And besides the technical features of the format, it's clear to me that, if you want everyone to use it, it needs to meet certain requirements. It must have no IP issues that require licensing or fees so that it can be implemented without worrying about legal issues. The format must also be documented sufficiently so that anyone can implement the standard as easily as possible.
On the other hand, I'm not sure why we need a single document standard. At least, I wouldn't want someone to try to compel developers to use a standard that is unsuitable unless there's a real reason. I mean, assuming that you have two competing fully-open standards, it doesn't seem to me to be horrible if applications support both. It means a little more effort from the various application developers, but only if they wish to implement both. Otherwise someone could develop a stand-alone converter.
I guess my point is, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't let the choice of open standards work themselves out organically and let people/organizations use/support what they like. On the other hand, I do see a reason why people should stop using closed formats or patent-encumbered formats.
I was hoping someone had made the comment already. My thought upon reading:
My first thought was "KHAAAAAAN!!!"
I would extend that and say most people don't care about open source. You might want to argue that they should care, but they don't and probably won't care about the source code per se.
End users generally want something, as you said, that is stable and reliable, that has the features they need, and that they won't have to continually figure things out all over again because someone released a new version.
IT people, on the other hand, tend to want something that has the features their users are looking for (listed above), plus having it be dead-simple to administer, and as close as possible to being "fool proof". And they want it cheap so they can have more room in their budgets for other things.
Managers/executives often just want something with good numbers. They want to be able to talk about how a system has a low TCO and good ROI. And if possible, they want a solution that's safe, in the sense that "No one ever got fired for buying from..." whoever. They want some level of assurance that the product will perform as expected, that there will be professional support, etc.
And then also, you're correct that part of the value of OSS is that there's practically no chance of a licensing problem. Unless the software is free, you have to keep track of the number of licenses and the terms of the license and make sure you don't violate. Worse yet, some software packages make attempts to enforce their own licensing (activation and such) which causes problems in administration.
informal free-thought when not surrounded by other people
I think you're implying something here that is one of the major reasons people don't use speech recognition software: if anyone is around, you feel like a total moron.
You might not realize this, but you probably speak differently than you write. Most of us do, because there are some things that look good in text that sound bad spoken, and vice versa. Also, a lot of composition goes on when writing, and so if you're playing with different word choices so you can see them written out, you just end up sputtering dumb little phrases. It's easier to edit on-the-fly when using a keyboard. And let's not forget that you might not want the people around you to know what you're writing.
Or maybe they're way more clever than we are, and think that trying to communicate with other beings with radio waves is stupid.
Really, lets get this over with: connections should be symmetric, all ports open (upon request). Or, at least, leaving out information about closed ports and slower uplink speeds should be considered false advertising. Leaving out information on artificial caps and failures to actually meet the advertised speed should be considered false advertising as well.
The movie is not 'The Kids That Pal Around With Transformers', the movie is 'Transformers'.
The cartoon had plots that involved people too. Remember Sparkplug and Spike?
Perhaps it is time that word processors kept twin files - one the actual document, and if the user wants to track changes, another that stores deleted text. Or maybe encrypt the deleted text. It wouldn't keep everyone out of it, but it would keep most people from reading the deleted passages.
In many circles, the way to deal with this is to do your editing in word but to only release documents in PDF. It also has additional benefits: it protects formating, keeps people from making further changes to the distributed version, and PDF is an open format that everyone can read.
I don't feel that Microsoft needs to be destroyed, either. It'd be nice if they started doing some useful work, though. Or at least quit sabotaging other people's work.
there is no other word used to address someone from the US
USAsian?
And then the tags got stripped somehow.
{note to those who refer to the United States of America as "U.S.": U.S. is not a country)
Are you suggesting that web pirates are so much faster than the current crop of online ninjas that the ninjas can't even touch them?
Damn. I'm hope you and I don't use the same ISP, because the online ninjas are going to be coming for you.
I didn't know Windows users sold their old hardware more than Mac users. Last I checked when it was time for a new computer
I think that's what he means: that for Mac users, "time for a new computer" is more of a rare occurrence. I don't have anything to cite, but I've read that there have been studies that suggest Mac users keep their computers longer-- and by "keep" that means "keep using them as their main computer".
Even within the past year, I've seen people carrying around 500Mhz Powerbook Ti laptops and really using them. I think I could say something like that for Linux-- I know people who use Debian on old IBM Thinkpads and are happy with those machines-- but I haven't seen someone carrying around a 500 Mhz Windows laptop in the past 5 years or so.
Admittedly, my experience is just anecdotal evidence, but I believe there have been studies that suggest the same thing. It's probably a combination of factors, including the fact that gamers usually run Windows, and gamers are the most likely group to want top-of-the-line systems.
The only reason for Linux and *BSD to run on so many architectures (compared to running on, say, the most used 5 o 10) is the geekness factor.
Not really. I don't know which architectures you have in mind, but a large part of the reason it runs on so many architectures is because people want to use Linux on those architectures. Linux gets used all over the place, even in embedded systems.
Why did Apple start with core duo processors? They could have made a clean break to 64bit x86 hardware, instead of going 32bit and having to migrate later?
I'm not sure why they wouldn't have. Apple doesn't seem to have a big problem with supporting multiple architectures. I could be running OSX on a G4, G5, Intel 32-bit or Intel 64-bit, and I can't really tell the difference except for speed. They needed to make the transition at a specific time, and so they used the best x86 processors available at the time. The transition to 64-bit hasn't really caused any problems.
Apple manages to support 32-bit and 64-bit architectures for both PPC and Intel. Linux supports *tons* of different architectures. Why is it that it's a particular stumbling block for Microsoft and Microsoft developers?
I'm not a developer, so I'll admit that I'm not really that knowledgeable, but it seems to me that if it's too difficult for programmers to support different architectures, the solution isn't to restrict supported architectures, but rather to improve the ability to develop across multiple architectures. Ideally you should be able to develop a program once and have it run on any architecture and on any OS with minimal changes.
If you don't agree, consider that the Intel x86-64bit processors probably won't be around forever. What happens the next time Microsoft decides to change their preferred platform. Do all the old platforms just become obsolete? Shouldn't they be working towards making these sorts of transitions seamless.
Yeah, I know. What's the deal with the OP?
This leads me to a few questions:
Microsoft is notorious for having high expectations and grand plans, taking too long to execute, and dropping most of their features, improvements, and changes before the end product is released.
Why do people care about Google's search and not Microsoft's or Yahoo's?
Because people actually use Google.
Take it to philosophy 101, kid.
Um.... Slashdot is philosophy 101.
If that.
The question, of course, is whether any behavior can meet the characteristics we ascribe to free will.
Also whether any behavior can be definitively said not to be free will.
Oh, no, I'm sure Microsoft will be releasing various attempts at this sort of technology. They'll try 10 different versions over the next 5 years, and each will have lots of features in it. They will be hard to use, the interfaces will be sluggish and annoying, the features won't fit together well, and none of it will be compatible with anything other than other MS products. There will be geeks who love the devices, but they won't be popular in the mainstream.
Someone else will get to the breakout device first, and it'll be a company that will make everything snappy and make the interface dead-simple to use without getting annoyed.
But isn't free will, by definition, BOTH non-random and non-deterministic?
How do we know that free-will is non-random and non-deterministic? Even if flies followed a very distinct pattern, how would we know they weren't choosing that pattern? If there behavior was random, maybe we could just say they were making random decisions of their own free will.