I agree that there are too many choices, but I believe that's part of the point of open source solutions.
It's partially the responsibility of the application developers to choose the toolkits and platforms that work best for them, not complain about having too many to choose from.
If companies like Google and Adobe got together in a side meeting and came up with a "standard" they found acceptable, it would create a demand for those platforms and make those toolkits/apps the dominant. Too bad this will never happen...
In the past, I never really paid much attention to comics and manga. I saw them as childish. It wasn't until after after I read Scott McCloud's book "Understanding Comics," that I began to take the medium seriously.
Today, I am wondering why all educational books are NOT presenting their material in this manner. That being said, this "manga" guide to databases is an example of a good idea implemented poorly. Instead of creating a fluffed up story line to camouflage the fact that readers are learning, they should instead have a narrator presenting the material to the reader, much in the same way McCloud presented the history of sequential pictures as a means of communication.
The goal of all textbooks should be the communication of information in the most efficient way possible, but the idea that including as many graphics and visual elements as possible will continued to be frowned upon as long as it is regarded as "childish" or "dumbing down the material."
Perhaps they WANT to lose the case.
There are still very few rulings on digital rights. If they can take this to court and all the way without some kind of settlement, then it would draw a clear line on fair use in this situation.
Even if this was their goal, it's still a bit self-righteous...
After using Linux for a couple of years, it has become very clear to me that most Linux distributions run under the philosophy that they should distribute the bare minimum to allow the users to build up their custom drivers and software collection.
Instead, shouldn't they distribute as MUCH as possible to increase compatibility?
Knowledge is a burden. The people who don't know every little detail about their hardware shouldn't have to go through the extra work to get it working. It's the nerds, like us, who should know what we DON'T need, so we can remove it and optimize efficiency.
While I feel sorry for your personal problems with red lights and intersections, I don't see what this has to do, directly, with new identification systems. The FBI is as much concerned with 'toothless laws' as they are with red light cameras. When we are talking about national security, they aren't going to waste their time by mailing a ticket to Jane Doe for littering. They are searching for Osama at the airport and train stations. If these systems keep our friendly neighborhood Muslims from being detained in favor of the REAL threats, then I have to say the cost per benefit ratio is pretty low. As for these phantom laws you are referring to, I would love to see some real examples.
I am constantly amazed at how overly concerned some people are about technology. Identifying me when I am in public is something that anyone and everyone has the right to do, inside or outside of the government. That is the whole concept of PUBLIC.
Now that the FBI has a way to identify people even faster through the use of technology, shouldn't the very same advocates be thrilled? After all, isn't one of the arguments against this technology: people are being unnecessarily and unjustly singled out? I would much rather have computers deciding if I look like I'm on their most wanted list, instead of Mulder and Scully deciding that I "...just look fishy..." and hauling me off into the back room.
I saw this in person at the 2006 SIGGRAPH convocation in Boston. While it was an interesting device, it has been around a while. The device is sensitive to distortion if the mirror is not spinning at just the right speed, if the projector is off axis or if the projector refresh timing is off. It's a neat toy, but not the way to go if you are looking for precision in graphics. Too many moving parts; too many timing issues.
Just to be clear, there is a different between being a talented artist and a talented designer.
I am a student who has took classes in interface design and I have noticed a recurring theme. We always want to separate content from design, if not physically then mentally. I find it helpful to sit down and make a list of all of the important features that a person would need access to at this 'state' in the interface, and when the user needs more detail, he proceeds down to the next 'state' in the interface. Grouping information by relevance should help reduce the odds of ending up with a window consisting of only one check box, or a window containing 100+ options for a user to have to swim through all at once.
The design comes only after we know what content we need to display. HOW the content is organized on a page, and how it is accessed can reduce the user's time dramatically.
In the end, the design should never dictate what content should be displayed. It's the complete opposite.
After taking an astronomy class, I am not surprised at all that scientists would detect readings that contradict their model of what "should be happening" on an alien moon. The history of astronomy is a history of failed predictions. Let the evidence speak for itself.
I would not be surprised at all if a *nix based desktop distro was one of their top secret projects. The reason so many people use Microsoft products is because they don't know there are alternatives. Another reason is because of old-timers that believe that if you don't pay for something it doesn't have any worth. Google is in a prime position to launch any number of products that compete with Microsoft, not because they are perfect, but because they have people's attention.
I also have to agree with you that there are no absolutes. I must have been trying to drum up a response with that one. =)
What we need is a Google Operating System. That will successfully launch Google to the "Microsoft that should have been" status that we (techies) desire. In fact, I hope that Google replaces Microsoft, because from a software standpoint Google does everything right were Microsoft does everything wrong.
I have to agree that being responsible for your own destruction is a very terrifying prospect. While the Resident Evil games are more cinematic in their presentation, they rely on the "shock and surprise" type of fear in order to create future anxiety ("What else will jump out at me...?!"). Silent Hill makes me think I'm reading a book because they took a more psychological approach through storytelling and visual/audio cues ("I heard a noise, but there's nothing there...?!").
Films can be as scary too. The films that scare me the most are they nightmare-come-to-life type films, like Evil Dead 2. Not knowing what to expect is one of the elements of a scary story, which spoils it the second time around. Good games, however, have multiple endings. That's what I enjoy most about games.
As for the scariest game I've played, I would have to say Silent Hill 4. While this is a Silent Hill game in name only (IMHO) the setting/plot of this game is so terrifying that I literally don't want to play it anymore. I finished the game and haven't touched it since. I'm sure that being a single male living in a single apartment doesn't help matters (part of the game plot).
And we're grateful to have them.
on
Your Mom And Gaming
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I am particularly grateful for my Mom. Instead of seeing it as an odd hobby, she saw nothing wrong with it. She could even appriciate some of the effort that went into making them. Probably because she is an art teacher. I remember hearing one of my friends mothers say, "Games are wonderful because I always have something to get him for Christmas/Birthday." Don't forget to send your mother a little something on Sunday. =)
I have to disagree.
The democracy aspect is where people vote on proposals. The republic aspect is where people vote on representatives. In the United States, one third of the government is mostly democracy (congress) and one third is mostly republic (white house). Either way, they are made up of representatives. Hence, Representative Republic.
I totally agree. I think the main problem with Linux based systems (Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.) is that there are so many of them. Diversity is wonderful for free speech, but in the open source community, we have 100 solutions for every 1 problem.
The best solution would be for the Linux Kernel project to say, "Open source developers can do as they please, but we here at the Kernel project encourage developers to contribute to THESE specific projects: Gnome, Open Office, etc...
The open source community is massive, but development will take an eternity until a majority of the community starts to support ONE software solution over it's alternatives.
What you said is true. You cannot control someone's free will, but you can hold them accountable for the choices they make.
Lets say that you did agree to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to me for a certain amount of cash. If this was in writing, then it would be a breach of contract (assuming I can prove you didn't actually own the bridge). I would get a lawyer, get my money back or some settlement and everything goes back to normal. But in this situation, it's not simply a matter of exchanging money for a deed. This is a contract that says that if we allow you to come into our home and see our stuff, then you won't talk about it with other professionals. If Mr. Hacker did sign this contract, THEN go through the interviewing process, get hired to work on important stuff, stays there a couple of years and then decided to leave for Microsoft, he would have a wealth of knowledge about the Google's projects. Lets assume he took the job at Microsoft and starts to talk about what he did at Google. Google's got a big problem because their secret projects aren't so secret anymore and that would not only cost them money, but all of the honest investors who decided to buy stock in Google. But that wouldn't be the end of it...
If Google can prove that Mr. Hacker sold or maybe just carelessly mentioned those secrets through mail/phone calls/etc. Mr. Hacker would have a multi million dollar lawsuit on his hands. Mr. Hacker might spend the rest of his life trying to pay it off, but he would be very lucky to find a job that would hire him after this sort of thing.
So who made the mistake? It's true that Google made a mistake by hiring him, but Mr. Hacker made the bigger mistake by signing a contract and then breeching it.
Contracts don't exist because people want to come to an agreement. Contracts exist because of dishonest people. In a perfect world, a handshake would do.
Not necessarily. Think of this as a promise in writing. Microsoft has been trying to destroy Google by any means possible. Google can't force an interviewee to do anything, but they can make them promise not to go behind their back. And if that did happen, the person who snitched could be sued. I wonder how much Microsoft would pay just to get past the front desk at Google? To sit at a workstation? To be a fly on the wall of their R&D department?
I don't see any problem with this kind of an agreement. The government has similar agreements, but theirs are far more strict. How does this hurt the potential employee anyway? When a company is trying to protect its interest in a highly competitive field, how much is too much?
"...music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements..."
They will if they know that they will eventually be sued for it. I am currently a student at a prominant midwestern university, and not too long ago the RIAA sent hundereds of emails to the university (which were promptly forwarded to students using the network) telling the students to pay $3000 to settle or they will be sued (and eventually forced to settle for even more money). I haven't done any serious downloading since I was a freshman and using the network, but I was sitting by my inbox praying that I didn't recieve one of those emails.
This first hand experience changed the way that I listen to music. Since I don't like most of the popular music in the US today, I listen to music online. Downloading music does hurt the RIAA because it makes their product less valuable, but that's THEIR fault for switching to a medium that is so easy to copy. Downloading royalty free music (which is VERY EASY TO FIND, if you look for it) ALSO hurts the RIAA, but they can't sue us for it. That's because it still forces them to try to change their business model, and that is our goal, people.
Fighting the system is a waste of energy. Simply use a better one.
I wrote a "short" letter about how our congress is mishandling a number of Internet issues. I highly suggest that our fellow Slashdotters do the same. =)
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that there are too many choices, but I believe that's part of the point of open source solutions.
It's partially the responsibility of the application developers to choose the toolkits and platforms that work best for them, not complain about having too many to choose from.
If companies like Google and Adobe got together in a side meeting and came up with a "standard" they found acceptable, it would create a demand for those platforms and make those toolkits/apps the dominant. Too bad this will never happen...
In the past, I never really paid much attention to comics and manga. I saw them as childish. It wasn't until after after I read Scott McCloud's book "Understanding Comics," that I began to take the medium seriously.
Today, I am wondering why all educational books are NOT presenting their material in this manner. That being said, this "manga" guide to databases is an example of a good idea implemented poorly. Instead of creating a fluffed up story line to camouflage the fact that readers are learning, they should instead have a narrator presenting the material to the reader, much in the same way McCloud presented the history of sequential pictures as a means of communication.
The goal of all textbooks should be the communication of information in the most efficient way possible, but the idea that including as many graphics and visual elements as possible will continued to be frowned upon as long as it is regarded as "childish" or "dumbing down the material."
Perhaps they WANT to lose the case. There are still very few rulings on digital rights. If they can take this to court and all the way without some kind of settlement, then it would draw a clear line on fair use in this situation. Even if this was their goal, it's still a bit self-righteous...
After using Linux for a couple of years, it has become very clear to me that most Linux distributions run under the philosophy that they should distribute the bare minimum to allow the users to build up their custom drivers and software collection. Instead, shouldn't they distribute as MUCH as possible to increase compatibility? Knowledge is a burden. The people who don't know every little detail about their hardware shouldn't have to go through the extra work to get it working. It's the nerds, like us, who should know what we DON'T need, so we can remove it and optimize efficiency.
While I feel sorry for your personal problems with red lights and intersections, I don't see what this has to do, directly, with new identification systems. The FBI is as much concerned with 'toothless laws' as they are with red light cameras. When we are talking about national security, they aren't going to waste their time by mailing a ticket to Jane Doe for littering. They are searching for Osama at the airport and train stations. If these systems keep our friendly neighborhood Muslims from being detained in favor of the REAL threats, then I have to say the cost per benefit ratio is pretty low. As for these phantom laws you are referring to, I would love to see some real examples.
I am constantly amazed at how overly concerned some people are about technology. Identifying me when I am in public is something that anyone and everyone has the right to do, inside or outside of the government. That is the whole concept of PUBLIC. Now that the FBI has a way to identify people even faster through the use of technology, shouldn't the very same advocates be thrilled? After all, isn't one of the arguments against this technology: people are being unnecessarily and unjustly singled out? I would much rather have computers deciding if I look like I'm on their most wanted list, instead of Mulder and Scully deciding that I "...just look fishy..." and hauling me off into the back room.
I saw this in person at the 2006 SIGGRAPH convocation in Boston. While it was an interesting device, it has been around a while. The device is sensitive to distortion if the mirror is not spinning at just the right speed, if the projector is off axis or if the projector refresh timing is off. It's a neat toy, but not the way to go if you are looking for precision in graphics. Too many moving parts; too many timing issues.
Just to be clear, there is a different between being a talented artist and a talented designer. I am a student who has took classes in interface design and I have noticed a recurring theme. We always want to separate content from design, if not physically then mentally. I find it helpful to sit down and make a list of all of the important features that a person would need access to at this 'state' in the interface, and when the user needs more detail, he proceeds down to the next 'state' in the interface. Grouping information by relevance should help reduce the odds of ending up with a window consisting of only one check box, or a window containing 100+ options for a user to have to swim through all at once. The design comes only after we know what content we need to display. HOW the content is organized on a page, and how it is accessed can reduce the user's time dramatically. In the end, the design should never dictate what content should be displayed. It's the complete opposite.
After taking an astronomy class, I am not surprised at all that scientists would detect readings that contradict their model of what "should be happening" on an alien moon. The history of astronomy is a history of failed predictions. Let the evidence speak for itself.
Um...Texas is not the same as the United States of America...
I would not be surprised at all if a *nix based desktop distro was one of their top secret projects. The reason so many people use Microsoft products is because they don't know there are alternatives. Another reason is because of old-timers that believe that if you don't pay for something it doesn't have any worth. Google is in a prime position to launch any number of products that compete with Microsoft, not because they are perfect, but because they have people's attention. I also have to agree with you that there are no absolutes. I must have been trying to drum up a response with that one. =)
What we need is a Google Operating System. That will successfully launch Google to the "Microsoft that should have been" status that we (techies) desire. In fact, I hope that Google replaces Microsoft, because from a software standpoint Google does everything right were Microsoft does everything wrong.
I have to agree that being responsible for your own destruction is a very terrifying prospect. While the Resident Evil games are more cinematic in their presentation, they rely on the "shock and surprise" type of fear in order to create future anxiety ("What else will jump out at me...?!"). Silent Hill makes me think I'm reading a book because they took a more psychological approach through storytelling and visual/audio cues ("I heard a noise, but there's nothing there...?!").
Films can be as scary too. The films that scare me the most are they nightmare-come-to-life type films, like Evil Dead 2. Not knowing what to expect is one of the elements of a scary story, which spoils it the second time around. Good games, however, have multiple endings. That's what I enjoy most about games.
As for the scariest game I've played, I would have to say Silent Hill 4. While this is a Silent Hill game in name only (IMHO) the setting/plot of this game is so terrifying that I literally don't want to play it anymore. I finished the game and haven't touched it since. I'm sure that being a single male living in a single apartment doesn't help matters (part of the game plot).
I am particularly grateful for my Mom. Instead of seeing it as an odd hobby, she saw nothing wrong with it. She could even appriciate some of the effort that went into making them. Probably because she is an art teacher. I remember hearing one of my friends mothers say, "Games are wonderful because I always have something to get him for Christmas/Birthday." Don't forget to send your mother a little something on Sunday. =)
...they should name the project Purdue instead. =)
I have to disagree.
The democracy aspect is where people vote on proposals. The republic aspect is where people vote on representatives. In the United States, one third of the government is mostly democracy (congress) and one third is mostly republic (white house). Either way, they are made up of representatives. Hence, Representative Republic.
I totally agree. I think the main problem with Linux based systems (Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.) is that there are so many of them. Diversity is wonderful for free speech, but in the open source community, we have 100 solutions for every 1 problem.
The best solution would be for the Linux Kernel project to say, "Open source developers can do as they please, but we here at the Kernel project encourage developers to contribute to THESE specific projects: Gnome, Open Office, etc...
The open source community is massive, but development will take an eternity until a majority of the community starts to support ONE software solution over it's alternatives.
What you said is true. You cannot control someone's free will, but you can hold them accountable for the choices they make.
Lets say that you did agree to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to me for a certain amount of cash. If this was in writing, then it would be a breach of contract (assuming I can prove you didn't actually own the bridge). I would get a lawyer, get my money back or some settlement and everything goes back to normal. But in this situation, it's not simply a matter of exchanging money for a deed. This is a contract that says that if we allow you to come into our home and see our stuff, then you won't talk about it with other professionals. If Mr. Hacker did sign this contract, THEN go through the interviewing process, get hired to work on important stuff, stays there a couple of years and then decided to leave for Microsoft, he would have a wealth of knowledge about the Google's projects. Lets assume he took the job at Microsoft and starts to talk about what he did at Google. Google's got a big problem because their secret projects aren't so secret anymore and that would not only cost them money, but all of the honest investors who decided to buy stock in Google. But that wouldn't be the end of it...
If Google can prove that Mr. Hacker sold or maybe just carelessly mentioned those secrets through mail/phone calls/etc. Mr. Hacker would have a multi million dollar lawsuit on his hands. Mr. Hacker might spend the rest of his life trying to pay it off, but he would be very lucky to find a job that would hire him after this sort of thing.
So who made the mistake? It's true that Google made a mistake by hiring him, but Mr. Hacker made the bigger mistake by signing a contract and then breeching it.
Contracts don't exist because people want to come to an agreement. Contracts exist because of dishonest people. In a perfect world, a handshake would do.
Not necessarily. Think of this as a promise in writing. Microsoft has been trying to destroy Google by any means possible. Google can't force an interviewee to do anything, but they can make them promise not to go behind their back. And if that did happen, the person who snitched could be sued. I wonder how much Microsoft would pay just to get past the front desk at Google? To sit at a workstation? To be a fly on the wall of their R&D department?
If the CEO of one of the most powerfull software companies in history said that he wanted to kill you, you would be paranoid too.
I don't see any problem with this kind of an agreement. The government has similar agreements, but theirs are far more strict. How does this hurt the potential employee anyway? When a company is trying to protect its interest in a highly competitive field, how much is too much?
I completely disagree with the article.
"...music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements..."
They will if they know that they will eventually be sued for it. I am currently a student at a prominant midwestern university, and not too long ago the RIAA sent hundereds of emails to the university (which were promptly forwarded to students using the network) telling the students to pay $3000 to settle or they will be sued (and eventually forced to settle for even more money). I haven't done any serious downloading since I was a freshman and using the network, but I was sitting by my inbox praying that I didn't recieve one of those emails.
This first hand experience changed the way that I listen to music. Since I don't like most of the popular music in the US today, I listen to music online. Downloading music does hurt the RIAA because it makes their product less valuable, but that's THEIR fault for switching to a medium that is so easy to copy. Downloading royalty free music (which is VERY EASY TO FIND, if you look for it) ALSO hurts the RIAA, but they can't sue us for it. That's because it still forces them to try to change their business model, and that is our goal, people.
Fighting the system is a waste of energy. Simply use a better one.
...cheeseburgers make you fat, smoking rots your lungs, and drugs are bad, m'kay?
I wrote a "short" letter about how our congress is mishandling a number of Internet issues. I highly suggest that our fellow Slashdotters do the same. =) http://www.house.gov/writerep/
The Internet is the largest possible computer network technology will allow. ...or a series of copper tubes...