My wife is not exactly computer literate. In fact she only uses firefox. That's it. She reads her mail trough webmail and browses from time to time. Period.
And still... When my sister inlaw called to ask her how she should copy a CD she was able to guide her through all the steps just by repeating "read the screen" My sister in law had Nero 6.0 with smart start enabled. All she needed to do was find the wordt copy-CD and click it. (plus a few more on screen instructions...) apparently she needed big sister to help her with that.
When users become to f**king lazy to RTFScreen nothing else will help them.
Is that users generally have no trouble admitting there just plain to stupid to understand what a puter acually is or should be used for, but yet they fail to show proper respect to those who do.
Once I told a user to read the error message:
Answer: I'm an accountant not a computer expert.
My answer: Hey, I just asked you to READ. Didn't you learn that in accounting school... (I didn't last long in user support LOL)
Don't just take whack at it without looking at the numbers!
How the hell you got a "5, Insightful" for this is beyond me.
Try goggling a little maybee:" http://www.google.be/search?q=electricity+producti on+source "
For my country at least plugging in cars will decrease the dependance of personal transportation on fossile fuels by more than 60%. NOT counting the fact that power stations burn oil more efficiently than cars.
The US has a higher rate of fossile fuel dependancy, but you should also take into account that gas burns cleaner than gasoline. And trust me coal is declining very rapidly.
The fact that you plug it in WILL cause oil to not be burned. Namely the oil you save by burning LESS.
So don't trivialize previous remarks on the subject by stating the electricity also requires oil. Firstly the production of electricity with oil is FAR more efficient than the internal combustion engine of a car. Secondly electricity can and IS produced by other means like natural-gas, solar, hydro, nuclear etc... which ALL are better (not worse) than oil. (including nuclear)
So:"The fact you can plug it in, DOES mean it's better than burning gasoline!"
If sony wasn't such a bitch about their MD format...
That should really have taken off. So what if it only holds half the info, at least it's properly protected, and the size is easier to handle too.
But nooo they had use a restrictive license. The idiots. Sony will never learn. They have great ideas but crappy market sense.
Let me just say that those of you that think that the fact this only means that the directive is now sent to parliament is any consolation... Think again!
They are NOT going to back down just because a couple of thousand geeks want them to.
The problem is, even if the open source development takes a dive into the underground, and software gets developed without a license and hosted on obscure ftp servers or encrypted BitTorrents, what will it really matter.
If developers can't create and sell their software or services without having to spend thousands of euros every month to check whether there are any prior patents, any independent development is dead in the water.
And sadly just when it started to get interesting (not a coincidence)...
Personally I gave up developing independently, commercially a few years ago. I'm now developing in house applications for a large industrial cooperation. I wonder how the in house development is going to be governed. We hardly buy any software; everything is developed by a team of developers. I don't see it happening that we will pay for the right to create our own 'clickable command buttons' and other bizarre patents.
Hell, we'd probably need to start by patenting all the stuff we made already, not to sell or license it, but just to protect ourselves from other guys who probably thought of the same stuff.
When will people learn that there is no reason why 10 or 100 or 1000 people couldn't come up with the exact same idea at the same time?
All we do now is take existing sets and mix them with other existing sets. And that IS very much the same as breeding. Just a tad faster and more efficient.
We HAVE been manipulating genes from before we could write. And modern genetic engineering isn't all that different. I'm puzzled on why you think it is.
Ofcourse I do. You have to follow through on the analogy though.
A company has an obligation to provide what it promises to provide. If that company promises to provide unbiased advice like for instance a consultancy firm, then there clients have every right to be pissed if they found out that the advice given was not unbiased, but bought and paid for.
I know its more fun to just jump to a conclusion, but lets stop and think for a second.
Is it a crime to refer someone to A if one asks for B. Wouldn't that depend on what type of service you're running?
If you were running a telephone directory service, and every time I asked you to connect me with DELL customer support you'd connect me with HP, I'd start to get pretty pissed, pretty fast. Espacially if I were DELL.
However, if you were running a PC purchasing consultancy firm, I'd be right in assuming that you would provide me with added information on which PC maker wsould be preferable to contact. However, I'd be pretty pissed again if I found out the only reson you refered me to B instead of A wat the fact that they were paying you to.
However again, If I would know that you're advertising company, and I know that you are just suggesting an alternative to my inquiry without changing the actual outcome of my search. I don't think I'd care. The equivilent of saying:"Sure, here is the number of DELL, but do you know you could also call HP, who is paying us to mention this to you."
Taking all that into account I can't help but feel that for the umpteenth time the judge simply didn't understand the how and what of it all.
The reason for this is the dificulty the law is having on applying existing laws to new situations.
If the use of a keyword is trademark infringment, then I guess google's answer to this runling could be painfully clear. "Sure, we'll pay the fine, and after that anyone requesting that particular keyword won't get any results whatsoever!" I wonder if that would break the ice.;-)
Are they forgetting that it is quite impossible to identify whether a video file on your PC is legal or not. 99% of all video files on my PC are recorded from TV or have been on TV at one time or another. Do they have a problem with that?
Are they also forgetting that MP3 players are legal? And that you need to rip your CDs to MP3 in order to use them...
Will someone please stop the madness
I know I preaching to the choir here, but how is it possible that these simple arguments don't stick. Any thoughts?
The sooner the Linux community can come up with a foolproof and user-friendly UI, support for ALL hardware without going through endless hoops and asking on onscure newsgroups for the "uber geek who has THE code"... etr cetera... the better.
This is way off. Totally beside the point. How many people install their own PC in their work environment? 0.001%? Just a guess but I don't think it'll be any more than that in a company the size of IBM. The PCs are installed by the IT department. They image it and duplicate it. The amount of time to install the original PC from which the image is taken is unimportant.
What's much more important is how long it keeps working without maintenance.
Saying Linux is no place to get work done is ridiculous. There is no reason why you couldn't browse just as well with firefox, mail just as fast with evolution and write memo's just as well with open office, and that sums up just about 90% of all PC use.
I get loads of work done on Linux every day. I migrated my wife and mother to Linux 2 years ago. Haven't had a PC-Rebuilding X-mass since.
The only problem is that there still are "Web apps" that need IE for some ridiculous reason. And ofcourse the MSVJM fiasco which tied Java applications written in MS dev env to IE. and some programs like lotus notes (and IBM product no less) that have no version for linux.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife is not exactly computer literate. In fact she only uses firefox. That's it. She reads her mail trough webmail and browses from time to time. Period.
And still... When my sister inlaw called to ask her how she should copy a CD she was able to guide her through all the steps just by repeating "read the screen" My sister in law had Nero 6.0 with smart start enabled. All she needed to do was find the wordt copy-CD and click it. (plus a few more on screen instructions...) apparently she needed big sister to help her with that.
When users become to f**king lazy to RTFScreen nothing else will help them.
Is that users generally have no trouble admitting there just plain to stupid to understand what a puter acually is or should be used for, but yet they fail to show proper respect to those who do.
Once I told a user to read the error message:
Answer: I'm an accountant not a computer expert.
My answer: Hey, I just asked you to READ. Didn't you learn that in accounting school... (I didn't last long in user support LOL)
How can the review of proof generated by computer by a human be considered "peer" review?
Why not have it verrified by other computers?
Don't just take whack at it without looking at the numbers!
i on+source "
For my country at least plugging in cars will decrease the dependance of personal transportation on fossile fuels by more than 60%. NOT counting the fact that power stations burn oil more efficiently than cars.
The US has a higher rate of fossile fuel dependancy, but you should also take into account that gas burns cleaner than gasoline. And trust me coal is declining very rapidly.
How the hell you got a "5, Insightful" for this is beyond me.
Try goggling a little maybee:" http://www.google.be/search?q=electricity+product
No oil vs. A lot less oil... What's the diff?
The fact that you plug it in WILL cause oil to not be burned. Namely the oil you save by burning LESS.
So don't trivialize previous remarks on the subject by stating the electricity also requires oil. Firstly the production of electricity with oil is FAR more efficient than the internal combustion engine of a car. Secondly electricity can and IS produced by other means like natural-gas, solar, hydro, nuclear etc... which ALL are better (not worse) than oil. (including nuclear)
So:"The fact you can plug it in, DOES mean it's better than burning gasoline!"
Google's "no evil" policy is really leading to some kind of "no evil"-empire.
I just wonder how much longer they can keep fighting the urge to declare world domination.
Absolute power will corrupt absolutly. Just a matter of time. Not that I mind.
At least its a step up from Bill.
If sony wasn't such a bitch about their MD format... That should really have taken off. So what if it only holds half the info, at least it's properly protected, and the size is easier to handle too. But nooo they had use a restrictive license. The idiots. Sony will never learn. They have great ideas but crappy market sense.
Crap...
Let me just say that those of you that think that the fact this only means that the directive is now sent to parliament is any consolation... Think again!
They are NOT going to back down just because a couple of thousand geeks want them to.
The problem is, even if the open source development takes a dive into the underground, and software gets developed without a license and hosted on obscure ftp servers or encrypted BitTorrents, what will it really matter.
If developers can't create and sell their software or services without having to spend thousands of euros every month to check whether there are any prior patents, any independent development is dead in the water.
And sadly just when it started to get interesting (not a coincidence)...
Personally I gave up developing independently, commercially a few years ago. I'm now developing in house applications for a large industrial cooperation. I wonder how the in house development is going to be governed. We hardly buy any software; everything is developed by a team of developers. I don't see it happening that we will pay for the right to create our own 'clickable command buttons' and other bizarre patents.
Hell, we'd probably need to start by patenting all the stuff we made already, not to sell or license it, but just to protect ourselves from other guys who probably thought of the same stuff.
When will people learn that there is no reason why 10 or 100 or 1000 people couldn't come up with the exact same idea at the same time?
It's just so ridiculous.
Dude... You might want to check up on the defenition!! Mersenne numbers= 2^n-1 NOT: n^2-1 Get it now?
All we do now is take existing sets and mix them with other existing sets. And that IS very much the same as breeding. Just a tad faster and more efficient. We HAVE been manipulating genes from before we could write. And modern genetic engineering isn't all that different. I'm puzzled on why you think it is.
Give us something to look forward to...
cause I've definitely had it with the crap we're serving over here.
Hey, it may not be the eastern spiral arm yet, but it's closer.
Is that so?
And where did they come from?
Oh right asia. And before that Africa, hey just like the Europeans that is.
Question... so WHAT.
Parents point remains the same.
Or even better is man had never migrated from africa to europe.
Hell the fish should have stayed in the freaking water!;-)
Ah comon.
There is no exam mankind need to pass to allow us to colonize other planets.
And the criterium would definetly NOT be "live in equilibrium oni Earth"
If anything, the fact than man is to populous to inhabit only earth is a reason to move. Not a reason not to.
Q.E.D. your post is stupid.
"You have no right to be pissed at all."
Ofcourse I do. You have to follow through on the analogy though.
A company has an obligation to provide what it promises to provide. If that company promises to provide unbiased advice like for instance a consultancy firm, then there clients have every right to be pissed if they found out that the advice given was not unbiased, but bought and paid for.
I know its more fun to just jump to a conclusion, but lets stop and think for a second.
Is it a crime to refer someone to A if one asks for B.
Wouldn't that depend on what type of service you're running?
If you were running a telephone directory service, and every time I asked you to connect me with DELL customer support you'd connect me with HP, I'd start to get pretty pissed, pretty fast. Espacially if I were DELL.
However, if you were running a PC purchasing consultancy firm, I'd be right in assuming that you would provide me with added information on which PC maker wsould be preferable to contact. However, I'd be pretty pissed again if I found out the only reson you refered me to B instead of A wat the fact that they were paying you to.
However again, If I would know that you're advertising company, and I know that you are just suggesting an alternative to my inquiry without changing the actual outcome of my search. I don't think I'd care. The equivilent of saying:"Sure, here is the number of DELL, but do you know you could also call HP, who is paying us to mention this to you."
Taking all that into account I can't help but feel that for the umpteenth time the judge simply didn't understand the how and what of it all.
The reason for this is the dificulty the law is having on applying existing laws to new situations.
If the use of a keyword is trademark infringment, then I guess google's answer to this runling could be painfully clear. "Sure, we'll pay the fine, and after that anyone requesting that particular keyword won't get any results whatsoever!" I wonder if that would break the ice.;-)
where does *jpg come from. I thought that was the porn scanner included in version 2.
Scanning file names?
Are they forgetting that it is quite impossible to identify whether a video file on your PC is legal or not. 99% of all video files on my PC are recorded from TV or have been on TV at one time or another. Do they have a problem with that?
Are they also forgetting that MP3 players are legal? And that you need to rip your CDs to MP3 in order to use them...
Will someone please stop the madness
I know I preaching to the choir here, but how is it possible that these simple arguments don't stick. Any thoughts?
Only because patents didn't exist yet...
But... Point taken.
The sooner the Linux community can come up with a foolproof and user-friendly UI, support for ALL hardware without going through endless hoops and asking on onscure newsgroups for the "uber geek who has THE code" ... etr cetera ... the better.
This is way off. Totally beside the point. How many people install their own PC in their work environment? 0.001%? Just a guess but I don't think it'll be any more than that in a company the size of IBM. The PCs are installed by the IT department. They image it and duplicate it. The amount of time to install the original PC from which the image is taken is unimportant.
What's much more important is how long it keeps working without maintenance.
Saying Linux is no place to get work done is ridiculous. There is no reason why you couldn't browse just as well with firefox, mail just as fast with evolution and write memo's just as well with open office, and that sums up just about 90% of all PC use.
I get loads of work done on Linux every day. I migrated my wife and mother to Linux 2 years ago. Haven't had a PC-Rebuilding X-mass since.
The only problem is that there still are "Web apps" that need IE for some ridiculous reason. And ofcourse the MSVJM fiasco which tied Java applications written in MS dev env to IE. and some programs like lotus notes (and IBM product no less) that have no version for linux.
We'd be on Linux throughout the corporation if it weren't for the fact that IBM's LotusNotes doesn't run on Linux.
I just can't see the logic in that. Saying you want to migrate, nut not porting your software.
I call that failure to commit.
The only reason there IS a microsoft, is because courts decided "look-and-Feel" of an operating system was unpattentable.
Back then it was Apple who vigurously chanted the "I've got a pattent" song.
See sneakers at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105435
Nope, you're off by 3.
The answer is 42. But the question is "what do you get if you multiply 6 by 9". (as stated in part 3)
This can only by the case if the you calculate it in base 13.
SO. The lesson to be learned is that the world never got to where it was supposed to go because we have 10 instead of 13 fingers.
.. the asteroid hangs there almost the same way bricks don't.