I don't, but lets be reasonable. Pirate Bay is the largest and most popular torrent tracker on the net. Go to their site and browse, say, the video category.
Now tell me, honestly, at first glance, how many of those appear to be copyrighted works? It lists them by order uploaded, so it will likely be a different list when you click on it, but when I looked the last two uploaded torrents were Pathfinder and the Simpsons movie. Go through the list, and face facts. Or, even more fun, try the 100 most popular. At first glance every single one of them appears to be a major hollywood movie.
People who claim bit torrent is only used for piracy are either lying or ignorant. There are plenty of legitimate bit torrent users. The OS I typed this on was downloaded using bit torrent, totally leagalley.
On the other hand, people who think that pirates are in the minority amongst bit torrent users are, at best, engaged in wishfull thinking (BTW, I realise you did'nt actually say that, so I'll give you the benifit of the doubt). It would be great if this wonderfull technology had been used to promote independent bands, arthouse movies and open source software, and to an extent it has been. But the most popular use of Bit torrent is distributing dodgy copies of summer blockbusters. Sad but true.
FUD is pretending that bit torrent is NOT used mostly for piracy. Take a look on piratebay or mininova. The vast majority of torrents on there are for copyrighted material that the uploaders have no legal right to share. All the people downloading Linux distros probably don't even come close to the numbers downloading movies. Admittedly, I'm not aware of any detailed research on the issue, but the evidence available clearly indicates that the most popular use of bit torrent is illeagle distribution of copyrighted works.
The reviewer states that the Vista install took a long time because, since he had bought the upgrade version, he had to install XP first.
I know for a fact that upgrade versions of eariler windows iterations did not require you to install an older version first. You could boot from the upgrade disc and install the OS, but you would be ask to insert the older versions disc at some point during the install process, just to verify you actually owned it. Is this no longer possible in Vista?
I hate these arguments, because neither side will ever actually admit the others strengths.
If you install any major Linux distro, most, if not all hardware will work automagically with no need for any manual driver installation. However, you might come across some hardware which either will not work at all, or will need some considerable tweaking to get working.
If you install XP SP2, every single piece of consumer hardware you own that's less than six years old will be supported*(see footnote 1). However, you might need to manually install them from CDs or by downloading from the vendors website.
Can we please stop pretending that XP is a complete nightmare to install, and that Linux requires you to compile drivers from source and tweak a dozen config files to get a soundcard working *(see footnote 2).
Footnote 1
Yes, I expect someone reading this will own something that doesn't work in XP, but honestly, I have not seen a single piece of hardware in the last six years that's not XP compatible.
Footnote 2
To the parent. I'm not suggesting you did either of these things. In, fact, your point is fairly reasonable. Your post was just the one in this thread I happened to be reading when I decided to post this. Having said that, your reply and the comment you replied to do perfectly illustrate what I'm talking about. One person screaming Linux has poor hardware support, the other talking about the need to add drivers to XP post install. Both ignoring the other systems strengths, and focusing only on weaknesses.
Posted AC in order to avoid the Microsoft PR modding behemoth.
You know, in all the time I've been reading Slashdot, it never once occurred to me that teams of paid MS trolls were scouring the threads modding up pro-MS posts. Now that you say it though, it does explain the overwhelming pro-MS bias amongst highly rated comments.
There was a story on Ars Technica a while back (I don't have the link, sorry) where Michael Dell was doing a question and answer session, and someone asked him how much extra they would have to pay to get a PC without "Craplets". The figure he gave was $50 - $60.
Now, I don't know how much Dell pay for a vista license, and I don't suppose we will be finding out any time soon, but if it's less than $50 dollars (which would not be a shock) then the Linux machines being more expensive makes sense. If I had to guess though, I think they will probably sell for the same price as the Windows machines.
There was a story on Ars Technica a while back (I don't have the link, sorry) where Michael Dell was doing a question and answer session, and someone asked him how much extra they would have to pay to get a PC without "Craplets". The figure he gave was $50 - $60.
Now, I don't know how much Dell pay for a vista license, and I don't suppose we will be finding out any time soon, but if it's less than $50 dollars (which would not be a shock) then the Linux machines may be more expensive. If I had to guess though, I think they will probably sell for the same price as the Windows machines.
I hope that 233 MHZ PII has had a few memory upgrades since you bought it. Firefox is currently using 117 MB of memory on my machine. To be fair though, I do have a whopping 4 tabs open though. No flash pages, no PDF pages, no streaming media either. Just 4 plain 'ol web pages.
The question here is "how does this guy get better at communicating to non technical people" You are saying it's a waste of time to even try explaining things to them, managers are too dumb to understand, and if they weren't dumb they wouldn't need you. I take issue with this. The only evidence you have for saying these people are dumb is that they failed to understand the questioners explanations. I would like to know exactly why you discount the possibility that the person asking for help improving his communication skills is just very bad at explaining. I would also like to know why you think that just because they ignore his advice, they lack intelligence. There may be perfectly logical (from the PHBs point of view) arguments in favour of ignoring it, or they could be receiving differing advice form another source. Or, it could just be that he's really, really bad at explaining things and selling his idea. What makes you believe stupidity is more likely than any of those?
Maybe you work in a place full of really dumb people. If so, you have my sympathies. But the managers I work with are certainly not idiots. That doesn't mean they do everything I recommend, or accept every idea I put forward, but it does mean that if I behaved the way you suggest, I would be out of a job in short order.
what you mean by "non-technical people" are actually dullards.
This is exactly what you just accused me of doing. He said "non technical people". You would like this to mean "dullards". I find that attitude patronising, arrogant and stupid. You offered absolutely no evidence to support your assertion that these people are dullards, other than to say "if they were as smart as you, they wouldn't need to hire you" (paraphrasing). Suppose he works for a company who's primary business is not IT. Why should a manager of, say, a call centre know anything about IT? Isn't hiring an expert to explain the issues to you the smart thing to do? If they can't understand those explanations, why do you assume the fault must be on their side, rather than on his? Maybe he just isn't able to explain things very well.
what you mean by "non-technical people" are actually dullards.
Really? So anyone who is not an expert in your subject is a dullard, correct? The idea that the just lack expert knowledge, and that the expert in front of them is not very good at explaining things, never enters your head.
I am sick to death of the attitude amongst a certain segment of the geek population that anyone who does not understand IT issues is dumb. I used to work front line tech support, and a lot of the techies in that office would regularly rant about "dumb users". Very few users are dumb. Rather, they are ignorant about IT, just as I am ignorant about motor vehicle mechanics, structural engineering and baseball. It doesn't mean I'm dumb, anymore than it means baseball fans are all smart.
the very existence of your job illustrates that they realise they are stupider than you and hence need help choosing things
Maybe the existence of his job illustrates that the company's primary focus is not IT, but they realise that they need to use computers to achieve other goals. That being the case, they took the really smart decision to hire IT people who could explain the issues to them and allow them to make an informed decision.
How can I communicate with the stupid without giving them a lengthy training session to bring them up to my level of understanding?"
Do you know anything about: bricklaying, plumbing, landscape gardening, heart surgery, or tort law? If yes, do consider your understanding of them to be on the same level as an expert in the field? If a pipe in your house burst, would undergo lengthy training so you could converse with an expert on a level playing field? If you needed legal advice, would your lawyer be justified in thinking you an idiot because you are do not have his understanding of the law (and quite frankly, given some of the rubbish modded to +5 on/. every time a legal issue is discussed, I think law is to nerds as IT is to PHBs). Would that lawyer be right to think " I can't be bothered explaining things to this dullard, because bring him up to my level of understanding is impossible. I'll just draw a diagram".
I am not a golfer so please insert the name of a currently successful golfer to avoid embarrassment)
You don't know anything about golf? Dullard. Now replace Golf with IT in the preceding sentence, and try and realise how patronizing and insulting you sounded in your little rant.
No, we really, really do NOT need to stop explaining why it's impossible to play an FPS with a console controller.
Well that's just flat out wrong. This story is about people playing Halo. They were doing it with console controllers. Halo is an FPS. There for, playing an FPS on a controller is clearly possible. You might think a keyboard and mouse is better, that hardly means that using a controller is impossible.
Now lots of people play FPSs on consoles, and they seem to be enjoying themselves, so I don't think theres anything wrong with using a controller. I do think using a keyboard and mouse is better, if by better we mean provides faster response times. In any multiplayer game, where half the players were using K/M and half controllers, the K/M guys would win every time, all other things being equal.
On the other hand, I think controllers have some advantages over K/M. My consoles are all in my living room, and I play games sitting on my couch. I don't have a desk in front of my TV, so there's nowhere to put a K/M. Try balancing a keyboard on your lap and running you mouse on the cushion next to you. Comfortable? Thought not. I also prefer a thumbstick to WASD.
But really, why does it matter? As the OP said, why do we have to keep having this stupid argument? You like the K/M, dislike the controller. OP likes controllers. I'm happy with either. Why does each side feel the need to not only say "I like x" but to also insist "because y is inferior"? I feel like I'm back in the playground arguing about C64s and Spectrums.
Which you obviously do not know, because *you* *are* *not* *a* *gamer*. Deal with it.
AH, so you are the final arbiter of who is and isn't a gamer? Wow. Am I a gamer? I've been playing video games for twenty years, but I like some console FPSs, so I might fail your test. Perhaps you mean he isn't a PC gamer? Are PC gamers the one true gamer clan, to whom all others are inferior? Are those who are unwilling or unable to drop stupid amounts of cash on new graphics cards and processors supposed to keep quiet and never offer an opinion? Should they just kneel in supplication and reverence before their PC gaming overlords?
if you dislike us so much, as you say, then why the hell do you strive to be just like us?
I'm not even sure what this means? Where exactly did he say he was trying to be like you?
Oh, just FYI, the first time I played Doom, I used a joypad (yes PAD! not even a joystick), because I hated the keyboard and mouse so much. It was a lot easier back then, since there was no looking up or down. I didn't start using the K/M till quake came out.
7. Don't require bleeding-edge hardware. My next machine is probably going to be a laptop with Intel graphics
WOW will run on less than cutting edge hardware. A friend of mine is a WOW player, and while I'm not sure what what the exact spec of his machine is, I do know that it has onboard intel graphics and that he bought it second hand for sixty pounds when another friends workpalce sold them off.
On a slight tangent, I've been saying for a while now that one of the things that could help invigorate the PC games market is if the developers would stop requiring cutting edge hardware. There are millions and millions of PCs out there, and every big game that comes out effectively limits itself to a tiny niche of that market. Take me, I'd love to play Stalker, but I don't have a machine that could run it, so I'm just going to buy a wii game instead.
If we didn't have such a namby-pamby government in England, the trouble-making thugs would be weeded out and stopped from going to any games meaning that fans who can behave sensibly and control their alcohol intake could go and enjoy a game over a beer - perhaps even more families would go to matches also.
Where to begin. I think your impressions of football are about twenty years out of date.
For a start, your Reading supporting friend can enjoy a drink at the game. The Madejski Stadium has a bar serving alcohol. The reason they won't let you take the stuff in is because they want you to buy theirs on site.
Secondly, lots of famlies do go to football matches. There is really very little trouble at english matches nowadays, nothing like it used to be in the eighties. I've never seen a fight at a match, and I've been a season ticket holder at Barnsley for more than a decade. I'm not saying it never happens, but I think these days the only trouble tends to be after the match, when two sets of drunken supporters walk into the same bar after six hours of post game drinking.
Thirdly, if the demand for Rugby tickets was as high as the demand for football tickets, they would charge just as much. A ticket to see Chelski (In soviet Russia, ball kicks you!) will set you back around forty to fifty quid. I would guess your rugby team charges less. Now, if they jacked the prices up to forty pounds, how many people would carry on attending? Would you? Or would crowds drop off? Sports teams, any sports team, charge what they can get away with.
I'm not bashing rugby, BTW. I like rugby. Well, proper rugby. Not that union nonsense.
All that said, I do the game has a lot of problems. No the amount of money involved, more the way that money is distributed. The Premiership is essentially three separate leagues (a relegtion battle, a UEFA cup qualifier, and the top four) and that largely down to the huge concentration of money in the hands of hte top four teams. Lack of revenue sharing is the single biggest threat to the future of the game.
. How is targeting a moving sucky platform preferable to one that is open?
The moving sucky one has ninety plus percent of the home desktop market. Linux has less than one percent, and I've never seen any credible figures suggesting otherwise. Why target a tiny niche market when you can target a huge one?
And bear in mind, the proportion of linux users who are serious about gaming and do not have access to a windows machine is probably one percent of Linux users. So even if you target windows, ninety nine percent of Linux gamers can play your games anyway.
A tennis racket has very little potential as a melee weapon. Even wielded edge ways, it just doesn't have the weight to do the same kind of serious damage as a hammer. Although I suppose you could rip the strings out and garrote someone with them.
No, if you plan on launching a close quarter killing spree in PE class, there are some far better options. Baseball or cricket bats are good, although cricket bats aren't really designed for the kind of wide arc swings you're going to need to crack skulls. Javelins have some potential, as do hockey sticks, but overall, I think you will probably find more useful offensive equipment in a shop class. I'll take a hammer or a hatchet over a tennis racket any day of the week if I'm planning on beating someone to death.
I think I just wrote a terrorist training manual. I'll probably be in gitmo this time tomorrow.
Ubuntu has this huge silly grassroots thing right now
Remember when AOL users started getting on the internet? I hope thats not what the Ubuntu forums look like in six months time when the Dell users start logging on.
Actually, joking aside, I think this is great news, but I don't think it will lead to an influx of new linux users, at least not at first. What this will do is give us an idea of the present market size for pre-installed linux systems. If these sell well enough other manufactures will follow suit, and then, finally, the hardware vendors might start supporting Linux.
When he says he is retracting the points, he is not blaming Ubuntu, He is just saying the distro loses points because getting the printer working was a complete bitch. Getting my Laptops wireless card working in Ubuntu was a PITA too. I know who's fault it is, but knowing that doesn't make it any easier, because I don't care whos fault it is, I just want it to work.
Every time someone says "X hardware doesn't work under Linux" we get a dozen comments explaining how that's not Linux's fault, which completely misses the point. No one outside of Slashdot cares in the slightest why it's broken. If X works in windows but not in Linux, then for people who require X Windows is better than Linux. That's why I'm so happy Dell are going to start shipping Linux PC's. Dell do like to sell you a lot of extras when you buy a PC (TV card, printer, digital camera), and Dell has the muscle to pressure the manufactures of those devices to create linux drivers and software that "just works", and they'll do it because Dell is a big enough customer that it's worth their while.
It is fraud if I state something will happen and, partially or entirely as a result of that statement, you enter into a contract with me.
For example, and lets go with a car analogy here, say I'm selling you a used car. I send you an e-mail saying it has 50,000 miles on the clock. As a result, you buy the car, only to discover it actually has 100,000. That is misrepresentation. You could stand in front of a judge and say you were lied to, and that your entry into the contract of sale was due to that lie.
On the other hand, if you buy the car from me, then ask how many miles it has done, no lie I tell you could be considered misrepresentation, since you have already entered into the contract.
It's easy to see how this applies to google. If they had enticed people to sign up by saying "We guarantee you will never lose any data", and then promptly lost data, well that's misrepresentation, although if they had actually put the guarantee in the EULA, you would be better off going after tham for breach of contract. They did'nt. People have already signed up, so there is no way this statement could be considered as misrepresentation.
I have to say though, there would be certain advantages to living in your world. Imagine being able to sue the coaches of sports teams for misrepresentation when they lose after predicting a win.
Actually, you are completely wrong. To take your US Post example, any private organisation, be they a school, coffee shop or airline, is free to insist that any person entering their premises turns over all documents they are carrying to be inspected. Of course, customers are just as free to not enter the premises. Your ISP could make it a term of their contract that all customers consent to have a keylogger installed. Not unconstitutional. Unethical, probably illegal if they don't tell you about it, sure. But unconstitutional? No, not really.
I could also install a pay phone in my imaginary coffee shop, and tell my customers I was going to eavesdrop on their conversations. Neither of those are unconstitutional. Were Congress to pass a law saying all phone conversations are to be monitored, now that is probably unconstitutional.
I would imagine that what Ohio state University did here was look at the amount of hassle and risk involved in allowing P2P on their network, and came to the conclusion that that the risks outweighed the benefits. I would probably have done the same if I was in the business of providing residents with Internet access. If you think it's unconstitutional, explain why, with citations. The section you cited earlier limits the ability of congress to pass laws, not the drawing up of private contracts. Ohio University != congress.
Ohio state university is not congress. They are private entity. If I run a school, coffee shop or bar, I can block whatever traffic I want to on my open wireless access point.
But the average user (browses the web, checks e-mail, gets pictures off his camera,...) won't need the command line on any of those OS's, while the advanced user will have to resort to using the command line/editing.conf files/editing the registry once in a while.
Funny you should say that, because I just installed Ubuntu 7.04 on this laptop, and I had to use the command line to get the wireless card working so I could browse the web and check e-mails.
If I want to add another hard drive to my desktop, or set a network share to be mounted at boot, then I'm going to have to edit a config file. That's fine by me, I like the command line, but the point is that if I liked GUIs instead, then I would still be forced to use the command line.
I've used both Linux and Windows for years, and despite the leaps and bounds Linux has made over the last three or four years, you still find yourself on the command line or editing a conf file far more often in Linux.
Oh yeah, just for the record, in all the years I've been using windows, developing for windows, supporting windows, I have never, ever, edited the registry, or any other config file.
If you're trying to do anything that doesn't have a GUI tool on both these OS's, you still need the command line. 2 concrete examples:
FWIW, I think the point he was making is that you are far more likely to have to "resort" to the CL in Linux than you are in windows, much like you're far more likely to have to "resort" to editing config files in Linux than you are in Windows. Sure, some tasks in windows are going to be better achieved using the command line, but in linux I have to use the command line, and edit a config file, to get my laptops TV out working. Most users never want to put Safari in debug mode, but they might well want to hook their laptop up to the TV for big screen WOW.
Now the reason I put resort in quotation marks is that I like using the command line (for some tasks), so thats not a show stopper for me, but it is for a lot of people.
Slashdot Mirror
don't assume everyone else is in the same boat.
I don't, but lets be reasonable. Pirate Bay is the largest and most popular torrent tracker on the net. Go to their site and browse, say, the video category.
Now tell me, honestly, at first glance, how many of those appear to be copyrighted works? It lists them by order uploaded, so it will likely be a different list when you click on it, but when I looked the last two uploaded torrents were Pathfinder and the Simpsons movie. Go through the list, and face facts. Or, even more fun, try the 100 most popular. At first glance every single one of them appears to be a major hollywood movie.
People who claim bit torrent is only used for piracy are either lying or ignorant. There are plenty of legitimate bit torrent users. The OS I typed this on was downloaded using bit torrent, totally leagalley.
On the other hand, people who think that pirates are in the minority amongst bit torrent users are, at best, engaged in wishfull thinking (BTW, I realise you did'nt actually say that, so I'll give you the benifit of the doubt). It would be great if this wonderfull technology had been used to promote independent bands, arthouse movies and open source software, and to an extent it has been. But the most popular use of Bit torrent is distributing dodgy copies of summer blockbusters. Sad but true.
No, FUD is when you blame a protocol or software for the way people are using them.
Could you point out where I did that?
FUD is pretending that bit torrent is NOT used mostly for piracy. Take a look on piratebay or mininova. The vast majority of torrents on there are for copyrighted material that the uploaders have no legal right to share. All the people downloading Linux distros probably don't even come close to the numbers downloading movies. Admittedly, I'm not aware of any detailed research on the issue, but the evidence available clearly indicates that the most popular use of bit torrent is illeagle distribution of copyrighted works.
That's certainly all I use it for.
The reviewer states that the Vista install took a long time because, since he had bought the upgrade version, he had to install XP first.
I know for a fact that upgrade versions of eariler windows iterations did not require you to install an older version first. You could boot from the upgrade disc and install the OS, but you would be ask to insert the older versions disc at some point during the install process, just to verify you actually owned it. Is this no longer possible in Vista?
I hate these arguments, because neither side will ever actually admit the others strengths.
If you install any major Linux distro, most, if not all hardware will work automagically with no need for any manual driver installation. However, you might come across some hardware which either will not work at all, or will need some considerable tweaking to get working.
If you install XP SP2, every single piece of consumer hardware you own that's less than six years old will be supported*(see footnote 1). However, you might need to manually install them from CDs or by downloading from the vendors website.
Can we please stop pretending that XP is a complete nightmare to install, and that Linux requires you to compile drivers from source and tweak a dozen config files to get a soundcard working *(see footnote 2).
Footnote 1
Yes, I expect someone reading this will own something that doesn't work in XP, but honestly, I have not seen a single piece of hardware in the last six years that's not XP compatible.
Footnote 2
To the parent. I'm not suggesting you did either of these things. In, fact, your point is fairly reasonable. Your post was just the one in this thread I happened to be reading when I decided to post this. Having said that, your reply and the comment you replied to do perfectly illustrate what I'm talking about. One person screaming Linux has poor hardware support, the other talking about the need to add drivers to XP post install. Both ignoring the other systems strengths, and focusing only on weaknesses.
Posted AC in order to avoid the Microsoft PR modding behemoth.
You know, in all the time I've been reading Slashdot, it never once occurred to me that teams of paid MS trolls were scouring the threads modding up pro-MS posts. Now that you say it though, it does explain the overwhelming pro-MS bias amongst highly rated comments.
Oh, almost forgot..
</sarcasm>
There was a story on Ars Technica a while back (I don't have the link, sorry) where Michael Dell was doing a question and answer session, and someone asked him how much extra they would have to pay to get a PC without "Craplets". The figure he gave was $50 - $60.
Now, I don't know how much Dell pay for a vista license, and I don't suppose we will be finding out any time soon, but if it's less than $50 dollars (which would not be a shock) then the Linux machines being more expensive makes sense. If I had to guess though, I think they will probably sell for the same price as the Windows machines.
There was a story on Ars Technica a while back (I don't have the link, sorry) where Michael Dell was doing a question and answer session, and someone asked him how much extra they would have to pay to get a PC without "Craplets". The figure he gave was $50 - $60.
Now, I don't know how much Dell pay for a vista license, and I don't suppose we will be finding out any time soon, but if it's less than $50 dollars (which would not be a shock) then the Linux machines may be more expensive. If I had to guess though, I think they will probably sell for the same price as the Windows machines.
I hope that 233 MHZ PII has had a few memory upgrades since you bought it. Firefox is currently using 117 MB of memory on my machine. To be fair though, I do have a whopping 4 tabs open though. No flash pages, no PDF pages, no streaming media either. Just 4 plain 'ol web pages.
Ok, lets try this one more time.
The question here is "how does this guy get better at communicating to non technical people" You are saying it's a waste of time to even try explaining things to them, managers are too dumb to understand, and if they weren't dumb they wouldn't need you. I take issue with this. The only evidence you have for saying these people are dumb is that they failed to understand the questioners explanations. I would like to know exactly why you discount the possibility that the person asking for help improving his communication skills is just very bad at explaining. I would also like to know why you think that just because they ignore his advice, they lack intelligence. There may be perfectly logical (from the PHBs point of view) arguments in favour of ignoring it, or they could be receiving differing advice form another source. Or, it could just be that he's really, really bad at explaining things and selling his idea. What makes you believe stupidity is more likely than any of those?
Maybe you work in a place full of really dumb people. If so, you have my sympathies. But the managers I work with are certainly not idiots. That doesn't mean they do everything I recommend, or accept every idea I put forward, but it does mean that if I behaved the way you suggest, I would be out of a job in short order.
You said
what you mean by "non-technical people" are actually dullards.
This is exactly what you just accused me of doing. He said "non technical people". You would like this to mean "dullards". I find that attitude patronising, arrogant and stupid. You offered absolutely no evidence to support your assertion that these people are dullards, other than to say "if they were as smart as you, they wouldn't need to hire you" (paraphrasing). Suppose he works for a company who's primary business is not IT. Why should a manager of, say, a call centre know anything about IT? Isn't hiring an expert to explain the issues to you the smart thing to do? If they can't understand those explanations, why do you assume the fault must be on their side, rather than on his? Maybe he just isn't able to explain things very well.
Now, try responding to my post.
what you mean by "non-technical people" are actually dullards.
/. every time a legal issue is discussed, I think law is to nerds as IT is to PHBs). Would that lawyer be right to think " I can't be bothered explaining things to this dullard, because bring him up to my level of understanding is impossible. I'll just draw a diagram".
Really? So anyone who is not an expert in your subject is a dullard, correct? The idea that the just lack expert knowledge, and that the expert in front of them is not very good at explaining things, never enters your head.
I am sick to death of the attitude amongst a certain segment of the geek population that anyone who does not understand IT issues is dumb. I used to work front line tech support, and a lot of the techies in that office would regularly rant about "dumb users". Very few users are dumb. Rather, they are ignorant about IT, just as I am ignorant about motor vehicle mechanics, structural engineering and baseball. It doesn't mean I'm dumb, anymore than it means baseball fans are all smart.
the very existence of your job illustrates that they realise they are stupider than you and hence need help choosing things
Maybe the existence of his job illustrates that the company's primary focus is not IT, but they realise that they need to use computers to achieve other goals. That being the case, they took the really smart decision to hire IT people who could explain the issues to them and allow them to make an informed decision.
How can I communicate with the stupid without giving them a lengthy training session to bring them up to my level of understanding?"
Do you know anything about: bricklaying, plumbing, landscape gardening, heart surgery, or tort law? If yes, do consider your understanding of them to be on the same level as an expert in the field? If a pipe in your house burst, would undergo lengthy training so you could converse with an expert on a level playing field? If you needed legal advice, would your lawyer be justified in thinking you an idiot because you are do not have his understanding of the law (and quite frankly, given some of the rubbish modded to +5 on
I am not a golfer so please insert the name of a currently successful golfer to avoid embarrassment)
You don't know anything about golf? Dullard. Now replace Golf with IT in the preceding sentence, and try and realise how patronizing and insulting you sounded in your little rant.
Sorry, I assumed I was talking to an adult. Silly of me.
No, we really, really do NOT need to stop explaining why it's impossible to play an FPS with a console controller.
Well that's just flat out wrong. This story is about people playing Halo. They were doing it with console controllers. Halo is an FPS. There for, playing an FPS on a controller is clearly possible. You might think a keyboard and mouse is better, that hardly means that using a controller is impossible.
Now lots of people play FPSs on consoles, and they seem to be enjoying themselves, so I don't think theres anything wrong with using a controller. I do think using a keyboard and mouse is better, if by better we mean provides faster response times. In any multiplayer game, where half the players were using K/M and half controllers, the K/M guys would win every time, all other things being equal.
On the other hand, I think controllers have some advantages over K/M. My consoles are all in my living room, and I play games sitting on my couch. I don't have a desk in front of my TV, so there's nowhere to put a K/M. Try balancing a keyboard on your lap and running you mouse on the cushion next to you. Comfortable? Thought not. I also prefer a thumbstick to WASD.
But really, why does it matter? As the OP said, why do we have to keep having this stupid argument? You like the K/M, dislike the controller. OP likes controllers. I'm happy with either. Why does each side feel the need to not only say "I like x" but to also insist "because y is inferior"? I feel like I'm back in the playground arguing about C64s and Spectrums.
Which you obviously do not know, because *you* *are* *not* *a* *gamer*. Deal with it.
AH, so you are the final arbiter of who is and isn't a gamer? Wow. Am I a gamer? I've been playing video games for twenty years, but I like some console FPSs, so I might fail your test. Perhaps you mean he isn't a PC gamer? Are PC gamers the one true gamer clan, to whom all others are inferior? Are those who are unwilling or unable to drop stupid amounts of cash on new graphics cards and processors supposed to keep quiet and never offer an opinion? Should they just kneel in supplication and reverence before their PC gaming overlords?
if you dislike us so much, as you say, then why the hell do you strive to be just like us?
I'm not even sure what this means? Where exactly did he say he was trying to be like you?
Oh, just FYI, the first time I played Doom, I used a joypad (yes PAD! not even a joystick), because I hated the keyboard and mouse so much. It was a lot easier back then, since there was no looking up or down. I didn't start using the K/M till quake came out.
7. Don't require bleeding-edge hardware. My next machine is probably going to be a laptop with Intel graphics
WOW will run on less than cutting edge hardware. A friend of mine is a WOW player, and while I'm not sure what what the exact spec of his machine is, I do know that it has onboard intel graphics and that he bought it second hand for sixty pounds when another friends workpalce sold them off.
On a slight tangent, I've been saying for a while now that one of the things that could help invigorate the PC games market is if the developers would stop requiring cutting edge hardware. There are millions and millions of PCs out there, and every big game that comes out effectively limits itself to a tiny niche of that market. Take me, I'd love to play Stalker, but I don't have a machine that could run it, so I'm just going to buy a wii game instead.
If we didn't have such a namby-pamby government in England, the trouble-making thugs would be weeded out and stopped from going to any games meaning that fans who can behave sensibly and control their alcohol intake could go and enjoy a game over a beer - perhaps even more families would go to matches also.
Where to begin. I think your impressions of football are about twenty years out of date.
For a start, your Reading supporting friend can enjoy a drink at the game. The Madejski Stadium has a bar serving alcohol. The reason they won't let you take the stuff in is because they want you to buy theirs on site.
Secondly, lots of famlies do go to football matches. There is really very little trouble at english matches nowadays, nothing like it used to be in the eighties. I've never seen a fight at a match, and I've been a season ticket holder at Barnsley for more than a decade. I'm not saying it never happens, but I think these days the only trouble tends to be after the match, when two sets of drunken supporters walk into the same bar after six hours of post game drinking.
Thirdly, if the demand for Rugby tickets was as high as the demand for football tickets, they would charge just as much. A ticket to see Chelski (In soviet Russia, ball kicks you!) will set you back around forty to fifty quid. I would guess your rugby team charges less. Now, if they jacked the prices up to forty pounds, how many people would carry on attending? Would you? Or would crowds drop off? Sports teams, any sports team, charge what they can get away with.
I'm not bashing rugby, BTW. I like rugby. Well, proper rugby. Not that union nonsense.
All that said, I do the game has a lot of problems. No the amount of money involved, more the way that money is distributed. The Premiership is essentially three separate leagues (a relegtion battle, a UEFA cup qualifier, and the top four) and that largely down to the huge concentration of money in the hands of hte top four teams. Lack of revenue sharing is the single biggest threat to the future of the game.
. How is targeting a moving sucky platform preferable to one that is open?
The moving sucky one has ninety plus percent of the home desktop market. Linux has less than one percent, and I've never seen any credible figures suggesting otherwise. Why target a tiny niche market when you can target a huge one?
And bear in mind, the proportion of linux users who are serious about gaming and do not have access to a windows machine is probably one percent of Linux users. So even if you target windows, ninety nine percent of Linux gamers can play your games anyway.
A tennis racket has very little potential as a melee weapon. Even wielded edge ways, it just doesn't have the weight to do the same kind of serious damage as a hammer. Although I suppose you could rip the strings out and garrote someone with them.
No, if you plan on launching a close quarter killing spree in PE class, there are some far better options. Baseball or cricket bats are good, although cricket bats aren't really designed for the kind of wide arc swings you're going to need to crack skulls. Javelins have some potential, as do hockey sticks, but overall, I think you will probably find more useful offensive equipment in a shop class. I'll take a hammer or a hatchet over a tennis racket any day of the week if I'm planning on beating someone to death.
I think I just wrote a terrorist training manual. I'll probably be in gitmo this time tomorrow.
Ubuntu has this huge silly grassroots thing right now
Remember when AOL users started getting on the internet? I hope thats not what the Ubuntu forums look like in six months time when the Dell users start logging on.
Actually, joking aside, I think this is great news, but I don't think it will lead to an influx of new linux users, at least not at first. What this will do is give us an idea of the present market size for pre-installed linux systems. If these sell well enough other manufactures will follow suit, and then, finally, the hardware vendors might start supporting Linux.
When he says he is retracting the points, he is not blaming Ubuntu, He is just saying the distro loses points because getting the printer working was a complete bitch. Getting my Laptops wireless card working in Ubuntu was a PITA too. I know who's fault it is, but knowing that doesn't make it any easier, because I don't care whos fault it is, I just want it to work.
Every time someone says "X hardware doesn't work under Linux" we get a dozen comments explaining how that's not Linux's fault, which completely misses the point. No one outside of Slashdot cares in the slightest why it's broken. If X works in windows but not in Linux, then for people who require X Windows is better than Linux. That's why I'm so happy Dell are going to start shipping Linux PC's. Dell do like to sell you a lot of extras when you buy a PC (TV card, printer, digital camera), and Dell has the muscle to pressure the manufactures of those devices to create linux drivers and software that "just works", and they'll do it because Dell is a big enough customer that it's worth their while.
It is fraud if I state something will happen and, partially or entirely as a result of that statement, you enter into a contract with me.
For example, and lets go with a car analogy here, say I'm selling you a used car. I send you an e-mail saying it has 50,000 miles on the clock. As a result, you buy the car, only to discover it actually has 100,000. That is misrepresentation. You could stand in front of a judge and say you were lied to, and that your entry into the contract of sale was due to that lie.
On the other hand, if you buy the car from me, then ask how many miles it has done, no lie I tell you could be considered misrepresentation, since you have already entered into the contract.
It's easy to see how this applies to google. If they had enticed people to sign up by saying "We guarantee you will never lose any data", and then promptly lost data, well that's misrepresentation, although if they had actually put the guarantee in the EULA, you would be better off going after tham for breach of contract. They did'nt. People have already signed up, so there is no way this statement could be considered as misrepresentation.
I have to say though, there would be certain advantages to living in your world. Imagine being able to sue the coaches of sports teams for misrepresentation when they lose after predicting a win.
Actually, you are completely wrong. To take your US Post example, any private organisation, be they a school, coffee shop or airline, is free to insist that any person entering their premises turns over all documents they are carrying to be inspected. Of course, customers are just as free to not enter the premises. Your ISP could make it a term of their contract that all customers consent to have a keylogger installed. Not unconstitutional. Unethical, probably illegal if they don't tell you about it, sure. But unconstitutional? No, not really.
I could also install a pay phone in my imaginary coffee shop, and tell my customers I was going to eavesdrop on their conversations. Neither of those are unconstitutional. Were Congress to pass a law saying all phone conversations are to be monitored, now that is probably unconstitutional.
I would imagine that what Ohio state University did here was look at the amount of hassle and risk involved in allowing P2P on their network, and came to the conclusion that that the risks outweighed the benefits. I would probably have done the same if I was in the business of providing residents with Internet access. If you think it's unconstitutional, explain why, with citations. The section you cited earlier limits the ability of congress to pass laws, not the drawing up of private contracts. Ohio University != congress.
Congress shall make no law
Ohio state university is not congress. They are private entity. If I run a school, coffee shop or bar, I can block whatever traffic I want to on my open wireless access point.
But the average user (browses the web, checks e-mail, gets pictures off his camera, ...) won't need the command line on any of those OS's, while the advanced user will have to resort to using the command line/editing .conf files/editing the registry once in a while.
Funny you should say that, because I just installed Ubuntu 7.04 on this laptop, and I had to use the command line to get the wireless card working so I could browse the web and check e-mails.
If I want to add another hard drive to my desktop, or set a network share to be mounted at boot, then I'm going to have to edit a config file. That's fine by me, I like the command line, but the point is that if I liked GUIs instead, then I would still be forced to use the command line.
I've used both Linux and Windows for years, and despite the leaps and bounds Linux has made over the last three or four years, you still find yourself on the command line or editing a conf file far more often in Linux.
Oh yeah, just for the record, in all the years I've been using windows, developing for windows, supporting windows, I have never, ever, edited the registry, or any other config file.
If you're trying to do anything that doesn't have a GUI tool on both these OS's, you still need the command line. 2 concrete examples:
FWIW, I think the point he was making is that you are far more likely to have to "resort" to the CL in Linux than you are in windows, much like you're far more likely to have to "resort" to editing config files in Linux than you are in Windows. Sure, some tasks in windows are going to be better achieved using the command line, but in linux I have to use the command line, and edit a config file, to get my laptops TV out working. Most users never want to put Safari in debug mode, but they might well want to hook their laptop up to the TV for big screen WOW.
Now the reason I put resort in quotation marks is that I like using the command line (for some tasks), so thats not a show stopper for me, but it is for a lot of people.