Your missing the point of his post, or simply didn't care to read it hard enough. He's taking his argument from the USER's point of view, not the developers. Chances are, most people don't even know what INF or Kernel even mean.
You talk about productivity, but outside of Administrators who have nothing better to do than micromanage, who really cares about whether it takes a few clicks to get something done. All that matters is that the process is clean, simple and understandable.
I wasn't drawing attention to it's current name. I simply mentioned that as short as a little over 2 years ago, they were still Mandrake and thier product was still called Mandrake Linux.
People who don't want to learn Linux aren't ignorant. But someone who actually would think that we should all spend our time surfing man pages and learning 100+ commands line applications so that we can do rudimentary tasks are. What would happen if you went to the bank, and the teller handed you 100 pages of documentation on how to perform a deposit?
Most people use thier computers read thier email, surf the internet, play a few games and use office-style applications. Linux offers this, but at no greater benefit than Windows or MacOS from a learning curve perspective.
First off, I didn't read the article, but I will comment on the notion that users must feel like they 'belong'. Simply put, they don't care. As long as they can check thier email, surf the internet and write a few documents, spreadsheets or presentations , thier happy.
Doubt me? Look at Mac users. They feel like thier part of something, but where has that gotten Apple in the PC market?
I think that in general, he is trying to draw attention to the lack or corellation between game violence and real world violence, but will agree with you on the basis that his use of the Columbine reference does nothing to for his argument, since he doesn't fit it into his article and seems only to use it as a way of marking his 'expertise'.
If he was trying to imply that by his experiences at Columbine, he can better pass judgement on this issue then he was wrong. Some deal with violence every day in thier lives, but that alone does not mean they understand it. No doubt a police officer who may deal with homicides several times a year, every year will have a different take. They same can be said for inner city youth or a soldier in Iraq. Violence changes us in many ways and allows us to take a different look on how it's potrayed in our lives. But it does not necessarily lend credibility and true knowledge.
... they would help prevent the usage of Social Security or Driver's License numbers for purposes which they were never intended for. Those numbers were intended to facilitate a government program or priviledge, not act as target for every living American. It's nothing short of ridiculous that my entire life can be destroyed, simply through the loss of one of perhaps half a dozen 7 to 10 digit numbers.
Though I strongly oppose the basis for the Real ID, I'm hoping that it's introduction will consolidate the large number of information that can be used to steal an identity. Likewise I'm wishing that it will come with strong laws which limit it's distribution and outlaw sale of it.
The law has good intentions, but the lawmakers should of realized two things:
1.) That the technology and authentication needed to enforce these new regulations simply aren't present. 2.) The legal definition of spam still lies in limbo, even with the CAN-SPAM act.
This along with sample cases can easily show the ineffectiveness of this law. Take for instance this case: I often find that due to lax IT standards and efforts at my university, my e-mail is sometimes used to transfer spam or malicious viruses through no fault of my own. Am I to blame if an 'illegal' email reaches one of these addresses in the registry? I would like to think not, but the law is vague enough to permit such reprecusions. Granted, the law is likely intended to target larger marketing firms and not the individual user, but the fact that the possibility exists is the point.
With people having access to several cores for handling computation, there are still some who would think we need a Physics Card. Wouldn't you hate it to know that you have 4 cores on a system, and yet your system is only using one because someone thought we needed proprietary cards for everything.
How about: Fabricationist::= A man who takes action through falsification of real word facts.
You can argue about the value of taking down a dictator, but at what cost to the truth? We weren't told that we went to Iraq solely to remove a dictator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was the third reason given, after WMD and terrorist ties were proven false.
And if we are in the buisness of removing regimes solely for oppression, we had been better suited to go to Sudan.
I'll agree with you on the subject of TV programming being abismal, but not on the other point. Regardless of the quality, television show content is thier copyrighted work. And like other mediums, such as novels, they have the right to see that thier works are proteced. You as an individual are entitled to fair-use and copies for personell use. But fair-use does not encompass all forms of distribution.
It would seem that over the years, there has become a false sense of entitlement when it comes to sharing. Users once cited the unfair pricing of music as thier reason for using P2P apps and downloading MP3s. And to that, I would agree. But as high-speed connections have become more widely available, the exact reasoning for why individuals do such things has become watered down. Cost, availability, hatred for a company, desire for a trial-spin, the 'I wouldn't buy it anyway' excuse. There's a million and one reasons that any user can pull out of a bag. We seem to download more and more, but can't even make up our mind why we do. But most know that impulse and cost (or lack there of) is the real reason. Shine it all you want, it still comes down to that. And that reason alone does not justify circumvention of all existing copyright laws.
No doubt some of you will disagree with me (perhaps using one of the above mentioned reasons), but I stick by my point. I may not agree with the tactics to which the MPAA engages in when it comes to enforcing it's copyright, but you don't use one wrong as reason for another.
Remeber when companies used to pick names that meant something or had some relation to whom or what was part of the company? Matrix 3D? In a world where companies pay thousands of dollars to come up with names for thier brands, I could of came up with that same name for a free lunch, $50 and two 6 packs of Mountain Dew.
Honestly. Do these marketing really come up with names or just scan a thesaurus and cross reference names with a trademark database. TorusTech Software Tools, MagicPrints Technology, SmartRights Consulting. Come on! I came up with these lame names in 5 minutes. Is that all it takes?
Hopefully for us though, it won't happen. I never feel comfortable when the companies that do the best buisness are those which have to handle the onslaught of viruses, hacks and spyware.
As for Symantec getting hurt in the event that the mobile market doesn't go anywhere, I don't see it happening. They've already got a cash-cow in the PC anti-virus subscription market (in corporate and home). If it comes to staying profitable and meeting shareholder's expectations, they'll could always just layoff.
Symantec is already under pressure from it's stock holders to diversify itself and expand upon the security market. They've taken in anti-spam and anti-spyware companies to beef up the privacy/security buisness, but with good, free competition thier unlikely to get where they would like to be. Buisness is good now, but no doubt the company is concerned about the future, with greater awarness of security from all ends.
I wonder if Symantec's recent statements are an act of true concern, or just an attempt to bolster sales in the exploding hand-held & mobile market?
I really enjoy FireFox, but I still have two peeves:
1.) If I hit the middle mouse button and use auto-scrolling for something like this slashdot page, Firefox will use 30 to 40 percent CPU. And I wouldn't classify my system as slow(Athlon64 3200+ w/512Mb of RAM). Hopefully the can do something about this.
NOTE: Prior to making this post, I observed that IE holds at around 7 percent for the same action.
2.) Unexpected browser closing in v1.01 and above that wasn't present in the pre-v1.0 releases, such as when I'm holding down several keys or typing something in the browser and then switch to another page with the mouse, causing the browser to close (or crash, though I don't get an error message).
The program requires at least 128 megabytes of computer memory -- we ran it with far more.
I'm not one to critique other's writings, but it would seem that you would like to end a review with a one line summary of your satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) of the product. But instead he states the obvious? The quote is very strange, with a hyphen no less to emphasize the second part. Does the author see the fact that OpenOffice will run with MORE than 128 MB or RAM as a selling point?
Anyone catch the LinuxWorld Award Show advertisement on the side. I normally don't click on advertisements, but never turn down a shot to get a good laugh from these 'Software Award Shows'. Surely enough, they didn't disappoint offering a picture of what promises to be the keynote speakers performing the YMCA right on the front page.
Dropping out of his PH.D? *GASP*! What with only a pathetic Masters, how could he have made it?
Sarcasm aside, his leaving the academic world doesn't supprise me. Given that a PH.D won't expand practical knowledge of Computer Science as a Bachelors and Masters would, I would of done the same thing. He didn't take a chance, he just came to his senses.
Slashdot Mirror
Your missing the point of his post, or simply didn't care to read it hard enough. He's taking his argument from the USER's point of view, not the developers. Chances are, most people don't even know what INF or Kernel even mean.
You talk about productivity, but outside of Administrators who have nothing better to do than micromanage, who really cares about whether it takes a few clicks to get something done. All that matters is that the process is clean, simple and understandable.
I wasn't drawing attention to it's current name. I simply mentioned that as short as a little over 2 years ago, they were still Mandrake and thier product was still called Mandrake Linux.
People who don't want to learn Linux aren't ignorant. But someone who actually would think that we should all spend our time surfing man pages and learning 100+ commands line applications so that we can do rudimentary tasks are. What would happen if you went to the bank, and the teller handed you 100 pages of documentation on how to perform a deposit?
Most people use thier computers read thier email, surf the internet, play a few games and use office-style applications. Linux offers this, but at no greater benefit than Windows or MacOS from a learning curve perspective.
Mandrake Linux isn't really that old of a system. I remember purchasing the 8.0 distribution at Circuit City just about 2 1/2 years ago.
First off, I didn't read the article, but I will comment on the notion that users must feel like they 'belong'. Simply put, they don't care. As long as they can check thier email, surf the internet and write a few documents, spreadsheets or presentations , thier happy.
Doubt me? Look at Mac users. They feel like thier part of something, but where has that gotten Apple in the PC market?
I think that in general, he is trying to draw attention to the lack or corellation between game violence and real world violence, but will agree with you on the basis that his use of the Columbine reference does nothing to for his argument, since he doesn't fit it into his article and seems only to use it as a way of marking his 'expertise'.
If he was trying to imply that by his experiences at Columbine, he can better pass judgement on this issue then he was wrong. Some deal with violence every day in thier lives, but that alone does not mean they understand it. No doubt a police officer who may deal with homicides several times a year, every year will have a different take. They same can be said for inner city youth or a soldier in Iraq. Violence changes us in many ways and allows us to take a different look on how it's potrayed in our lives. But it does not necessarily lend credibility and true knowledge.
GTA? Mayby he was talking about "Gran Turismo - A-spec"? *Shrugs*
... they would help prevent the usage of Social Security or Driver's License numbers for purposes which they were never intended for. Those numbers were intended to facilitate a government program or priviledge, not act as target for every living American. It's nothing short of ridiculous that my entire life can be destroyed, simply through the loss of one of perhaps half a dozen 7 to 10 digit numbers.
Though I strongly oppose the basis for the Real ID, I'm hoping that it's introduction will consolidate the large number of information that can be used to steal an identity. Likewise I'm wishing that it will come with strong laws which limit it's distribution and outlaw sale of it.
The law has good intentions, but the lawmakers should of realized two things:
1.) That the technology and authentication needed to enforce these new regulations simply aren't present.
2.) The legal definition of spam still lies in limbo, even with the CAN-SPAM act.
This along with sample cases can easily show the ineffectiveness of this law. Take for instance this case: I often find that due to lax IT standards and efforts at my university, my e-mail is sometimes used to transfer spam or malicious viruses through no fault of my own. Am I to blame if an 'illegal' email reaches one of these addresses in the registry? I would like to think not, but the law is vague enough to permit such reprecusions. Granted, the law is likely intended to target larger marketing firms and not the individual user, but the fact that the possibility exists is the point.
With people having access to several cores for handling computation, there are still some who would think we need a Physics Card. Wouldn't you hate it to know that you have 4 cores on a system, and yet your system is only using one because someone thought we needed proprietary cards for everything.
How about: ::= A man who takes action through falsification of real word facts.
Fabricationist
You can argue about the value of taking down a dictator, but at what cost to the truth? We weren't told that we went to Iraq solely to remove a dictator. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was the third reason given, after WMD and terrorist ties were proven false.
And if we are in the buisness of removing regimes solely for oppression, we had been better suited to go to Sudan.
Staring 'Chiefing' Master Chief?
Hey, it could work.
Oh, I'm sure Apple wouldn't have a problem that.
I'll agree with you on the subject of TV programming being abismal, but not on the other point. Regardless of the quality, television show content is thier copyrighted work. And like other mediums, such as novels, they have the right to see that thier works are proteced. You as an individual are entitled to fair-use and copies for personell use. But fair-use does not encompass all forms of distribution.
It would seem that over the years, there has become a false sense of entitlement when it comes to sharing. Users once cited the unfair pricing of music as thier reason for using P2P apps and downloading MP3s. And to that, I would agree. But as high-speed connections have become more widely available, the exact reasoning for why individuals do such things has become watered down. Cost, availability, hatred for a company, desire for a trial-spin, the 'I wouldn't buy it anyway' excuse. There's a million and one reasons that any user can pull out of a bag. We seem to download more and more, but can't even make up our mind why we do. But most know that impulse and cost (or lack there of) is the real reason. Shine it all you want, it still comes down to that. And that reason alone does not justify circumvention of all existing copyright laws.
No doubt some of you will disagree with me (perhaps using one of the above mentioned reasons), but I stick by my point. I may not agree with the tactics to which the MPAA engages in when it comes to enforcing it's copyright, but you don't use one wrong as reason for another.
Remeber when companies used to pick names that meant something or had some relation to whom or what was part of the company? Matrix 3D? In a world where companies pay thousands of dollars to come up with names for thier brands, I could of came up with that same name for a free lunch, $50 and two 6 packs of Mountain Dew.
Honestly. Do these marketing really come up with names or just scan a thesaurus and cross reference names with a trademark database. TorusTech Software Tools, MagicPrints Technology, SmartRights Consulting. Come on! I came up with these lame names in 5 minutes. Is that all it takes?
Hopefully for us though, it won't happen. I never feel comfortable when the companies that do the best buisness are those which have to handle the onslaught of viruses, hacks and spyware.
As for Symantec getting hurt in the event that the mobile market doesn't go anywhere, I don't see it happening. They've already got a cash-cow in the PC anti-virus subscription market (in corporate and home). If it comes to staying profitable and meeting shareholder's expectations, they'll could always just layoff.
Symantec is already under pressure from it's stock holders to diversify itself and expand upon the security market. They've taken in anti-spam and anti-spyware companies to beef up the privacy/security buisness, but with good, free competition thier unlikely to get where they would like to be. Buisness is good now, but no doubt the company is concerned about the future, with greater awarness of security from all ends.
I wonder if Symantec's recent statements are an act of true concern, or just an attempt to bolster sales in the exploding hand-held & mobile market?
Ahh, gut, Comrade. Gates, Yah, vee is good thinker, but you see: You do not capitalise on de useful of idiots like da OSS veel. Ve vill crush you!
Gut! Gut!
I really enjoy FireFox, but I still have two peeves:
1.) If I hit the middle mouse button and use auto-scrolling for something like this slashdot page, Firefox will use 30 to 40 percent CPU. And I wouldn't classify my system as slow(Athlon64 3200+ w/512Mb of RAM). Hopefully the can do something about this.
NOTE: Prior to making this post, I observed that IE holds at around 7 percent for the same action.
2.) Unexpected browser closing in v1.01 and above that wasn't present in the pre-v1.0 releases, such as when I'm holding down several keys or typing something in the browser and then switch to another page with the mouse, causing the browser to close (or crash, though I don't get an error message).
The program requires at least 128 megabytes of computer memory -- we ran it with far more.
I'm not one to critique other's writings, but it would seem that you would like to end a review with a one line summary of your satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) of the product. But instead he states the obvious? The quote is very strange, with a hyphen no less to emphasize the second part. Does the author see the fact that OpenOffice will run with MORE than 128 MB or RAM as a selling point?
Correction. I should of said "What Standing does a Canadian Trademark have in the United States?"
Does Canadian Trademark law have standing in the United States? I'm not really sure? If not, what good can all of this do?
I am intrigued by this FrepSeachIncredible. How much are you looking for again?
Anyone catch the LinuxWorld Award Show advertisement on the side. I normally don't click on advertisements, but never turn down a shot to get a good laugh from these 'Software Award Shows'. Surely enough, they didn't disappoint offering a picture of what promises to be the keynote speakers performing the YMCA right on the front page.
Dropping out of his PH.D? *GASP*! What with only a pathetic Masters, how could he have made it?
Sarcasm aside, his leaving the academic world doesn't supprise me. Given that a PH.D won't expand practical knowledge of Computer Science as a Bachelors and Masters would, I would of done the same thing. He didn't take a chance, he just came to his senses.