so... by not reporting their holes they are able to better secure their product at large?
I make the following analogy:
You have two walls. Both of them are blocking your path to a big pot of gold on the other side. One wall is camoflaged. The other is glowing neon making it very clearly visible. Both walls have holes.
The holes in the camo wall are large and persistant but half covered in leaves. The holes in the neon wall each have a spotlight on them and are constantly appearing and disappearing. Each time one appears there is a huge BANG and a red arrow pointing to it. But soon there-after they are patched up by dilligent gnomes armed with plaster and bricks.
Neither is perfect because they both have holes. But one wall attracts less attention to the holes. Here's a hint... trial by fire is not acceptable when the trials are occuring in the real world with real data. Might want to paint fewer arrows pointing toward your faults.
cooler temperatures will only improve performance in solid state electronics for so long... at some point they will actually begin to malfunction as a result of the extreme cold.
everything had frozen solid and the thermometer registered -150 C. Success. Then the monitor started to flash strange images. Pressing keys on the keyboard produced random characters on the screen. "In other words," Tranquilino says, "the motherboard was stuffed."
Regardless of what actual mechanism caused the thing to fail, the cold temperature was the factor that drove it, making this a good example of a device failing in extremely cold conditions.
I think however that they're refering to the fact that the itunes music store is just a web service... so the gekko engine being used in their music store interface is the more likely relationship. Even if they're refering to the rest of the interface (buttons menus etc) is common to firefox, it still won't make a dent in iTunes with apple's target market.......once it's written...
Even firefox hasn't made a dent in market share of Safari... barely a dent (14%?) of the IE share... and that's gonna all but disappear in a year or so when Vista comes out with (no doubt) all kinds of renovations and eyecandy that'll attract the masses.
Eye candy wins out in the short run... stability and useablity in the long run...
Since they keep releasing new versions with new eyecandy every few months/years they'll stay on top. The firefox saga shows just how long people will stick with what they already have despite how horrible it is. People STILL predominantly use IE6... despite the fact that it's not been updated in HOW long?!?
This new media player will be a flash in the pan at best, and most likely vaporware.
A product announcement about an as of yet undeveloped peice of software that is suppost to replace something else... it'll probably be made using some cross-system portable gui that looks like crap. It'll have to work on a million different configurations because everyone will get a vote and it'll be testy as hell.
yeah... Apple's target market is gonna eat this up...
1. there are media companies all over the world, and their files are all traded in france like everywhere else.
2. this plants ideas into the minds of legislators everywhere and gives them a test-bed (france) where it's effects can be seen.
3. people worldwide will see this and wonder why THEY don't have similar legislation. We, in the US, do this all the time... anytime something shows up in europe people over here start mentioning it left and right. 'how come WE don't have a law that does such and such???" such copycats...
Basically this is going to start to show to the world that the sharing of files isn't going to cause nazi's to ride in on dinosaurs...
But if this article was titled "MS decides to NOT buy opera and fix IE" you'd be complaining that they were wasting their time on a buggy crappy browser instead of using the more secure cross-platform alternative. Everyone already knows that IE is the least feature-filled one of the three (FF,Opera,IE) as well as the buggiest and the least secure. No-one needs to be told... in fact, having MS admit it finally may win them a little bit of respect. (just a little... lol)
1. I never said anything about ubuntu. I was talking OSS in general until someone informed me that this thread should be focused on ubuntu. then i stated that i've never tried it because i was unable to install it (not exactly a good sign) but that from what i'd heard it sounded as though it had taken a number of steps that were in the right direction, but like all things it still has room for improvement.
2. I never 'dismissed' anything. I said that a poor name is a big deal because it makes the system more scary for users who aren't accustomed to linux. If the community intends to make headway into the desktop market then they need to convert people, and that means people who aren't used to linux. The program may be great, but a poor name is not a minor detail. My suggestion was not 'dismiss the packages'. Rather it was 'rename them to more descriptive packages so that people will know what they do without needing to have a geek tell them'.
3. Yes. I'm saying that if you want people to use your program, then you either need a namme that describes it's purpose, or alot of money to TELL people it's purpose. If you just want to create software that gets used by a handfull of people then a mystery name is ok. If you want widespread adoption then people need to know what the program does with minimal research (think average attention span).
Finally, you're misinterpreting a suggestion/critisism as a call to burn linux to the ground. In actuality, I'm making a friendly suggestion that I think will help further the cause of reducing MS to rubble. As long as most users (rubes who look for programs like 'System Update') are still scared of linux, they won't use it.
yeah... tried installing it once and it just hung on the install (from the CD... which they sent me).
Aside from the single point about gnome's Start Menu being in the TOP left instead of the bottom left which was honestly quite trivial to my point you managed to be rather rude. congrats.
It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just trying to stir up a hornets nest of replies. Anyway, here's some help for those moderating your drivel.
I was quite polite if I do say so myself. My 2cents is that the linux community (the OSS community even) as a whole is going to need to adopt more transparent names for their packages if they have any designs on desktop adoption. I think ubuntu is a step in the right direction, but they aren't there yet.
You folks can't handle critisim at ALL can you? Especially since you probably didn't write it. lol
and FYI: quicken, powerpoint, and the like can get by with missleading names because they are backed by huge advertising campaigns. The companies have done their best to make the name synonymous with the purpose. Google would have been a poor name too if not for the advertising (though it got some attentiong from being a mystery).
Linux development is BUILT on providing support. I'm convinced that keeping the whole thing confusing and back-ass-ward is the thing driving the support-based business model. I mean... without delving too deep into the details... let's just look at the names chosen for software.
The current topic is application/package updating... you mentioned 'Synaptic' 'KPackage' 'Adept' and 'apt-get'...
Now... These programs are probably wonderful for what they do. I'm sure that they're useful, secure, lightweight, etc, etc. But all of the engineering in the world can't save a system if the human interface people goto sleep. How would any person (who doesn't already know) know to run 'Adept' to upgrade their software? or 'Synaptic'? or before all of this GUI stuff, 'apt-get'? Especially when anyone switching from Windows or OSX is accustomed to a system that allows them to install programs by double clicking on a 'install' file on their desktop.
I know as well as the next guy that there's a fun 'secret-club' mentality to the OSS crowd. It really seems as though most software names are chosen to be intentionally missleading (or random as hell). Clever names that don't give a clue as to the nature of the program don't enhance the software. They detract from it. There are a few things that could be learned from MS/Apple... (what? most everything else has already been stolen... and re-stolen. There's a reason your KDE/Gnome desktop has an application menu in the bottom-left corner... not all of you... but i'm sure most lol. It's the default afterall.)
Apple -> System Update Microsoft -> Automatic Update Open Source Community -> apt-get
I'm just sayin... a 'bit' more transparency would be a nice thing.;)
"Or even better, we can take the ingrediants lists and nutrition labels off the food. If our Masters tell us it's what we want to eat then it's our duty to eat. Besides, whatever it is they're putting in there sure makes me want MORE! Not to mention the shakes I get if I don't get it every few days..."
Windows has a list of ingredients... there's 1's and 0's here and there. You can see all of the executables...
What Windows dosen't do (and most foods don't either) is tell you HOW to make them. You'll find it a difficult job to find a commercial food product with a publicaly available recipie. I'm sure there's one out there (open cola?) that you'll use in your effort to blast me, but it's not the norm.
so... the problem is that they insisted on using IE as the platform for their web-application despite the fact that (as you pointed out in detail) IE has basic flaws that MS seems very reluctant (or just is too lazy) to fix?
So one possible solution to this problem (as the plethora of problems that always seem to crop up anytime anything uses IE) is to build the application on another foundation... maybe one who's development google happens to be funding in some capacity.
Sorry... I'm just pointing out that you are saying the same thing (in much more detail) that the grandparent said. No need to squabble amongst those on your side.
Actually the image I was trying to portray was not of a glass airplane but rather one with no skin whatsoever.
But my point still stands. It's ugly. Most users just want a pretty system to sit in their home. Eye candy is NOT just a waste of resources or bloat. It's the part of the OS that makes it look good. It serves a function. Sure there are systems that don't need to look good... but as usual we're talking about *nix on the desktop... and in that case it needs to look good because the average user doesn't need to get across the atlantic in 5.5 seconds and would rather lumber along safely.
Besides... in average tasks, there's really no speed increase with linux (shave off a couple of microseconds when loading mp3s?)
I in no way mean to insult those who would further their pursuit of understanding or knowledge. I see it as noble in every way.
BUT. If Linux supporters have designs on any kind of desktop adoption (which is nessicary to gain the kind of support for their standards that they need) then they need to keep in mind that not everyone seeks this kind of knowledge. 'Most' people don't care how their computer works (just like most don't care how their car works). They just want it to work... every time.
Most people wouldn't trust their lives to an airplane if all of the internals mechanics were showing.
I agree that we should all "aspire to achieve better than that" but a 'better' computer user could just as easily be defined as one that picks their OS in such a way as to reduce their work later on...
Did I say either of these were 'perfect'? Do you know the definition of gelled? Have you ever SEEN gel?
Sure there will be slight improvements. All of the little things that you mentioned will get fixed and upgraded (by large corporations with money mostly). But the basic idea of the computer (a machine that computes data) has essentially found it's form. Most future changes (quantum computing... whatever the next big thing is...) will reflect the ways of the past... keeping people comfortable with their computers so they don't have to learn something new.
Just look at cars... cars have improved ALOT in terms of speed, areodynamics, and comfort over the years... but it's still a machine that converts chemical energy into translational by way of wheels (generally 4) to move people/things. It really hasn't changed that much... it's just been tweaked in many ways.
The computer is far from where it needs to be... there will be many improvements. But (at least on the desktop) these improvements are going to tend toward usability. Pretty interfaces that cover up the terminal and the 'scary' stuff going on in the background. Generally speaking people don't want to see any of this. It's like having the wires showing. It's ugly, bothersome, and unnessicary to operation of a well designed user interface in the same way that you don't have to see the engine in a well designed car. So they hide it, and focus on the purpose of the car... moving people. Not 'being a mechanic'.
Your mentality is exactly what I was describing though, so bravo.
So what you're saying is... you'd have no problem eating dog shit as long as you didn't have to pay the chef.
Your position would hold water IF... and this is a big if... the Linux camp would quit trying to shove their collective ePenis down the throat of every other computer user on the planet who has CHOSEN (in the same way that they have chosen) Windows or OSX instead of Linux. If Linux works for you then fine... but why the ever-present cock-fight. I personally hate Linux. I prefer to do things with my computer other than fixing/configing/updating it. I'm not really a Windows fanatic either... but it's what I need to use in order to have access to my software and my work. I would really like to be able to just use a mac. I don't really care how my computer is doing what it's doing as long as it does. I don't need it to be EXACTLY the way I want in every regard (at the expense of usability). This isn't everyone's feeling and that's fine. Different strokes for different folks.
It's like walking into a room full of americans and screaming "I'm French!!! You're all stupid and wrong!!! We're right for the following reasons:...." You might be absolutely right... but the americans don't care. Every word you waste arguing your point simply drives them more to their defensive stance.
It's not a matter of "I just don't like the open source software/model so I won't use it." or "I should fix this". It's a matter of the open source community screaming "THIS IS BETTER!!!!!!! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE YOU'RE DUMB BUT IT'S BETTER!!!!!"
The average person dosen't have the know-how to 'roll their own' anything. If it's not right, then it's just not right and they're not going to fix it. They're going to go back to windows where things feel safe and cozy again, then they're going to be pissed off at the linux fan-boi that told them that Linux was really easy and great since you can just change anything willy nilly.
Ahh... Linux reeks of a dying breed of computer user.... the people who still want to dabble with the way the machine works. The people who still have aspirations of 'changing the world' and being responsible for the next big thing. They've lost touch with the fact that people don't care about any of that anymore. The computer has 'gelled'. There will be some minor changes here and there but for the most part, the days of the 'homebrew' are quickly fading. Slowly but surely you'll start to see the inner workings of the PC hidden behind the glossy panels and wood panels. It happened to the car... You HAD to be an expert on every mechanism of your vehicle if you wanted to get your steam machine moving down the road. There's a decently sized market for people who still tinker in this way, but mostly it's just a tool used by everyone to get from point A to point B. The solenoid has been all but forgotten by the housewives and sorority girls of the planet. It'll happen to the PC (see: Mac) sooner or later.
There's a good reason you can have the file on more than one computer/iPod. In fact I'm almost positive that the ITMS will let you redownload the file up to 5 times (or 4?) as long as your username is associated with the license for the song.
Last time I checked... that little number after the ^ is what 'math people' call an 'exponent'. You'll learn about that next year in algebra.
If you wanted to JUST protect the surface area of the planet... radius 3,963 miles (plus change) you'd be responsible for defending an area of roughly 197,259,435 square miles. Now I assume you don't want this massive battle (involving your gigaton nukes) to take place on the surface of the planet in New York city. So you would want to push it out... say we get them only 20 miles up. Now we're talking about a surface of 199,255,470 square miles. By meeting the enemy only 20 additional miles before they reach the surface of our planet, we've increased the size of the battle-front by nearly 2 million square feet... and 20 miles is only as high as your average weather balloon will fly.
So in summary... I just retold you what you knew already. My appologies. But you really should know what you're talking about before you correct people... especially when it involves 7th grade math.
"In mathematics, a quantity that grows exponentially is one that grows at a rate proportional to its size. This means that for any exponentially growing quantity, the larger the quantity gets, the faster it grows."
If you've never read "Ender's Shadow" then I highly suggest it. The biggest problem in defending yourself against an enemy in space is that it can come from virtually any direction (on earth you have to defend yourself on a 2d surface... slighly more complicated with aircraft are involved but still essentially a 2d plane of attack). In space the planet is mearly a dot and an attack can from any angle.
So if you intend to protect the planet, you have to protect the entire sphere. If you want to take the attack 'away from home' as would be advisable if using a huge nuke as you suggest, then you have to move the defence sphere outward. As you move it out, you increase the surface that you must protect exponentially. It's virtually impossible (virtually... don't hop down my back about a general statement) to defend yourself against a space offensive due to this feature of battle in space. The only way to win is to be on the attack.
There are several televisions that do this already. If you want a quick solution there's a product available that you can stick to the back of the remote (it's fairly flat/non-obtrusive) that will beep at you if you either clap or push a 'page' button on the base-station (works well for keys too). I agree that it should just a part of every television remote tho...
Slashdot Mirror
so... by not reporting their holes they are able to better secure their product at large?
I make the following analogy:
You have two walls. Both of them are blocking your path to a big pot of gold on the other side. One wall is camoflaged. The other is glowing neon making it very clearly visible. Both walls have holes.
The holes in the camo wall are large and persistant but half covered in leaves. The holes in the neon wall each have a spotlight on them and are constantly appearing and disappearing. Each time one appears there is a huge BANG and a red arrow pointing to it. But soon there-after they are patched up by dilligent gnomes armed with plaster and bricks.
Neither is perfect because they both have holes. But one wall attracts less attention to the holes. Here's a hint... trial by fire is not acceptable when the trials are occuring in the real world with real data. Might want to paint fewer arrows pointing toward your faults.
cooler temperatures will only improve performance in solid state electronics for so long... at some point they will actually begin to malfunction as a result of the extreme cold.
h tm
http://www.octools.com/ramil/newscientist/faster.
a segment from the bottom...
everything had frozen solid and the thermometer registered -150 C. Success. Then the monitor started to flash strange images. Pressing keys on the keyboard produced random characters on the screen. "In other words," Tranquilino says, "the motherboard was stuffed."
Regardless of what actual mechanism caused the thing to fail, the cold temperature was the factor that drove it, making this a good example of a device failing in extremely cold conditions.
I'm well aware... the gp said that they had... i said that they hadn't... and you replied by informing me that they hadn't.
But thankyou for all of the information?
?? MS has not aquired opera
fair enough.
...once it's written...
I think however that they're refering to the fact that the itunes music store is just a web service... so the gekko engine being used in their music store interface is the more likely relationship. Even if they're refering to the rest of the interface (buttons menus etc) is common to firefox, it still won't make a dent in iTunes with apple's target market....
Even firefox hasn't made a dent in market share of Safari... barely a dent (14%?) of the IE share... and that's gonna all but disappear in a year or so when Vista comes out with (no doubt) all kinds of renovations and eyecandy that'll attract the masses.
Eye candy wins out in the short run... stability and useablity in the long run...
Since they keep releasing new versions with new eyecandy every few months/years they'll stay on top. The firefox saga shows just how long people will stick with what they already have despite how horrible it is. People STILL predominantly use IE6... despite the fact that it's not been updated in HOW long?!?
This new media player will be a flash in the pan at best, and most likely vaporware.
lol. do you really see that happening?
A product announcement about an as of yet undeveloped peice of software that is suppost to replace something else... it'll probably be made using some cross-system portable gui that looks like crap. It'll have to work on a million different configurations because everyone will get a vote and it'll be testy as hell.
yeah... Apple's target market is gonna eat this up...
lol
1. there are media companies all over the world, and their files are all traded in france like everywhere else.
2. this plants ideas into the minds of legislators everywhere and gives them a test-bed (france) where it's effects can be seen.
3. people worldwide will see this and wonder why THEY don't have similar legislation. We, in the US, do this all the time... anytime something shows up in europe people over here start mentioning it left and right. 'how come WE don't have a law that does such and such???" such copycats...
Basically this is going to start to show to the world that the sharing of files isn't going to cause nazi's to ride in on dinosaurs...
But if this article was titled "MS decides to NOT buy opera and fix IE" you'd be complaining that they were wasting their time on a buggy crappy browser instead of using the more secure cross-platform alternative. Everyone already knows that IE is the least feature-filled one of the three (FF,Opera,IE) as well as the buggiest and the least secure. No-one needs to be told... in fact, having MS admit it finally may win them a little bit of respect. (just a little... lol)
maybe informative would be the best description for an accurate first post... :P
1. I never said anything about ubuntu. I was talking OSS in general until someone informed me that this thread should be focused on ubuntu. then i stated that i've never tried it because i was unable to install it (not exactly a good sign) but that from what i'd heard it sounded as though it had taken a number of steps that were in the right direction, but like all things it still has room for improvement.
2. I never 'dismissed' anything. I said that a poor name is a big deal because it makes the system more scary for users who aren't accustomed to linux. If the community intends to make headway into the desktop market then they need to convert people, and that means people who aren't used to linux. The program may be great, but a poor name is not a minor detail. My suggestion was not 'dismiss the packages'. Rather it was 'rename them to more descriptive packages so that people will know what they do without needing to have a geek tell them'.
3. Yes. I'm saying that if you want people to use your program, then you either need a namme that describes it's purpose, or alot of money to TELL people it's purpose. If you just want to create software that gets used by a handfull of people then a mystery name is ok. If you want widespread adoption then people need to know what the program does with minimal research (think average attention span).
Finally, you're misinterpreting a suggestion/critisism as a call to burn linux to the ground. In actuality, I'm making a friendly suggestion that I think will help further the cause of reducing MS to rubble. As long as most users (rubes who look for programs like 'System Update') are still scared of linux, they won't use it.
yeah... tried installing it once and it just hung on the install (from the CD... which they sent me).
Aside from the single point about gnome's Start Menu being in the TOP left instead of the bottom left which was honestly quite trivial to my point you managed to be rather rude. congrats.
It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just trying to stir up a hornets nest of replies. Anyway, here's some help for those moderating your drivel.
I was quite polite if I do say so myself. My 2cents is that the linux community (the OSS community even) as a whole is going to need to adopt more transparent names for their packages if they have any designs on desktop adoption. I think ubuntu is a step in the right direction, but they aren't there yet.
You folks can't handle critisim at ALL can you? Especially since you probably didn't write it. lol
and FYI: quicken, powerpoint, and the like can get by with missleading names because they are backed by huge advertising campaigns. The companies have done their best to make the name synonymous with the purpose. Google would have been a poor name too if not for the advertising (though it got some attentiong from being a mystery).
trivial support? for a linux desktop pc? lol
;)
Linux development is BUILT on providing support. I'm convinced that keeping the whole thing confusing and back-ass-ward is the thing driving the support-based business model. I mean... without delving too deep into the details... let's just look at the names chosen for software.
The current topic is application/package updating... you mentioned 'Synaptic' 'KPackage' 'Adept' and 'apt-get'...
Now... These programs are probably wonderful for what they do. I'm sure that they're useful, secure, lightweight, etc, etc. But all of the engineering in the world can't save a system if the human interface people goto sleep. How would any person (who doesn't already know) know to run 'Adept' to upgrade their software? or 'Synaptic'? or before all of this GUI stuff, 'apt-get'? Especially when anyone switching from Windows or OSX is accustomed to a system that allows them to install programs by double clicking on a 'install' file on their desktop.
I know as well as the next guy that there's a fun 'secret-club' mentality to the OSS crowd. It really seems as though most software names are chosen to be intentionally missleading (or random as hell). Clever names that don't give a clue as to the nature of the program don't enhance the software. They detract from it. There are a few things that could be learned from MS/Apple... (what? most everything else has already been stolen... and re-stolen. There's a reason your KDE/Gnome desktop has an application menu in the bottom-left corner... not all of you... but i'm sure most lol. It's the default afterall.)
Apple -> System Update
Microsoft -> Automatic Update
Open Source Community -> apt-get
I'm just sayin... a 'bit' more transparency would be a nice thing.
blah blah blah you're a dirty whore.
the japanese have no souls
"Or even better, we can take the ingrediants lists and nutrition labels off the food. If our Masters tell us it's what we want to eat then it's our duty to eat. Besides, whatever it is they're putting in there sure makes me want MORE! Not to mention the shakes I get if I don't get it every few days..."
Windows has a list of ingredients... there's 1's and 0's here and there. You can see all of the executables...
What Windows dosen't do (and most foods don't either) is tell you HOW to make them. You'll find it a difficult job to find a commercial food product with a publicaly available recipie. I'm sure there's one out there (open cola?) that you'll use in your effort to blast me, but it's not the norm.
so... the problem is that they insisted on using IE as the platform for their web-application despite the fact that (as you pointed out in detail) IE has basic flaws that MS seems very reluctant (or just is too lazy) to fix?
So one possible solution to this problem (as the plethora of problems that always seem to crop up anytime anything uses IE) is to build the application on another foundation... maybe one who's development google happens to be funding in some capacity.
Sorry... I'm just pointing out that you are saying the same thing (in much more detail) that the grandparent said. No need to squabble amongst those on your side.
Actually the image I was trying to portray was not of a glass airplane but rather one with no skin whatsoever.
But my point still stands. It's ugly. Most users just want a pretty system to sit in their home. Eye candy is NOT just a waste of resources or bloat. It's the part of the OS that makes it look good. It serves a function. Sure there are systems that don't need to look good... but as usual we're talking about *nix on the desktop... and in that case it needs to look good because the average user doesn't need to get across the atlantic in 5.5 seconds and would rather lumber along safely.
Besides... in average tasks, there's really no speed increase with linux (shave off a couple of microseconds when loading mp3s?)
I in no way mean to insult those who would further their pursuit of understanding or knowledge. I see it as noble in every way.
BUT. If Linux supporters have designs on any kind of desktop adoption (which is nessicary to gain the kind of support for their standards that they need) then they need to keep in mind that not everyone seeks this kind of knowledge. 'Most' people don't care how their computer works (just like most don't care how their car works). They just want it to work... every time.
Most people wouldn't trust their lives to an airplane if all of the internals mechanics were showing.
I agree that we should all "aspire to achieve better than that" but a 'better' computer user could just as easily be defined as one that picks their OS in such a way as to reduce their work later on...
Did I say either of these were 'perfect'? Do you know the definition of gelled? Have you ever SEEN gel?
Sure there will be slight improvements. All of the little things that you mentioned will get fixed and upgraded (by large corporations with money mostly). But the basic idea of the computer (a machine that computes data) has essentially found it's form. Most future changes (quantum computing... whatever the next big thing is...) will reflect the ways of the past... keeping people comfortable with their computers so they don't have to learn something new.
Just look at cars... cars have improved ALOT in terms of speed, areodynamics, and comfort over the years... but it's still a machine that converts chemical energy into translational by way of wheels (generally 4) to move people/things. It really hasn't changed that much... it's just been tweaked in many ways.
The computer is far from where it needs to be... there will be many improvements. But (at least on the desktop) these improvements are going to tend toward usability. Pretty interfaces that cover up the terminal and the 'scary' stuff going on in the background. Generally speaking people don't want to see any of this. It's like having the wires showing. It's ugly, bothersome, and unnessicary to operation of a well designed user interface in the same way that you don't have to see the engine in a well designed car. So they hide it, and focus on the purpose of the car... moving people. Not 'being a mechanic'.
Your mentality is exactly what I was describing though, so bravo.
...that's a mix of genius and interface awkwardness...
:P
Sounds like the night I lost my virginity.
I'm sure she was a fan of your open sores and minimalistic interface...
So what you're saying is... you'd have no problem eating dog shit as long as you didn't have to pay the chef.
Your position would hold water IF... and this is a big if... the Linux camp would quit trying to shove their collective ePenis down the throat of every other computer user on the planet who has CHOSEN (in the same way that they have chosen) Windows or OSX instead of Linux. If Linux works for you then fine... but why the ever-present cock-fight. I personally hate Linux. I prefer to do things with my computer other than fixing/configing/updating it. I'm not really a Windows fanatic either... but it's what I need to use in order to have access to my software and my work. I would really like to be able to just use a mac. I don't really care how my computer is doing what it's doing as long as it does. I don't need it to be EXACTLY the way I want in every regard (at the expense of usability). This isn't everyone's feeling and that's fine. Different strokes for different folks.
It's like walking into a room full of americans and screaming "I'm French!!! You're all stupid and wrong!!! We're right for the following reasons:...." You might be absolutely right... but the americans don't care. Every word you waste arguing your point simply drives them more to their defensive stance.
It's not a matter of "I just don't like the open source software/model so I won't use it." or "I should fix this". It's a matter of the open source community screaming "THIS IS BETTER!!!!!!! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE YOU'RE DUMB BUT IT'S BETTER!!!!!"
The average person dosen't have the know-how to 'roll their own' anything. If it's not right, then it's just not right and they're not going to fix it. They're going to go back to windows where things feel safe and cozy again, then they're going to be pissed off at the linux fan-boi that told them that Linux was really easy and great since you can just change anything willy nilly.
Ahh... Linux reeks of a dying breed of computer user.... the people who still want to dabble with the way the machine works. The people who still have aspirations of 'changing the world' and being responsible for the next big thing. They've lost touch with the fact that people don't care about any of that anymore. The computer has 'gelled'. There will be some minor changes here and there but for the most part, the days of the 'homebrew' are quickly fading. Slowly but surely you'll start to see the inner workings of the PC hidden behind the glossy panels and wood panels. It happened to the car... You HAD to be an expert on every mechanism of your vehicle if you wanted to get your steam machine moving down the road. There's a decently sized market for people who still tinker in this way, but mostly it's just a tool used by everyone to get from point A to point B. The solenoid has been all but forgotten by the housewives and sorority girls of the planet. It'll happen to the PC (see: Mac) sooner or later.
*I ramble too much...
There's a good reason you can have the file on more than one computer/iPod. In fact I'm almost positive that the ITMS will let you redownload the file up to 5 times (or 4?) as long as your username is associated with the license for the song.
Last time I checked... that little number after the ^ is what 'math people' call an 'exponent'. You'll learn about that next year in algebra.
If you wanted to JUST protect the surface area of the planet... radius 3,963 miles (plus change) you'd be responsible for defending an area of roughly 197,259,435 square miles. Now I assume you don't want this massive battle (involving your gigaton nukes) to take place on the surface of the planet in New York city. So you would want to push it out... say we get them only 20 miles up. Now we're talking about a surface of 199,255,470 square miles. By meeting the enemy only 20 additional miles before they reach the surface of our planet, we've increased the size of the battle-front by nearly 2 million square feet... and 20 miles is only as high as your average weather balloon will fly.
So in summary... I just retold you what you knew already. My appologies. But you really should know what you're talking about before you correct people... especially when it involves 7th grade math.
"In mathematics, a quantity that grows exponentially is one that grows at a rate proportional to its size. This means that for any exponentially growing quantity, the larger the quantity gets, the faster it grows."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
I realize that this isn't THE exponential function... but I was describing exponential growth. Perhaps that's the source of the confusion.
If you've never read "Ender's Shadow" then I highly suggest it. The biggest problem in defending yourself against an enemy in space is that it can come from virtually any direction (on earth you have to defend yourself on a 2d surface... slighly more complicated with aircraft are involved but still essentially a 2d plane of attack). In space the planet is mearly a dot and an attack can from any angle.
So if you intend to protect the planet, you have to protect the entire sphere. If you want to take the attack 'away from home' as would be advisable if using a huge nuke as you suggest, then you have to move the defence sphere outward. As you move it out, you increase the surface that you must protect exponentially. It's virtually impossible (virtually... don't hop down my back about a general statement) to defend yourself against a space offensive due to this feature of battle in space. The only way to win is to be on the attack.
There are several televisions that do this already. If you want a quick solution there's a product available that you can stick to the back of the remote (it's fairly flat/non-obtrusive) that will beep at you if you either clap or push a 'page' button on the base-station (works well for keys too). I agree that it should just a part of every television remote tho...
http://www.keyringer.com/
http://www.sharperimageeurope.com/iu667.html
http://www.findonefindall.com/
finally...
http://www.magnavox.com/index.cfm?event=about (check 1993)