If I understand you correctly, you're not saying that Ubuntu is bad, just that it's not better than the other distros. Fine.
Part of the reason I went with it, though, is because they have acquired a good rep, from their marketing and their community (including the IRC community). They've got a philanthropist businessman making a firm commitment to fund the distro, they're taking advantage of the Debian system which had been languishing about 3 years out-of-date previously, and they've got enthusiasm from the Open Source community. They did not abandon their desktop version to concentrate on selling the server version to big business, they did not file for bankruptcy protection, and they have more perceived reliability than a distro that is singlehandedly supported by one person.
In short, it is not the technical aspects of the distro that make it appealing, but its context in the community. I chose it because I felt that it could achieve critical mass: I continue to hope that everyone will switch to it because everyone else will switch to it. This will give Ubuntu enough clout to, say, oh, I dunno, maybe get into talks with Dell? The next frontier in Linux development is to get the hardware manufacturers to recognize it, and Ubuntu looks like it's in the best position to do this.
I don't claim that Ubuntu is better than any other distro, but I do hope that it acquires a certain level of popularity. Don't begrudge it for that. Mandrake had their chance to shine; let Shuttleworth see what he can do to promote Linux.
So, not being satisfied with having our waste strewn across just our own planet, now we're going to introduce the rest of the solar system to our All-Products-Are-Disposable culture? Or are these micro chip/probes going to clean up after themselves and come back to Earth?
I don't know why you're using 1%. If you deposit it into a HSBC online savings account, you get about 5%. APY, which is actual compounded interest in a year, is 5.05%; the APR, or nominal non-compounded interest, is only 4.98% or something like that. No minimum investment. No requirement other than that you have some other bank account (so you can transfer money from your usual account to your HSBC account). If you put money in, it takes about 3 days to go in (due to the Automated Clearing House system in use in the USA); if you take it out, it takes about 3 days. That's something HSBC has no control over.
If you don't like HSBC, you can try ING Direct, which gives something like 4.8% interest. No minimum investment, but when you put money in, you need to leave it for 14 days before you take it out again. Also 3 days to make the transaction. So if you have $300 in the ING account, and you put in $500, then for the next two weeks only $300 will be available to you, unlike the HSBC account where as soon as the money shows up after 3 days you can take it right out again.
Then of course you have other options like CD's (Certificates of Deposit, not the shiny discs) where you can commit to investing some minimum amount of your money for some minimum time, and get even higher interest rates than that. But 5% should be the standard of comparison for the "Do Nothing" option. (That is, if you're not earning 5% interest before taxes, you can assume you're losing money.)
Anyway, per your calculation, you'd get about $25 interest on $1000 invested throughout the year. You can estimate it like this: part of the $1000 gets the full 5% interest, and part of it gets almost no interest (depending on what time in the year you invested), so on average you get about 2.5% interest. 2.5% of $1000 is $25. It jives with your calculation of $5+ for 1% interest on $1000 evenly distributed.
If $25 doesn't matter that much to you, please write me a cheque for this amount.
You could also just `sudo chown {username}:{usergroup} -R/home` to fix the issue w/o all the fuss... Not if you want to continue dual-booting into Mandrake. If you chown it, then Mandrake will no longer recognize the files as belonging to the original user. Then you'd have to fuss with Mandriva's user account.
I, too, started out with Mandrake; it was v8.1 that I bought from Wal-Mart. Thank goodness for Mandrake's amazing hardware detection (for its time) that made it so easy to install. I stuck with Mandrake till v10.0-official, but, like another poster said, its package repositories made it hard for me to upgrade: I had to reinstall with each new version because I kept having errors when I just upgraded incrementally. Finally, Kubuntu grew to the point where it overtook Mandrake, and I made the leap. I continue to be satisfied with Kubuntu, even though I'm still using the Long-Term Support version, 6.06; in two days, I will be two versions behind and happily satisfied not running the latest and greatest. As you can tell, I'm not the type to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. New versions of software packages are available even for distro versions like 6.06 that are not the newest, so don't worry about upgrading the entire distro just to get the latest Firefox.
When you switch over from Mandrake, put your/home directory (and whatever other data you want) on a separate partition, then carve out a new partition to install Kubuntu. (You can use QTParted or something similar.) I made my Kubuntu partition about 3 GB, but lately it has been getting tight, so you might want to assign 4GB to Kubuntu; this includes log messages in/var/log, downloaded Ubuntu packages in/var/cache/apt, and programs in/bin +/usr/bin +/usr/local/bin +/sbin etc. Leave your Mandriva partition alone in case you need to dual-boot back into it (shrink it to about 3GB or something); Kubuntu will let GRUB recognize the Mandriva partition as bootable Linux.
Kubuntu assigns user numbers from 1000 up, but Mandrake uses 500 and up. When I migrated to Kubuntu, I found that all my/home directory files were owned by User #501, but Kubuntu wouldn't recognize any human user with that number. I wrote the following script that you can use to modify Kubuntu to create and recognize user 501:
#!/bin/sh # Debian uses adduser as a front-end to useradd, so use that to add users
sudo cp/etc/adduser.conf/etc/adduser.conf.0~ # Now, edit/etc/adduser.conf so that LAST_SYSTEM_UID=499 and FIRST_UID=500 sudo bash -c 'sed -e "s/FIRST_UID=1000/FIRST_UID=500/"/etc/adduser.conf.s1' sudo bash -c 'sed -e "s/LAST_SYSTEM_UID=999/LAST_SYSTEM_UID=499/"/etc/adduser.conf.s2' sudo bash -c 'rm/etc/adduser.conf && mv/etc/adduser.conf.s2/etc/adduser.conf'
To use: first, while still in Mandriva, check what your UID is in the/etc/passwd file. It's probably somewhere 500 to 510 or so. Then, when Kubuntu asks you to create your first username during installation, use something temporary that you won't use again, like temp_admin. Then log in as temp_admin and run the above script. It will modify/etc/adduser.conf to set the max system account number to be 499, freeing 500 and up to be used for human users, just like the way it is in Mandrake. Then it will create an account called my_username (substitute with your permanent account name that you want to use, the one you're currently using in Mandrake; and substitute 501 with whatever user id# you were using in Mandrake) and enroll you in the various groups necessary to make you a sudo-able admin. Re-login as my_username, and you're good to go. Mount your home directory, and you'll have all your data files back.
I agree that the plot was contrived. The protagonist struggles against groups who believe in global warming, using deadly means to make it look like there is global warming. Gimme a break.
Reminds me of those educational computer games: "You must defeat your enemies, space aliens who for some reason have travelled a billion light years to earth in order to use their super-advanced alien technology to change some English words to the incorrect spelling! To defeat the space aliens, the entire Earth is depending on you, a little fourth-grade kid, to correct the spelling on those words, and then all the aliens will suddenly self-destruct!"
Crichton fans please skip this book.
Now I don't know whether to read Prey or not. Gee.
I learned Sign Language (ASL) and use it with my Deaf[1] patients. Parent is right that you need to include the body from the waist up. Many people don't realize that, besides the handshapes, there are three other components to Sign Language, which lead to certain requirements in video streaming for Sign Language:
motion; for example, for "insurance" the hand shakes rapidly side to side, whereas for "infection", it makes a small circle. Otherwise the handshape is the same. So Sign Language video needs to be fast enough (high enough frame rate) to catch the motion to tell the difference (about 6Hz, so at least 15fps). The article doesn't seem to list a frame rate.
area of body; for example, "brother" and "sister" have the same handshape and motion, and the only way to tell that one is female and one is male is the area of the head where the sign is made: "brother" starts from the forehead, but "sister" starts from the chin. Both signs end in front of the chest, so yes, you do need the entire head and chest visible to get the sign.
facial expression; besides enabling Sign Language to be as expressive as the inflections of surprise or disgust in spoken language, facial expression plays a essential part in grammar. In general, raised eyebrows denote yes/no questions, furrowed eyebrows indicate question that need specific answers (the type of question that would start with who, what, why, etc.) and a neutral expression is not a question. The eyes and face can make the difference between "Where are you going?" and "[Do you mean that place] where you are going?" and "[That's] where you are going." So the Sign Language video needs to show the face in exquisite detail.
So far my patients seem to be happy with text messaging, and some members of the Deaf community (not my patients) have mentioned a concern that technological solutions such as videophones might not be good enough but non-Deaf people would not realize that the Deaf were at a disadvantage. (Sort of like if you had a crappy unreliable cell phone and everyone said, "Just phone me," etc. expecting you to use it just like a high quality land line.) I'm not sure that's a very valid concern since the hearing world has had to deal with crappy phone lines
I like how MobileASL detects skin to figure out which part of the video needs to be high quality, but with the other requirements (including the frame rate) I'll remain skeptical about cell phone video for Sign Language until I see it in action. (I also hope my patients don't start videophoning me, rather than the text messaging that they do now.:P )
(examples here in Sign Language refer to American Sign Language) ----- [1] "Deaf" with capital D means someone who is deaf (small d --meaning "can't hear") and also identifies with the culture of the Deaf, including using Sign Language.
So, after benefitting from this huge global effort called the Human Genome Project, they decide to give away a fraction of their spoils. Are we supposed to give them a standing ovation? Jump for joy?
That's like all of us contributing articles and money to Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia says, "Hey, here are some articles that you can read for free --we won't charge you any money."
<sarcasm>Thanks a lot, Novartis, for your huge contribution! I will express my gratitude by blinking my eyes. Once. (Just the left eye; the right eye blink is in honour of SCO not coming with a new press conference today.) </sarcasm>
I was drawn to Linux originally because I liked the Open Source idea (and because I was a C programmer it seemed required somehow). But Ubuntu is turning into quite a haven for proprietary and binary only software
I understand your concern about possibly undermining the F/LOSS movement, but I don't think you need to worry. Here's why.
First, Linux itself is Free and Open Source; that's a given, thanks to the solid foundation formed by the GPL.[1]
Atop this operating system (OS), we need to run applications, like email clients or word processors. These can be F/LOSS or proprietary. You are concerned that too much proprietary software might dilute the pool of Open apps, but here's why it won't happen: for Linux there are far more Open apps than proprietary ones, and the Linux community is used to getting Open software. Whereas Windows users would readily pay for black-box apps with names like "Norton Incorporeal Being" that do the same as a 'dd' bash command, Linux users demand apps that are Free. Most happen to be zero-cost, but above all it must not be black-box, because Linux users tend to want the ability to tinker around with the software. They don't necessarily plan to do it, and there are more and more people using Linux just to get the job done rather than tinker, but they need to know that they are not being locked in to some proprietary system that gets frozen the moment the software maker company goes belly-up. They need to know that someone can get into the project and fork it.
So, in the Linux environment, the demand for F/LOSS is there, and for the right reasons. (Contrast this with the Windows environment where people download freeware because it's zero cost, whether proprietary or not.)
Now we are letting makers of proprietary software into the community, giving them a foothold, a marketplace from which to sell their wares. Unlike in the Windows world, this is what will happen:
1. Free/Open Source was here first. The standard to which they will be held is higher. In particular, the company will need to justify why their stuff is proprietary; they will be asked: "So, why should we buy your stuff rather than Open Source?" This is a good thing. The competition from FLOSS will force proprietary software to bring added value, and respond to market forces, in order to generate income.
2. Thus the proprietary company will need to identify where they can be better than F/LOSS. This, too, is good. One of my peeves in F/LOSS: useability in software, which is lacking in many Open Source applications. If Adobe PhotoShop For Linux starts selling like hotcakes, it would send a message that there might be a market need unfulfilled by the GIMP software. Competition, whether amongst Open Source software (e.g. KDE vs GNOME) or between FLOSS and proprietary (Firefox vs IE), brings out excellence.
3. On particular disadvantage at which the proprietary companies will find themselves is that they can't use Open Source software for stepping stones. If the Filelight program has this brilliant idea, the Konqueror team can just take that and put it into their own software.[2] The proprietary software team, however, has to reimplement it on their own. So it's not like the proprietary software will gobble up the Open Source one.
4. Once the proprietary company is a bit more accustomed to the Linux and Open Source market, I hope they'll start being able to differentiate between "commercial" and "proprietary". Really, what they want is "commercial" (and the "proprietary" part is really just a means to that end), and they'd be more comfortable exploring commercial Open Source. They'd become an example of one of the Open Source business models, showing that it works, or perhaps they'd dream up a new brilliant way to profit from Open Source.
In summary, competition is a good thing, and will only benefit all participants. The FLOSS community is robust enough not to be overwhelmed by th
One major advantage of TrueCrypt: works on both Linux and Windows. Can't remember if there's a Mac version. Nope, there isn't. Here's the TrueCrypt web site.
Having researched TrueCrypt and compared the alternatives, I have started using it routinely. It's not so much that I have something to hide, or that what I want kept private requires as strong an encryption as TrueCrypt. It's more than I simply want a convenient way to encrypt something, forget about it, and not have to worry about it later.
My personal financial data resides in a TrueCrypt volume. To lock up all of those files, I just umount the volume, and that's it.
I also wanted to make an offsite backup of our more valuable personal data in case of disaster, such as a fire that burns down our home, destroying the backups stored at home. For example, we have some digital photos with some irreplaceable priceless memories. So I decided to burn them onto DVD and have my relatives, who live out of town, hang onto copies. But relatives can be nosy, and interspersed in the photos could be things I don't want other people to see, from badly taken photos that "make me look fat" to photos of bank statements and legal documents for which we wanted to store a non-paper copy.
So, I created TrueCrypt volumes of the appropriate size to burn to DVD, and then stashed our photos inside. We've got about 4 years' worth of photos (JPEGs) on two (different) DVDs with our relatives in two locations.
I don't want to encrypt something with cheap encryption, and then worry 4 years down the road when someone discovers a flaw in the scheme. You might ask, "What? Are your non-geek relatives going to go about cracking your encryption?" You never know. What if I become someone --let's not say famous, but prominent? Say some sort of social activist fighting for software freedom? Who knows what could happen to my offsite backup DVDs in 4 years --suppose some hired maid accidentally dumps them in the trash, and are noticed by the neighbourhood trash-diving geek? What if some big company or other enemy happens to get their hands on copies and try to use some embarrassing photos to pressure me? I want to be able to rip off my tinfoil hat and laugh, "Don't be ridiculous! That would never happen!"
TrueCrypt gives me that peace of mind. Among its other features is multiple scheme encryption. Are you worried that AES might get cracked next year? Encrypt with AES, and then encrypt the result with Blowfish.[1] Or Twofish first, then CAST5. TrueCrypt offers multiple options, and it does not store the result anywhere. How does it know that you used AES-then-Blowfish encryption? Because it tries all of the schemes one by one. It tries AES alone with the password you gave. Doesn't work. Tries Blowfish alone. Tries about half a dozen other single-encryption schemes. Then it tries the multiple combinations: Blowfish-Serpent, then AES-Blowfish, etc., going down the list until something works. If nothing works, then it concludes that you entered the wrong password.
It's not a perfect solution, and one drawback with TrueCrypt is that I can't use it on my work computer where I don't have administrator rights. But otherwise it has all the advantages I'm looking for: secure, cross-platform, on-the-fly, open source freedom... and most of all, it's usable: it exists and is easy to use. Because, much as crypto-security fascinates me, I don't want to tinker all the time.
Just like a screwdriver: when I want to use it, I don't want to have to Google for user manuals. I just want to do what I need with it, and not have to think about it.
--- [1]: Incidentally, the advantage of AES-with-Blowfish is *not* that you can't crack Blowfish even after the AES on your TrueCrypt file is cracked. Once your AES crypto is cracked, the password is known and the same password will be used for the Blowfish decryption. (Remember, TrueCrypt is open source --once the
Yeah, it looks really, really shitty that he declined -- and I think it's really, really shitty -- but had Gates accepted, he would have looked soft on piracy at the very moment he's telling everyone he's not under any circumstances.
WTF!? Do I understand you correctly to sympathize with Bill Gates' inaction about wrecking Ponosov's life, because otherwise Gates would have lost face?
First: you'd send someone to the gulag to save face? Suppose it happened to you: you just said that this was "really really shitty". So suppose I bring you a barbed whip and Bill Gates' wife all tied up, and told you to flog Mrs. Gates on global TV. After all, you yourself agreed that "it's really, really shitty." Would you do it, albeit reluctantly, because otherwise you'd look like you'd gone soft?
Second: Since when did Gates or Microsoft worry about losing face? You'd think they'd be thick-skinned enough after delaying Vista/Longhorn a bazillion times, or with Gates lying through his teeth about how Windows would never get a security exploit once a month, like the Mac.
Third: Don't you think Gates/Microsoft could have come up with a plan to save Ponosov if they wanted to? You know, with Gates' IQ of 150 (he did invent the GUI and Ctrl-Alt-Del and the BSOD all by himself, you know) and the combined IQ of all Microsoft's management totaling another 150, you'd think they'd be able to figure something out.
Gorbachev is the one to blame. Had he done it privately, perhaps MS would have done something.
I disagree. I suspect Gorbachev and the other Russian luminaries wanted to publicly call MS on the disproportionate punishment for piracy. They wanted to do it, not just for Ponosov, but for all the other users who, as a matter of practicality, simply *have to* use pirated MS software for their daily lives. Ponosov was an example case, but to the horror of Gorbachev and others, MS actually declined.
MS could have helped, without looking foolish. They could have publicly announced that they'd make one exception in Ponosov's case, but only if Ponosov agrees to preach about the evils of piracy for 2 hours each week for a year, or something. But no, the world sees the way Gates really thinks.
Maybe now people will see that the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation has just been an automated PR machine. Sprinkle money here and there, and where it lands on fertile earth, fans and supporters will spring up. No thought or good intentions need be put in. (Wasn't the Foundation Melinda's idea, anyway, no Bill's?) But when you need Bill to show the way he thinks, we clearly see that he's still just as cutthroat as when he made off with Spyglass and made it Internet Explorer.
You have made 11 posts so far, and EVERY SINGLE ONE is an ad for the E-com Station business that sells computers.
In the past 24 hours, you made FOUR posts, all within TWO HOURS of each other. They were all ALL ads for E-com Station. Other than those four posts, there was nothing else for the past year-and-a-half.
Prior to that, two years ago you made FIVE posts, all within ONE HOUR of each other. They ALL advertised E-com Station.
There were two posts prior to that. Guess what they ALL advertised?
No, it's not illegal. No, I'm not going to sue you. But you'll pardon me if I take your posts with a heavy dose of sodium chloride.
Now this gets me thinking, because we in FLOSS care a lot about security and performance, but not too much about the end users experience and the applications that are important to them. We all know how Apple just Gets It(tm) and we should, too...
Agree! Please let this be a wake-up call to the F/LOSS community, that we, too, are not exempt from the requirement that we have to be responsive to needs --in this case, usability for end users-- and if we don't do it, we surely will also fall by the wayside.
Mind you, in the case of F/LOSS, each software project might individually fall on its own (rather than a monolithic Microsoft cow flopped onto its side), and through the process of forking, we might be able to recover from the fall. But forking is overrated --see how much energy and resources was consumed organizing for a fork in something as fundamental as XFree86-- and is only good for preventing a worthwhile project from dying due to lack of interest. When we're trying to compete and we're already playing catch-up[1], we can't afford to use forking as a safety net. We need to be focused: What do the users *need*? Do it.
----- [1]: Stop it with the "I don't care if Linux doesn't take over the world" meme. Our goal is to have Linux gain enough respectability so that we get things like hardware drivers, and those who want to use Linux are able to do so without artificially created barriers like the Winmodem crap.
US$9/yr, autorenewing if you want. That includes email redirection and web site forwarding. I've used them a happy 2.5 years for made-up-on-the-spot disposable email addresses, as well as structuring my web site. What first attracted me to them was their Q&A/Tech Support forums which anyone can browse. Admittedly, they could have been deleting all the posts about unsatisfactory service etc. and I wouldn't have known, but it looked like they're pretty open about solving problems and letting anyone and everyone read about their problems, which aren't too many.
Haven't checked the forums at all since I signed up --never needed to.
Well said! "So then think, gee, Linux is free and Windows and MacOS are hundreds of dollars, and they all offer exactly the same features...There's something wrong with Linux." A good wake-up call for those too close to the front lines to see the big picture. I'll put in my two cents' worth of what I think is the matter.
No, it's not the command line; I disagree with you there. At least with my distribution, Kubuntu, you can install and run without even realizing that the command line exists. But that's the very distribution that the guy in the OP said he had difficulty using.
Think: Why is there so much disagreement on whether Linux is "ready for the desktop"? Because different people have different needs, and Linux appears differently to them. One guy needs it just to type letters and check email, and the other gal wants to play MMORPGs on her box. One user is happy if she can read the MS Word documents she gets, another needs to produce Word documents and have them come out exactly the same on his clients' computers. Which of these users do you think would complain that Linux is "difficult to use"?
We say that "Linux" --as in, "the GNU/Linux OS"-- is ready for the desktop. Agree. But on top of that, people use applications, and these apps are what make it or break it for users. Some apps run great --K3b and Amarok are shining examples of user-friendly software. Others are totally worthless when it comes to user-friendliness; the GIMP and mplayer come to mind[1] --you'll note that these are examples of really powerful programs, but there's no way for the average user to access that power.
As the parent poster observed, it's not just one or two things that's easily fixable, but many things that form an inertial trend that needs to be fought. These "things" are apps. Too many apps are just not ready for the desktop, and it's not going to be easy to correct. Heroic, altruistic programmers can get together to make a multitude of great apps --look at the KDE team, or the Ubuntu GNOME desktop-- but then you'll still have that half a dozen apps that were clearly authored by someone more enamoured with feature and powers than with usability. And these apps are what make Linux "difficult" for the Average Josephine.
One particular type of app bears special mention: the word processor. This is one thing that's essential on every desktop, and we don't have anything nearly as professional as MS Word. The closest is that plodding thing called OpenOffice.org[2] that takes about 30 seconds to open a document. AbiWord doesn't do tables well, and KWord continues to have refresh bugs. The reason I am hard-pressed to convert everyone to a Linux environment is because I can't honestly recommend any good word processors.
Good news: we are beginning to realize, slowly, so very slowly, that what makes Linux "ready for the desktop" is no longer Linux itself, or the last spit'n'polish of the KDE or GNOME desktop, but the apps themselves. I'm starting to see more awareness of the importance of usability and documentation. Linux distros now have more choices for user-friendly apps where previously it was just some command-line thing (thank you, Synaptic, Kynaptic and Adept; good riddance 'dselect'!).
Thus, the next thing we need to do to promote Linux is make apps usable. Oddly enough, here's where even non-coders can contribute: write documentation! User manuals, HOWTO's and web tutorials are within the purview of even the Average Joe who doesn't have the technical skill to contribute code --and perhaps he'd be an even *more* suitable instruction manual writer because of this very fact.
When will Linux be ready for *your* desktop? When *your* apps that *you* need are usable!
A final word: I want to point out the insight in the sibling post that the reason Windows is dominant over Linux is the very fact that it *is* dominant over Linux. With regard to what I said above, yes, there are a bunch of *Windows* apps that are not "ready f
Just curious --not trolling or criticising-- I really want to know: You say that the cute little blob commonly seen in the TV ad promoting a certain anti-depressant medication[1] prompted you to seek treatment. Did you end up using that particular medication in your treatment? Or did you end up with a different medication? No medication at all? Did you start with that medication?
----- [1]: No, I'm not going to use the name of the medication. They don't pay me enough to advertise.
Your troll post might sound genuine enough to the casual reader that I'm going to respond anyway. Your post, though sprinkled with truths, is fundamentally wrong. Here's why:
One, new drugs come out ALL of the time. It is impossible for a doctor to know every new drug out there, even with continuing education. These commercials, along with the "pharmaceutical companies bribes" and "pharm babes"(cute drug reps), serve a purpose in educating doctors as well as consumers.
1. New drugs do indeed come out all the time, more than what a doctor can absorb. But most of these drugs are not relevant; they are "me too" drugs that aren't necessary. The classic example is sildenafil (Viagra), which was eventually followed by vardenafil (Levitra) and tadalafil (Cialis). I'm annoyed that I had to study two new drugs that essentially did nothing but make money for their respective manufacturers but were basically the same[1] as sildenafil. If my patients specifically request one or the other, that's what I prescribe; otherwise, I simply use the one that's been around the longest and has the most safety data behind it. So if it weren't for TV ads pushing consumer demand, why is it important for me to learn about Levitra and Cialis? That's like saying that a skilled C++/Java programmer is no good because he doesn't know Visual Smalltalk and Object-Oriented COBOL.
2. Do you seriously consider the TV ads as "educational opportunities"? Perhaps you can learn First Aid and CPR from TV shows? Get a law degree from Law & Order episodes? Enough said about this ridiculous suggestion.
Just for the record: no, drug company dinner presentations are not unbiased. In case you couldn't tell.
Two, doctors don't know all of the existing drugs before they graduated from medical school, did their residency, etc. They don't have full knowledge of the thousands of drugs that were out there, they were too busy studying where things are in the body, and accepted ways to fix them.
Same criticism as before: no, MD's don't know all the drugs, nor do they need to. Do they know all of the *relevant* drugs? Yes, the good doctors do. How could they possibly keep up? They get mandatory Continuing Medical Education (CME) required by the licensing bodies, and attend a certain number of conferences per year where experts discuss peer-reviewed, evidence-based developments in new drugss, new treatments, even new research showing that we no longer need to use certain drugs because they're not found to be of benefit.
Classic recent example: women are no longer prescribed hormone replacement pills(Premarin) when they reach menopause[2]. You think the makers of Premarin were going to tell us that? Perhaps wined and dined by "pharm babes"? Give me a break.
Three, NEVER count on a M.D. for drug information. They have VERY little pharmacology training, and almost no knowledge on drug interactions. That is what pharmacists are for. Doctors prescribe drugs to keep you alive, pharmacists stop them from killing you.
Since you're speaking in absolutes and hyperbole, it's no surprise that you're wrong. Never count on an MD for drug info? So if the doctor says, "This drug can harm your liver," you shouldn't believe him? MD's know the relevant information for drugs they prescribe, and have a better grasp than pharmacists about which side effects to be worried about.
For example, celecoxib (Celebrex, used for arthritis) can cause GI upset. They also cause headache in 15% of people. But guess what? Placebo caused headache in 20% of people. You gonna look up side effects of celecoxib? The list includes things like suicide, overwhelming infection, and perforation of the esophagus. Are you suggesting that your doctor is remiss for not telling you that one patient who committed sui
I agree. Ads generate mindshare based on emotional responses. People have "heard of" certain drugs and feel that they must be better because it's a "big name" drug; they walk into my office asking for it, and I have to tell them why it's not that great a choice. That precious time could be better spent explaining how to prevent the need for the drug in the first place. Tell a patient that he needs "atorvastatin" or "rosuvastatin", and he'll recoil and exercise his butt off at the gym so he doesn't have to take these horrible meds; but he'll say, "My cousin takes Lipitor and my uncle takes Crestor; why can't I have that?" and I end up running overtime explaining why it's more important to exercise and eat properly instead of getting those big name meds. [1]
A more subtle effect is the idea that patients feel empowered to make decisions because they now have "more information". It's not so much any particular Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) ad as much as the existence of DTC ads themselves. In the US, there is an attitude of "doctors are out to profit at the patients' expense, so we need to mistrust the doctors and take charge", so patients will try to do their own research. Unfortunately, some of them can't tell a HON Certified web site from some circulating email proclaiming that the CA-125 test will save your life or other medical bullsh*t.
The TV ads are designed to give patients an emotional comfort that they have figured out what is the matter, that they are empowered because now there is something they can do about their problem. "Do you sometimes feel tired?" asks the ad. "It could be because of Horrible Disease X!!! But one dose of Placebocillin will cure you!" And the patient feels, "Yes, yes, that's *exactly* what I have! I better demand that drug from my doctor tomorrow!"
I do take the time to explain to my patients, but as a result I'd say that it takes up about 10% of patient time that could be spent on other things. And, yes, I've practiced in a country where there are not DTC ads for prescription medications, and I don't get that sort of questions.
I agree with parent poster. What Linux lacks now is a marketplace for commercial applications on top of the OSS OS.
As Kubuntu and former Mandrake user who swore off Microsoft 4 years ago, one of my sore points is that MS Windows gets cool, professional-looking software while the stuff we Linux geeks use is rough around the edge. Even my Palm Treo gets well-done, easy-to-use software. Why? Because there's financial reward for it. I spent US$10 for BackupMan for my Treo, which I think is essential to every Treo; that's not expensive, but I'll bet the author got at least $10k for his efforts, which motivated him to make his program work well and be user-friendly.
By contrast, Linux users expect their apps to be Free-as-in-FreedomBeer because their distro already came loaded with FreedomBeer applications, so applications like QCAD for Linux (newest version $$, older versions GPL) limp along because no one will buy them, while TurboCAD for Windows gets shelf space at Best Buy and mindshare in those people who don't want to pirate AutoCAD.
Unfortunately, for Linux commercial apps there's no equivalent of the shelves at CompuSmart: the current culture says that Linux users get their apps from their distro, and most Linux distros balk at including non-FreedomBeer apps (I'm looking at you, Debian). Other distros charge
I welcome a marketplace where we can buy essential stuff for Linux like Quicktime/Tomb Raider/ATI drivers for Linux, and maybe smaller developers can make a few sales without having to: a) repackage their product for 6 different distros, and b) try to market their product on the web without a central repository such as Click&Run to attract people who are looking for various products.
In addition to imposing self-discipline, a university class also puts you in touch with like-minded people who are also taking the class, so that classmates can benefit from each other's insight. There's a lot more motivation to learn when there is peer pressure just to be there physically in the classroom, if not actually contribute to the discussion --not to mention the non-peer pressure aspects such as actually learning from classmates' questions and the answers to them.
If I had to name one particular component of university courses that distinguishes them from self-learning by sheer willpower and time spent at the library/bookstore, it would be: having a real-time setting where I see other class members ask questions and have them answered. Thus, those new-fangled "distance learning" university courses aren't "real" courses if it's just one-on-one chats with professors, even if it's a real-time video chat (or even personal one-on-one tutoring); I'd rather have IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and give up the video if it means I can interact with fellow classmates in a group setting.
Which naturally leads us to the next question: who's interested in getting together to attend one of these courses? Slashdot is a global geek community, and here is where we would probably find potential fellow classmates who want to form a group of two to six and go through some of the coursework together. But you can't exactly just post a story about "Ask Slashdot: So-and-so says, who wants to take the Linear Algebra course with me?" every time you find an interesting course. Would be nice if we had a forum where we could do exactly that.
Anyone have any suggestions? Any particular web site? Yahoo!(tm) groups --maybe a group called "OpenCourseWare"? MySpace web page? I haven't experimented with my Slashdot journal --can anyone post entries? If so, could I start a journal entry called "Who's Looking For Fellow OpenClassmates"? Meanwhile, just to have some starting point, I'll volunteer my email address for those interested:
"kwtm-zrewztid@tamlylin.gov" except replace the top level domain with.net, not.gov (try that on for size, spam-harvester-bot!)
We've had at least two Slashdot stories about specific MIT OCW courses (not including this one, which I agree is non-news): an earlier one about a course on basic cryptography, and a more recent course about copyrights. Let's see if we can organize something.
Incidentally, I suspect self-learning of languages is more common than you make it seem. I crammed Spanish for the month before a little expedition to Latin America. If you count "computer languages" as languages, then I suspect the majority of/.ers have done self-learning of languages to a useful level of proficiency.
Much as I despise Microsoft, fixing IE7's rendering (at least partially) was a good move. Not only did it move closer toward the standard, but it *broke* a bazillion web pages that were non-compliant but displayed as intended on IE6 or earlier.
Previously, if you told those lazy web developricks, "Hey, your web site doesn't display properly on Firefox, which is a whopping 4% of the market!" then they would answer, "Works fine with my computer --your Firefox must be broken." Well, guess what? Now it doesn't display properly on the latest IE either, and with Microsoft forcing IE7 down everyone's throats, it's not just going to be some insignificant minority who complain. More considerate developers who slave away at making those IE-specific adjustments can now say, "You need to get the latest version of IE in order for the web site to work," and then wash their hands of maintaining any more IE6-or-earlier hacks. IE7 will have a beneficial effect even for those of us who never use MS products, because it will have a profound effect on the WWWeb.
And those poorly designed websites mentioned in TFA, which will have to be redone to be IE7 compatible thus driving small businesses to bankruptcy? Well, cry me a river. Reminds me of the early days of the web when people just cut'n'pasted other web pages to cobble together their own Frankenstein[1] of a web site, which displayed perfectly on Netscape 3.1 but whose source code was an abomination.
You know when the Slashdot community bitches about Microsoft, and some MS supporter always asks, "You guys are never satisfied! What's Microsoft gotta do to make you admit that they are doing something *good*"? Well, fixing IE7 numbers among the answers (right under "Open up the MS Word format"). Keep up the good work, Microsoft, and someday your product might be as good as Firefox.
_____ [1] Yeah, I know Frankenstein is the creator of the monster, not the monster itself, but I'm using the term in the popular culture sense.
The other day my US Postal carrier (mailwoman --but that would be an oxymoron) said to me, "I thought you moved --I'm getting all this mail from your address marked 'Return to Sender'(RTS)." I told her that, to teach these slimy junkmail-sending businesses a lesson, I was sending all their mail back. She said that any bulk mail marked "Presorted", which is most of them, is sent at a discounted rate that doesn't cover the cost of the RTS service; anything marked RTS is brought back to the mail processing plant and shredded. Ah, well. So the business never gets to see it. I guess I could still mark it RTS and get the US Post to shred it so I don't have to -- I don't like having recycled papers floating around in those public recycling dumps with my name and address on it -- but I guess I'm resigned to having to shred them myself.
With regard to credit card offers, you can tell the US credit rating companies that you don't want any more credit card offers. There's a phone number you can phone, and they ask you, "Do you mean stop sending credit card offers for 5 years, or permanently?"
At first I hesitated at permanently --what if I can't get more credit cards in the future even if I want to?-- but then I realized that I had successfully applied for one particular credit card without any solicitation. A friend told me about the good features --photo ID and signature printed on the card, 5% rebate on groceries and gasoline, 1% rebate on all else-- so I phoned and got approved. There was absolutely no downside to me being the one to take the initiative to contact them. In fact, only after I had gotten the card did I start getting offers from *that same bank* for all sorts of other cards. (Stupid bank, I just *got* a card from you! --why do I need more? Anyway, now that junk mail is blocked.)
If you sign up for "permanently", you have to send them something in writing. I did that, and my mailbox has been mercifully free of credit card offers for the past year or so. I'm too lazy to Google for it right now, so whoever wants to do it can probably get his/her post modded up.
As for the rest of the junk mail, I tried to ask my mailwoman to stop delivering them ("I just throw it away anyway," I told her) but apparently legally she is obligated to deliver it. There is a way to stop it, though; my wife tried it at her old address and apparently it worked.
It does like this: by law, you may order advertisers not to send you unsolicited mail if it is sexually provocative. But what is sexually provocative? The Supreme Court has upheld a decision that only YOU can determine whether something is sexually provocative to YOU. So, suppose you decide that the SuperSaver Coupons logo in your junk mail is sexually provocative to you. Who's to say it isn't? Your post office has no authority to decide that it isn't, so if you say it is, they must stop delivering that mail.
So, you can get this form from the post office that declares that you don't want the junk mail from that one particular source. You also need to bring a sample of the junk mail. My wife found it all on the web, so it's there, but again I'm too lazy to Google for it.
There were questions left unanswered from a previous Slashdot article with questions about the legality of copying CD's under various circumstances. Maybe, with this course, we would be able to clear up some of the confusion. One particular set of questions was:
1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music? . a. Are the.mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too? . b. Can I re-burn a CD from the.mp3s and is that legal? . c. Does me having a backup copy of the files on my computer mean I can't make an insurance claim? . d. What if it is destroyed (for example by a fire) rather than stolen?
2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?
3. If I purchase the DVD for a movie, could I legally download songs from the soundtrack for that movie from a file-sharing network?
4. If I purchase a CD that our entire family listens to, and then my daughter leaves for College, can she legally take a copy of an.mp3 ripped from that CD with her on her computer? or - similarly - could she take the disc and could I keep the.mp3 on my computer?
Funny, my first experiences with KDE (3.0.x) were like your complaints with GNOME: error messages dumbed down, and help messages unhelpful beyond the obvious. "KApplication cannot save the file," one message might say without further explanation. The manuals were a regurgitation of the menus. The section entitled "Settings > Froopy-froop" would obtusely explain: "This menu item allows you to modify the Froopy-froop settings." No shit, Sherlock!
I saw KDE gradually improving, not just because I became more familiar with it, but because lots of other people did, too, and more tutorials and HOWTO's appeared on the web. People in IRC became more knowledgeable and helpful. I learned where KDE hid all the config settings, how to Autostart KDE programs, etc. --probably info that had been floating around *somewhere*, but it became a lot easier to find.
I suspect that this infrastructure of documentation is more of an advantage in KDE than in GNOME, because of greater consistency and integration within KDE. Yes, GNOME has its Human Interface Guidelines, but with KDE, it seems that the consistency extends beyond just the interface to how things actually work behind the scenes. Learn something about one KApplication, and you learn just a bit more about how to anticipate how KProgram #2 works.
This is why one improvement I'm a bit worried about is DBUS, which replaces the DCOP interface. DCOP is what lets you control KDE's GUI applications from the command line, giving script files the ability to manipulate the program almost as if you were directly clicking on the GUI dialog boxes yourself. But now that DCOP is being nudged out by DBUS, will I still know how to use it?
Note that I'm not disputing whether the new DBUS is better than the old DCOP. I'm sure it is, and apparently GNOME already uses a variation of it --something about "CORBA" and "Bonobo", but I'm not sure exactly how they relate. What I am wondering is whether the new DBUS will be better *for me*, and that includes the availability of documentation on the web to tell me how to use it. If the infrastructure isn't there, I can't take advantage of it no matter what wonderful features it has, and I'm not about to plow through KDE source code to figure things out.
The same applies for the rest of KDE 4. Despite being a self-styled geek, I'd rather be a slow adopter of new technology and follow the well-trodden path to minimize my own effort. (Hacker Rule #2: no problem should ever have to be solved twice.) That's why I plan to stick patiently with Kubuntu 6.06 Dapper until the bugs in the newer versions have been worked out, and why I'll happily play with my KDE 3.x while minds smarter than mine go experiment with KDE 4.
Slashdot Mirror
If I understand you correctly, you're not saying that Ubuntu is bad, just that it's not better than the other distros. Fine.
Part of the reason I went with it, though, is because they have acquired a good rep, from their marketing and their community (including the IRC community). They've got a philanthropist businessman making a firm commitment to fund the distro, they're taking advantage of the Debian system which had been languishing about 3 years out-of-date previously, and they've got enthusiasm from the Open Source community. They did not abandon their desktop version to concentrate on selling the server version to big business, they did not file for bankruptcy protection, and they have more perceived reliability than a distro that is singlehandedly supported by one person.
In short, it is not the technical aspects of the distro that make it appealing, but its context in the community. I chose it because I felt that it could achieve critical mass: I continue to hope that everyone will switch to it because everyone else will switch to it. This will give Ubuntu enough clout to, say, oh, I dunno, maybe get into talks with Dell? The next frontier in Linux development is to get the hardware manufacturers to recognize it, and Ubuntu looks like it's in the best position to do this.
I don't claim that Ubuntu is better than any other distro, but I do hope that it acquires a certain level of popularity. Don't begrudge it for that. Mandrake had their chance to shine; let Shuttleworth see what he can do to promote Linux.
So, not being satisfied with having our waste strewn across just our own planet, now we're going to introduce the rest of the solar system to our All-Products-Are-Disposable culture? Or are these micro chip/probes going to clean up after themselves and come back to Earth?
I don't know why you're using 1%. If you deposit it into a HSBC online savings account, you get about 5%. APY, which is actual compounded interest in a year, is 5.05%; the APR, or nominal non-compounded interest, is only 4.98% or something like that. No minimum investment. No requirement other than that you have some other bank account (so you can transfer money from your usual account to your HSBC account). If you put money in, it takes about 3 days to go in (due to the Automated Clearing House system in use in the USA); if you take it out, it takes about 3 days. That's something HSBC has no control over.
If you don't like HSBC, you can try ING Direct, which gives something like 4.8% interest. No minimum investment, but when you put money in, you need to leave it for 14 days before you take it out again. Also 3 days to make the transaction. So if you have $300 in the ING account, and you put in $500, then for the next two weeks only $300 will be available to you, unlike the HSBC account where as soon as the money shows up after 3 days you can take it right out again.
Then of course you have other options like CD's (Certificates of Deposit, not the shiny discs) where you can commit to investing some minimum amount of your money for some minimum time, and get even higher interest rates than that. But 5% should be the standard of comparison for the "Do Nothing" option. (That is, if you're not earning 5% interest before taxes, you can assume you're losing money.)
Anyway, per your calculation, you'd get about $25 interest on $1000 invested throughout the year. You can estimate it like this: part of the $1000 gets the full 5% interest, and part of it gets almost no interest (depending on what time in the year you invested), so on average you get about 2.5% interest. 2.5% of $1000 is $25. It jives with your calculation of $5+ for 1% interest on $1000 evenly distributed.
If $25 doesn't matter that much to you, please write me a cheque for this amount.
When you switch over from Mandrake, put your
Kubuntu assigns user numbers from 1000 up, but Mandrake uses 500 and up. When I migrated to Kubuntu, I found that all my
To use: first, while still in Mandriva, check what your UID is in the
Best of luck!
I agree that the plot was contrived. The protagonist struggles against groups who believe in global warming, using deadly means to make it look like there is global warming. Gimme a break.
Reminds me of those educational computer games: "You must defeat your enemies, space aliens who for some reason have travelled a billion light years to earth in order to use their super-advanced alien technology to change some English words to the incorrect spelling! To defeat the space aliens, the entire Earth is depending on you, a little fourth-grade kid, to correct the spelling on those words, and then all the aliens will suddenly self-destruct!"
Crichton fans please skip this book.
Now I don't know whether to read Prey or not. Gee.
can make the difference between "Where are you going?" and "[Do you mean that place] where you are going?" and "[That's] where you are going." So the Sign Language video needs to show the face in exquisite detail.
So far my patients seem to be happy with text messaging, and some members of the Deaf community (not my patients) have mentioned a concern that technological solutions such as videophones might not be good enough but non-Deaf people would not realize that the Deaf were at a disadvantage. (Sort of like if you had a crappy unreliable cell phone and everyone said, "Just phone me," etc. expecting you to use it just like a high quality land line.) I'm not sure that's a very valid concern since the hearing world has had to deal with crappy phone lines
I like how MobileASL detects skin to figure out which part of the video needs to be high quality, but with the other requirements (including the frame rate) I'll remain skeptical about cell phone video for Sign Language until I see it in action. (I also hope my patients don't start videophoning me, rather than the text messaging that they do now.
(examples here in Sign Language refer to American Sign Language)
-----
[1] "Deaf" with capital D means someone who is deaf (small d --meaning "can't hear") and also identifies with the culture of the Deaf, including using Sign Language.
So, after benefitting from this huge global effort called the Human Genome Project, they decide to give away a fraction of their spoils. Are we supposed to give them a standing ovation? Jump for joy?
That's like all of us contributing articles and money to Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia says, "Hey, here are some articles that you can read for free --we won't charge you any money."
<sarcasm>Thanks a lot, Novartis, for your huge contribution! I will express my gratitude by blinking my eyes. Once. (Just the left eye; the right eye blink is in honour of SCO not coming with a new press conference today.) </sarcasm>
I understand your concern about possibly undermining the F/LOSS movement, but I don't think you need to worry. Here's why.
First, Linux itself is Free and Open Source; that's a given, thanks to the solid foundation formed by the GPL.[1]
Atop this operating system (OS), we need to run applications, like email clients or word processors. These can be F/LOSS or proprietary. You are concerned that too much proprietary software might dilute the pool of Open apps, but here's why it won't happen: for Linux there are far more Open apps than proprietary ones, and the Linux community is used to getting Open software. Whereas Windows users would readily pay for black-box apps with names like "Norton Incorporeal Being" that do the same as a 'dd' bash command, Linux users demand apps that are Free. Most happen to be zero-cost, but above all it must not be black-box, because Linux users tend to want the ability to tinker around with the software. They don't necessarily plan to do it, and there are more and more people using Linux just to get the job done rather than tinker, but they need to know that they are not being locked in to some proprietary system that gets frozen the moment the software maker company goes belly-up. They need to know that someone can get into the project and fork it.
So, in the Linux environment, the demand for F/LOSS is there, and for the right reasons. (Contrast this with the Windows environment where people download freeware because it's zero cost, whether proprietary or not.)
Now we are letting makers of proprietary software into the community, giving them a foothold, a marketplace from which to sell their wares. Unlike in the Windows world, this is what will happen:
1. Free/Open Source was here first. The standard to which they will be held is higher. In particular, the company will need to justify why their stuff is proprietary; they will be asked: "So, why should we buy your stuff rather than Open Source?" This is a good thing. The competition from FLOSS will force proprietary software to bring added value, and respond to market forces, in order to generate income.
2. Thus the proprietary company will need to identify where they can be better than F/LOSS. This, too, is good. One of my peeves in F/LOSS: useability in software, which is lacking in many Open Source applications. If Adobe PhotoShop For Linux starts selling like hotcakes, it would send a message that there might be a market need unfulfilled by the GIMP software. Competition, whether amongst Open Source software (e.g. KDE vs GNOME) or between FLOSS and proprietary (Firefox vs IE), brings out excellence.
3. On particular disadvantage at which the proprietary companies will find themselves is that they can't use Open Source software for stepping stones. If the Filelight program has this brilliant idea, the Konqueror team can just take that and put it into their own software.[2] The proprietary software team, however, has to reimplement it on their own. So it's not like the proprietary software will gobble up the Open Source one.
4. Once the proprietary company is a bit more accustomed to the Linux and Open Source market, I hope they'll start being able to differentiate between "commercial" and "proprietary". Really, what they want is "commercial" (and the "proprietary" part is really just a means to that end), and they'd be more comfortable exploring commercial Open Source. They'd become an example of one of the Open Source business models, showing that it works, or perhaps they'd dream up a new brilliant way to profit from Open Source.
In summary, competition is a good thing, and will only benefit all participants. The FLOSS community is robust enough not to be overwhelmed by th
One major advantage of TrueCrypt: works on both Linux and Windows. Can't remember if there's a Mac version. Nope, there isn't. Here's the TrueCrypt web site.
... and most of all, it's usable: it exists and is easy to use. Because, much as crypto-security fascinates me, I don't want to tinker all the time.
Having researched TrueCrypt and compared the alternatives, I have started using it routinely. It's not so much that I have something to hide, or that what I want kept private requires as strong an encryption as TrueCrypt. It's more than I simply want a convenient way to encrypt something, forget about it, and not have to worry about it later.
My personal financial data resides in a TrueCrypt volume. To lock up all of those files, I just umount the volume, and that's it.
I also wanted to make an offsite backup of our more valuable personal data in case of disaster, such as a fire that burns down our home, destroying the backups stored at home. For example, we have some digital photos with some irreplaceable priceless memories. So I decided to burn them onto DVD and have my relatives, who live out of town, hang onto copies. But relatives can be nosy, and interspersed in the photos could be things I don't want other people to see, from badly taken photos that "make me look fat" to photos of bank statements and legal documents for which we wanted to store a non-paper copy.
So, I created TrueCrypt volumes of the appropriate size to burn to DVD, and then stashed our photos inside. We've got about 4 years' worth of photos (JPEGs) on two (different) DVDs with our relatives in two locations.
I don't want to encrypt something with cheap encryption, and then worry 4 years down the road when someone discovers a flaw in the scheme. You might ask, "What? Are your non-geek relatives going to go about cracking your encryption?" You never know. What if I become someone --let's not say famous, but prominent? Say some sort of social activist fighting for software freedom? Who knows what could happen to my offsite backup DVDs in 4 years --suppose some hired maid accidentally dumps them in the trash, and are noticed by the neighbourhood trash-diving geek? What if some big company or other enemy happens to get their hands on copies and try to use some embarrassing photos to pressure me? I want to be able to rip off my tinfoil hat and laugh, "Don't be ridiculous! That would never happen!"
TrueCrypt gives me that peace of mind. Among its other features is multiple scheme encryption. Are you worried that AES might get cracked next year? Encrypt with AES, and then encrypt the result with Blowfish.[1] Or Twofish first, then CAST5. TrueCrypt offers multiple options, and it does not store the result anywhere. How does it know that you used AES-then-Blowfish encryption? Because it tries all of the schemes one by one. It tries AES alone with the password you gave. Doesn't work. Tries Blowfish alone. Tries about half a dozen other single-encryption schemes. Then it tries the multiple combinations: Blowfish-Serpent, then AES-Blowfish, etc., going down the list until something works. If nothing works, then it concludes that you entered the wrong password.
It's not a perfect solution, and one drawback with TrueCrypt is that I can't use it on my work computer where I don't have administrator rights. But otherwise it has all the advantages I'm looking for: secure, cross-platform, on-the-fly, open source freedom
Just like a screwdriver: when I want to use it, I don't want to have to Google for user manuals. I just want to do what I need with it, and not have to think about it.
---
[1]: Incidentally, the advantage of AES-with-Blowfish is *not* that you can't crack Blowfish even after the AES on your TrueCrypt file is cracked. Once your AES crypto is cracked, the password is known and the same password will be used for the Blowfish decryption. (Remember, TrueCrypt is open source --once the
First: you'd send someone to the gulag to save face? Suppose it happened to you: you just said that this was "really really shitty". So suppose I bring you a barbed whip and Bill Gates' wife all tied up, and told you to flog Mrs. Gates on global TV. After all, you yourself agreed that "it's really, really shitty." Would you do it, albeit reluctantly, because otherwise you'd look like you'd gone soft?
Second: Since when did Gates or Microsoft worry about losing face? You'd think they'd be thick-skinned enough after delaying Vista/Longhorn a bazillion times, or with Gates lying through his teeth about how Windows would never get a security exploit once a month, like the Mac.
Third: Don't you think Gates/Microsoft could have come up with a plan to save Ponosov if they wanted to? You know, with Gates' IQ of 150 (he did invent the GUI and Ctrl-Alt-Del and the BSOD all by himself, you know) and the combined IQ of all Microsoft's management totaling another 150, you'd think they'd be able to figure something out. I disagree. I suspect Gorbachev and the other Russian luminaries wanted to publicly call MS on the disproportionate punishment for piracy. They wanted to do it, not just for Ponosov, but for all the other users who, as a matter of practicality, simply *have to* use pirated MS software for their daily lives. Ponosov was an example case, but to the horror of Gorbachev and others, MS actually declined.
MS could have helped, without looking foolish. They could have publicly announced that they'd make one exception in Ponosov's case, but only if Ponosov agrees to preach about the evils of piracy for 2 hours each week for a year, or something. But no, the world sees the way Gates really thinks.
Maybe now people will see that the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation has just been an automated PR machine. Sprinkle money here and there, and where it lands on fertile earth, fans and supporters will spring up. No thought or good intentions need be put in. (Wasn't the Foundation Melinda's idea, anyway, no Bill's?) But when you need Bill to show the way he thinks, we clearly see that he's still just as cutthroat as when he made off with Spyglass and made it Internet Explorer.
Wake up, world!
You have made 11 posts so far, and EVERY SINGLE ONE is an ad for the E-com Station business that sells computers.
In the past 24 hours, you made FOUR posts, all within TWO HOURS of each other. They were all ALL ads for E-com Station. Other than those four posts, there was nothing else for the past year-and-a-half.
Prior to that, two years ago you made FIVE posts, all within ONE HOUR of each other. They ALL advertised E-com Station.
There were two posts prior to that. Guess what they ALL advertised?
No, it's not illegal. No, I'm not going to sue you. But you'll pardon me if I take your posts with a heavy dose of sodium chloride.
Mind you, in the case of F/LOSS, each software project might individually fall on its own (rather than a monolithic Microsoft cow flopped onto its side), and through the process of forking, we might be able to recover from the fall. But forking is overrated --see how much energy and resources was consumed organizing for a fork in something as fundamental as XFree86-- and is only good for preventing a worthwhile project from dying due to lack of interest. When we're trying to compete and we're already playing catch-up[1], we can't afford to use forking as a safety net. We need to be focused: What do the users *need*? Do it.
-----
[1]: Stop it with the "I don't care if Linux doesn't take over the world" meme. Our goal is to have Linux gain enough respectability so that we get things like hardware drivers, and those who want to use Linux are able to do so without artificially created barriers like the Winmodem crap.
US$9/yr, autorenewing if you want. That includes email redirection and web site forwarding. I've used them a happy 2.5 years for made-up-on-the-spot disposable email addresses, as well as structuring my web site. What first attracted me to them was their Q&A/Tech Support forums which anyone can browse. Admittedly, they could have been deleting all the posts about unsatisfactory service etc. and I wouldn't have known, but it looked like they're pretty open about solving problems and letting anyone and everyone read about their problems, which aren't too many.
Haven't checked the forums at all since I signed up --never needed to.
Well said! "So then think, gee, Linux is free and Windows and MacOS are hundreds of dollars, and they all offer exactly the same features ...There's something wrong with Linux." A good wake-up call for those too close to the front lines to see the big picture. I'll put in my two cents' worth of what I think is the matter.
No, it's not the command line; I disagree with you there. At least with my distribution, Kubuntu, you can install and run without even realizing that the command line exists. But that's the very distribution that the guy in the OP said he had difficulty using.
Think: Why is there so much disagreement on whether Linux is "ready for the desktop"? Because different people have different needs, and Linux appears differently to them. One guy needs it just to type letters and check email, and the other gal wants to play MMORPGs on her box. One user is happy if she can read the MS Word documents she gets, another needs to produce Word documents and have them come out exactly the same on his clients' computers. Which of these users do you think would complain that Linux is "difficult to use"?
We say that "Linux" --as in, "the GNU/Linux OS"-- is ready for the desktop. Agree. But on top of that, people use applications, and these apps are what make it or break it for users. Some apps run great --K3b and Amarok are shining examples of user-friendly software. Others are totally worthless when it comes to user-friendliness; the GIMP and mplayer come to mind[1] --you'll note that these are examples of really powerful programs, but there's no way for the average user to access that power.
As the parent poster observed, it's not just one or two things that's easily fixable, but many things that form an inertial trend that needs to be fought. These "things" are apps. Too many apps are just not ready for the desktop, and it's not going to be easy to correct. Heroic, altruistic programmers can get together to make a multitude of great apps --look at the KDE team, or the Ubuntu GNOME desktop-- but then you'll still have that half a dozen apps that were clearly authored by someone more enamoured with feature and powers than with usability. And these apps are what make Linux "difficult" for the Average Josephine.
One particular type of app bears special mention: the word processor. This is one thing that's essential on every desktop, and we don't have anything nearly as professional as MS Word. The closest is that plodding thing called OpenOffice.org[2] that takes about 30 seconds to open a document. AbiWord doesn't do tables well, and KWord continues to have refresh bugs. The reason I am hard-pressed to convert everyone to a Linux environment is because I can't honestly recommend any good word processors.
Good news: we are beginning to realize, slowly, so very slowly, that what makes Linux "ready for the desktop" is no longer Linux itself, or the last spit'n'polish of the KDE or GNOME desktop, but the apps themselves. I'm starting to see more awareness of the importance of usability and documentation. Linux distros now have more choices for user-friendly apps where previously it was just some command-line thing (thank you, Synaptic, Kynaptic and Adept; good riddance 'dselect'!).
Thus, the next thing we need to do to promote Linux is make apps usable. Oddly enough, here's where even non-coders can contribute: write documentation! User manuals, HOWTO's and web tutorials are within the purview of even the Average Joe who doesn't have the technical skill to contribute code --and perhaps he'd be an even *more* suitable instruction manual writer because of this very fact.
When will Linux be ready for *your* desktop? When *your* apps that *you* need are usable!
A final word: I want to point out the insight in the sibling post that the reason Windows is dominant over Linux is the very fact that it *is* dominant over Linux. With regard to what I said above, yes, there are a bunch of *Windows* apps that are not "ready f
Hey, Jerry A. Taylor of Tuttle, Oklahoma with "22 years of experience" in computers, you listening?
Just curious --not trolling or criticising-- I really want to know: You say that the cute little blob commonly seen in the TV ad promoting a certain anti-depressant medication[1] prompted you to seek treatment. Did you end up using that particular medication in your treatment? Or did you end up with a different medication? No medication at all? Did you start with that medication?
-----
[1]: No, I'm not going to use the name of the medication. They don't pay me enough to advertise.
1. New drugs do indeed come out all the time, more than what a doctor can absorb. But most of these drugs are not relevant; they are "me too" drugs that aren't necessary. The classic example is sildenafil (Viagra), which was eventually followed by vardenafil (Levitra) and tadalafil (Cialis). I'm annoyed that I had to study two new drugs that essentially did nothing but make money for their respective manufacturers but were basically the same[1] as sildenafil. If my patients specifically request one or the other, that's what I prescribe; otherwise, I simply use the one that's been around the longest and has the most safety data behind it. So if it weren't for TV ads pushing consumer demand, why is it important for me to learn about Levitra and Cialis? That's like saying that a skilled C++/Java programmer is no good because he doesn't know Visual Smalltalk and Object-Oriented COBOL.
2. Do you seriously consider the TV ads as "educational opportunities"? Perhaps you can learn First Aid and CPR from TV shows? Get a law degree from Law & Order episodes? Enough said about this ridiculous suggestion.
Just for the record: no, drug company dinner presentations are not unbiased. In case you couldn't tell.
Same criticism as before: no, MD's don't know all the drugs, nor do they need to. Do they know all of the *relevant* drugs? Yes, the good doctors do. How could they possibly keep up? They get mandatory Continuing Medical Education (CME) required by the licensing bodies, and attend a certain number of conferences per year where experts discuss peer-reviewed, evidence-based developments in new drugss, new treatments, even new research showing that we no longer need to use certain drugs because they're not found to be of benefit.
Classic recent example: women are no longer prescribed hormone replacement pills(Premarin) when they reach menopause[2]. You think the makers of Premarin were going to tell us that? Perhaps wined and dined by "pharm babes"? Give me a break.
Since you're speaking in absolutes and hyperbole, it's no surprise that you're wrong. Never count on an MD for drug info? So if the doctor says, "This drug can harm your liver," you shouldn't believe him? MD's know the relevant information for drugs they prescribe, and have a better grasp than pharmacists about which side effects to be worried about.
For example, celecoxib (Celebrex, used for arthritis) can cause GI upset. They also cause headache in 15% of people. But guess what? Placebo caused headache in 20% of people. You gonna look up side effects of celecoxib? The list includes things like suicide, overwhelming infection, and perforation of the esophagus. Are you suggesting that your doctor is remiss for not telling you that one patient who committed sui
I agree. Ads generate mindshare based on emotional responses. People have "heard of" certain drugs and feel that they must be better because it's a "big name" drug; they walk into my office asking for it, and I have to tell them why it's not that great a choice. That precious time could be better spent explaining how to prevent the need for the drug in the first place. Tell a patient that he needs "atorvastatin" or "rosuvastatin", and he'll recoil and exercise his butt off at the gym so he doesn't have to take these horrible meds; but he'll say, "My cousin takes Lipitor and my uncle takes Crestor; why can't I have that?" and I end up running overtime explaining why it's more important to exercise and eat properly instead of getting those big name meds. [1]
A more subtle effect is the idea that patients feel empowered to make decisions because they now have "more information". It's not so much any particular Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) ad as much as the existence of DTC ads themselves. In the US, there is an attitude of "doctors are out to profit at the patients' expense, so we need to mistrust the doctors and take charge", so patients will try to do their own research. Unfortunately, some of them can't tell a HON Certified web site from some circulating email proclaiming that the CA-125 test will save your life or other medical bullsh*t.
The TV ads are designed to give patients an emotional comfort that they have figured out what is the matter, that they are empowered because now there is something they can do about their problem. "Do you sometimes feel tired?" asks the ad. "It could be because of Horrible Disease X!!! But one dose of Placebocillin will cure you!" And the patient feels, "Yes, yes, that's *exactly* what I have! I better demand that drug from my doctor tomorrow!"
I do take the time to explain to my patients, but as a result I'd say that it takes up about 10% of patient time that could be spent on other things. And, yes, I've practiced in a country where there are not DTC ads for prescription medications, and I don't get that sort of questions.
-----
[1]: Lipitor = "atorvastatin"; Crestor = "rosuvastatin"
I agree with parent poster. What Linux lacks now is a marketplace for commercial applications on top of the OSS OS.
As Kubuntu and former Mandrake user who swore off Microsoft 4 years ago, one of my sore points is that MS Windows gets cool, professional-looking software while the stuff we Linux geeks use is rough around the edge. Even my Palm Treo gets well-done, easy-to-use software. Why? Because there's financial reward for it. I spent US$10 for BackupMan for my Treo, which I think is essential to every Treo; that's not expensive, but I'll bet the author got at least $10k for his efforts, which motivated him to make his program work well and be user-friendly.
By contrast, Linux users expect their apps to be Free-as-in-FreedomBeer because their distro already came loaded with FreedomBeer applications, so applications like QCAD for Linux (newest version $$, older versions GPL) limp along because no one will buy them, while TurboCAD for Windows gets shelf space at Best Buy and mindshare in those people who don't want to pirate AutoCAD.
Unfortunately, for Linux commercial apps there's no equivalent of the shelves at CompuSmart: the current culture says that Linux users get their apps from their distro, and most Linux distros balk at including non-FreedomBeer apps (I'm looking at you, Debian). Other distros charge
I welcome a marketplace where we can buy essential stuff for Linux like Quicktime/Tomb Raider/ATI drivers for Linux, and maybe smaller developers can make a few sales without having to: a) repackage their product for 6 different distros, and b) try to market their product on the web without a central repository such as Click&Run to attract people who are looking for various products.
Isn't CNR only $20/yr? That's peanuts.
In addition to imposing self-discipline, a university class also puts you in touch with like-minded people who are also taking the class, so that classmates can benefit from each other's insight. There's a lot more motivation to learn when there is peer pressure just to be there physically in the classroom, if not actually contribute to the discussion --not to mention the non-peer pressure aspects such as actually learning from classmates' questions and the answers to them.
.net, not .gov (try that on for size, spam-harvester-bot!)
/.ers have done self-learning of languages to a useful level of proficiency.
If I had to name one particular component of university courses that distinguishes them from self-learning by sheer willpower and time spent at the library/bookstore, it would be: having a real-time setting where I see other class members ask questions and have them answered. Thus, those new-fangled "distance learning" university courses aren't "real" courses if it's just one-on-one chats with professors, even if it's a real-time video chat (or even personal one-on-one tutoring); I'd rather have IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and give up the video if it means I can interact with fellow classmates in a group setting.
Which naturally leads us to the next question: who's interested in getting together to attend one of these courses? Slashdot is a global geek community, and here is where we would probably find potential fellow classmates who want to form a group of two to six and go through some of the coursework together. But you can't exactly just post a story about "Ask Slashdot: So-and-so says, who wants to take the Linear Algebra course with me?" every time you find an interesting course. Would be nice if we had a forum where we could do exactly that.
Anyone have any suggestions? Any particular web site? Yahoo!(tm) groups --maybe a group called "OpenCourseWare"? MySpace web page? I haven't experimented with my Slashdot journal --can anyone post entries? If so, could I start a journal entry called "Who's Looking For Fellow OpenClassmates"? Meanwhile, just to have some starting point, I'll volunteer my email address for those interested:
"kwtm-zrewztid@tamlylin.gov" except replace the top level domain with
We've had at least two Slashdot stories about specific MIT OCW courses (not including this one, which I agree is non-news): an earlier one about a course on basic cryptography, and a more recent course about copyrights. Let's see if we can organize something.
Incidentally, I suspect self-learning of languages is more common than you make it seem. I crammed Spanish for the month before a little expedition to Latin America. If you count "computer languages" as languages, then I suspect the majority of
Much as I despise Microsoft, fixing IE7's rendering (at least partially) was a good move. Not only did it move closer toward the standard, but it *broke* a bazillion web pages that were non-compliant but displayed as intended on IE6 or earlier.
Previously, if you told those lazy web developricks, "Hey, your web site doesn't display properly on Firefox, which is a whopping 4% of the market!" then they would answer, "Works fine with my computer --your Firefox must be broken." Well, guess what? Now it doesn't display properly on the latest IE either, and with Microsoft forcing IE7 down everyone's throats, it's not just going to be some insignificant minority who complain. More considerate developers who slave away at making those IE-specific adjustments can now say, "You need to get the latest version of IE in order for the web site to work," and then wash their hands of maintaining any more IE6-or-earlier hacks. IE7 will have a beneficial effect even for those of us who never use MS products, because it will have a profound effect on the WWWeb.
And those poorly designed websites mentioned in TFA, which will have to be redone to be IE7 compatible thus driving small businesses to bankruptcy? Well, cry me a river. Reminds me of the early days of the web when people just cut'n'pasted other web pages to cobble together their own Frankenstein[1] of a web site, which displayed perfectly on Netscape 3.1 but whose source code was an abomination.
You know when the Slashdot community bitches about Microsoft, and some MS supporter always asks, "You guys are never satisfied! What's Microsoft gotta do to make you admit that they are doing something *good*"? Well, fixing IE7 numbers among the answers (right under "Open up the MS Word format"). Keep up the good work, Microsoft, and someday your product might be as good as Firefox.
_____
[1] Yeah, I know Frankenstein is the creator of the monster, not the monster itself, but I'm using the term in the popular culture sense.
The other day my US Postal carrier (mailwoman --but that would be an oxymoron) said to me, "I thought you moved --I'm getting all this mail from your address marked 'Return to Sender'(RTS)." I told her that, to teach these slimy junkmail-sending businesses a lesson, I was sending all their mail back. She said that any bulk mail marked "Presorted", which is most of them, is sent at a discounted rate that doesn't cover the cost of the RTS service; anything marked RTS is brought back to the mail processing plant and shredded. Ah, well. So the business never gets to see it. I guess I could still mark it RTS and get the US Post to shred it so I don't have to -- I don't like having recycled papers floating around in those public recycling dumps with my name and address on it -- but I guess I'm resigned to having to shred them myself.
With regard to credit card offers, you can tell the US credit rating companies that you don't want any more credit card offers. There's a phone number you can phone, and they ask you, "Do you mean stop sending credit card offers for 5 years, or permanently?"
At first I hesitated at permanently --what if I can't get more credit cards in the future even if I want to?-- but then I realized that I had successfully applied for one particular credit card without any solicitation. A friend told me about the good features --photo ID and signature printed on the card, 5% rebate on groceries and gasoline, 1% rebate on all else-- so I phoned and got approved. There was absolutely no downside to me being the one to take the initiative to contact them. In fact, only after I had gotten the card did I start getting offers from *that same bank* for all sorts of other cards. (Stupid bank, I just *got* a card from you! --why do I need more? Anyway, now that junk mail is blocked.)
If you sign up for "permanently", you have to send them something in writing. I did that, and my mailbox has been mercifully free of credit card offers for the past year or so. I'm too lazy to Google for it right now, so whoever wants to do it can probably get his/her post modded up.
As for the rest of the junk mail, I tried to ask my mailwoman to stop delivering them ("I just throw it away anyway," I told her) but apparently legally she is obligated to deliver it. There is a way to stop it, though; my wife tried it at her old address and apparently it worked.
It does like this: by law, you may order advertisers not to send you unsolicited mail if it is sexually provocative. But what is sexually provocative? The Supreme Court has upheld a decision that only YOU can determine whether something is sexually provocative to YOU. So, suppose you decide that the SuperSaver Coupons logo in your junk mail is sexually provocative to you. Who's to say it isn't? Your post office has no authority to decide that it isn't, so if you say it is, they must stop delivering that mail.
So, you can get this form from the post office that declares that you don't want the junk mail from that one particular source. You also need to bring a sample of the junk mail. My wife found it all on the web, so it's there, but again I'm too lazy to Google for it.
Hope that helps!
Funny, my first experiences with KDE (3.0.x) were like your complaints with GNOME: error messages dumbed down, and help messages unhelpful beyond the obvious. "KApplication cannot save the file," one message might say without further explanation. The manuals were a regurgitation of the menus. The section entitled "Settings > Froopy-froop" would obtusely explain: "This menu item allows you to modify the Froopy-froop settings." No shit, Sherlock!
I saw KDE gradually improving, not just because I became more familiar with it, but because lots of other people did, too, and more tutorials and HOWTO's appeared on the web. People in IRC became more knowledgeable and helpful. I learned where KDE hid all the config settings, how to Autostart KDE programs, etc. --probably info that had been floating around *somewhere*, but it became a lot easier to find.
I suspect that this infrastructure of documentation is more of an advantage in KDE than in GNOME, because of greater consistency and integration within KDE. Yes, GNOME has its Human Interface Guidelines, but with KDE, it seems that the consistency extends beyond just the interface to how things actually work behind the scenes. Learn something about one KApplication, and you learn just a bit more about how to anticipate how KProgram #2 works.
This is why one improvement I'm a bit worried about is DBUS, which replaces the DCOP interface. DCOP is what lets you control KDE's GUI applications from the command line, giving script files the ability to manipulate the program almost as if you were directly clicking on the GUI dialog boxes yourself. But now that DCOP is being nudged out by DBUS, will I still know how to use it?
Note that I'm not disputing whether the new DBUS is better than the old DCOP. I'm sure it is, and apparently GNOME already uses a variation of it --something about "CORBA" and "Bonobo", but I'm not sure exactly how they relate. What I am wondering is whether the new DBUS will be better *for me*, and that includes the availability of documentation on the web to tell me how to use it. If the infrastructure isn't there, I can't take advantage of it no matter what wonderful features it has, and I'm not about to plow through KDE source code to figure things out.
The same applies for the rest of KDE 4. Despite being a self-styled geek, I'd rather be a slow adopter of new technology and follow the well-trodden path to minimize my own effort. (Hacker Rule #2: no problem should ever have to be solved twice.) That's why I plan to stick patiently with Kubuntu 6.06 Dapper until the bugs in the newer versions have been worked out, and why I'll happily play with my KDE 3.x while minds smarter than mine go experiment with KDE 4.