No, you're being unreasonable. Yes, their testing was inadequate - do you really think they'd release a product knowing it would have a 1 in 3 failure rate, when they're obligated by law to replace the failed consoles? Microsoft loses money on every failed Xbox.
Microsoft has been punished enough for their inadequate testing, and the huge sums of money they've lost replacing failed consoles should ensure that they don't repeat the mistake again. The harm done to a consumer who purchases a failed Xbox and has it replaced for free is not serious enough to warrant additional penalties.
No, Wikipedia's policy is to include information that is available somewhere else on the web, so it can be linked to.
This is incorrect. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia's policies before talking about what they state. There are many articles that cite print sources. Perhaps you should check out the references section of any well-referenced article. (The featured articles are usually pretty good examples.)
In reality, it's not, but because it is listed as "transcript of interview with Joe Electrician who worked on cool sci-fi show" instead of "drunk ramblings of some guy in my mom's basement", it's "verifiable".
"Verifiable" means "a reader can go to the original source and verify that the information on Wikipedia matches the information in the source". The reliability of the source has nothing to do with it - this is why I said that Wikipedia includes information based on verifiability, not truth.
I think that would make Wikipedia less of an encyclopedia and more of a repository for whatever people on the internet feel like writing about. I think it would decrease the overall quality of the site, but I can't prove that, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.:-)
I think you're correct. 'Telling the truth' really just means telling the truth to the best of your knowledge - ie. not lying.
The truth is infallible. If the apple flies off into space, your prediction that the apple would fall to the ground was not true. You didn't lie, but technically speaking, you didn't tell the truth either.
Wikipedia does not publish original research, so it should never claim that X is true, but it can claim that X is true according to Y. It's easy to verify whether a claim like this is true - just check with Y.
How do I know that the information you want to add to Wikipedia is true? Why should I trust you? You're just an anonymous internet user.
Maybe you're sure it's true, but the problem is that Wikipedia readers have no way of verifying this. This is why Wikipedia's policy is to include stuff that's verifiable, not stuff that's "true because I said so".
Wikipedia concerns itself with verifiability, not with truth. How can we be certain that that Apple developer really was an Apple developer and not just someone making stuff up?
Establishing the truth is something that primary sources should try to do. Wikipedia is not a primary source; it summarizes and cites the most reliable primary sources available.
Wikipedia, in truth an actuality, is a pretty poor "encyclopedia" for anything other than lists of pokemon or ripped-off content stolen from other places (like IMDB).
[citation needed] - I, and many others, find Wikipedia an immensely valuable resource. Wikipedia's flaws can be compensated for by basic critical thinking ability - after all, you shouldn't be blindly accepting the word of any encyclopedia.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think it's fair to assume that Wikipedia doesn't get preferential treatment in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The fact is, a whole lot of otherwise intelligent and/or seemingly smart people turn into complete fucking retards when placed in front of the a glowing square and series of square keys. None of these people would consider for a moment handing a copy of their car keys over to the first random stranger who asks, yet entire botnets are built based on people beliving what some random email said.
Most people fully understand the potential consequences of the act of giving a copy of their car keys to random strangers. It's foolish to do something without fully appreciating the potential consequences, but we all do it every day. It doesn't make us 'complete fucking retards'.
Real virus infections don't serve a 'natural purpose'. They exist because the ecosystem has evolved in such a way as to create a niche that they can survive and replicate in. There is no 'purpose' to this.
Computer viruses most definitely do have a purpose - to serve the ends of assholes and criminals, like you said.
Malware writers are an important part of the ecosystem because they can't be eliminated. There are always going to be people who are willing to write malware. Having people out there writing malware allows us to create a system that's more resilient to malware - not just by improving the security of software, but by educating users as well.
What are you talking about?! We'll keep bashing Microsoft on Slashdot until it open-sources all its software, eliminates all DRM, donates all profits to open-source projects, and gives every Slashdotter a blowjob.
You're right, but there are plenty of things that aren't intuitive about office software. It's simply too complicated for someone who's not experienced with computers to just 'pick up'.
If you're arguing that the orb is counter-intuitive even for computer-savvy users, then I disagree. I worked the orb out as soon as I went for the File menu and discovered it wasn't there anymore. The orb is in pretty much the same place. (And if you've used Vista, you'll recognize the product logo as the button you use to access the main menu.)
Since those are both pretty easy-to-find options (Office orb at the top left -> Save, and orb -> Print) I think it's more likely that those students and faculty are just used to the old interface, and too lazy to work out how to use the new interface themselves. This is pretty common when IT support is readily available.
I fail to see how the new UI makes it more complex to save and print. It's almost exactly the same, except you click the Office orb instead of "File".
You can run as a non-administrator in XP, and use "Run As" to elevate privileges. It isn't as much of a pain as UAC in Vista.
I use Vista at home, and I run XP at work as a limited user. I use runas to elevate privileges when necessary. I consider it much more of a pain than UAC. Whenever you need administrator rights, UAC pops up and asks you whether you want to use them or not. Under XP, any tasks that require administrator rights just fail, sometimes silently, and you have to relaunch them as administrator. Sometimes you can just right-click and select 'run as', but I find this option is just not there a lot of the time (it seems to only appear when you right click an.exe), and I have to drop back to the command-line runas.
The UI is a HUGE regression from XP.
Care to give examples? The only thing I've found more difficult to do in Vista than it was in XP is changing the TCP/IP settings on a network interface. Under XP, you could just double-click the icon in the system tray and click 'properties'. Under Vista, a few more clicks are involved. I think the other UI improvements (primarily in the new start menu and explorer) make up for it.
I've been running this Vista installation for over a year now and it's still just as snappy and stable as the day I installed it. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything. (Neither does mine.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're being unreasonable. Yes, their testing was inadequate - do you really think they'd release a product knowing it would have a 1 in 3 failure rate, when they're obligated by law to replace the failed consoles? Microsoft loses money on every failed Xbox.
Microsoft has been punished enough for their inadequate testing, and the huge sums of money they've lost replacing failed consoles should ensure that they don't repeat the mistake again. The harm done to a consumer who purchases a failed Xbox and has it replaced for free is not serious enough to warrant additional penalties.
This is incorrect. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia's policies before talking about what they state. There are many articles that cite print sources. Perhaps you should check out the references section of any well-referenced article. (The featured articles are usually pretty good examples.)
"Verifiable" means "a reader can go to the original source and verify that the information on Wikipedia matches the information in the source". The reliability of the source has nothing to do with it - this is why I said that Wikipedia includes information based on verifiability, not truth.
I think that would make Wikipedia less of an encyclopedia and more of a repository for whatever people on the internet feel like writing about. I think it would decrease the overall quality of the site, but I can't prove that, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :-)
No, the truth is what's true. Unfortunately there's no easy way to work out the truth in all cases. A fact is a truth that can be easily verified.
Of course, unless it happened to be the first article created, the first edition of Wikipedia didn't know about Australia either. ;-)
I think you're correct. 'Telling the truth' really just means telling the truth to the best of your knowledge - ie. not lying.
The truth is infallible. If the apple flies off into space, your prediction that the apple would fall to the ground was not true. You didn't lie, but technically speaking, you didn't tell the truth either.
Wikipedia does not publish original research, so it should never claim that X is true, but it can claim that X is true according to Y. It's easy to verify whether a claim like this is true - just check with Y.
How do I know that the information you want to add to Wikipedia is true? Why should I trust you? You're just an anonymous internet user.
Maybe you're sure it's true, but the problem is that Wikipedia readers have no way of verifying this. This is why Wikipedia's policy is to include stuff that's verifiable, not stuff that's "true because I said so".
Wikipedia does not publish original research.
Wikipedia concerns itself with verifiability, not with truth. How can we be certain that that Apple developer really was an Apple developer and not just someone making stuff up?
Establishing the truth is something that primary sources should try to do. Wikipedia is not a primary source; it summarizes and cites the most reliable primary sources available.
How exactly would you define 'content', then? Wikipedia has plenty of content by any definition I can think of.
[citation needed] - I, and many others, find Wikipedia an immensely valuable resource. Wikipedia's flaws can be compensated for by basic critical thinking ability - after all, you shouldn't be blindly accepting the word of any encyclopedia.
Google claims that they honor the attribute in all cases. Unless you've got evidence that suggests that they don't, I'm happy to take their word for it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think it's fair to assume that Wikipedia doesn't get preferential treatment in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Not unless you believe it's possible objectively measure and compare the harm caused by one's actions.
No 'door and lock' analogy is going to work. An operating system is far too complicated to be compared to a lock.
Most people fully understand the potential consequences of the act of giving a copy of their car keys to random strangers. It's foolish to do something without fully appreciating the potential consequences, but we all do it every day. It doesn't make us 'complete fucking retards'.
Real virus infections don't serve a 'natural purpose'. They exist because the ecosystem has evolved in such a way as to create a niche that they can survive and replicate in. There is no 'purpose' to this.
Computer viruses most definitely do have a purpose - to serve the ends of assholes and criminals, like you said.
Malware writers are an important part of the ecosystem because they can't be eliminated. There are always going to be people who are willing to write malware. Having people out there writing malware allows us to create a system that's more resilient to malware - not just by improving the security of software, but by educating users as well.
Personally, I don't mind the extra bits. Some might call them 'bloat', but I think they give the OS a warmer, more human feel.
What are you talking about?! We'll keep bashing Microsoft on Slashdot until it open-sources all its software, eliminates all DRM, donates all profits to open-source projects, and gives every Slashdotter a blowjob.
What exactly do you mean? Surely if it feels leaner, it is leaner for all intents and purposes (except for disk usage, I guess).
You're right, but there are plenty of things that aren't intuitive about office software. It's simply too complicated for someone who's not experienced with computers to just 'pick up'.
If you're arguing that the orb is counter-intuitive even for computer-savvy users, then I disagree. I worked the orb out as soon as I went for the File menu and discovered it wasn't there anymore. The orb is in pretty much the same place. (And if you've used Vista, you'll recognize the product logo as the button you use to access the main menu.)
Since those are both pretty easy-to-find options (Office orb at the top left -> Save, and orb -> Print) I think it's more likely that those students and faculty are just used to the old interface, and too lazy to work out how to use the new interface themselves. This is pretty common when IT support is readily available.
I fail to see how the new UI makes it more complex to save and print. It's almost exactly the same, except you click the Office orb instead of "File".
I use Vista at home, and I run XP at work as a limited user. I use runas to elevate privileges when necessary. I consider it much more of a pain than UAC. Whenever you need administrator rights, UAC pops up and asks you whether you want to use them or not. Under XP, any tasks that require administrator rights just fail, sometimes silently, and you have to relaunch them as administrator. Sometimes you can just right-click and select 'run as', but I find this option is just not there a lot of the time (it seems to only appear when you right click an .exe), and I have to drop back to the command-line runas.
Care to give examples? The only thing I've found more difficult to do in Vista than it was in XP is changing the TCP/IP settings on a network interface. Under XP, you could just double-click the icon in the system tray and click 'properties'. Under Vista, a few more clicks are involved. I think the other UI improvements (primarily in the new start menu and explorer) make up for it.
I've been running this Vista installation for over a year now and it's still just as snappy and stable as the day I installed it. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything. (Neither does mine.)
Here in WA, not only are the locations of speed cameras advertised on the radio, the locations are actually published on the WA Police website.