Um. "Lack of intellectual outlet" is no reason to break into a school computer. Why didn't you and your buddies set up computers for each other to break into?
Or maybe it's more the "thrill" that people are looking for, and we like to attribute it to "intellect" because that sounds much less criminal and much less evil/wrong. We don't like being "wrong."
I agree. It IS kinda cool. This coming from a classical musician and composer. There's no way I would put this up there with practicing the piano. It's a Microsoft RESEARCH product, for crying out loud!
And, it's kinda cool how they do pitch analysis and match it with some amount of music theory, etc. I can appreciate it, and it was fun to toy with.
But I forgot, MS is evil and thus songsmith must have an inherently evil purpose. It can't be fun.
Well, it kind of is. Or at least, it's the same as all the other computers making up the internet, just different software.;)
But I agree wit hyou premise that the "browser wizard" is ridiculous. Just what we need, ANOTHER installation step just to get online to do whatever we want... like download firefox or go to gmail.
Wouldn't it have to do some pretty fancy waveform analyzing though, or a database of all the waves? There are a ton of different recordings of this or that well-known music piece.
Maybe recognition isn't based on the waveform.. I'm not sure what else it'd be though.
So how about a system of paying captcha-creators $2/1000 captchas created?;)
On a serious note, though, it seems that general knowledge is a better way to do it than simple word recognition...
Or, on the more imaginative side, what about classical music recognition. I don't know how good computers are at analyzing not just "Beethoven's 5th" but analyzing it amidst numerous recordings which all would have very significantly different waveforms. Unfortunately, music is neither universal (it'd have t obe country specific I suppose) nor quite as close to infinite in possibilities as word or image based captchas...
But keep in mind that we're seeing compact devices sporting Linux and that's the real concern for Microsoft.
Er, didn't you just accuse me of jumping from desktop statistics to servers? Aren't you jumping from desktop stats to compact devices? hehe.
I don't think we'll be abandoning desktops anytime terribly soon, either... for one thing, people like big screens, not tiny screens.
Yes, Linux definitely has had an impact in the server world - but then, UNIX was around, IIRC, before a server edition of Windows ever existed, right? So it's Windows that has to "break" into that market, not the other way around.
Anyways, my general point was I don't think Microsoft is laying off people because of Linux. I think it's primarily the economy, and probably Vista. Even in my defense of Microsoft to some extent, I don't like Vista that much... or at all, really.
/me grumbles about Sibelius not being released for Linux.
This is especially insightful, considering recent MS hate regarding boot speeds and increasing OS requirements. It's not MS specific. It's a general OS thing...
Yes, because we're talking about "Linux" vs. "Windows" causing Microsoft to die. But Linux, by far most popular in the server world, is not killing Microsoft just yet in that area.
Completely agree. I don't think the 1% user share that Linux has is cutting into Microsoft that much - plus, MS's Win2k8 is apparently doing well, and I've heard a lot of people say they actually like it.
Not to mention this choice quote:
'Companies can offer their own branded software platform based on Linux.
I know very few companies that have "their own branded software platform based on Linux." That sounds like they're talking about releasing a custom Linux OS branded with their company? Is that really that prevalent? It's a lot easier (and you don't have to hire super specific people) to install Windows. Or a generic Linux distro. Or whatever.
That wasn't the point though. The point isn't what we think; the point is what the people think that are making it legal/supporting it. It seems to be an unstable moral/ethical position if you aren't sure if it's a human life but willing to use them anyways
It seems many people don't notice that "embryonic stem cell research" is different from "stem cell research." Research has been done on cures involving adult stem cells (e.g., the patients' own) already. I believe this particular ban was on embryonic stem cell research, presumably for abortion/anti-abortion reasons.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the use of human embryos in this example, there is a distinction that needs to be realized. Adult stem cell research has been going on, IIRC, and has had success already, but people rarely talk about it. Most people, if asked whether or not "stem cell research" was legal, automatically seem to think about embryonic stem cell research and say "no." There seems to be a lack of enthusiasm for it, even though it's been proven to help.
On a more political note, IMO, it is strange for someone to support the usage of human embryos when he refuses to answer when he thinks human life begins? In that case, he is not sure that these human embryos are NOT "real humans," which is an interesting ethical/moral position to be in)
How is that "not rational?" What if they're happy the way they are? It is more irrational to pretend that you or I know what they "need" in their lives. Maybe we know what we "need" (doubtful, most of the time) but we don't know what they "need."
If they're happy without technological woes, computer trouble, viruses, spam, facebook, myspace, arguing about Linux vs. Windows vs. Apple, and other easy wastes of time, who is to say they are leading inferior lifestyles or "missing out?"
Exactly. The article's summary (and maybe the article, how should *I* know?!) made it sound like "perceived value" is a nice way of saying "they are ignorant morons and don't know what's good for them." I know plenty of people, especially older but not necessarily over 50, that barely touch a computer and lead completely full and satisfied lives. Who am I to say they SHOULD perceive value in something? If they're happy without it, who cares?
The idea that they are missing something and *I* know what it is is a very arrogant and elitist way to think about it. Maybe you can argue it or something, but talking about it as if there was no argument is ridiculous.
Furthermore, the idea that broadband and technology makes people happier, more fulfilled, more satisfied, and have a higher quality/value of life is silly. I have seen those "morons" who barely use a computer and just got a cell phone, who take life quietly and slowly, enjoying it, enjoying people, and enjoying simple pleasures like good food, friends, and nature... and I've seen those people with "correct perceived value of broadband" that walk around talking into the air (bluetooth headsets), never have a moment to spare, can't even order coffee at Starbucks without being on the phone, are lost without their e-mail, scatterbrained, don't even really LIKE coffee but just spend $5 at starbucks because it's what people do today, etc.
People need to get their head out of technology once in a while and remember that life != computers, humans != computers, and coffee != starbucks;):)
Hmm... that's true. On the other hand, they could simply syndicate it, couldn't they? Push the video to both places instead of just one. YouTube hosting isn't necessarily bad - it's the sole YouTube hosting that I'm not too sure about, and also the inherent partnership.
I also am slightly (slightly) concerned (this is a little OT) with the twitter/facebook/whatever else usage, especially with the recent security issues with both of those. What we really need in this country are official Facebook and Twitter accounts... and then, all we need after that is to have them hacked.:P
Second, likening marriage to a corporation is an interesting view of marriage, but I won't go there.
The main issue though is that I refuse to buy into the "entirely bad" or "entirely good" thing. The tendency of most people's reasoning appears to me to be like this:
Google is a good company.
Google has a great coughdataminingcough... er user interaction tracking system.
Google is a good company, supports open source software, and thus must have good intentions.
I won't complain about it.
On the other hand, Microsoft, being the Entirely Evil Company (tm) that it is, can do nothing right. They could open source Internet Explorer and people would still complain that all they are trying to do is get OSS software to comply with their own code, blah blah blah.
I think you can separate one from the other. I don't agree with Wal-Mart all the time but I shop there occasionally. I am not an Apple fanboy and think Apple is basically just as bad as Microsoft in a lot of ways, but I still use iTunes (unfortunately for me). I don't like the attitude of a lot of Linux users but I use it;)
The list of non-"karma" based decisions goes on. Even on Slashdot, we all post here but everybody complains about it. What's the deal? If it bothers us that much, why don't we just stop coming here? Maybe because we like something about it and thus use it? Well, I like a few things about Windows, and other MS products, so I'll use those. I won't use the ones I don't like.
Very much agree. Putting stuff on YouTube in addition isn't a bad idea for publicity, since a lot of people use it, but embedding it in government websites seems to be asking for trouble, if only from a counting-on-another-business-for-distributing-information aspect. Not to mention essentially promoting the company that owns YouTube.:)
Nobody is going to argue that if you run one single application (a database something), a "small" OS will work better. There are Linux versions that are specifically geared towards doing that sort of thing, right? Ubuntu is probably slower at something than [insert other dist].
The real question is, though... what about normal usage? Unfortunately, that's hard to measure... but how does Vista/Windows 7 affect normal user productivity and speed as opposed to simple benchmarks designed to test out efficiency at doing ONE thing?
If Vista and Windows 7 were designed to have a lot of background processes to help the user do this or that, then why not test that, too? XP wasn't designed that way, apparently, while Windows Vista/7 are more designed that way. So give it a level playing field and test what it was designed to do.
I don't have an answer of whether or not Vista/Win7 are slower or faster when doing other things (like, say, searching for a file because you can't remember where you put it, running multiple applications, using something DRM enabled, or whatever), but it'd be interesting to try to test it rather than a generic "XP runs a single application faster than Vista because Vista has more stuff running in the background." It'd be interesting to try to physically load the system with lots of applications and see which is better then.
Mod up. I used XP 64 and was really happy with it... and then it randomly became EXTREMELY slow when doing any IO, it seemed. I don't know why. I went back to XP 32 bit, which works great for under 4GB RAM. Then I got more RAM and had to get a 64 bit Windows (and yeah, had to be Windows unfortunately, software constraints... available on Mac or Windows; VM/Wine not an option due to performance issues, AFAIK)
That's an itneresting point. I wonder why they didn't test 2k, 98, and 95?
I could test an old DOS game vs. [insert new game here] and see the FPS in [insert new game here] be so, so much lower. [insert new game here] must be horrible, DRM infested, and we should all use old DOS games.
Granted, Vista does seem a bit on the slow side (although on my Q6600 w/ 7GB RAM, it runs pretty quickly all in all), and Windows 7 *seems* to run slightly faster even in a VM... but I'm so tired of reading the "XP (read: an operating system that came out many years ago) is faster on current hardware than Vista/Windows 7!"
I may as well come out and say Ubuntu is so stupid, I could run [insert random distro] on my old 486 faster than Ubuntu on my modern hardware! Or whatever. The general idea is there.
Slashdot Mirror
Um. "Lack of intellectual outlet" is no reason to break into a school computer. Why didn't you and your buddies set up computers for each other to break into?
Or maybe it's more the "thrill" that people are looking for, and we like to attribute it to "intellect" because that sounds much less criminal and much less evil/wrong. We don't like being "wrong."
I agree. It IS kinda cool. This coming from a classical musician and composer. There's no way I would put this up there with practicing the piano. It's a Microsoft RESEARCH product, for crying out loud!
And, it's kinda cool how they do pitch analysis and match it with some amount of music theory, etc. I can appreciate it, and it was fun to toy with.
But I forgot, MS is evil and thus songsmith must have an inherently evil purpose. It can't be fun.
They think their computer *IS* the internet!
Well, it kind of is. Or at least, it's the same as all the other computers making up the internet, just different software. ;)
But I agree wit hyou premise that the "browser wizard" is ridiculous. Just what we need, ANOTHER installation step just to get online to do whatever we want... like download firefox or go to gmail.
Wouldn't it have to do some pretty fancy waveform analyzing though, or a database of all the waves? There are a ton of different recordings of this or that well-known music piece.
Maybe recognition isn't based on the waveform.. I'm not sure what else it'd be though.
So how about a system of paying captcha-creators $2/1000 captchas created? ;)
On a serious note, though, it seems that general knowledge is a better way to do it than simple word recognition...
Or, on the more imaginative side, what about classical music recognition. I don't know how good computers are at analyzing not just "Beethoven's 5th" but analyzing it amidst numerous recordings which all would have very significantly different waveforms. Unfortunately, music is neither universal (it'd have t obe country specific I suppose) nor quite as close to infinite in possibilities as word or image based captchas...
Steelers take Cardinals 17 (to) 13?
But keep in mind that we're seeing compact devices sporting Linux and that's the real concern for Microsoft.
Er, didn't you just accuse me of jumping from desktop statistics to servers? Aren't you jumping from desktop stats to compact devices? hehe.
I don't think we'll be abandoning desktops anytime terribly soon, either... for one thing, people like big screens, not tiny screens.
Yes, Linux definitely has had an impact in the server world - but then, UNIX was around, IIRC, before a server edition of Windows ever existed, right? So it's Windows that has to "break" into that market, not the other way around.
Anyways, my general point was I don't think Microsoft is laying off people because of Linux. I think it's primarily the economy, and probably Vista. Even in my defense of Microsoft to some extent, I don't like Vista that much... or at all, really.
/me grumbles about Sibelius not being released for Linux.
HTML anchor tag. family picture
This is especially insightful, considering recent MS hate regarding boot speeds and increasing OS requirements. It's not MS specific. It's a general OS thing...
Yes, because we're talking about "Linux" vs. "Windows" causing Microsoft to die. But Linux, by far most popular in the server world, is not killing Microsoft just yet in that area.
Completely agree. I don't think the 1% user share that Linux has is cutting into Microsoft that much - plus, MS's Win2k8 is apparently doing well, and I've heard a lot of people say they actually like it.
Not to mention this choice quote:
'Companies can offer their own branded software platform based on Linux.
I know very few companies that have "their own branded software platform based on Linux." That sounds like they're talking about releasing a custom Linux OS branded with their company? Is that really that prevalent? It's a lot easier (and you don't have to hire super specific people) to install Windows. Or a generic Linux distro. Or whatever.
That wasn't the point though. The point isn't what we think; the point is what the people think that are making it legal/supporting it. It seems to be an unstable moral/ethical position if you aren't sure if it's a human life but willing to use them anyways
It seems many people don't notice that "embryonic stem cell research" is different from "stem cell research." Research has been done on cures involving adult stem cells (e.g., the patients' own) already. I believe this particular ban was on embryonic stem cell research, presumably for abortion/anti-abortion reasons.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the use of human embryos in this example, there is a distinction that needs to be realized. Adult stem cell research has been going on, IIRC, and has had success already, but people rarely talk about it. Most people, if asked whether or not "stem cell research" was legal, automatically seem to think about embryonic stem cell research and say "no." There seems to be a lack of enthusiasm for it, even though it's been proven to help.
On a more political note, IMO, it is strange for someone to support the usage of human embryos when he refuses to answer when he thinks human life begins? In that case, he is not sure that these human embryos are NOT "real humans," which is an interesting ethical/moral position to be in)
How is that "not rational?" What if they're happy the way they are? It is more irrational to pretend that you or I know what they "need" in their lives. Maybe we know what we "need" (doubtful, most of the time) but we don't know what they "need."
If they're happy without technological woes, computer trouble, viruses, spam, facebook, myspace, arguing about Linux vs. Windows vs. Apple, and other easy wastes of time, who is to say they are leading inferior lifestyles or "missing out?"
Exactly. The article's summary (and maybe the article, how should *I* know?!) made it sound like "perceived value" is a nice way of saying "they are ignorant morons and don't know what's good for them." I know plenty of people, especially older but not necessarily over 50, that barely touch a computer and lead completely full and satisfied lives. Who am I to say they SHOULD perceive value in something? If they're happy without it, who cares?
The idea that they are missing something and *I* know what it is is a very arrogant and elitist way to think about it. Maybe you can argue it or something, but talking about it as if there was no argument is ridiculous.
Furthermore, the idea that broadband and technology makes people happier, more fulfilled, more satisfied, and have a higher quality/value of life is silly. I have seen those "morons" who barely use a computer and just got a cell phone, who take life quietly and slowly, enjoying it, enjoying people, and enjoying simple pleasures like good food, friends, and nature... and I've seen those people with "correct perceived value of broadband" that walk around talking into the air (bluetooth headsets), never have a moment to spare, can't even order coffee at Starbucks without being on the phone, are lost without their e-mail, scatterbrained, don't even really LIKE coffee but just spend $5 at starbucks because it's what people do today, etc.
People need to get their head out of technology once in a while and remember that life != computers, humans != computers, and coffee != starbucks ;) :)
Previous slashdot entry dealing with Gates' predictions. It cites two years, not five years, with the spam thing.
I guess "5" looks like "2" and vice versa, but... :P
wikiquote entry on Bill Gates, FWIW
Here's an interesting article about Gates predictions. Some have come true, others haven't (surprise surprise).
Interestingly, it sheds doubt on the whole 640K rumor.
Hmm... that's true. On the other hand, they could simply syndicate it, couldn't they? Push the video to both places instead of just one. YouTube hosting isn't necessarily bad - it's the sole YouTube hosting that I'm not too sure about, and also the inherent partnership.
I also am slightly (slightly) concerned (this is a little OT) with the twitter/facebook/whatever else usage, especially with the recent security issues with both of those. What we really need in this country are official Facebook and Twitter accounts... and then, all we need after that is to have them hacked. :P
First, I'm not female ;)
Second, likening marriage to a corporation is an interesting view of marriage, but I won't go there.
The main issue though is that I refuse to buy into the "entirely bad" or "entirely good" thing. The tendency of most people's reasoning appears to me to be like this:
On the other hand, Microsoft, being the Entirely Evil Company (tm) that it is, can do nothing right. They could open source Internet Explorer and people would still complain that all they are trying to do is get OSS software to comply with their own code, blah blah blah.
I think you can separate one from the other. I don't agree with Wal-Mart all the time but I shop there occasionally. I am not an Apple fanboy and think Apple is basically just as bad as Microsoft in a lot of ways, but I still use iTunes (unfortunately for me). I don't like the attitude of a lot of Linux users but I use it ;)
The list of non-"karma" based decisions goes on. Even on Slashdot, we all post here but everybody complains about it. What's the deal? If it bothers us that much, why don't we just stop coming here? Maybe because we like something about it and thus use it? Well, I like a few things about Windows, and other MS products, so I'll use those. I won't use the ones I don't like.
Very much agree. Putting stuff on YouTube in addition isn't a bad idea for publicity, since a lot of people use it, but embedding it in government websites seems to be asking for trouble, if only from a counting-on-another-business-for-distributing-information aspect. Not to mention essentially promoting the company that owns YouTube. :)
The same could be said of Nazi prison camp guards.
It was.
No, I am not trying to draw any comparison.
Nobody is going to argue that if you run one single application (a database something), a "small" OS will work better. There are Linux versions that are specifically geared towards doing that sort of thing, right? Ubuntu is probably slower at something than [insert other dist].
The real question is, though... what about normal usage? Unfortunately, that's hard to measure... but how does Vista/Windows 7 affect normal user productivity and speed as opposed to simple benchmarks designed to test out efficiency at doing ONE thing?
If Vista and Windows 7 were designed to have a lot of background processes to help the user do this or that, then why not test that, too? XP wasn't designed that way, apparently, while Windows Vista/7 are more designed that way. So give it a level playing field and test what it was designed to do.
I don't have an answer of whether or not Vista/Win7 are slower or faster when doing other things (like, say, searching for a file because you can't remember where you put it, running multiple applications, using something DRM enabled, or whatever), but it'd be interesting to try to test it rather than a generic "XP runs a single application faster than Vista because Vista has more stuff running in the background." It'd be interesting to try to physically load the system with lots of applications and see which is better then.
Mod up. I used XP 64 and was really happy with it... and then it randomly became EXTREMELY slow when doing any IO, it seemed. I don't know why. I went back to XP 32 bit, which works great for under 4GB RAM. Then I got more RAM and had to get a 64 bit Windows (and yeah, had to be Windows unfortunately, software constraints... available on Mac or Windows; VM/Wine not an option due to performance issues, AFAIK)
That's an itneresting point. I wonder why they didn't test 2k, 98, and 95?
I could test an old DOS game vs. [insert new game here] and see the FPS in [insert new game here] be so, so much lower. [insert new game here] must be horrible, DRM infested, and we should all use old DOS games.
Granted, Vista does seem a bit on the slow side (although on my Q6600 w/ 7GB RAM, it runs pretty quickly all in all), and Windows 7 *seems* to run slightly faster even in a VM... but I'm so tired of reading the "XP (read: an operating system that came out many years ago) is faster on current hardware than Vista/Windows 7!"
I may as well come out and say Ubuntu is so stupid, I could run [insert random distro] on my old 486 faster than Ubuntu on my modern hardware! Or whatever. The general idea is there.