Depends on how they spin it
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This name could either be good or bad, depending on the ads.
If the ads seem goofy and childish, it will resonate against those qualities already represented by the name itself.
However, if the ads are sleek and classy, and the logo is clean and simple (which looks to be the case), then the "Wii" thing could be spun off as "it's cool to be a kid again."
I expect the latter case, of course, and I imagine an ad campaign similar to the DS. At the end of each commericial, if a child's voice whispered "wee" in sort of a mystical way, it would do wonders in changing the perception of the name.
If only then the EU could funnel that money right back into local software companies and the open source infrastructure they base their products on.
Oh wait, they will -- after beaucracy fees, of course!
And oh wait again... a lot of those local software companies also base their products on Microsoft's infrastructure... blarg, so complex!
I remember praying with my grandpa the night he died. It was actually the last thing anyone but doctors got to say to him. I prayed, "God, give grandpa the strength of your Son."
He died that night. But I actually felt as if the prayer had been answered, in a weird way: just as Christ had to let go of life in order to live, my grandpa did too. He had been in pain that night from not being able to pee -- which I'm sure must really suck! He finally had the strength to let go. When the world is remade, he'll have a new body.
"it cares more about its ego than the needs of people who may die as the result of an illness"
Hmm, I guess this would be bad for people who believed in God, but didn't believe that God recreates people out of death. I think those beliefs usually go hand-in-hand, however.
I'm actually glad God's let me suffer in my life. I've learned some things, as a result -- nothing earth-shaking, but lots of little things that seem to help me just really soak in life more fully.
Wow, you certainly see things starkly. There's truth beyond math and science, and some of it is found in art, philosophy, and spirituality.
"Those nutjobs are religion distilled into its purest essence."
Yeah, maybe by your definition of religion.
A person's God is just whatever is the driving force of their life. For my life, it is the "I AM" -- raw existence, Life itself, the Source of everything. Maybe that's too abstract for some people, but it suits me fine.
I myself believe in God and in Christ. I also find the Bible to be an amazing book. Reading it through was what actually brought me to believe in God. What's most fascinating to me is how the Book communicates its ideas through images. There are also many fractal relationships in it, especially in John 15. It strikes me that the term given to Christ in Isaiah as "the branch" of God is quite fitting, too.
You know, as far as the whole God / no God debate goes, it all comes down to axioms. Before time, there was either eternal life or eternal death. After time, it'll either be one or the other. I tend toward belief in eternal life, obviously.
I like Gnome's Top-down Approach
on
Gnome 2.14 Review
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The Gnome development process seems to be more top-down than KDE's. The devs integrate a collection of unintegrated components from the g-world, which are all pretty much independently developed, in constrast to KDE's QT libaries, which come from a single company. The rules of this integration are the Gnome frameworks, which are either literal code, as with the Gnome libraries themselves, or conceptual rules, like the HIG. From this top-down perspective, the devs assemble a variety of tools from the open source world into a desktop environment.
With KDE, a more bottom-up approach is taken: the integration has been done at the level of the core libraries, QT, as well as the core KDE libraries that build on top of that. Above this level, things build in a sporadic nature that some would argue is more healthy for open source development (such as Linus Torvalds opined a few months back).
All in all, I welcome both Gnome's top-down and KDE's bottom-up approach to integrating the components of a complete desktop environment. Since KDE's integration does come from the bottom, KDE feels more integrated to me on the architectural front, whereas since Gnome's integration comes from the top, it feels more integrated in the look & feel, menus, etc.
Both projects have a lot to learn from each other; therefore, a lot to share. But really, the big experiment is to see which way builds a more successful desktop, or if the different models just result in desktops that serve different needs or different kinds of users.
I remember the last time some company tried that, when it was called AOL. Or was it MSN? Or maybe CompuServe.
PHP "too close to the HTML"
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 1
The author says that PHP is "too close to the HTML". But it's also really close to the XML. That makes PHP a perfect fit for SOA and its conclusion, the Semantic Web.
And another thing... the most valuable thing Google has right now is not a huge market cap. It's loads and loads of data about human behavior. If all this data can be adequately processed, analyzed, organized, then Google will start building a system for deriving semantic meaning from unstructured data. That's the gold, there.
I think Google is building an operating system right in front of our very eyes... their search algorithms are its kernel, people and content are it's resources and processes, the search field is the command line and user-interface. Granted, this is a liberal view of an operating system, but to me, the operating system is just a sort of catch-all phrase for describing the software that interfaces people with technology. Our own hands were the first "operating system" when they picked up a rock to put it to some purpose.
But while the need to display images will surely never go away, I do imagine a future in which GUIs are replaced by a renaissance in the CLI (command line). What goes around comes around. But in this paradigm, the CLI performs natural language processing, and also can understand spoken commands as well as typed. If Google ever does an "OS" I seriously believe it will be something like this.
The future is not so much in "operating systems" as in "artificial intelligence", which is really just a buzzword for search.
We'll see the first signs of this once Google Desktop starts being used in more robust ways, like as an application launcher.
So Christians and atheists can agree: morality is all about the survival of life. The Christian is moral to ensure life continues forever, and the atheist is moral so that life can continue forever (until the universe ends).
"Which civilization do you think will survive the longest?"
I would say a third civilization: one in an alternate reality where a God laughs at time and sees every life as eternal. This is my reality!
Some people have already begun their afterlife. I died about 10 years ago. You may think I'm talking symbolically, but to me, spiritual symbolisms are more real than physical laws.
But yeah, in a way, there is no afterlife. Just Life, and death is the lie of our senses.
Not to say that life's desire to live eternally never incorporates death as a tool toward achieving this goal. Many biologists actually view death as a survival mechanism geared for just such a purpose. Extending this parable from nature to our own lives, I believe it is neccessary that we too use death every day as a tool to improve the lives of ourselves and others: by contemplating death, you gain a better appreciation for life; by letting certain desires die which would sap your or another's existence in some way, you allow better desires to live.
I've seen married couples kill each other slowly over the decades. And I've seen couples enliven each other so that life overflowed from them into the lives of others around them.
God is a universal force and not connected to religion. Basically, morals are just the path of least resistence for life to continue eternally, and various religions emphasize these morals in their unique ways.
God can even be an intrinsic force in the life of an atheist -- it isn't neccessary for one to externalize God as a personal figment for God to be acting in one's life. For an atheist, it is quite possible that his God is Goodness, his Church is the people he comes in contact with every day, his Religion is Kindness and Compassion, and his Heaven is his Life. God is like the atmosphere to an individual like this: invisible yet vital to his existence. Intrinsic.
This is the kind of "religion" I personally find to be the most natural and instinctual. I tire of people who think the question of God is one of the existence of an intelligence beyond the universe. The real question is, is there a Life beyond the universe? If so, then that would explain why life in the universe tries to defy finity through survival, and why all morals (though not neccessarily mores) seem to map to this idea that life will always try to survive and live eternally.
"Just because you may view God as the basis of morality (I'm assuming so for the sake of argument), that doesn't mean that others have to."
I think God is the source of morality, but you don't have to believe in God's existence to be moral.
Pie menus are God's gift to idiots. Bad UI... they should get the clue: human data is best arranged in rectangles. Now, maybe some alien species fares better with circular data regions, so perhaps Glide can market this to them.
I understand your point about Microsoft, though. But most of their market penetration is occuring because of key business partnerships, not because of key technical innovations.
I think Linux will ultimately be successful over Windows, though, not for technical reasons, as some claim, but for political reasons, which can trump business reasons -- outside the U.S. of A., at least. Linux does have a superior kernel compared to Windows, but that doesn't drive Linux's uptake beyond the academic and development sector. The diminishment of MS Windows will undoubtedly go hand-in-hand with the decline of the U.S. economic grip on the world.
What allows the other countries of the world to catch up in terms of indigeous software development? Linux and open source.
And as far as Linux embedded vs. Windows embedded, just let the figures speak for themselves:
Slashdot Mirror
This name could either be good or bad, depending on the ads.
If the ads seem goofy and childish, it will resonate against those qualities already represented by the name itself.
However, if the ads are sleek and classy, and the logo is clean and simple (which looks to be the case), then the "Wii" thing could be spun off as "it's cool to be a kid again."
I expect the latter case, of course, and I imagine an ad campaign similar to the DS. At the end of each commericial, if a child's voice whispered "wee" in sort of a mystical way, it would do wonders in changing the perception of the name.
Maybe some pseudo-DRM that ~prevents~ people from ~not~ sharing could be added to Ogg.
It could be the "copyleft" of DRM. Haha, just kidding.
Good, just use Ogg instead.
If only then the EU could funnel that money right back into local software companies and the open source infrastructure they base their products on. Oh wait, they will -- after beaucracy fees, of course! And oh wait again ... a lot of those local software companies also base their products on Microsoft's infrastructure ... blarg, so complex!
I remember praying with my grandpa the night he died. It was actually the last thing anyone but doctors got to say to him. I prayed, "God, give grandpa the strength of your Son."
He died that night. But I actually felt as if the prayer had been answered, in a weird way: just as Christ had to let go of life in order to live, my grandpa did too. He had been in pain that night from not being able to pee -- which I'm sure must really suck! He finally had the strength to let go. When the world is remade, he'll have a new body.
"it cares more about its ego than the needs of people who may die as the result of an illness"
Hmm, I guess this would be bad for people who believed in God, but didn't believe that God recreates people out of death. I think those beliefs usually go hand-in-hand, however.
I'm actually glad God's let me suffer in my life. I've learned some things, as a result -- nothing earth-shaking, but lots of little things that seem to help me just really soak in life more fully.
Wow, you certainly see things starkly. There's truth beyond math and science, and some of it is found in art, philosophy, and spirituality.
"Those nutjobs are religion distilled into its purest essence."
Yeah, maybe by your definition of religion.
A person's God is just whatever is the driving force of their life. For my life, it is the "I AM" -- raw existence, Life itself, the Source of everything. Maybe that's too abstract for some people, but it suits me fine.
Wow, great post. Thanks for saying this.
I myself believe in God and in Christ. I also find the Bible to be an amazing book. Reading it through was what actually brought me to believe in God. What's most fascinating to me is how the Book communicates its ideas through images. There are also many fractal relationships in it, especially in John 15. It strikes me that the term given to Christ in Isaiah as "the branch" of God is quite fitting, too.
You know, as far as the whole God / no God debate goes, it all comes down to axioms. Before time, there was either eternal life or eternal death. After time, it'll either be one or the other. I tend toward belief in eternal life, obviously.
The Gnome development process seems to be more top-down than KDE's. The devs integrate a collection of unintegrated components from the g-world, which are all pretty much independently developed, in constrast to KDE's QT libaries, which come from a single company. The rules of this integration are the Gnome frameworks, which are either literal code, as with the Gnome libraries themselves, or conceptual rules, like the HIG. From this top-down perspective, the devs assemble a variety of tools from the open source world into a desktop environment.
With KDE, a more bottom-up approach is taken: the integration has been done at the level of the core libraries, QT, as well as the core KDE libraries that build on top of that. Above this level, things build in a sporadic nature that some would argue is more healthy for open source development (such as Linus Torvalds opined a few months back).
All in all, I welcome both Gnome's top-down and KDE's bottom-up approach to integrating the components of a complete desktop environment. Since KDE's integration does come from the bottom, KDE feels more integrated to me on the architectural front, whereas since Gnome's integration comes from the top, it feels more integrated in the look & feel, menus, etc.
Both projects have a lot to learn from each other; therefore, a lot to share. But really, the big experiment is to see which way builds a more successful desktop, or if the different models just result in desktops that serve different needs or different kinds of users.
I remember the last time some company tried that, when it was called AOL. Or was it MSN? Or maybe CompuServe.
The author says that PHP is "too close to the HTML". But it's also really close to the XML. That makes PHP a perfect fit for SOA and its conclusion, the Semantic Web.
And another thing ... the most valuable thing Google has right now is not a huge market cap. It's loads and loads of data about human behavior. If all this data can be adequately processed, analyzed, organized, then Google will start building a system for deriving semantic meaning from unstructured data. That's the gold, there.
I think Google is building an operating system right in front of our very eyes ... their search algorithms are its kernel, people and content are it's resources and processes, the search field is the command line and user-interface. Granted, this is a liberal view of an operating system, but to me, the operating system is just a sort of catch-all phrase for describing the software that interfaces people with technology. Our own hands were the first "operating system" when they picked up a rock to put it to some purpose.
But while the need to display images will surely never go away, I do imagine a future in which GUIs are replaced by a renaissance in the CLI (command line). What goes around comes around. But in this paradigm, the CLI performs natural language processing, and also can understand spoken commands as well as typed. If Google ever does an "OS" I seriously believe it will be something like this.
The future is not so much in "operating systems" as in "artificial intelligence", which is really just a buzzword for search.
We'll see the first signs of this once Google Desktop starts being used in more robust ways, like as an application launcher.
Something Slipped Through! Check it out: tanks.
1 0&hl=zh-CN&lr=&cr=countryCN&start=80&sa=N
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen&svnum=
Try being an artist for them. After you quit, they still own everything you draw or paint or whatever for the next 5 years.
Its developer community is absolutely thriving right now! Everyone's so syked about 4.0!
Then why do so many people think God doesn't exist just because they don't believe in God?
So Christians and atheists can agree: morality is all about the survival of life. The Christian is moral to ensure life continues forever, and the atheist is moral so that life can continue forever (until the universe ends).
"Which civilization do you think will survive the longest?"
I would say a third civilization: one in an alternate reality where a God laughs at time and sees every life as eternal. This is my reality!
"The afterlife is a lie."
Some people have already begun their afterlife. I died about 10 years ago. You may think I'm talking symbolically, but to me, spiritual symbolisms are more real than physical laws.
But yeah, in a way, there is no afterlife. Just Life, and death is the lie of our senses.
Not to say that life's desire to live eternally never incorporates death as a tool toward achieving this goal. Many biologists actually view death as a survival mechanism geared for just such a purpose. Extending this parable from nature to our own lives, I believe it is neccessary that we too use death every day as a tool to improve the lives of ourselves and others: by contemplating death, you gain a better appreciation for life; by letting certain desires die which would sap your or another's existence in some way, you allow better desires to live.
I've seen married couples kill each other slowly over the decades. And I've seen couples enliven each other so that life overflowed from them into the lives of others around them.
God is a universal force and not connected to religion. Basically, morals are just the path of least resistence for life to continue eternally, and various religions emphasize these morals in their unique ways.
God can even be an intrinsic force in the life of an atheist -- it isn't neccessary for one to externalize God as a personal figment for God to be acting in one's life. For an atheist, it is quite possible that his God is Goodness, his Church is the people he comes in contact with every day, his Religion is Kindness and Compassion, and his Heaven is his Life. God is like the atmosphere to an individual like this: invisible yet vital to his existence. Intrinsic.
This is the kind of "religion" I personally find to be the most natural and instinctual. I tire of people who think the question of God is one of the existence of an intelligence beyond the universe. The real question is, is there a Life beyond the universe? If so, then that would explain why life in the universe tries to defy finity through survival, and why all morals (though not neccessarily mores) seem to map to this idea that life will always try to survive and live eternally.
"Just because you may view God as the basis of morality (I'm assuming so for the sake of argument), that doesn't mean that others have to." I think God is the source of morality, but you don't have to believe in God's existence to be moral.
Pie menus are God's gift to idiots. Bad UI ... they should get the clue: human data is best arranged in rectangles. Now, maybe some alien species fares better with circular data regions, so perhaps Glide can market this to them.
MS has XP embedded in cars to power the entertainment systems, eh?
...
l
Linux can drive the car
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4678539635.html
I understand your point about Microsoft, though. But most of their market penetration is occuring because of key business partnerships, not because of key technical innovations.
I think Linux will ultimately be successful over Windows, though, not for technical reasons, as some claim, but for political reasons, which can trump business reasons -- outside the U.S. of A., at least. Linux does have a superior kernel compared to Windows, but that doesn't drive Linux's uptake beyond the academic and development sector. The diminishment of MS Windows will undoubtedly go hand-in-hand with the decline of the U.S. economic grip on the world.
What allows the other countries of the world to catch up in terms of indigeous software development? Linux and open source.
And as far as Linux embedded vs. Windows embedded, just let the figures speak for themselves:
http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4036830962.htm
Would that be, your genie in your bottle, baby?
Sorry, Britney Spears quote.