There's interesting accounts of US forces promising support for popular uprisings, then never coming to their aid (as Saddam cut them down). It's just a bit of a pity.
I like to think it's optimism reflected by reality, but so do a lot of idealists:D
So you believe the people of China have no "modernity, intercommunication and public understanding of politics"?
That is correct. Communication is controlled and restricted by the government, and I wouldn't call their social structure that of a "modern" society. I meant "modern" culturally, rather than in terms of technology. Is it pretentious to refer to one's own culture as "modern culture"? I'm sure you know what I mean, though. Democratic political system with a bill of rights-style structure to ensure individual rights, and as easy as possible public interaction with politics.
China's a strange example, actually. I'm wondering if they're going to, at some point, go through a similar social transition to the economic transition they've already experienced (despite pretentions of "communism", they're a lot closer to a very authoritarian semi-capitalist society). It would be interesting to see another route into what I'd pretentiously refer to as "modern" society.
I am curious. In nations with stringent gun control, what is the plan for overthrowing the government when the time comes?
As societies edge more towards modernity, intercommunication and public understanding of politics, it becomes harder and harder for a fully tyrannical system to come to force. I believe that for many modern countries (like mine, for example), rebellion is never going to be justifiable.
My basic point is that I think we've gotten to the point of society now in many countries where there's no way a domestic, tyrannical political force could come to power. I don't believe the time will come.
In the US, we allow people to call themselves neo-Nazis and salute Hitler while holding a sign proclaiming that "God hates fags." And, as nauseating as I find those points of view, I think people should have the right to express them (but not to act on them.)
An interesting sidenote of this is the stigma around "communists", and how self-proclamation of communism was effectively a crime during parts of the Cold War. Freedom of speech in the US is less immutable than its residents like to think, although it is at a high and very respectable level.
I like to think that my own country (the UK) has comparable levels of freedom of speech, and it's true, to a degree - there's some discrepencies (for example burden of proof in libel cases) which impede it to some degree.
The arms rights thing is an interesting issue. I believe the US should keep the right to bear arms -- perhaps a more rigorous licencing system might be in order in some cases, but in general it's how the country has developed and it's what works there. This is not, however, a "be all and end all" decision -- the US is not a "better" country because of this right (I'm also not sure how it's linked to freedom of speech in a modern society, although in the formative stages of a newer society I could see it coming in). The UK, given the right to bear arms, would probably be negatively affected. It's not part of our culture. The same goes for a lot of countries. A lot of Americans don't understand how countries with gun control can be described as "free", and a lot of countries with gun control don't understand how America can be considered "sane" -- it's what works in the situation. The US is a culture that was born in the times when people had guns, it's built upon it. The UK's devolution from a monarchy to a democracy (yes, I know it's still technically a monarchy, but the difference is moot in context) is a different type of formation of a modern society than that of the US. I don't believe it makes the country better, it's just what fits the culture.
On note, though, obviously there's people arguing against what I'd see as sane here, too. I've had long, drawn-out discussions with the kind of people who want to ban, for example, parties like the BNP, because, as deplorable as I find their policies and views, I should not have the right to stop them expressing them
It's a shaky subject, in any case. And this is getting waaaaaay off-topic.
Believe it or not, it's designed to look like that - it's one of the first specially-designed "screen fonts", designed to aid readability on computer monitors. Which is just part of the reason it looks so strange printed...
...I just thought of something. If only (randomly selected) parts of your retinal data were needed to authenticate, that would be a lot more secure. I don't know why tht didn't occur to me a minute ago when I posted the parent.
The question is wheter or not one can spoof biometrics. I can probably get a copy of a lot of fingerprints, and I could post them on my wall. That doesn't mean I could make gloves with them. Despite how it appears in movies, I don't know how easy it would be to fake someone else's fingerprints or retina for that matter.
That would work as an argument if the means of transmission and entry were controlled by a single, trustable source. As it is, everything is represented as data in a computer system - once you send someone your retina scan, they have the data. Even if you're sending it as a secure hash, it's essentially just a complex binary password which does not change.
Right. Enterprise. I'm sure it's a perfectly good show. Maybe even good. But am I the only one who instinctively turns their TV off before the end of the theme tune?
That's a good point. I mentioned Java simply because I know that it's what the physics department here (and it's not a small department) and several others around here teach. As I said in another part of this thread, in general the time taken to develop physics apps is more important than the time to execute, and a simpler programming language aids this.
Perhaps "number crunching" physics apps were not the type to which I referred...
Most University simulation and science courses I've seen teach Java, I'm not going to speculate why, other than the fact that perhaps the actual processing time is less significant than the development time, and using Java over other options (particularly when programming is not the developers first skill) probably cuts this proportionately.
Yeah, I meant to mention existing systems there too (I'm actually very surprised I didn't). The bottom line is that people and software existed before more-modern programming languages did, and that is a fairly natural reason that not everyone immediately uses them.
Better, yes. But the only thing that really needs to be changed about the Windows model is making the default user account of the "limited" type, as opposed to "administrator", and it's essentially equivalent. The problem is that most Windows users don't understand why they need to type a password to install a program, or change settings. Maybe it'd be of benefit to them to learn to do that, but if they refuse it's hardly productive.
Also, if a user is used to typing a password to install things, it's not gonna stop them typing the same password when "Type your install password to get this cute desktop buddy!!!" pops up on them clicking a file attachment.
Really? I'll have to look into that one (I know someone who uses AutoCAD at work so it shouldn't be too hard to find out). That's just stupid though. I'd err towards saying that it's not MS's responsibility to ensure all Windows developers make "good software", though.
The point was that it's not done by default, and hence isn't "as easy" as it being done at installer stage. Once again, though, the main problem with Windows security is its users - the NT security model can only be criticised so far. On single-user machines the difference between mincing things as admin or as the only user are often trivial anyway.
You don't actually have to be administrator "to get any work done", it's just quite a difficult task to set up user accounts on a single-user machine. In a corporate or other multi-user environment (at least, those I've seen) machines are rarely run as administrator.
Your point about running as admin all the time is a pretty valid one, though. But I'm not convinced that the UNIX user model is perfect either.
That means that either people are stupid, or the computer scientists are missing something. I think that it's mostly the latter.
No. I'd say neither. Sure, new programming languages are technically better, but firstly people don't want to have to take time to learn new systems, and secondly there is a wealth of tools and familiarity in the older languages. They're still used for these reasons. Computer scientists aren't missing anything (at least in my experience, although technically programming languages tend to err closer to software engineering disciplines), as such. Many languages are based around the practical desires and requirements of software engineers - they just tend to be too new to be of much use, or people are just unfamiliar with them.
And never underestimate the presence of old-school programmers who are too stubborn to learn anything but C(++), basing their justification on largely unfounded "efficiency" concerns.
> Wrong. > The next version of Ubuntu(Hoary) will ship with X.org. > The current version(Warty) ships with XFree86.
It's fairly easy to upgrade to the current development version of Hoary now, though, although it's marginally less stable, theoretically (a quite fantastic dependencies problem killed my gnome-panel for a while, for example).
As the happy capitalised sibling post points out, this only affects the Google AdWords system, which ties ads to specific words. From now on, people are not to be allowed to tie their ad to the name of their competitor.
I could see this being very difficult to regulate, though.
It's an intrusive interface. There seems to be a seperate toolbar for everything, all of which want to be on-screen at once. I understand that this is "more customisable", but a less-customisable, or more difficult-to-customise, UI with a more subtle style would be preferable. Regardless of the usability issues in Photoshop which come from a lack of two-button mouse awareness, the troubles with GIMP run more deeply.
It's an app I'd dearly like to be able to use, though, and it'll be good to see how this goes. As for the OSS advocates yelling "fix it yourself!", they seem to forget that not only do a lot of people simply not have the time to fix it, many don't have the technical know-how.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll verify this, if it's worth anything (I'm actually from Scotland, more specifically than just "the UK").
There's interesting accounts of US forces promising support for popular uprisings, then never coming to their aid (as Saddam cut them down). It's just a bit of a pity.
This thread is veering wildly off-topic, though.
You have a good point. An interesting parallel is that guns were legal in Iraq, and most people owned them. Yet the revolution just didn't come.
China's a strange example, actually. I'm wondering if they're going to, at some point, go through a similar social transition to the economic transition they've already experienced (despite pretentions of "communism", they're a lot closer to a very authoritarian semi-capitalist society). It would be interesting to see another route into what I'd pretentiously refer to as "modern" society.
My basic point is that I think we've gotten to the point of society now in many countries where there's no way a domestic, tyrannical political force could come to power. I don't believe the time will come.
I like to think that my own country (the UK) has comparable levels of freedom of speech, and it's true, to a degree - there's some discrepencies (for example burden of proof in libel cases) which impede it to some degree.
The arms rights thing is an interesting issue. I believe the US should keep the right to bear arms -- perhaps a more rigorous licencing system might be in order in some cases, but in general it's how the country has developed and it's what works there. This is not, however, a "be all and end all" decision -- the US is not a "better" country because of this right (I'm also not sure how it's linked to freedom of speech in a modern society, although in the formative stages of a newer society I could see it coming in). The UK, given the right to bear arms, would probably be negatively affected. It's not part of our culture. The same goes for a lot of countries. A lot of Americans don't understand how countries with gun control can be described as "free", and a lot of countries with gun control don't understand how America can be considered "sane" -- it's what works in the situation. The US is a culture that was born in the times when people had guns, it's built upon it. The UK's devolution from a monarchy to a democracy (yes, I know it's still technically a monarchy, but the difference is moot in context) is a different type of formation of a modern society than that of the US. I don't believe it makes the country better, it's just what fits the culture.
On note, though, obviously there's people arguing against what I'd see as sane here, too. I've had long, drawn-out discussions with the kind of people who want to ban, for example, parties like the BNP, because, as deplorable as I find their policies and views, I should not have the right to stop them expressing them
It's a shaky subject, in any case. And this is getting waaaaaay off-topic.
...I just thought of something. If only (randomly selected) parts of your retinal data were needed to authenticate, that would be a lot more secure. I don't know why tht didn't occur to me a minute ago when I posted the parent.
Right. Enterprise. I'm sure it's a perfectly good show. Maybe even good. But am I the only one who instinctively turns their TV off before the end of the theme tune?
It could be the worst theme on television. Ever.
If you're posting on Slashdot, you've already set yourself as a level above the technical competence of the "problem" cases here.
That's a good point. I mentioned Java simply because I know that it's what the physics department here (and it's not a small department) and several others around here teach. As I said in another part of this thread, in general the time taken to develop physics apps is more important than the time to execute, and a simpler programming language aids this.
Perhaps "number crunching" physics apps were not the type to which I referred...
Most University simulation and science courses I've seen teach Java, I'm not going to speculate why, other than the fact that perhaps the actual processing time is less significant than the development time, and using Java over other options (particularly when programming is not the developers first skill) probably cuts this proportionately.
and it may even be a mute argument ...
or even more likely, a moot argument
"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct."
Yeah, I meant to mention existing systems there too (I'm actually very surprised I didn't). The bottom line is that people and software existed before more-modern programming languages did, and that is a fairly natural reason that not everyone immediately uses them.
To be fair, most scientific apps are nowadays written in Java, and are hence multiplatform...
Better, yes. But the only thing that really needs to be changed about the Windows model is making the default user account of the "limited" type, as opposed to "administrator", and it's essentially equivalent. The problem is that most Windows users don't understand why they need to type a password to install a program, or change settings. Maybe it'd be of benefit to them to learn to do that, but if they refuse it's hardly productive.
Also, if a user is used to typing a password to install things, it's not gonna stop them typing the same password when "Type your install password to get this cute desktop buddy!!!" pops up on them clicking a file attachment.
Really? I'll have to look into that one (I know someone who uses AutoCAD at work so it shouldn't be too hard to find out). That's just stupid though. I'd err towards saying that it's not MS's responsibility to ensure all Windows developers make "good software", though.
The point was that it's not done by default, and hence isn't "as easy" as it being done at installer stage. Once again, though, the main problem with Windows security is its users - the NT security model can only be criticised so far. On single-user machines the difference between mincing things as admin or as the only user are often trivial anyway.
You don't actually have to be administrator "to get any work done", it's just quite a difficult task to set up user accounts on a single-user machine. In a corporate or other multi-user environment (at least, those I've seen) machines are rarely run as administrator.
Your point about running as admin all the time is a pretty valid one, though. But I'm not convinced that the UNIX user model is perfect either.
That means that either people are stupid, or the computer scientists are missing something. I think that it's mostly the latter.
No. I'd say neither. Sure, new programming languages are technically better, but firstly people don't want to have to take time to learn new systems, and secondly there is a wealth of tools and familiarity in the older languages. They're still used for these reasons. Computer scientists aren't missing anything (at least in my experience, although technically programming languages tend to err closer to software engineering disciplines), as such. Many languages are based around the practical desires and requirements of software engineers - they just tend to be too new to be of much use, or people are just unfamiliar with them.
And never underestimate the presence of old-school programmers who are too stubborn to learn anything but C(++), basing their justification on largely unfounded "efficiency" concerns.
> Wrong.
> The next version of Ubuntu(Hoary) will ship with X.org.
> The current version(Warty) ships with XFree86.
It's fairly easy to upgrade to the current development version of Hoary now, though, although it's marginally less stable, theoretically (a quite fantastic dependencies problem killed my gnome-panel for a while, for example).
As the happy capitalised sibling post points out, this only affects the Google AdWords system, which ties ads to specific words. From now on, people are not to be allowed to tie their ad to the name of their competitor.
I could see this being very difficult to regulate, though.
Yes, my computer's been working on the protein folding thing for quite some time.
But do quantum computers run Linux? *rimshot*
It's an intrusive interface. There seems to be a seperate toolbar for everything, all of which want to be on-screen at once. I understand that this is "more customisable", but a less-customisable, or more difficult-to-customise, UI with a more subtle style would be preferable. Regardless of the usability issues in Photoshop which come from a lack of two-button mouse awareness, the troubles with GIMP run more deeply.
It's an app I'd dearly like to be able to use, though, and it'll be good to see how this goes. As for the OSS advocates yelling "fix it yourself!", they seem to forget that not only do a lot of people simply not have the time to fix it, many don't have the technical know-how.