While those other movies have got some interest in this community, I would argue that the Harry Potter books are something of a phenomenom and nothing else you've mentioned comes close. The attention these books have received is far more than I've ever seen for any non-religious book, and that alone makes them worthy of comment. Added to that is the fantasy nature of these books (a key nerd genre) and it seems reasonable to have at least one thread.
A line can be drawn, but I can't see any good argument for putting these books and their unusual reception (compared to any other books) on the far side of it.
Lastly, like all blogs you can skip stories you're not interested in - there are plenty of stories I find about as fascinating as lint. Posting comments won't help define editorial policy. Email Cowboy Neal instead.
Shakespeare is popular. His plays were written for the people in the street, the common men and women. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that they're not high art, that they don't hold a pretty good mirror to ourselves, even after five hundred years.
I don't make the claim that Rowling is on par with Shakespeare, but the point stands. Popularity is a completely seperate thing to quality. Confusing the two is poor thinking.
Popular taste is popular taste. Calling it low taste is elitism, pure and simple. It also fails to substitute for informed criticism.
Some person who won't give their name or pseudonym on a blog says Harry Potter books are 'gay.'
Good literary criticism there. No need to touch on plot, character development, holes in either, expressed morality, themes or writing style. No. The books are 'gay' and that should be a good enough review for anyone.
Thankyou, Mr or Ms Anonynous Coward. Your keen insight is a valuable addition to the many articles written about this series.
And then you have to deal with your enemy's friends and family. And their friends and family. And so on. Better by far to remove an enemy by taking away their reasons, and thus their support.
Reducing yourself to the level of the enemy who hates you will never provide a lasting victory. Rising above the enemy who hates you will. The end result may be the same (you have to kill them anyway) but how you get to that point is critical.
"Add to that most of the deaths just didn't make sense. Except for Mad-Eye (and possibly Dobby), basically all the other major deaths were random, they had no purpose in the story and didn't advance the plot in any major way. "
Too many authors kill off characters only when it suits the author, which is as bad as any deus ex machina in my view. People don't die conveniently in battles or wars. They die randomly, unnecessarily or tragically. Stray bullets/arrows/spells should account for the odd major character.
I expected far more random deaths actually, as well as half the Weasley family.
Harry Potter discussions belong on Slashdot exactly as much as Star Trek, The Simpsons, Serenity or any other popular form of entertainment enjoyed (at least in part) by Slashdot readers. "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" doesn't just mean high-tech. After all, Slashdot started as just some guy's blog, with stories he found interesting.
I'm not aware of any scoping document for Slashdot that defines precisely what should and should not be here.
Yeah, that's always said yet it's not clear how much more simple Apple's products were to provide that "key" differentiation. Funny how the interface that was so inherently superior in the iPod was abandoned entirely in the iPhone yet the iPhone is now praised for it's "simplicity". The fact is that whatever Apple's product is at any given time is claimed to be the standard by which everything is judged. That's called fanboyism.
I think you're being deliberately disingenuous here. The iPod interface works well with the iPod because that device has simple control needs. It couldn't work well with the iPhone because that device needs much more from the user. I can't imagine how someone could even dial an eight digit number using the iPod's click-wheel interface.
One interface, one UI won't cover every device in the world. You're inferring that it should when you say that Apple "abandoned [it] entirely" for the iPhone, but I'd be surprised if you believed that.
Further, it's not 'fanboyism' to set Apple's products as a baseline for judging other products. You have to judge something against something else. Currently the iPhone is getting a lot of attention, so people judge products against it. It doesn't always come out winning, but comparisons where it won on every front would be suspicious.
I honestly think a lot of the hostility, here, towards VB has to do with the fact that now pretty much anyone can write code and that it's from Microsoft. If you're somehow saying that if they used C/C++ or even Perl that their code would somehow be wonderful or safe, you're insane.
I think VB is like Access - deceptively easy to get something up and running, but getting a solid application up requires the same sort of rigour that any other language would. People get the quick results and forget the error handling, clean code, data validation and so on. In business, the goal is all too often the quick fix, where the hacked up prototype becomes the production tool.
In my experience, many internal company VB and Access projects are good concepts, but awful implementations.
No, absolutely not! Any redistributor gets to choose. This is the language that MOST GPL 2 programs use:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but wouldn't that allow some future version of the GPL which contains a clause like "all code released under this licence belongs to Microsoft" a mechanism for some person the developer doesn't know to sign over the code to a company the developer doesn't agree with? And the developer never wanted this behaviour in the licence?
While I don't believe this is at all likely, any usage licence that allows unspecified future activity seems a bit like a "trust me, I won't hurt you" clause.
I'll admit to not wading through the entire GPL with a lawyer on hand, so I'd expect a clause noting how there can be no diminution of 'rights' somewhere.
Later this year I'll be looking to release some code I've been working on under an open source licence. I'm looking forward to reading the various options and deciding then.
That said, it's overpriced for what it is. And the people buying it up right now are only paving the way for Microsoft and others to fix up their mobile OSes to deliver cheaper devices capable of much of the same things as the iPhone. Only they will have replaceable batteries, cheaper cost (subsidized by the carrier), and 3G.
Overpriced == priced above what the market will bear. The past few days show the market happily bears the iPhone's price. It may be more than *you* want to pay, but you're clearly not one of the 5-700K of iPhone owners. The price is right, and the proof is in the sales.
Secondly, if a better product is put on the market, it deserves success. Apple are trying to release that 'better product' with the iPhone, and if it causes others to out-do Apple, that's great for the customers. As an Apple customer, I hope this spurs a lot of competition. I'll be very happy to see a superior device from Microsoft or Nokia or whoever, as this will both raise the bar for the industry and force Apple to lift their own game or get out.
When people realize that Apple is no different than Microsoft, they will choose devices and software based upon need and usage requirements, rather than a religious belief to either company.
Outside of the enthusiast groups (including Slashdot), very few people care about Apple or Microsoft or operating systems at all. The 'religion' is pretty limited, and my experience has been that the majority of customers either don't know of it (and thus don't factor it into their purchases) or know about it but buy what actualy suits their needs (and thus don't factor it into their purchases). There are rabid Apple and Microsoft fans, but they're a minority as far as I can tell.
That seems like a weak definition to me. Yes, I know it's the OED, but it seems lacking.
The prefix "a-" means not, without whereas the prefix "anti-" means opposed to, against.
Someone who is against belief in religions would be an antitheist, and someone who doesn't hold any belief in religion would be an atheist. That seems like the same definition (certainly it agrees with your point), but the dictionary has it wrong here. Atheism is not a position of belief, it's the absence of belief. The word is correct, but the meaning is wrong.
I argue that dictionaries, coming from the days when belief in God was part of the fabric of society, generally have a poor definition of atheism. They keep putting it as a position of belief, when it's exactly the opposite. Belief in 'no god' always reminds me of the original Hitchhiker's Guide game - Arthur carries an item in his inventory called "no tea." It's completely irrational to maintain negative beliefs, as there's an infinite number of things we can choose to not believe in. Still, it'd pad out the 'A' section of the dictionary if we define them all. Now if I could only think of a word for someone who doesn't believe in Bertrand Russel's orbiting teapot...
they knowingly put their material out there for people to download
Are you certain about this? The files may look like the real thing, but (after skimming the article) I don't see anything to indicate they put the *real* media out there. Seems extremely unlikely to me.
I agree with this - it's not an issue for Microsoft, which is doing what companies do - getting the word out on their products. They're blameless in this.
The problem is purely with the bloggers, who are now tainted by their actions. Everything they write is now suspect - were they paid for it? Is their opinion sold to the highest bidder?
If bloggers want to be respected as journalists, they have to strive for the ideals of journalism. One of those is a code of conduct that clearly seperates editorial from advertising. Sadly, the bloggers in question jumped on a bandwagon, made a bit of money but lost the one thing they had - credibility. Why read their blogs when you don't know if you're reading their opinions or a paid-for opinion.
I'm probably overstating it a bit, and the impact won't be as bad for these guys as I've made out, but they really have put a big question mark over themselves.
you see on windows ur guaranteed your app will work across all versions
Wow. So, you've never tried installing anything in Vista, then? I've had installer apps just crash instantly when I run them. In fact, some were written with Win2K or XP pre-SP2 in mind, and don't even work on XPSP2.
And that's just the installers. Actual apps are another matter entirely.
Nice joke though. That's keep me laughing through the day.
User interfaces are nothing special. Just pixels and events. Computers are nothing special, just carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, silicon and other elements we can find easily in the world around us. Electricity is nothing special, it's just using natural phenomena to produce power.
The iPhone is nothing special.
"Frankly, being associated with Apple gets a negative mark in my book."
It's not hard to get access to Microsoft's source code (provided you've got a suitably good reason, like being part of a large government). Access to that code isn't anything like Open Source. You've got to sign NDAs and not develop any similar technology for about seven years (going from memory here).
If the code is not released under an Open Source licence, you can't do anything with it. You can inspect it, but if you try to redistribute it (even with beneficial changes) you'll probably be personally sued.
My understanding is that Open Source allows viewing the code and redistribution of the code, even with changes. That changes everything, as now anyone can develop using this code. You may even be able to chop sections out for your own code, depending on the licence.
It looks to me like OSI is trying to highlight when companies are calling their code Open Source, but putting all sorts of restrictions around how and when you can use the code (if at all). There's a real qualitative difference between that sort of code access and a true Open Source access, where you're unrestricted in these areas, and some companies may be cashing in on the appearance of being open, when they're really not. I don't think there's anything in it for OSI, other than to strengthen what Open Source actually means and how companies promote their use of it.
Look at Vista, then look at OS X. Do you really see no link between the two? The two interfaces bear more than a passing resemblance, although after running Vista for a while, I've got to say that OS X's interface works for you, while Vista's interface works against you. Still, the general look and feel is quite similar.
Even if Apple's marketshare is low (which it definitely is) the products released by Apple help drive the entire industry forward by introducing new ideas or cleaner interfaces. Like them or not, Apple matter to the entire computing world.
In an interview for GameBotherer magazine, Will Wright stated:
Well, since we started Spore a lot's happened in the industry. XPSP2 came out, making PCs safe again, then Vista with all the DirectX-10 goodness and even Apple's relevant for gaming now. Hell - consoles are amazing these days! Have you seen what the PS3 can do? Sure it's a bugger to program for, but you've got like three or six or some other number of processors in that thing! We're just not sure what to develop for though - there are too many options now.
We figure we should give it another three to five years and see which way the wind's blowing before committing to a release date. We'll probably rewrite the code a few times to pick up all the other platforms - PS3, Macs, Wii, Gamecube, Nintendo-64, Sega Megadrive, some toaster that Tim worked out how to program for and maybe, if we can find time and have nothing better to do, maybe Linux as well. But don't quote me on that last one.
While I also remember complaints when WinXP arrived (oddly no complaints from WinME users) I have to disagree with your two points.
I installed Vista as my secondary OS on my MacBook Pro (it's handy for work things). It looks great. The app-switching concept is laughably bad (only one window is visible, making it impossible to choose between severl similar windows) but the rest of the OS is pretty smooth and polished.
However, the continual "do you want to do this - cancel or continue?" dialogues train users to either diable them completely or to click through them.
The most egregious example so far I've encountered is in changing the Start menu. I installed a few games (Oblivion, Sim City 4) and wanted to group them under the Games sub-menu. Moving a folder from one place to another in the Start menu gives two confirmations. Deleting the old parent folders (Bethesda, for example) once they're empty requires *three* confirmations. This is completely insane, and cannot be considered reasonable to make the user click through several questions such as "Do you want to do this?", "Do you really want to do this" and "We've seen that someone wants to do this. Is that you and do you want to do this?"
Once I've provided a confirmation, why do I have to re-confirm my access in less than a minute between moving one folder and deleting the other? Is it not possible to cache the application's new level of access for a short period of time - five or ten minutes?
Instead I'm being trained to click through any and all dialogues just to get simple stuff done!
I'm very happy to see them - they're a lot better than the previous 'no notification' model - and if they appear when I don't expect them they'll be excellent warnings that something is wrong. I want to see messages when I'm doing complex stuff, like installing applications, changing system resources or altering how I use the computer in fundamental ways.
But this isn't the right solution. It's training users in a behaviour as bad as not having the dialogues at all.
I've seen a few people on Slashdot talk about *new* concepts in security, where Human-readable explanations are provided ("The application 'Installer' wants to write to your System folder, which could affect all other application in future. Do you want to allow this once, allow this always or disallow this?") and the security model is written to ensure that viruses and trojans are almost impossible. There are ways to do this now, and people more versed in security have impressed this on me.
Vista is a nice OS. A really nice OS. The security is terrible, but there's great improvement from WinXP and signs that things will improve further in future.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say don't fight, but not to make swift, brutal killing the first response.
WWII gives your example. Consider Iraq mine.
While those other movies have got some interest in this community, I would argue that the Harry Potter books are something of a phenomenom and nothing else you've mentioned comes close. The attention these books have received is far more than I've ever seen for any non-religious book, and that alone makes them worthy of comment. Added to that is the fantasy nature of these books (a key nerd genre) and it seems reasonable to have at least one thread.
A line can be drawn, but I can't see any good argument for putting these books and their unusual reception (compared to any other books) on the far side of it.
Lastly, like all blogs you can skip stories you're not interested in - there are plenty of stories I find about as fascinating as lint. Posting comments won't help define editorial policy. Email Cowboy Neal instead.
Shakespeare is popular. His plays were written for the people in the street, the common men and women. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that they're not high art, that they don't hold a pretty good mirror to ourselves, even after five hundred years.
I don't make the claim that Rowling is on par with Shakespeare, but the point stands. Popularity is a completely seperate thing to quality. Confusing the two is poor thinking.
Popular taste is popular taste. Calling it low taste is elitism, pure and simple. It also fails to substitute for informed criticism.
Some person who won't give their name or pseudonym on a blog says Harry Potter books are 'gay.'
Good literary criticism there. No need to touch on plot, character development, holes in either, expressed morality, themes or writing style. No. The books are 'gay' and that should be a good enough review for anyone.
Thankyou, Mr or Ms Anonynous Coward. Your keen insight is a valuable addition to the many articles written about this series.
And then you have to deal with your enemy's friends and family. And their friends and family. And so on. Better by far to remove an enemy by taking away their reasons, and thus their support.
Reducing yourself to the level of the enemy who hates you will never provide a lasting victory. Rising above the enemy who hates you will. The end result may be the same (you have to kill them anyway) but how you get to that point is critical.
"Add to that most of the deaths just didn't make sense. Except for Mad-Eye (and possibly Dobby), basically all the other major deaths were random, they had no purpose in the story and didn't advance the plot in any major way. "
Too many authors kill off characters only when it suits the author, which is as bad as any deus ex machina in my view. People don't die conveniently in battles or wars. They die randomly, unnecessarily or tragically. Stray bullets/arrows/spells should account for the odd major character.
I expected far more random deaths actually, as well as half the Weasley family.
Harry Potter discussions belong on Slashdot exactly as much as Star Trek, The Simpsons, Serenity or any other popular form of entertainment enjoyed (at least in part) by Slashdot readers. "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" doesn't just mean high-tech. After all, Slashdot started as just some guy's blog, with stories he found interesting.
I'm not aware of any scoping document for Slashdot that defines precisely what should and should not be here.
Yeah, that's always said yet it's not clear how much more simple Apple's products were to provide that "key" differentiation. Funny how the interface that was so inherently superior in the iPod was abandoned entirely in the iPhone yet the iPhone is now praised for it's "simplicity". The fact is that whatever Apple's product is at any given time is claimed to be the standard by which everything is judged. That's called fanboyism.
I think you're being deliberately disingenuous here. The iPod interface works well with the iPod because that device has simple control needs. It couldn't work well with the iPhone because that device needs much more from the user. I can't imagine how someone could even dial an eight digit number using the iPod's click-wheel interface.
One interface, one UI won't cover every device in the world. You're inferring that it should when you say that Apple "abandoned [it] entirely" for the iPhone, but I'd be surprised if you believed that.
Further, it's not 'fanboyism' to set Apple's products as a baseline for judging other products. You have to judge something against something else. Currently the iPhone is getting a lot of attention, so people judge products against it. It doesn't always come out winning, but comparisons where it won on every front would be suspicious.
I honestly think a lot of the hostility, here, towards VB has to do with the fact that now pretty much anyone can write code and that it's from Microsoft. If you're somehow saying that if they used C/C++ or even Perl that their code would somehow be wonderful or safe, you're insane.
I think VB is like Access - deceptively easy to get something up and running, but getting a solid application up requires the same sort of rigour that any other language would. People get the quick results and forget the error handling, clean code, data validation and so on. In business, the goal is all too often the quick fix, where the hacked up prototype becomes the production tool.
In my experience, many internal company VB and Access projects are good concepts, but awful implementations.
"We're not running an entrapment program. And this was an internal website. And there was no spyware."
Hmm..
"And we're not even an IT company!" (throws down smoke bomb, the smoke clears)
"Look! We're a pet shop, selling fluffy bunnies and puppies for happy people to take home. Look at the fluffy bunny, so cute!"
Can anyone tell me why my post above was modded as flamebait? I can't see anything in it that deserves it.
No, absolutely not! Any redistributor gets to choose. This is the language that MOST GPL 2 programs use:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but wouldn't that allow some future version of the GPL which contains a clause like "all code released under this licence belongs to Microsoft" a mechanism for some person the developer doesn't know to sign over the code to a company the developer doesn't agree with? And the developer never wanted this behaviour in the licence?
While I don't believe this is at all likely, any usage licence that allows unspecified future activity seems a bit like a "trust me, I won't hurt you" clause.
I'll admit to not wading through the entire GPL with a lawyer on hand, so I'd expect a clause noting how there can be no diminution of 'rights' somewhere.
Later this year I'll be looking to release some code I've been working on under an open source licence. I'm looking forward to reading the various options and deciding then.
That said, it's overpriced for what it is. And the people buying it up right now are only paving the way for Microsoft and others to fix up their mobile OSes to deliver cheaper devices capable of much of the same things as the iPhone. Only they will have replaceable batteries, cheaper cost (subsidized by the carrier), and 3G.
Overpriced == priced above what the market will bear. The past few days show the market happily bears the iPhone's price. It may be more than *you* want to pay, but you're clearly not one of the 5-700K of iPhone owners. The price is right, and the proof is in the sales.
Secondly, if a better product is put on the market, it deserves success. Apple are trying to release that 'better product' with the iPhone, and if it causes others to out-do Apple, that's great for the customers. As an Apple customer, I hope this spurs a lot of competition. I'll be very happy to see a superior device from Microsoft or Nokia or whoever, as this will both raise the bar for the industry and force Apple to lift their own game or get out.
When people realize that Apple is no different than Microsoft, they will choose devices and software based upon need and usage requirements, rather than a religious belief to either company.
Outside of the enthusiast groups (including Slashdot), very few people care about Apple or Microsoft or operating systems at all. The 'religion' is pretty limited, and my experience has been that the majority of customers either don't know of it (and thus don't factor it into their purchases) or know about it but buy what actualy suits their needs (and thus don't factor it into their purchases). There are rabid Apple and Microsoft fans, but they're a minority as far as I can tell.
Look at the article's author. It's not so hard to believe George Ou would make such claims.
After the whole OS X 'hacked in sixty seconds' fiasco, it appears he's still a gutter journalist.
Still, to his credit he at least has a document to show everyone this time. That's a big step up for him.
Those definitions are both positions of belief, not positions of 'unbelief.'
I still think these dictionaries use a poor definition of the word atheist.
That seems like a weak definition to me. Yes, I know it's the OED, but it seems lacking.
The prefix "a-" means not, without whereas the prefix "anti-" means opposed to, against.
Someone who is against belief in religions would be an antitheist, and someone who doesn't hold any belief in religion would be an atheist. That seems like the same definition (certainly it agrees with your point), but the dictionary has it wrong here. Atheism is not a position of belief, it's the absence of belief. The word is correct, but the meaning is wrong.
I argue that dictionaries, coming from the days when belief in God was part of the fabric of society, generally have a poor definition of atheism. They keep putting it as a position of belief, when it's exactly the opposite. Belief in 'no god' always reminds me of the original Hitchhiker's Guide game - Arthur carries an item in his inventory called "no tea." It's completely irrational to maintain negative beliefs, as there's an infinite number of things we can choose to not believe in. Still, it'd pad out the 'A' section of the dictionary if we define them all. Now if I could only think of a word for someone who doesn't believe in Bertrand Russel's orbiting teapot...
they knowingly put their material out there for people to download
Are you certain about this? The files may look like the real thing, but (after skimming the article) I don't see anything to indicate they put the *real* media out there. Seems extremely unlikely to me.
I agree with this - it's not an issue for Microsoft, which is doing what companies do - getting the word out on their products. They're blameless in this.
The problem is purely with the bloggers, who are now tainted by their actions. Everything they write is now suspect - were they paid for it? Is their opinion sold to the highest bidder?
If bloggers want to be respected as journalists, they have to strive for the ideals of journalism. One of those is a code of conduct that clearly seperates editorial from advertising. Sadly, the bloggers in question jumped on a bandwagon, made a bit of money but lost the one thing they had - credibility. Why read their blogs when you don't know if you're reading their opinions or a paid-for opinion.
I'm probably overstating it a bit, and the impact won't be as bad for these guys as I've made out, but they really have put a big question mark over themselves.
you see on windows ur guaranteed your app will work across all versions
Wow. So, you've never tried installing anything in Vista, then? I've had installer apps just crash instantly when I run them. In fact, some were written with Win2K or XP pre-SP2 in mind, and don't even work on XPSP2.
And that's just the installers. Actual apps are another matter entirely.
Nice joke though. That's keep me laughing through the day.
Not every song, just the songs purchased from the iTMS. For the great majority, that's only a tiny fraction of their library.
"The iPhone is nothing special"
User interfaces are nothing special. Just pixels and events. Computers are nothing special, just carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, silicon and other elements we can find easily in the world around us. Electricity is nothing special, it's just using natural phenomena to produce power.
The iPhone is nothing special.
"Frankly, being associated with Apple gets a negative mark in my book."
Ah. A zealot. Why didn't you say so earlier?
It's not hard to get access to Microsoft's source code (provided you've got a suitably good reason, like being part of a large government). Access to that code isn't anything like Open Source. You've got to sign NDAs and not develop any similar technology for about seven years (going from memory here).
If the code is not released under an Open Source licence, you can't do anything with it. You can inspect it, but if you try to redistribute it (even with beneficial changes) you'll probably be personally sued.
My understanding is that Open Source allows viewing the code and redistribution of the code, even with changes. That changes everything, as now anyone can develop using this code. You may even be able to chop sections out for your own code, depending on the licence.
It looks to me like OSI is trying to highlight when companies are calling their code Open Source, but putting all sorts of restrictions around how and when you can use the code (if at all). There's a real qualitative difference between that sort of code access and a true Open Source access, where you're unrestricted in these areas, and some companies may be cashing in on the appearance of being open, when they're really not. I don't think there's anything in it for OSI, other than to strengthen what Open Source actually means and how companies promote their use of it.
Look at Vista, then look at OS X. Do you really see no link between the two? The two interfaces bear more than a passing resemblance, although after running Vista for a while, I've got to say that OS X's interface works for you, while Vista's interface works against you. Still, the general look and feel is quite similar.
Even if Apple's marketshare is low (which it definitely is) the products released by Apple help drive the entire industry forward by introducing new ideas or cleaner interfaces. Like them or not, Apple matter to the entire computing world.
In an interview for GameBotherer magazine, Will Wright stated:
Well, since we started Spore a lot's happened in the industry. XPSP2 came out, making PCs safe again, then Vista with all the DirectX-10 goodness and even Apple's relevant for gaming now. Hell - consoles are amazing these days! Have you seen what the PS3 can do? Sure it's a bugger to program for, but you've got like three or six or some other number of processors in that thing! We're just not sure what to develop for though - there are too many options now.
We figure we should give it another three to five years and see which way the wind's blowing before committing to a release date. We'll probably rewrite the code a few times to pick up all the other platforms - PS3, Macs, Wii, Gamecube, Nintendo-64, Sega Megadrive, some toaster that Tim worked out how to program for and maybe, if we can find time and have nothing better to do, maybe Linux as well. But don't quote me on that last one.
While I also remember complaints when WinXP arrived (oddly no complaints from WinME users) I have to disagree with your two points.
I installed Vista as my secondary OS on my MacBook Pro (it's handy for work things). It looks great. The app-switching concept is laughably bad (only one window is visible, making it impossible to choose between severl similar windows) but the rest of the OS is pretty smooth and polished.
However, the continual "do you want to do this - cancel or continue?" dialogues train users to either diable them completely or to click through them.
The most egregious example so far I've encountered is in changing the Start menu. I installed a few games (Oblivion, Sim City 4) and wanted to group them under the Games sub-menu. Moving a folder from one place to another in the Start menu gives two confirmations. Deleting the old parent folders (Bethesda, for example) once they're empty requires *three* confirmations. This is completely insane, and cannot be considered reasonable to make the user click through several questions such as "Do you want to do this?", "Do you really want to do this" and "We've seen that someone wants to do this. Is that you and do you want to do this?"
Once I've provided a confirmation, why do I have to re-confirm my access in less than a minute between moving one folder and deleting the other? Is it not possible to cache the application's new level of access for a short period of time - five or ten minutes?
Instead I'm being trained to click through any and all dialogues just to get simple stuff done!
I'm very happy to see them - they're a lot better than the previous 'no notification' model - and if they appear when I don't expect them they'll be excellent warnings that something is wrong. I want to see messages when I'm doing complex stuff, like installing applications, changing system resources or altering how I use the computer in fundamental ways.
But this isn't the right solution. It's training users in a behaviour as bad as not having the dialogues at all.
I've seen a few people on Slashdot talk about *new* concepts in security, where Human-readable explanations are provided ("The application 'Installer' wants to write to your System folder, which could affect all other application in future. Do you want to allow this once, allow this always or disallow this?") and the security model is written to ensure that viruses and trojans are almost impossible. There are ways to do this now, and people more versed in security have impressed this on me.
Vista is a nice OS. A really nice OS. The security is terrible, but there's great improvement from WinXP and signs that things will improve further in future.