I think they wrote "VMWare Inc." rather than "VMWare" to avoid confusion... because alot of people, when they hear "VMWare" will think of the application/product, and not the company. Yes, I know that it would be hard for a product to release another product, but still. The "Inc." qualifier was just thrown in to make it obvious that they were talking about the company.
1. How are they going to verify age? If the age-verification is simple, kids will defeat it. If it is complicated, adults will find it inconvenient... in which case people will stop using Yahoo's chat services. There are many other chat networks.
2. Why does New York law affect users all over the world?
3. Who cares? As I said, there are many other chat networks. Kids will simply use another chat program or another network. What does this change, really? (Unless Yahoo believes their chat network is much more vile and filled with adult things than any other network?)
4. Why? I mean, how does preventing kids from going to chat rooms protect them? Sure, they won't be fooled by some pervert in a chat room who tricks them... but they can still be fooled/affected by emails, web pages, and lots of things online. (Besides which, web-based chat-rooms exist...) It's been said on slashdot many times before, but it should be more about parents monitoring their children, and teaching them proper surfing habits, rather than trying to lock down and sanitize the net (which is an impossible task anyway).
5. Why 18? It's great that Yahoo is taking measures to protect children... removing a "bad" chatrooms promptly seems fair enough. However I don't understand why they are cutting off at 18... Protecting very young children (who again should be monitored by their parents to a certain extent) is great, but I think a 15 year old can handle him/herself in a chat-room. There is no reason to prevent them from having an online place to discuss. I don't think you need the same level of adult responsibility to chat online as you need for voting, drinking alcohol, driving a car, etc... yet they are placing the threshold at the same level!
I agree that having this kind of software is a must for any modern university. It's easier for the students, and in many cases easier for administrators. I've used WebCT from the teacher end, and it is certainly a savings in time and money to be able to post material online, which students can print (or not) depending on what suits them. The savings in paper are significant, and most importantly we can implement fixes to lab manuals (for instance) immediately, instead of students using a lab manual that was printed in the summer and whose errors cannot be fixed until next semester.
Overall these kinds of software help alot. That having been said, WebCT is not a very well designed piece of software, and frankly it is frustrating to use at times (for students and teachers alike). I certainly hope this merger means that they will develop a new piece of software, that pulls together the best parts of both packages. As is, WebCT is useable, but it has to become much much better if universities are going to modernize their teaching.
I'm definately interested in learning more about Moodle (which other posters have mentioned), since it's possible it may evolve to fill the needs of institutes faster than commercial offerings.
Have they actually thought about asking the neighbours where they have gathering if they've noticed anything "strange" lately? That will save telecom companies a lot of money and certain the 24/5/365.25 survalence costs.
By and large I agree with what you're saying. However, this example is somewhat lacking. You can ask neighbours all you want. They will tell you "those guys are part of a gang for sure...." but the cops already know that. Generally it's easy for the cops to figure out that guys are "up to something" but finding hard evidence to prove that this is the case is much more elusive. Lots of kids walk around wearing clothes that make them look like gangsters, but we should only put into jail those that have actually committed serious crimes!
Now, wiretaps and other surveillance give police the ability to find out about illegal activities, and thereby get the evidence they need. This of course doesn't mean that any and all surveillance is justified. I agree with you that such invasions must be kept to an absolute minimum. Yet it would be naive of us to think that putting criminals in jail would be possible without some measure of information gathering (i.e.: surveillance). What remains is to (democratically) decide how much surveillance is acceptable.
I think most of us agree with you... it IS the job of the OS to provide protection against viruses, malware, etc. However, offering a virus-scanning program is not the right way to do it. Symantec (and others) provide anti-virus and anti-spyware programs to make windows more protected... they do this because they have no other way. They cannot sell a "patch" for windows that makes it secure and whatnot, so their only option is to sell software that runs like any other program, and watches for bad things and gets rid of them. Symantec has neither the source code nor the legal footing to make modifications to windows itself.
Microsoft, on the other hand, can. The proper way to make an OS protected against viruses and malware is not to provide a little program that occasionally checks if the computer is infected: it is to design the architecture in such a way that infection is very difficult.
Obviously having two levels of security is better (secure OS and then a virus scanner, for instance). However, while it virus-prevention is clearly an OS issue, the answer is not for the OS to be bundled with anti-virus software (or even to move anti-virus software from userland into the kernel or something)... rather, the OS should be secure enough that infection is quite unlikely. Then 3rd parties (or even the OS vendor if they want) can sell scanner programs for that "extra safety and security" if people need/want it.
Others have commented on the obvious conflict-of-interest that is generated when an OS vendor makes money both from the OS, and then again from software that closes gaping holes in the OS's security. It should be investigated as a possible monopoly abuse.
Previously, if you had two physical processors, you had to pay for a double license. That has not changed and probably never will. However, what this change is about is how many virtual processors something is running on. So if you have a four-processor machine, and you are running virtualizing software and running a windows instance that sees (for example) two virtual processors, then your license for that windows will only be for the two virtual processors, not the four physical processors your machine actually has. So in a case like that, you would actually be saving money.
In other situations, as TFA points out, you could have to pay more. If you're prototyping something, and are using a four-processor machine to generate a virtual environment where windows sees 6 processors, then you're supposed to pay a license for 6 processors.
To be honest (and I'm no expert), I don't understand what this will change. How many people are really running microsoft applictions or OSes on virtual processors? Most people will just be using them on physical processors, and so this "change" changes nothing...
For those who want simplicity and reliability, commercial packages may be your best bet - at least for day-to-day work. But if you're willing to experiment a little, and put up with some technical challenges, there is a wealth of programming - for free - in the open source community.
This is a fallacy. Alot of OSS is developmental and experimental and truly is buggy. Some OSS is top-quality and fully useable (linux, firefox, gimp, etc.). It is a fallacy to believe that commercial software is somehow better. Some commercial software is fully useable (photoshop, MS Office, etc.) but there is alot of commercial software that is absolutely crap. Even software made by respectable companies will often present 'technical challenges' (for instance, software bundled with hardware devices, etc.). With commercial software, the price may give you a hint as to quality... but ultimately you have to do some research and try to make an informed decision about what to buy. With OSS, you again have to do some research before deciding what to use (although you have the bonus advantage of being able to quickly install all of the choices without any financial commitment).
I don't think commercial software is automatically simpler and more reliable. The great number of OSS options is admitedly complicated, but it is silly to think that just because something costs money, it must be better than the free alternative.
have the editors pay net citizens with Paypal for especially valuable work
I'm not sure that's actually a good idea. This is the usual feeling with open-source software and other freely collaborative projects. "Look how good they are! Imagine how much better they could be if they had some money! Imagine how much better it would be if the contributors were being paid!" However I think this is a fallacy. Those who contribute to such open collaborations do so for fun (or for reputation, to scratch an itch, etc.). The reward is the intrinsic feeling of contributing and creating something. Adding a financial incentive would do little. In fact, there is some research suggesting that financial rewards do more to hinder enthusiasm in a project. For instance, if the top 1% of wikipedians were given money for their contributions, then suddenly everyone involved in the project would feel that they had a "right" to be paid for their contributions. This would destroy the open collaboration, replacing it with a competitive atmosphere. Ultimately, people might lose interest in helping such a project. Why should they work so hard so that the top 1% get money and they get nothing? It wouldn't even encourage that top 1% to work harder. The monetary reward would simply de-value the entire system.
Strange as it may seem at first glance, adding money to open collaborative projects is not always a good thing (donations for bandwidth and servers are always helpful, of course!). These issues have to be looked at very carefully. Wikipedia is a community with a delicate balance.
Note: I'm well aware that many top OSS programmers are in fact paid to do this work. However one must be careful with the assumption that money is always an incentive to work harder. For some people, it really isn't. (Specifically those who are most prone to working hard and then releasing their work for public good.)
If I have a brick and mortar store and an unsatisfied customer enters my store and begins passing out fliers and berating my business with a megaphone, INSIDE MY STORE, do you think that's acceptable?
That's not a fair analogy. These websites are not required to post user reviews if they don't want to. The question is, once they've said that they are posting user reviews, are they allowed to edit and control that content? The brick-and-mortar analogy would be to say that you're going to have a "discussion night" about your store, and encourage everyone in town to show up. Then, anyone who speaks up with a negative opinion you tell to leave your store immediately, and when someone expresses a positive opinion, you let them stay. At the end of the night, only positive-opinioned people are left in your store. Was this fair? If someone walks in late, and hears only positive opinions, don't you think you've mislead that customer?
If the website only wants positive reviews, then they can have a section entitled "Here is a selection of comments from REAL USERS praising our products" and then list them. Many sites do this and it's fine. But when you claim that you're posting "user reviews" there's an implicit understanding that both the good and the bad are being let through. A company would do this to PROVE that their products/service are (more often than not) good. To filter the comments is basically false advertising (a type of fraud). The company can entirely remove the "user review" system if they don't like it, but to edit it is not moral and could even be illegal.
False advertising is illegal. There are laws regarding what types of claims you can make, and how much you have to back them up. You can say "our product is great" but you cannot say "the President loves our product" (unless of course he publicly said that, or you've arranged a contract with him, etc.). Similarly, you couldn't say "we have conducted an independant scientific survey, and determined that 99% of people love our product" if that isn't true. Of course there are cases where companies commision "independant" reviews, or distort stats to their favor. But laws exist to constrain advertising, and prevent out-and-out lying.
When it comes to online user reviews, the situation gets a bit sticky. The reviews are hosted on the company's site... but something that claims to be "user reviews" implicitly indicates that these are the comments from all the users who cared to enter a comment. To modify or distort the comments is to change the implicit nature of the commenting system. So the company needs to clearly state "these reviews have been filtered and edited by our staff" or else they have to let the comments stand, consistent with a reasonable person's expectation of what is meant by "user reviews." To do otherwise is to purposefully mislead the customer. You cannot say "this medication is approved by doctors" if by "doctors" you mean some English professors who have Ph.D.s... that would be misleading. Similarly, you cannot label them as "user reviews" if they have been edited.
(Note: a certain amount of filtering to remove blatantly inflamatory or irrelevant reviews is of course okay, since this doesn't contradict a normal expectation of what a "user review" is.)
Re:That's what they said 10 years ago!
on
The Future of the Net
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Your network is always slower than your local system. No matter what you think you can push to a system, you'll always be slower than what you could do locally.
That's always been true in the past, but won't necessarily hold in the future. The speed of a computer only matters insofar as the user can perceive a difference. Right now, there is a huge difference between playing an HD movie off of your hard drive, and streaming it over the net (namely, the first is somewhat possible, whereas the second is not). If network connection speeds get to the point where real-time high-resolution video can be streamed with no lag, then there is no difference in having your monitor hooked to a computer that is sitting beside you, versus hooked to a computer that is on the other side of the planet.
Once network speeds become faster than the human ability to notice the difference, it will matter much less where your computing power is physically located. It may become commonplace to lease a computer from someone and access it remotely (from anywhere on earth) rather than own and maintain your own box with a CPU in it. There are a variety of reasons why people will still buy their own computers, of course (reducing costs in long-term, ability to control it fully, sensitivity of data, etc.). However, I fully expect us to reach a point where networks are fast enough that the user experience can be decoupled from the hardware (whether or not this happens is more difficult to predict... but the potential is there).
(Note: Perhaps I'm naive to assume that in the future we will still be using a monitor-and-keyboard interface. If we all switch to VR interfaces, which require more bandwidth, then it again becomes prohibitive to stream the user experience over the net. However I maintain that the finite bandwidth of human senses means that eventually networks will surpass our ability to assimilate information, and it won't matter whether the data is local or remote. I'm not going to speculate on a date where this will happen, however!)
Wasn't the point of moving to linux to move away from windows?
There are many reasons why someone might want to use linux instead of windows (ideology, price, power, etc.). With regard to the graphical control panel: the primary difference between windows and linux is that in windows you use a GUI to change system settings... which is sometimes fast and convenient, but other times you end up searching for hours to find the right box to click, or (worse) there is no way to change a given behavior. By comparison, in linux (or Mandriva specifically, if you prefer) you have a GUI available for system settings... this GUI is sometimes a fast and convenient way to change settings. When it isn't, you can open a console and directly edit the relevant files, use some other application (like webmin) to modify the system, or write scripts to automate these changes, or do whatever else you want.
My point is that in linux you have the choice of a GUI or a command-line. The power to edit the raw files is always there. Mandriva's GUI control panel is just a nice wrapper for the hundreds of text config files spread over the file system. For those new to linux, this GUI can be a great help. But for anyone who wants to control the guts of their computer, Mandriva won't stop you. In fact you can switch between using the two modes without much trouble.
That's why I use linux: because sometimes I want to quickly change a setting... and other times I want to do something more complex. In either case, linux makes this possible.
(Note: That's not to say that I think linux GUIs should reproduce all the mistakes that the windows GUI has made... but simply that linux should integrate whatever useful concepts it can without restricting the inherent power of the system.)
I can confirm this. I have installed Mandrake 10.1 on many systems, and have used ext3. Never had any problems. I have not tried ReiserFS, but as far as I can remember, the option was there.
The fact that MSN's database is older (and less colorful!) than Google's is interesting. But more interesting is the arms race this is generating. Has anyone noticed that Google Maps now has a "hybrid" view in addition to the "map" and "satellite" option? As far as I can tell, this was implemented within the last couple of days (based on the last time I remember using google maps). I suspect that they had this feature ready a while ago, and released it now because of the recent release of Microsoft's Virtual Earth. Google noticed that MS had implemented a feature that google maps didn't have yet, so they promptly made it available!
I like this competition, because it is forcing everyone to come up with fantastic products. Google is purposefully pushing barriers, forcing other companies to constantly catch up.
Okay, let's get the "this is a dupe" comments out of the way. This book (ISBN 1931836361) was already reviewed on slashdot. It seems like it's the same editor (timothy) in both cases. Then again, the two reviews are different, so I suppose it's not an exact duplication?
Oh, and I found the previous slashdot story by searching "slashdot google hacking for penetration testers" on Google. It's the first hit. Some people may find that ironic.
Step two: select a file in window "A" and drag over window "B" (which is overlapped and beneath window "A")
Step three: Wait half a second for window "B" become the modal window and release.
What happens if the target window is completely obscured by the front window? If there is no overlapping edge for you to move towards and wait for focus to be given to the underlying windows?
From what I've seen, Mac OS really is the best with regard to user interaction tricks. It's the smoothest and best interface around. However, this new technique seems to have some advantages in terms of smoothness and it is intuitive. Clicking on a keyboard button may accomplish the same thing in the current Mac OS, but then again in Windows you can drag down to the taskbar and wait for that window to gain focus. It's just not as elegant as what's being proposed here. I, for one, think this sounds cool! You can push away the front window(s) and see what was previously obscured.
(Then again, I have not used Mac OS X that much and maybe what they already have is better than what is being proposed here... but still I think it's a neat idea worthy of consideration for any GUI.)
Try graphing it. It's quite interesting (not only can you see slashdot trends, but you can discern trends in my life--like when I went for lunch).
The behavior has stopped being linear. Instead the stats are levelling off. When the article was first posted, there were about 600-800 page hits per minute. Now after the slashdot story has been posted for 12 hours, we have slowed down to a "mere" 100 page views per minute.
In any case, I'm estimating that slashdot generates an easy 200,000 click-throughs on any article it posts, within the first 12 hours. When you think about how much advertisers pay to get a billboard in a location where 200,000 people will see it per day... it makes you realize how valuable slashdot's ad space really is. Interesting.
Cool. Let's do some stats. The first post was at 11:36 (4000 count on ebay). Your post was at 11:48 (11000 count). To this, I'll add my own observations, and we come up with some data on slashdotting:
Here's some data in the format: "time -- time since article was posted -- counter on eBay": 11:35 -- 0 mins -- 11:36 -- 1 mins -- 4000 11:48 -- 13 mins -- 11000 12:22 -- 47 mins -- 37000 13:42 -- 127 mins -- 84775 13:49 -- 134 mins -- 87721 13:51 -- 136 mins -- 88734 13:57 -- 142 mins -- 91214 14:03 -- 148 mins -- 94027
From this, we can see a couple of things. First off, ebay can be counted as one of the (few) servers that survives slashdotting (slashdot also seems able to survive). Secondly, if you fit the above data, the trend is quite linear (R-squared of 0.997). The slope of the fit indicates that after a story goes live, about 600 people per minute check the link supplied in the summary. Probably lots more people read the slashdot article without actually reading the linked article.
This is one of the rare times that slashdot links to a site that can handle the load, and supplies a counter. The counter in this case isn't unique to slashdot visits, but it looks like most of the hits on the counter have come from slashdot (it was at 4,000 before slashdot posted, and now is at >90,000. This makes for some fairly interesting statistics. I'm interested to see how long it takes before the curve starts levelling off. How many people read slashdot stories right away, versus how many read it the day after? Obviously this is not perfectly scientific, but it's kinda interesting all the same.
Shorter wires do reduce the heat, but the wires are thinner, and most importantly the ratio of transistors to surface area (used to dissipate heat) has greatly increased. Even with the shorter interconnects, these 3-d stacked devices will generate alot of heat. This article from 2004 talks about this technology, and suggests:
Moreover, stackable chips would exacerbate heat-dissipation issues since standard heatsink/fan combos probably can't cool an entire stack of chips. Semiconductor makers could choose to insert tubing between each layer of chips in order to cool the stack, but this would further complicate interconnect placement. Perhaps the optimal solution will be to use modified versions of low-power processors, such as Intel's Centrino.
Putting "tubing" in between the layers sounds complicated. Maybe in 10 years microfluidics will be up to the task, but not right now. Probably what they are hoping to do is run the transistors slower than modern chips (and at lower voltage?). The loss in GHz will be made up for by the greater number of transistors and much reduced interconnect times. Sounds like it could work.
Agreed. To put some numbers to that: it's easy to transcode a 2-hour DVD into a 600Mb file that will fit on a CD. The quality is good enough that it looks fine on a computer monitor or even normal TV. If you're willing to sacrifice quality a little bit, your files will be 100Mb/hour (quality good enough for watching on the iPod... maybe good enough for showing on TV too). Moder iPods have storage up to 60 Gb. This is enough for: 27 hours of DVD-quality video, or 200 hours of decent-quality video, or 600 hours of lower-quality video (okay for iPod screen, not for TV).
I think that's enough to make the device useful. You can carry around a bunch of movies and some music no problem. It's more than enough for a trip's worth of movies/TV-shows.
Ever watched a movie on a PSP? It's actually not too bad (I was surprised too). If the video-iPod had a cable to hook up to a normal TV (or computer) that would be amazing... but even with PSP-style video size/resolution, it's good enough for watching the morning news on the bus, or perhaps watching an episode of the "Family Guy" (or other TV that doesn't require awesome resolution)... It's even reasonable for watching normal TV and movies in situations where you don't have access to a normal TV screen.
And of course, if the pixel density is high enough, there's not much difference between watching a 4-inch screen at 2ft distance versus watching a 52-inch screen at 15ft.
if you move an icon on their desktop to a place it wasnt before, they will get confused. it makes absolutely zero sense to retrain these people and waste their time and our time and taxpayers money.
People who are truly this computer-illiterate won't even notice the difference between Windows and Linux because they are only scratching the surface of their OS anyway. If IE disappears and is replaced with Firefox, their web-browsing experience doesn't change (except for the lack of pop-ups). Power users obviously have no difficulty adapting to a new OS. What I think you're trying to say is that intermediate users will have grown accustomed to certain aspects of their OS (actually their GUI), and will thus find it hard to switch. Still, there's no reason to believe they are not up to the task. Moreover, isn't it good to see that private companies are testing the waters? (i.e. NOT wasting your time or your tax dollars...)
second of all, our 'public' computers connect to several multi-thousand dollar databases, many of which will not work properly on mozilla.
I don't understand this at all. If by mozilla you are referring to their web-standards compliant browsers, I really don't understand what the problem might be.
multimedia has to 'just work'
Well, speaking from real-world and recent experience, I would not say that multimedia "just works" on windows. On a recent XP box, I downloaded an avi, tried it in WMP, it didn't work. Then I downloaded DivX, still didn't work, but at least DivX told me the problem was with DirectX. Updated DirectX, tried again. Didn't work in DivX. Switched back to WMP, and it worked now that DirectX was updated. Windows, out of the box, does not have full support for all codecs and filetypes. You have to put in some work to get it all working properly. Is the situation better on linux? Well my recent installs of Mandrake were able to play most file types without any issues. Using the command line to get new software may seem arcane, but by and large it "just works" if you know what you're doing.
the number 1 problem of linux is the problem of social class and elitism
There's some truth to that. But honestly, it's only a portion of linux users who are snobs and make others feel stupid. The elitism (or perceived elitism) is one thing that made it a bit difficult for me to make the switch... but once I did, I found a huge community of volunteers that were willing to help out and contribute. In truth, the majority of linux users now are not snobs... they are passionate about linux, and are eager to help. You just have to give it a chance.
Good point, accountability is important. Let us keep in mind, however:
1. Proprietary software vendors (including Microsoft) limit their liability to a considerable extent. The EULA basically stipulates that they are not responsible, and that, for instance, the software should not be used in life-and-death applications, etc. This limited liability can be modified by buying increased support and coverage from some company (which is often the company selling the proprietary software). Thus, you can pay Microsoft and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this will create a chain of accountability.
2. If you download a linux distro and install it on your computer, you do so at your own risk. The license clearly states that the software is free, and provided as-is, with no guarantees. However, you can purchase additional support and coverage from companies. For instance, you can pay Red Hat to give you a linux distro that they support, and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this creates a chain of accountability.
So I don't think the situation is any different in Windows vs. Linux when it comes to accountability. In both cases, if accountability and liability are important for your application, then you will pay some company (Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Red Hat, etc.) to provide you with guarantees. The company will analyze your mission-critical application, make recommendations, and state whether or not their support and suggested software can run your application properly. You have to pay for the support, for insurance, and for their guarantee of functionality. This is the same for proprietary and F/LOSS solutions.
You pay for accountability in both cases, with professional Engineers signing off on everything... but in one case you can save money on the cost of the raw licenses (and associated administrative hassles). Plus, linux is at least 10 times better.
I feel like alot of posters are not understanding what the study is... this is probably because the abstract (or, if you have access, the actual article) is much more meaningful than the CNN report.
First, notwithstanding the many good jokes about a self-referrential study that will proven to be exaggerated, this study specifically checked whether highly cited clinical studies had claims that were later contradicted or softened due to other research. This study was not claiming that 1/3 of all scientific studies published were wrong in some way. It's worth noting that doing clinical research is very difficult, and that the error bars will always be quite large. It's also important to keep in mind that sometimes clinical research may be unduly influenced by financial pressures... and that clinical research undergoes very heavy scrutiny.
So having 1/3 of all clinical studies be later contradicted should not make us worry that clinical research is being done wrong. We should be happy that so much verification occurs, that any erroneous conclusions will (probably) be checked again. One line from the CNN article rings true: Experts say the report is a reminder to doctors and patients that they should not put too much stock in a single study and understand that treatments often become obsolete with medical advances.
I think that should be the take-home message for the casual reader. Science is doing its job of verification, but people need to stop jumping to conclusions (or worse, changing their life habits) based on the results of a single study. The results need to be double-checked. The study may have been a fluke, or have flaws, or the data may have been manipulated. Whatever the reason, we should not trust single experiments, especially where human lives are at stake!
Having (partially) read the JAMA article, I think their result is sobering and useful. It really shows how intense the competition is in that field (which leads both to people making exagerrated claims, but also alot of pressure to dis-prove other's claims and get at the "right answer").
Sure you can put Mandriva on a PC and it'll work fine forever for office stuff, listening to music etc. But if the user want flexibility and ease of use?
You seem to be implying that there's something Mandriva can't do that all the other "more flexible" linux distros can. I'm not aware of such a thing. I'm not a linux guru... but I run Mandriva on a few machines and there's never been something that I wanted to do that I couldn't (remote administration, webserver, MythTV, etc.). I understand the "fun" of setting up a Gentoo machine... but if you want ease of use combined with power and flexibility, then use Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc. Everything installs easily, and then you can configure and fine-tune to your heart's content.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they wrote "VMWare Inc." rather than "VMWare" to avoid confusion... because alot of people, when they hear "VMWare" will think of the application/product, and not the company. Yes, I know that it would be hard for a product to release another product, but still. The "Inc." qualifier was just thrown in to make it obvious that they were talking about the company.
1. How are they going to verify age? If the age-verification is simple, kids will defeat it. If it is complicated, adults will find it inconvenient... in which case people will stop using Yahoo's chat services. There are many other chat networks.
2. Why does New York law affect users all over the world?
3. Who cares? As I said, there are many other chat networks. Kids will simply use another chat program or another network. What does this change, really? (Unless Yahoo believes their chat network is much more vile and filled with adult things than any other network?)
4. Why? I mean, how does preventing kids from going to chat rooms protect them? Sure, they won't be fooled by some pervert in a chat room who tricks them... but they can still be fooled/affected by emails, web pages, and lots of things online. (Besides which, web-based chat-rooms exist...) It's been said on slashdot many times before, but it should be more about parents monitoring their children, and teaching them proper surfing habits, rather than trying to lock down and sanitize the net (which is an impossible task anyway).
5. Why 18? It's great that Yahoo is taking measures to protect children... removing a "bad" chatrooms promptly seems fair enough. However I don't understand why they are cutting off at 18... Protecting very young children (who again should be monitored by their parents to a certain extent) is great, but I think a 15 year old can handle him/herself in a chat-room. There is no reason to prevent them from having an online place to discuss. I don't think you need the same level of adult responsibility to chat online as you need for voting, drinking alcohol, driving a car, etc... yet they are placing the threshold at the same level!
I agree that having this kind of software is a must for any modern university. It's easier for the students, and in many cases easier for administrators. I've used WebCT from the teacher end, and it is certainly a savings in time and money to be able to post material online, which students can print (or not) depending on what suits them. The savings in paper are significant, and most importantly we can implement fixes to lab manuals (for instance) immediately, instead of students using a lab manual that was printed in the summer and whose errors cannot be fixed until next semester.
Overall these kinds of software help alot. That having been said, WebCT is not a very well designed piece of software, and frankly it is frustrating to use at times (for students and teachers alike). I certainly hope this merger means that they will develop a new piece of software, that pulls together the best parts of both packages. As is, WebCT is useable, but it has to become much much better if universities are going to modernize their teaching.
I'm definately interested in learning more about Moodle (which other posters have mentioned), since it's possible it may evolve to fill the needs of institutes faster than commercial offerings.
Have they actually thought about asking the neighbours where they have gathering if they've noticed anything "strange" lately? That will save telecom companies a lot of money and certain the 24/5/365.25 survalence costs.
By and large I agree with what you're saying. However, this example is somewhat lacking. You can ask neighbours all you want. They will tell you "those guys are part of a gang for sure...." but the cops already know that. Generally it's easy for the cops to figure out that guys are "up to something" but finding hard evidence to prove that this is the case is much more elusive. Lots of kids walk around wearing clothes that make them look like gangsters, but we should only put into jail those that have actually committed serious crimes!
Now, wiretaps and other surveillance give police the ability to find out about illegal activities, and thereby get the evidence they need. This of course doesn't mean that any and all surveillance is justified. I agree with you that such invasions must be kept to an absolute minimum. Yet it would be naive of us to think that putting criminals in jail would be possible without some measure of information gathering (i.e.: surveillance). What remains is to (democratically) decide how much surveillance is acceptable.
I think most of us agree with you... it IS the job of the OS to provide protection against viruses, malware, etc. However, offering a virus-scanning program is not the right way to do it. Symantec (and others) provide anti-virus and anti-spyware programs to make windows more protected... they do this because they have no other way. They cannot sell a "patch" for windows that makes it secure and whatnot, so their only option is to sell software that runs like any other program, and watches for bad things and gets rid of them. Symantec has neither the source code nor the legal footing to make modifications to windows itself.
Microsoft, on the other hand, can. The proper way to make an OS protected against viruses and malware is not to provide a little program that occasionally checks if the computer is infected: it is to design the architecture in such a way that infection is very difficult.
Obviously having two levels of security is better (secure OS and then a virus scanner, for instance). However, while it virus-prevention is clearly an OS issue, the answer is not for the OS to be bundled with anti-virus software (or even to move anti-virus software from userland into the kernel or something)... rather, the OS should be secure enough that infection is quite unlikely. Then 3rd parties (or even the OS vendor if they want) can sell scanner programs for that "extra safety and security" if people need/want it.
Others have commented on the obvious conflict-of-interest that is generated when an OS vendor makes money both from the OS, and then again from software that closes gaping holes in the OS's security. It should be investigated as a possible monopoly abuse.
Previously, if you had two physical processors, you had to pay for a double license. That has not changed and probably never will. However, what this change is about is how many virtual processors something is running on. So if you have a four-processor machine, and you are running virtualizing software and running a windows instance that sees (for example) two virtual processors, then your license for that windows will only be for the two virtual processors, not the four physical processors your machine actually has. So in a case like that, you would actually be saving money.
In other situations, as TFA points out, you could have to pay more. If you're prototyping something, and are using a four-processor machine to generate a virtual environment where windows sees 6 processors, then you're supposed to pay a license for 6 processors.
To be honest (and I'm no expert), I don't understand what this will change. How many people are really running microsoft applictions or OSes on virtual processors? Most people will just be using them on physical processors, and so this "change" changes nothing...
For those who want simplicity and reliability, commercial packages may be your best bet - at least for day-to-day work. But if you're willing to experiment a little, and put up with some technical challenges, there is a wealth of programming - for free - in the open source community.
This is a fallacy. Alot of OSS is developmental and experimental and truly is buggy. Some OSS is top-quality and fully useable (linux, firefox, gimp, etc.). It is a fallacy to believe that commercial software is somehow better. Some commercial software is fully useable (photoshop, MS Office, etc.) but there is alot of commercial software that is absolutely crap. Even software made by respectable companies will often present 'technical challenges' (for instance, software bundled with hardware devices, etc.). With commercial software, the price may give you a hint as to quality... but ultimately you have to do some research and try to make an informed decision about what to buy. With OSS, you again have to do some research before deciding what to use (although you have the bonus advantage of being able to quickly install all of the choices without any financial commitment).
I don't think commercial software is automatically simpler and more reliable. The great number of OSS options is admitedly complicated, but it is silly to think that just because something costs money, it must be better than the free alternative.
have the editors pay net citizens with Paypal for especially valuable work
I'm not sure that's actually a good idea. This is the usual feeling with open-source software and other freely collaborative projects. "Look how good they are! Imagine how much better they could be if they had some money! Imagine how much better it would be if the contributors were being paid!" However I think this is a fallacy. Those who contribute to such open collaborations do so for fun (or for reputation, to scratch an itch, etc.). The reward is the intrinsic feeling of contributing and creating something. Adding a financial incentive would do little. In fact, there is some research suggesting that financial rewards do more to hinder enthusiasm in a project. For instance, if the top 1% of wikipedians were given money for their contributions, then suddenly everyone involved in the project would feel that they had a "right" to be paid for their contributions. This would destroy the open collaboration, replacing it with a competitive atmosphere. Ultimately, people might lose interest in helping such a project. Why should they work so hard so that the top 1% get money and they get nothing? It wouldn't even encourage that top 1% to work harder. The monetary reward would simply de-value the entire system.
Strange as it may seem at first glance, adding money to open collaborative projects is not always a good thing (donations for bandwidth and servers are always helpful, of course!). These issues have to be looked at very carefully. Wikipedia is a community with a delicate balance.
Note: I'm well aware that many top OSS programmers are in fact paid to do this work. However one must be careful with the assumption that money is always an incentive to work harder. For some people, it really isn't. (Specifically those who are most prone to working hard and then releasing their work for public good.)
If I have a brick and mortar store and an unsatisfied customer enters my store and begins passing out fliers and berating my business with a megaphone, INSIDE MY STORE, do you think that's acceptable?
That's not a fair analogy. These websites are not required to post user reviews if they don't want to. The question is, once they've said that they are posting user reviews, are they allowed to edit and control that content? The brick-and-mortar analogy would be to say that you're going to have a "discussion night" about your store, and encourage everyone in town to show up. Then, anyone who speaks up with a negative opinion you tell to leave your store immediately, and when someone expresses a positive opinion, you let them stay. At the end of the night, only positive-opinioned people are left in your store. Was this fair? If someone walks in late, and hears only positive opinions, don't you think you've mislead that customer?
If the website only wants positive reviews, then they can have a section entitled "Here is a selection of comments from REAL USERS praising our products" and then list them. Many sites do this and it's fine. But when you claim that you're posting "user reviews" there's an implicit understanding that both the good and the bad are being let through. A company would do this to PROVE that their products/service are (more often than not) good. To filter the comments is basically false advertising (a type of fraud). The company can entirely remove the "user review" system if they don't like it, but to edit it is not moral and could even be illegal.
False advertising is illegal. There are laws regarding what types of claims you can make, and how much you have to back them up. You can say "our product is great" but you cannot say "the President loves our product" (unless of course he publicly said that, or you've arranged a contract with him, etc.). Similarly, you couldn't say "we have conducted an independant scientific survey, and determined that 99% of people love our product" if that isn't true. Of course there are cases where companies commision "independant" reviews, or distort stats to their favor. But laws exist to constrain advertising, and prevent out-and-out lying.
... that would be misleading. Similarly, you cannot label them as "user reviews" if they have been edited.
When it comes to online user reviews, the situation gets a bit sticky. The reviews are hosted on the company's site... but something that claims to be "user reviews" implicitly indicates that these are the comments from all the users who cared to enter a comment. To modify or distort the comments is to change the implicit nature of the commenting system. So the company needs to clearly state "these reviews have been filtered and edited by our staff" or else they have to let the comments stand, consistent with a reasonable person's expectation of what is meant by "user reviews." To do otherwise is to purposefully mislead the customer. You cannot say "this medication is approved by doctors" if by "doctors" you mean some English professors who have Ph.D.s
(Note: a certain amount of filtering to remove blatantly inflamatory or irrelevant reviews is of course okay, since this doesn't contradict a normal expectation of what a "user review" is.)
Your network is always slower than your local system. No matter what you think you can push to a system, you'll always be slower than what you could do locally.
That's always been true in the past, but won't necessarily hold in the future. The speed of a computer only matters insofar as the user can perceive a difference. Right now, there is a huge difference between playing an HD movie off of your hard drive, and streaming it over the net (namely, the first is somewhat possible, whereas the second is not). If network connection speeds get to the point where real-time high-resolution video can be streamed with no lag, then there is no difference in having your monitor hooked to a computer that is sitting beside you, versus hooked to a computer that is on the other side of the planet.
Once network speeds become faster than the human ability to notice the difference, it will matter much less where your computing power is physically located. It may become commonplace to lease a computer from someone and access it remotely (from anywhere on earth) rather than own and maintain your own box with a CPU in it. There are a variety of reasons why people will still buy their own computers, of course (reducing costs in long-term, ability to control it fully, sensitivity of data, etc.). However, I fully expect us to reach a point where networks are fast enough that the user experience can be decoupled from the hardware (whether or not this happens is more difficult to predict... but the potential is there).
(Note: Perhaps I'm naive to assume that in the future we will still be using a monitor-and-keyboard interface. If we all switch to VR interfaces, which require more bandwidth, then it again becomes prohibitive to stream the user experience over the net. However I maintain that the finite bandwidth of human senses means that eventually networks will surpass our ability to assimilate information, and it won't matter whether the data is local or remote. I'm not going to speculate on a date where this will happen, however!)
Wasn't the point of moving to linux to move away from windows?
There are many reasons why someone might want to use linux instead of windows (ideology, price, power, etc.). With regard to the graphical control panel: the primary difference between windows and linux is that in windows you use a GUI to change system settings... which is sometimes fast and convenient, but other times you end up searching for hours to find the right box to click, or (worse) there is no way to change a given behavior. By comparison, in linux (or Mandriva specifically, if you prefer) you have a GUI available for system settings... this GUI is sometimes a fast and convenient way to change settings. When it isn't, you can open a console and directly edit the relevant files, use some other application (like webmin) to modify the system, or write scripts to automate these changes, or do whatever else you want.
My point is that in linux you have the choice of a GUI or a command-line. The power to edit the raw files is always there. Mandriva's GUI control panel is just a nice wrapper for the hundreds of text config files spread over the file system. For those new to linux, this GUI can be a great help. But for anyone who wants to control the guts of their computer, Mandriva won't stop you. In fact you can switch between using the two modes without much trouble.
That's why I use linux: because sometimes I want to quickly change a setting... and other times I want to do something more complex. In either case, linux makes this possible.
(Note: That's not to say that I think linux GUIs should reproduce all the mistakes that the windows GUI has made... but simply that linux should integrate whatever useful concepts it can without restricting the inherent power of the system.)
I can confirm this. I have installed Mandrake 10.1 on many systems, and have used ext3. Never had any problems. I have not tried ReiserFS, but as far as I can remember, the option was there.
The fact that MSN's database is older (and less colorful!) than Google's is interesting. But more interesting is the arms race this is generating. Has anyone noticed that Google Maps now has a "hybrid" view in addition to the "map" and "satellite" option? As far as I can tell, this was implemented within the last couple of days (based on the last time I remember using google maps). I suspect that they had this feature ready a while ago, and released it now because of the recent release of Microsoft's Virtual Earth. Google noticed that MS had implemented a feature that google maps didn't have yet, so they promptly made it available!
I like this competition, because it is forcing everyone to come up with fantastic products. Google is purposefully pushing barriers, forcing other companies to constantly catch up.
Okay, let's get the "this is a dupe" comments out of the way. This book (ISBN 1931836361) was already reviewed on slashdot. It seems like it's the same editor (timothy) in both cases. Then again, the two reviews are different, so I suppose it's not an exact duplication?
Oh, and I found the previous slashdot story by searching "slashdot google hacking for penetration testers" on Google. It's the first hit. Some people may find that ironic.
Step two: select a file in window "A" and drag over window "B" (which is overlapped and beneath window "A")
Step three: Wait half a second for window "B" become the modal window and release.
What happens if the target window is completely obscured by the front window? If there is no overlapping edge for you to move towards and wait for focus to be given to the underlying windows?
From what I've seen, Mac OS really is the best with regard to user interaction tricks. It's the smoothest and best interface around. However, this new technique seems to have some advantages in terms of smoothness and it is intuitive. Clicking on a keyboard button may accomplish the same thing in the current Mac OS, but then again in Windows you can drag down to the taskbar and wait for that window to gain focus. It's just not as elegant as what's being proposed here. I, for one, think this sounds cool! You can push away the front window(s) and see what was previously obscured.
(Then again, I have not used Mac OS X that much and maybe what they already have is better than what is being proposed here... but still I think it's a neat idea worthy of consideration for any GUI.)
For anyone who cares, here's an update on my data-list. The data is not evenly spread out, since I had to spend *some* of my day doing other things:
11:35 -- 0 mins -- ?
11:36 -- 1 mins -- 4000
11:48 -- 13 mins -- 11000
12:22 -- 47 mins -- 37000
13:42 -- 127 mins -- 84775
13:49 -- 134 mins -- 87721
13:51 -- 136 mins -- 88734
13:57 -- 142 mins -- 91214
14:03 -- 148 mins -- 94027
14:07 -- 152 mins -- 95455
14:11 -- 156 mins -- 96884
14:14 -- 159 mins -- 98330
14:25 -- 170 mins -- 102660
14:27 -- 172 mins -- 103618
14:29 -- 174 mins -- 104199
14:53 -- 3.3 hours -- 112769
16:30 -- 4.9 hours -- 140050
17:08 -- 5.6 hours -- 148984
17:11 -- 5.6 hours -- 149874
17:13 -- 5.6 hours -- 150262
17:18 -- 5.7 hours -- 151243
17:28 -- 5.9 hours -- 153089
17:40 -- 6.1 hours -- 155523
17:56 -- 6.4 hours -- 158354
17:57 -- 6.4 hours -- 158517
18:01 -- 6.4 hours -- 159096
18:03 -- 6.5 hours -- 159479
18:05 -- 6.5 hours -- 159791
18:09 -- 6.6 hours -- 160387
19:02 -- 7.5 hours -- 168994
19:09 -- 7.6 hours -- 170048
23:27 -- 11.9 hours -- 199442
23:32 -- 12 hours -- 199954
23:33 -- 12 hours -- 200014
23:40 -- 12.1 hours -- 200629
Try graphing it. It's quite interesting (not only can you see slashdot trends, but you can discern trends in my life--like when I went for lunch).
The behavior has stopped being linear. Instead the stats are levelling off. When the article was first posted, there were about 600-800 page hits per minute. Now after the slashdot story has been posted for 12 hours, we have slowed down to a "mere" 100 page views per minute.
In any case, I'm estimating that slashdot generates an easy 200,000 click-throughs on any article it posts, within the first 12 hours. When you think about how much advertisers pay to get a billboard in a location where 200,000 people will see it per day... it makes you realize how valuable slashdot's ad space really is. Interesting.
Cool. Let's do some stats. The first post was at 11:36 (4000 count on ebay). Your post was at 11:48 (11000 count). To this, I'll add my own observations, and we come up with some data on slashdotting:
Here's some data in the format: "time -- time since article was posted -- counter on eBay":
11:35 -- 0 mins --
11:36 -- 1 mins -- 4000
11:48 -- 13 mins -- 11000
12:22 -- 47 mins -- 37000
13:42 -- 127 mins -- 84775
13:49 -- 134 mins -- 87721
13:51 -- 136 mins -- 88734
13:57 -- 142 mins -- 91214
14:03 -- 148 mins -- 94027
From this, we can see a couple of things. First off, ebay can be counted as one of the (few) servers that survives slashdotting (slashdot also seems able to survive). Secondly, if you fit the above data, the trend is quite linear (R-squared of 0.997). The slope of the fit indicates that after a story goes live, about 600 people per minute check the link supplied in the summary. Probably lots more people read the slashdot article without actually reading the linked article.
This is one of the rare times that slashdot links to a site that can handle the load, and supplies a counter. The counter in this case isn't unique to slashdot visits, but it looks like most of the hits on the counter have come from slashdot (it was at 4,000 before slashdot posted, and now is at >90,000. This makes for some fairly interesting statistics. I'm interested to see how long it takes before the curve starts levelling off. How many people read slashdot stories right away, versus how many read it the day after? Obviously this is not perfectly scientific, but it's kinda interesting all the same.
Shorter wires do reduce the heat, but the wires are thinner, and most importantly the ratio of transistors to surface area (used to dissipate heat) has greatly increased. Even with the shorter interconnects, these 3-d stacked devices will generate alot of heat. This article from 2004 talks about this technology, and suggests:
Moreover, stackable chips would exacerbate heat-dissipation issues since standard heatsink/fan combos probably can't cool an entire stack of chips. Semiconductor makers could choose to insert tubing between each layer of chips in order to cool the stack, but this would further complicate interconnect placement. Perhaps the optimal solution will be to use modified versions of low-power processors, such as Intel's Centrino.
Putting "tubing" in between the layers sounds complicated. Maybe in 10 years microfluidics will be up to the task, but not right now. Probably what they are hoping to do is run the transistors slower than modern chips (and at lower voltage?). The loss in GHz will be made up for by the greater number of transistors and much reduced interconnect times. Sounds like it could work.
Agreed. To put some numbers to that: it's easy to transcode a 2-hour DVD into a 600Mb file that will fit on a CD. The quality is good enough that it looks fine on a computer monitor or even normal TV. If you're willing to sacrifice quality a little bit, your files will be 100Mb/hour (quality good enough for watching on the iPod... maybe good enough for showing on TV too). Moder iPods have storage up to 60 Gb. This is enough for:
27 hours of DVD-quality video, or
200 hours of decent-quality video, or
600 hours of lower-quality video (okay for iPod screen, not for TV).
I think that's enough to make the device useful. You can carry around a bunch of movies and some music no problem. It's more than enough for a trip's worth of movies/TV-shows.
Ever watched a movie on a PSP? It's actually not too bad (I was surprised too). If the video-iPod had a cable to hook up to a normal TV (or computer) that would be amazing... but even with PSP-style video size/resolution, it's good enough for watching the morning news on the bus, or perhaps watching an episode of the "Family Guy" (or other TV that doesn't require awesome resolution)... It's even reasonable for watching normal TV and movies in situations where you don't have access to a normal TV screen.
And of course, if the pixel density is high enough, there's not much difference between watching a 4-inch screen at 2ft distance versus watching a 52-inch screen at 15ft.
if you move an icon on their desktop to a place it wasnt before, they will get confused. it makes absolutely zero sense to retrain these people and waste their time and our time and taxpayers money.
People who are truly this computer-illiterate won't even notice the difference between Windows and Linux because they are only scratching the surface of their OS anyway. If IE disappears and is replaced with Firefox, their web-browsing experience doesn't change (except for the lack of pop-ups). Power users obviously have no difficulty adapting to a new OS. What I think you're trying to say is that intermediate users will have grown accustomed to certain aspects of their OS (actually their GUI), and will thus find it hard to switch. Still, there's no reason to believe they are not up to the task. Moreover, isn't it good to see that private companies are testing the waters? (i.e. NOT wasting your time or your tax dollars...)
second of all, our 'public' computers connect to several multi-thousand dollar databases, many of which will not work properly on mozilla.
I don't understand this at all. If by mozilla you are referring to their web-standards compliant browsers, I really don't understand what the problem might be.
multimedia has to 'just work'
Well, speaking from real-world and recent experience, I would not say that multimedia "just works" on windows. On a recent XP box, I downloaded an avi, tried it in WMP, it didn't work. Then I downloaded DivX, still didn't work, but at least DivX told me the problem was with DirectX. Updated DirectX, tried again. Didn't work in DivX. Switched back to WMP, and it worked now that DirectX was updated. Windows, out of the box, does not have full support for all codecs and filetypes. You have to put in some work to get it all working properly. Is the situation better on linux? Well my recent installs of Mandrake were able to play most file types without any issues. Using the command line to get new software may seem arcane, but by and large it "just works" if you know what you're doing.
the number 1 problem of linux is the problem of social class and elitism
There's some truth to that. But honestly, it's only a portion of linux users who are snobs and make others feel stupid. The elitism (or perceived elitism) is one thing that made it a bit difficult for me to make the switch... but once I did, I found a huge community of volunteers that were willing to help out and contribute. In truth, the majority of linux users now are not snobs... they are passionate about linux, and are eager to help. You just have to give it a chance.
Anyways, just my opinion(s).
Good point, accountability is important. Let us keep in mind, however:
1. Proprietary software vendors (including Microsoft) limit their liability to a considerable extent. The EULA basically stipulates that they are not responsible, and that, for instance, the software should not be used in life-and-death applications, etc. This limited liability can be modified by buying increased support and coverage from some company (which is often the company selling the proprietary software). Thus, you can pay Microsoft and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this will create a chain of accountability.
2. If you download a linux distro and install it on your computer, you do so at your own risk. The license clearly states that the software is free, and provided as-is, with no guarantees. However, you can purchase additional support and coverage from companies. For instance, you can pay Red Hat to give you a linux distro that they support, and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this creates a chain of accountability.
So I don't think the situation is any different in Windows vs. Linux when it comes to accountability. In both cases, if accountability and liability are important for your application, then you will pay some company (Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Red Hat, etc.) to provide you with guarantees. The company will analyze your mission-critical application, make recommendations, and state whether or not their support and suggested software can run your application properly. You have to pay for the support, for insurance, and for their guarantee of functionality. This is the same for proprietary and F/LOSS solutions.
You pay for accountability in both cases, with professional Engineers signing off on everything... but in one case you can save money on the cost of the raw licenses (and associated administrative hassles). Plus, linux is at least 10 times better.
I feel like alot of posters are not understanding what the study is... this is probably because the abstract (or, if you have access, the actual article) is much more meaningful than the CNN report.
First, notwithstanding the many good jokes about a self-referrential study that will proven to be exaggerated, this study specifically checked whether highly cited clinical studies had claims that were later contradicted or softened due to other research. This study was not claiming that 1/3 of all scientific studies published were wrong in some way. It's worth noting that doing clinical research is very difficult, and that the error bars will always be quite large. It's also important to keep in mind that sometimes clinical research may be unduly influenced by financial pressures... and that clinical research undergoes very heavy scrutiny.
So having 1/3 of all clinical studies be later contradicted should not make us worry that clinical research is being done wrong. We should be happy that so much verification occurs, that any erroneous conclusions will (probably) be checked again. One line from the CNN article rings true:
Experts say the report is a reminder to doctors and patients that they should not put too much stock in a single study and understand that treatments often become obsolete with medical advances.
I think that should be the take-home message for the casual reader. Science is doing its job of verification, but people need to stop jumping to conclusions (or worse, changing their life habits) based on the results of a single study. The results need to be double-checked. The study may have been a fluke, or have flaws, or the data may have been manipulated. Whatever the reason, we should not trust single experiments, especially where human lives are at stake!
Having (partially) read the JAMA article, I think their result is sobering and useful. It really shows how intense the competition is in that field (which leads both to people making exagerrated claims, but also alot of pressure to dis-prove other's claims and get at the "right answer").
Sure you can put Mandriva on a PC and it'll work fine forever for office stuff, listening to music etc. But if the user want flexibility and ease of use?
You seem to be implying that there's something Mandriva can't do that all the other "more flexible" linux distros can. I'm not aware of such a thing. I'm not a linux guru... but I run Mandriva on a few machines and there's never been something that I wanted to do that I couldn't (remote administration, webserver, MythTV, etc.). I understand the "fun" of setting up a Gentoo machine... but if you want ease of use combined with power and flexibility, then use Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc. Everything installs easily, and then you can configure and fine-tune to your heart's content.