Right, so Zelda 64, Mario 64, etc. etc. didn't innovate; they were just "more of the same."
Um, NO. Nintendo keeps up established series for the sake of their name recognition, but the gameplay dynamics within these series are often malleable.
Except that we've known for a long time that Linus is no software freedom zealot (sorry for the loaded language), and no pal of RMS. The GPLv3 thing seems consistent with his views.
I remember keeping track of the Breezy Badger planning wiki before that version was released, and it seemed to me that the team deferred many of their major goals... on the other hand, it looks like most improvements planned for Dapper have been implemented already, as Shuttleworth notes in his message:
I'll refrain from Debian comparisons, as they're not needed to communicate what stellar work the team has done here. Point is, Ubuntu users and admins ought to support this delay, for the same reason I support Ubuntu... the Ubuntu team simply has its shit together, moreso than that of any other freely available distribution.
Let Shuttleworth strategize to take on Red Hat, SuSE, and Vista--because Ubuntu actually has a fighting chance. That prospect ought to excite Ubuntu partisans (like me) and fence-sitters alike.
We will be describing this new effort as "Basketball"
Basketball??? Does this remind anyone else of Rumsfeld's assertion that we should no longer refer to the insurgents as "insurgents?" And the subsequent joke that W. would rename the deficit "cake." Because, really, who doesn't like cake?
It's as though Orwell suddenly took an absurd turn... next, we'll see the Department of Tennis, the Department of Impressionist Paintings, &c. &c.; the former will run Guantanamo Bay, the latter, Abu Ghraib.
Why does anyone care what MS does or doesn't bundle with their OS? There's much more functionality embedded in any Linux distro than Windows; Ubuntu, for example, comes with an office suite, Outlook equivalent, media player(s), etc. etc.
The real problems with the MS monopoly are their complete disregard for standards, and thus, interoperability, and consumers' complete lack of choice of an OS when buying new PCs. If the government were to mandate some Goddamn interoparability standards/requirements for MS, and stop their insane arrangements with PC manufacturers. Then, manufacturers would then give customers a choice of OS when they were, say, customizing their new Dell, similar to the way they can presently save money by choosing less RAM, hard disk space, etc. Under these conditions, the monopoly would surely disintegrate. Joe Sixpack might see that getting Linux with his computer would be $100 cheaper; Linux itself, moreover, would be capable of enough interoperability to meet his needs; everyone's happy; MS is marginalized, as it is not able to provide comparable services to [F/OSS OS of your choice] at a comparable price.
How else is Apple going to sell that expensive proprietary hardware, except with a shiny OS that you can't get anywhere else? OS X is the sole reason I plan to get a Mac as soon as I have the cash. (If anyone actually needs convincing of OS X's merits, I would be powerless to convince.)
Dvorak simply ignores this aspect of Apple's business.
Re:A key to music is the familiar.
on
How Songs Get Popular
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If "the key" were actually this simple, we'd still be listening to Gregorian chants. Referencing a music theory class seals the absurdity of this argumnent. Where did the theory itself come from?
In music, an element of familiarity is important, of course, especially for mass audiences, for whom music is little more than its social context. But familiar elements (chord progressions, instrumentation...) can be recombined endlessly. Combinations that once seemed incongruous become normal--e.g. OutKast's use of acoustic guitar in "Hey Ya!" New techniques are made to coexist with old ones, achieving substantially new effects--Radiohead's integration of electronic music into Kid A and Amnesiac, anyone?
Moreover, innovation is the key to longevity. Think of how long Radiohead and OutKast have been popular, especially by comparison to [insert top 40 hack here].
At the same time, derivative music sucks up market share like a crazed idiot teenager chugging energy drinks; by nature, it lends itself to intense but brief enjoyment. There's so much of it because the labels have to keep churning it out; all they can do is throw money at problems, and you can't buy creativity.
On that note, the graphs tracking the popularity of certain searches over time lacked numbers on the Y axes, making it impossible to compare them to one another... which would have been interesting....
Uh... familiarity? Habit? I've installed Firefox on every computer my non-techie parents have used for the last two years, and I've told them why they should use it, but I've never once seen them do so, although FF's interface, usability and compatibility are just fine.
However, on the school where my dad teaches, there's a Firefox shortcut on the desktop with the Internet Explorer icon--merely labeled "Internet." A link to IE itself is nowhere to be found. When I first discovered this, I was giddy at the network admin's surprising display of cleverness and competence (admins at schools tend to be morons, as I'm sure this crowd knows). And, not surprisingly, my dad uses Firefox there.
But I wonder... even after what I've told him about the differences between the two browsers, does he even notice?
(didn't notice the damned "HTML formatted" option was on)
Like many others on Slashdot and elsewhere, I love early U2 but I think most of their recent stuff is shit. If nothing else, The Joshua Tree is a classic. What's so "low" about that opinion? Because it's not cool to like U2 at the moment? Because popular opinion doesn't take into account that they were making music long before "uno, dos, tres, catorce" and the dreaded iPod commercials?
But this is all a red herring.
You're a troll for sidetracking the issue to U2's music and Bono's opinion of it; the matter at hand is Africa and what he has or hasn't done for the continent's plight.
You are also misguided on this point, I think. Bono founded and helps fund the Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa organization, and when he talks about it, the media pays attention to him. People who consume media, which is basically everyone in developed countries, must then pay some sort of attention to him, positive or negative; even if they disagree with Bono on the precise nature of and solutions for Africa's problems, they must acknowledge that the problems exist. Other such visible reminders, for people in the first world, are relatively few. Furthermore Bono has discussed these issues with Bush, Blair, and Christian leaders, and perhaps made some progress on AIDS funding at least. Though I'm not sure whether Bono spoke to him exactly, I know Billy Graham has become a sort of anti-AIDS crusader of late.
Those who accuse him of collaborating with the enemy (and I certainly agree that all of the above are The Enemy) are missing the point: these are the people in power, and action is better than inaction. I think it's particularly savvy of him to talk to Christians. Surely history was in the back of his mind here: many of the progressive social movements around the turn of the 20th century were inspired by applying Christ's message of tolerance and charity (which the WASPs admittedly distort whenever they can) to modern social issues.
So I don't think your post is relevant, nor do I think you have a real case about the Africa issue.
Anyway, I don't consider "troll" an insult; trolls enliven Slashdot and because of the moderation system don't generally cause much trouble. Even then,./ doesn't "matter" much as the slogan claims. I haven't RTFA, I'm here because I'm bored, how about you? Who gives a damn about Time anyway? Thanks for an enjoyable argument.
Like many others on Slashdot and elsewhere, I love early U2 but I think most of their recent stuff is shit. If nothing else, The Joshua Tree is a classic. What's so "low" about that opinion? Because it's not cool to like U2 at the moment? Because popular opinion doesn't take into account that they were making music long before "uno, dos, tres, catorce" and the dreaded iPod commercials?
But this is all a red herring.
You're a troll for sidetracking the issue to U2's music and Bono's opinion of it; the matter at hand is Africa and what he has or hasn't done for the continent's plight.
You are also misguided on this point, I think. Bono founded and helps fund the Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa organization, and when he talks about it, the media pays attention to him. People who consume media, which is basically everyone in developed countries, must then pay some sort of attention to him, positive or negative; even if they disagree with Bono on the precise nature of and solutions for Africa's problems, they must acknowledge that the problems exist. Other such visible reminders, for people in the first world, are relatively few. Furthermore Bono has discussed these issues with Bush, Blair, and Christian leaders, and perhaps made some progress on AIDS funding at least. Though I'm not sure whether Bono spoke to him exactly, I know Billy Graham has become a sort of anti-AIDS crusader of late.
Those who accuse him of collaborating with the enemy (and I certainly agree that all of the above are The Enemy) are missing the point: these are the people in power, and action is better than inaction. I think it's particularly savvy of him to talk to Christians. Surely history was in the back of his mind here: many of the progressive social movements around the turn of the 20th century were inspired by applying Christ's message of tolerance and charity (which the WASPs admittedly distort whenever they can) to modern social issues.
So I don't think your post is relevant, nor do you have a real case about the Africa issue.
Anyway, I don't consider "troll" an insult; trolls enliven Slashdot and because of the moderation system don't generally cause much trouble. Even then,./ doesn't "matter" much as the slogan claims. I haven't RTFA, I'm here because I'm bored, how about you? Who gives a damn about Time anyway? Thanks for an enjoyable argument.
Bono's occasional grandstanding doesn't negate the good that he's done--bringing Africa's problems to the forefront of many people's attention is his way of helping solve those problems. If the media, as well as music fans, paid attention to everything you did, how would you turn that into something productive?
Maddox, by the way, is a troll as GP noted, and you sir are a troll for quoting him.
...comes from "kid mercury," and what a gem it is:
"dude, www was a really good idea.
it's like the ultimate idea, man. i mean, i thought i had some good ideas, but www trumps everything. it's up there with like electricity. or music.
thanks for sharing."
Second place, from "Sean":
"You're the man now dog!"
Now, let's mull that one over for a second. When Sir Tim mentioned blogs and wikis as the primary examples of the wonderful user-created content that the Web is now overflowing with, didn't he leave something out? Thank you, Sean, for bringing this to our attention.
But isn't one of the whole premises of open source that allowing everyone to look at the code is, in the long run, better than "security through obscurity?" This has always made sense to me. Also, wasn't that Nessus software everyone's been talking about open source until the current version? Besides, wouldn't Java developers have a strong incentive to keep compatibility with the installed base--let's not forget how massive that base is--even if Java did become open to change? Finally, if someone did fork Java and Java were under the GPL, all forks would be GPL also, so potential problems caused by this move would be minimal...
Slashdot Mirror
Right, so Zelda 64, Mario 64, etc. etc. didn't innovate; they were just "more of the same."
Um, NO. Nintendo keeps up established series for the sake of their name recognition, but the gameplay dynamics within these series are often malleable.
In other news: mafia says recovery from "hits" becoming impossible.
Except that we've known for a long time that Linus is no software freedom zealot (sorry for the loaded language), and no pal of RMS. The GPLv3 thing seems consistent with his views.
But for non-technical users (who are the future of Linux, let's not forget), that "bit" of polish goes a long way.
And "filling the gap" between two unacceptable extremes is a pretty nifty trick.
I remember keeping track of the Breezy Badger planning wiki before that version was released, and it seemed to me that the team deferred many of their major goals... on the other hand, it looks like most improvements planned for Dapper have been implemented already, as Shuttleworth notes in his message:
s
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/dapper/+spec
I'll refrain from Debian comparisons, as they're not needed to communicate what stellar work the team has done here. Point is, Ubuntu users and admins ought to support this delay, for the same reason I support Ubuntu... the Ubuntu team simply has its shit together, moreso than that of any other freely available distribution.
Let Shuttleworth strategize to take on Red Hat, SuSE, and Vista--because Ubuntu actually has a fighting chance. That prospect ought to excite Ubuntu partisans (like me) and fence-sitters alike.
FTA:
We will be describing this new effort as "Basketball"
Basketball??? Does this remind anyone else of Rumsfeld's assertion that we should no longer refer to the insurgents as "insurgents?" And the subsequent joke that W. would rename the deficit "cake." Because, really, who doesn't like cake?
It's as though Orwell suddenly took an absurd turn... next, we'll see the Department of Tennis, the Department of Impressionist Paintings, &c. &c.; the former will run Guantanamo Bay, the latter, Abu Ghraib.
Why does anyone care what MS does or doesn't bundle with their OS? There's much more functionality embedded in any Linux distro than Windows; Ubuntu, for example, comes with an office suite, Outlook equivalent, media player(s), etc. etc.
The real problems with the MS monopoly are their complete disregard for standards, and thus, interoperability, and consumers' complete lack of choice of an OS when buying new PCs. If the government were to mandate some Goddamn interoparability standards/requirements for MS, and stop their insane arrangements with PC manufacturers. Then, manufacturers would then give customers a choice of OS when they were, say, customizing their new Dell, similar to the way they can presently save money by choosing less RAM, hard disk space, etc. Under these conditions, the monopoly would surely disintegrate. Joe Sixpack might see that getting Linux with his computer would be $100 cheaper; Linux itself, moreover, would be capable of enough interoperability to meet his needs; everyone's happy; MS is marginalized, as it is not able to provide comparable services to [F/OSS OS of your choice] at a comparable price.
Yay, capitalism.
How else is Apple going to sell that expensive proprietary hardware, except with a shiny OS that you can't get anywhere else? OS X is the sole reason I plan to get a Mac as soon as I have the cash. (If anyone actually needs convincing of OS X's merits, I would be powerless to convince.)
Dvorak simply ignores this aspect of Apple's business.
--hm.
...give us the option to turn it off. Thank you.
If "the key" were actually this simple, we'd still be listening to Gregorian chants. Referencing a music theory class seals the absurdity of this argumnent. Where did the theory itself come from?
In music, an element of familiarity is important, of course, especially for mass audiences, for whom music is little more than its social context. But familiar elements (chord progressions, instrumentation...) can be recombined endlessly. Combinations that once seemed incongruous become normal--e.g. OutKast's use of acoustic guitar in "Hey Ya!" New techniques are made to coexist with old ones, achieving substantially new effects--Radiohead's integration of electronic music into Kid A and Amnesiac, anyone?
Moreover, innovation is the key to longevity. Think of how long Radiohead and OutKast have been popular, especially by comparison to [insert top 40 hack here].
At the same time, derivative music sucks up market share like a crazed idiot teenager chugging energy drinks; by nature, it lends itself to intense but brief enjoyment. There's so much of it because the labels have to keep churning it out; all they can do is throw money at problems, and you can't buy creativity.
--hm.
Considering the statement that preceded it, that's the most ominous fucking smiley face I've ever seen.
Suffice to say that we Linux users would be... less than happy with the reality of a forked kernel?
You know any idiot can get GIMP on Windows by running two .exe's...
Too bad Stallman still ain't done.
"sovereingity." Nice rhetoric there, RMS.
"sovereingity."
Nice rhetoric there, RMS.
On that note, the graphs tracking the popularity of certain searches over time lacked numbers on the Y axes, making it impossible to compare them to one another... which would have been interesting....
Uh... familiarity? Habit? I've installed Firefox on every computer my non-techie parents have used for the last two years, and I've told them why they should use it, but I've never once seen them do so, although FF's interface, usability and compatibility are just fine.
However, on the school where my dad teaches, there's a Firefox shortcut on the desktop with the Internet Explorer icon--merely labeled "Internet." A link to IE itself is nowhere to be found. When I first discovered this, I was giddy at the network admin's surprising display of cleverness and competence (admins at schools tend to be morons, as I'm sure this crowd knows). And, not surprisingly, my dad uses Firefox there.
But I wonder... even after what I've told him about the differences between the two browsers, does he even notice?
(didn't notice the damned "HTML formatted" option was on)
./ doesn't "matter" much as the slogan claims. I haven't RTFA, I'm here because I'm bored, how about you? Who gives a damn about Time anyway? Thanks for an enjoyable argument.
Like many others on Slashdot and elsewhere, I love early U2 but I think most of their recent stuff is shit. If nothing else, The Joshua Tree is a classic. What's so "low" about that opinion? Because it's not cool to like U2 at the moment? Because popular opinion doesn't take into account that they were making music long before "uno, dos, tres, catorce" and the dreaded iPod commercials?
But this is all a red herring.
You're a troll for sidetracking the issue to U2's music and Bono's opinion of it; the matter at hand is Africa and what he has or hasn't done for the continent's plight.
You are also misguided on this point, I think. Bono founded and helps fund the Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa organization, and when he talks about it, the media pays attention to him. People who consume media, which is basically everyone in developed countries, must then pay some sort of attention to him, positive or negative; even if they disagree with Bono on the precise nature of and solutions for Africa's problems, they must acknowledge that the problems exist. Other such visible reminders, for people in the first world, are relatively few. Furthermore Bono has discussed these issues with Bush, Blair, and Christian leaders, and perhaps made some progress on AIDS funding at least. Though I'm not sure whether Bono spoke to him exactly, I know Billy Graham has become a sort of anti-AIDS crusader of late.
Those who accuse him of collaborating with the enemy (and I certainly agree that all of the above are The Enemy) are missing the point: these are the people in power, and action is better than inaction. I think it's particularly savvy of him to talk to Christians. Surely history was in the back of his mind here: many of the progressive social movements around the turn of the 20th century were inspired by applying Christ's message of tolerance and charity (which the WASPs admittedly distort whenever they can) to modern social issues.
So I don't think your post is relevant, nor do I think you have a real case about the Africa issue.
Anyway, I don't consider "troll" an insult; trolls enliven Slashdot and because of the moderation system don't generally cause much trouble. Even then,
Like many others on Slashdot and elsewhere, I love early U2 but I think most of their recent stuff is shit. If nothing else, The Joshua Tree is a classic. What's so "low" about that opinion? Because it's not cool to like U2 at the moment? Because popular opinion doesn't take into account that they were making music long before "uno, dos, tres, catorce" and the dreaded iPod commercials? But this is all a red herring. You're a troll for sidetracking the issue to U2's music and Bono's opinion of it; the matter at hand is Africa and what he has or hasn't done for the continent's plight. You are also misguided on this point, I think. Bono founded and helps fund the Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa organization, and when he talks about it, the media pays attention to him. People who consume media, which is basically everyone in developed countries, must then pay some sort of attention to him, positive or negative; even if they disagree with Bono on the precise nature of and solutions for Africa's problems, they must acknowledge that the problems exist. Other such visible reminders, for people in the first world, are relatively few. Furthermore Bono has discussed these issues with Bush, Blair, and Christian leaders, and perhaps made some progress on AIDS funding at least. Though I'm not sure whether Bono spoke to him exactly, I know Billy Graham has become a sort of anti-AIDS crusader of late. Those who accuse him of collaborating with the enemy (and I certainly agree that all of the above are The Enemy) are missing the point: these are the people in power, and action is better than inaction. I think it's particularly savvy of him to talk to Christians. Surely history was in the back of his mind here: many of the progressive social movements around the turn of the 20th century were inspired by applying Christ's message of tolerance and charity (which the WASPs admittedly distort whenever they can) to modern social issues. So I don't think your post is relevant, nor do you have a real case about the Africa issue. Anyway, I don't consider "troll" an insult; trolls enliven Slashdot and because of the moderation system don't generally cause much trouble. Even then, ./ doesn't "matter" much as the slogan claims. I haven't RTFA, I'm here because I'm bored, how about you? Who gives a damn about Time anyway? Thanks for an enjoyable argument.
Bono's occasional grandstanding doesn't negate the good that he's done--bringing Africa's problems to the forefront of many people's attention is his way of helping solve those problems. If the media, as well as music fans, paid attention to everything you did, how would you turn that into something productive?
Maddox, by the way, is a troll as GP noted, and you sir are a troll for quoting him.
...comes from "kid mercury," and what a gem it is:
"dude, www was a really good idea.
it's like the ultimate idea, man. i mean, i thought i had some good ideas, but www trumps everything. it's up there with like electricity. or music.
thanks for sharing."
Second place, from "Sean":
"You're the man now dog!"
Now, let's mull that one over for a second. When Sir Tim mentioned blogs and wikis as the primary examples of the wonderful user-created content that the Web is now overflowing with, didn't he leave something out? Thank you, Sean, for bringing this to our attention.
Dynamicity? Dynamitude? Dynam? (dynam:dynamic::system:systemic) Non-static-y-ness?
With how bad of a Slashdotting could Web Clips Slashdot Slashdot if Web Clips could Slashdot Slashdot?
(Or take the question seriously if you're so inclined. ^_^)
But isn't one of the whole premises of open source that allowing everyone to look at the code is, in the long run, better than "security through obscurity?" This has always made sense to me. Also, wasn't that Nessus software everyone's been talking about open source until the current version? Besides, wouldn't Java developers have a strong incentive to keep compatibility with the installed base--let's not forget how massive that base is--even if Java did become open to change? Finally, if someone did fork Java and Java were under the GPL, all forks would be GPL also, so potential problems caused by this move would be minimal...
That's odd... My friend BitTorrent tells me most of Microsoft's software is free, too. I wonder why they'd act against their own interests like this?