Hot 'bout Tron Lightcycles where you're building a wall along the border, without crossing over into foreign lands or ACLU lawyers? Who would be the blue bike, though?
It's not interesting, it's just a coincidence. I do this for a living. A few of the major phone carriers pay my company (of which I am a VP of) to push mainstream TV through their networks. We develop that whole system for them.
Let me just say, what will stop 3G video isn't the technology--people have always had tiny TVs; it's the pricing models. Subscription pricing will never work, in any field, until the end of time. I would pay $5 for "TV" on my phone, but not $5/channel, as it is now.
I'm sorry but no one with a degree could not see the difference between a generality and a stereotype. Your whole post is about how you're the exception to apartment to his generality, but not negating his generality. We've all lived in apartments--it was called COLLEGE, and maybe young-married-poor. Most people who are in apartments are so because they can't afford a house or don't have the financial accuity to understand that they CAN afford a house. So yes, mathematically, apartments are generally inhabited by the lower end of society.
Did no one notice that the original campaign was against Unix, then the current article was Unisys praising Open Source, and Cowboy Neal interpreted that as an original campaign against everything-nix and a current article pro-Linux? There is just no logical flow to all that.
Unix, *nix, Linux, and open source are all different subject, and if Unisys hates Unix but likes open source in general, that does not mean they now like Linux. I'm pro-open sourced software because it's good and cheap. That does not mean I love the obfuscated CLI of Unix.
That was my first thought. What about the people who just want to be nice and share their internet? Personally, I know a decent amount about computers, and I still see no reason why not to leave my network wide open. Sure, some spammer can park within 30 feet of my house and sent a virus or spam, but the odds of that happening are not high enough that NOT preventing against such could be termed "negligence."
What needs to happen is routers need to have more security, and have it easier to use, and defaulting to on. I don't think anyone should be prosecuted, but if the government's going to point at anyone, they should pressure the makers of the routers (who default all the security to off, discourage WPA, require 24 character af09 passwords if a password at all, etc... I shouldn't be required to know as much as Linksys should be.
The way I see it, religion is based just as much on repeated observation as science. I, and billions like me, have had first hand experience with things metaphysical which no one in science has ever come close to explaining. So if billions of people have witnessed it firsthand, why is it not science?
Answer: it's not science because it's not measurable, and only quantifiable at best through surveys and whatever. If so, it is no more and no less of science than psychology, philosophy, or any other soft science. There is a weakness to "science," and as long as it is taught like its own religion, these debates will always come up.
Still, I have nothing against a disclaimer in an evolution unit saying "this is called the Theory of Evolution. It is not a law because it has not been proven, and other theories exist." A simple disclaimer shouldn't offend anyone, except the legions of scientists who don't believe in being questioned (thus by definition invalidating their license.)
Petitions only happen when there's no mass demand for something. If 51% of the population believes a certain way, you're never going to see a door-to-door petition trying to show that 1,000 people believe it. You'll see it in polls and on the ballot. Outside of a small group of programmers and early-appliers, there is no demand for OpenOffice. Nor is there an actionable demand outside a small circle for Linux or anything else this community (of which I am a part of) rallies behind.
Just watch, every petition campaign you can find on google is for the side that obviously will lose and has no real public support. It does sometimes show that the sliver of supporters are serious, but not that they're legitimate.
And speaking of accessibility, very few open source software packages have any accessibility functionalities. Most, even the big ones, don't even have real instruction manuals! The problem with open source is and will always be that it's more fun to add more features than to get the ones you have working. In my office, we all use Photoshop, even though we all have GIMP--because no one with a right half to their brain can use it. Ditto with all the open source software we use, including Open Office. It's fine for programmers who want to make a benign anti-Microsoft political statement, but try as we may, no one else in the company can figure the stuff out.
The truth is, more people will lose access to these files if it went into a peculiar and unused format (OpenOffice) than if it stays in Office. There may be an ideal that open formats are more accessible, but in today's world, they still require inaccessible software to run. Just try going to work and start saving files in OpenOffice--and see how long you keep your job.
This is sooo Slashdot. The headlline says PriceWaterhouseCoopers is going open source, and then when you actually read the article it turns out to be some small office in PWC-Japan! I'm sorry, but PWC-Japan's IT manager a) isn't going to save any money in the end, and b) this isn't the start of a domino effect.
Yeah, but how many newspaper reporters would do that? My guess is 99% of them would promise you discretion, then blow it all over the front page. If anything got threatening to him, the vast majority of reporters would drop your name as fodder. I mean, look at any major news story--sensationalism abounds in most all news outlets--unfortunately, that's what they do...
Remember, that's the whole shield laws debate--reporters should be able to protect their sources, but the world is rampant with reporters who make up whatever they want and exploit every bit of info so they can make a buck, and that's a much greater in scale issue.
I can't believe that so many people would argue that there is no bias towards Apple in the media. When I teach the concept of "suspension of disbelief," i.e. little illogicisms you're willing to overlook to move the plot along, the example I always give is that in the movies and on TV, everyone, no matter whether they're accountants or FEMA employees, everyone uses the brand-spankin'-newest Macintosh, with a big glowing logo on the side. And, you know, the reason that happens has nothing to do with endorsements, it has to do with the movie & TV makers wanting to support Mac.
Flash or not, if less than 5% of the population prefers Mac to Windows (ditto for you Linux people), there is too much coverage of Apple. I mean, look at the ROKR--if that were made by anyone but Apple, it wouldn't have been covered at all! (What am I talking about, it was made by everyone, and with 10x the HD and for half the price, and the media was willing to pretend Apple was making something new!)
and while their products are stylish and have religiously loyal followers, really have never been
Slashdot Mirror
Hot 'bout Tron Lightcycles where you're building a wall along the border, without crossing over into foreign lands or ACLU lawyers? Who would be the blue bike, though?
It's not interesting, it's just a coincidence. I do this for a living. A few of the major phone carriers pay my company (of which I am a VP of) to push mainstream TV through their networks. We develop that whole system for them. Let me just say, what will stop 3G video isn't the technology--people have always had tiny TVs; it's the pricing models. Subscription pricing will never work, in any field, until the end of time. I would pay $5 for "TV" on my phone, but not $5/channel, as it is now.
I'm sorry but no one with a degree could not see the difference between a generality and a stereotype. Your whole post is about how you're the exception to apartment to his generality, but not negating his generality. We've all lived in apartments--it was called COLLEGE, and maybe young-married-poor. Most people who are in apartments are so because they can't afford a house or don't have the financial accuity to understand that they CAN afford a house. So yes, mathematically, apartments are generally inhabited by the lower end of society.
Did no one notice that the original campaign was against Unix, then the current article was Unisys praising Open Source, and Cowboy Neal interpreted that as an original campaign against everything-nix and a current article pro-Linux? There is just no logical flow to all that.
Unix, *nix, Linux, and open source are all different subject, and if Unisys hates Unix but likes open source in general, that does not mean they now like Linux. I'm pro-open sourced software because it's good and cheap. That does not mean I love the obfuscated CLI of Unix.
That was my first thought. What about the people who just want to be nice and share their internet? Personally, I know a decent amount about computers, and I still see no reason why not to leave my network wide open. Sure, some spammer can park within 30 feet of my house and sent a virus or spam, but the odds of that happening are not high enough that NOT preventing against such could be termed "negligence." What needs to happen is routers need to have more security, and have it easier to use, and defaulting to on. I don't think anyone should be prosecuted, but if the government's going to point at anyone, they should pressure the makers of the routers (who default all the security to off, discourage WPA, require 24 character af09 passwords if a password at all, etc... I shouldn't be required to know as much as Linksys should be.
The way I see it, religion is based just as much on repeated observation as science. I, and billions like me, have had first hand experience with things metaphysical which no one in science has ever come close to explaining. So if billions of people have witnessed it firsthand, why is it not science?
Answer: it's not science because it's not measurable, and only quantifiable at best through surveys and whatever. If so, it is no more and no less of science than psychology, philosophy, or any other soft science. There is a weakness to "science," and as long as it is taught like its own religion, these debates will always come up.
Still, I have nothing against a disclaimer in an evolution unit saying "this is called the Theory of Evolution. It is not a law because it has not been proven, and other theories exist." A simple disclaimer shouldn't offend anyone, except the legions of scientists who don't believe in being questioned (thus by definition invalidating their license.)
Petitions only happen when there's no mass demand for something. If 51% of the population believes a certain way, you're never going to see a door-to-door petition trying to show that 1,000 people believe it. You'll see it in polls and on the ballot. Outside of a small group of programmers and early-appliers, there is no demand for OpenOffice. Nor is there an actionable demand outside a small circle for Linux or anything else this community (of which I am a part of) rallies behind. Just watch, every petition campaign you can find on google is for the side that obviously will lose and has no real public support. It does sometimes show that the sliver of supporters are serious, but not that they're legitimate. And speaking of accessibility, very few open source software packages have any accessibility functionalities. Most, even the big ones, don't even have real instruction manuals! The problem with open source is and will always be that it's more fun to add more features than to get the ones you have working. In my office, we all use Photoshop, even though we all have GIMP--because no one with a right half to their brain can use it. Ditto with all the open source software we use, including Open Office. It's fine for programmers who want to make a benign anti-Microsoft political statement, but try as we may, no one else in the company can figure the stuff out. The truth is, more people will lose access to these files if it went into a peculiar and unused format (OpenOffice) than if it stays in Office. There may be an ideal that open formats are more accessible, but in today's world, they still require inaccessible software to run. Just try going to work and start saving files in OpenOffice--and see how long you keep your job.
This is sooo Slashdot. The headlline says PriceWaterhouseCoopers is going open source, and then when you actually read the article it turns out to be some small office in PWC-Japan! I'm sorry, but PWC-Japan's IT manager a) isn't going to save any money in the end, and b) this isn't the start of a domino effect.
Yeah, but how many newspaper reporters would do that? My guess is 99% of them would promise you discretion, then blow it all over the front page. If anything got threatening to him, the vast majority of reporters would drop your name as fodder. I mean, look at any major news story--sensationalism abounds in most all news outlets--unfortunately, that's what they do... Remember, that's the whole shield laws debate--reporters should be able to protect their sources, but the world is rampant with reporters who make up whatever they want and exploit every bit of info so they can make a buck, and that's a much greater in scale issue.
I can't believe that so many people would argue that there is no bias towards Apple in the media. When I teach the concept of "suspension of disbelief," i.e. little illogicisms you're willing to overlook to move the plot along, the example I always give is that in the movies and on TV, everyone, no matter whether they're accountants or FEMA employees, everyone uses the brand-spankin'-newest Macintosh, with a big glowing logo on the side. And, you know, the reason that happens has nothing to do with endorsements, it has to do with the movie & TV makers wanting to support Mac. Flash or not, if less than 5% of the population prefers Mac to Windows (ditto for you Linux people), there is too much coverage of Apple. I mean, look at the ROKR--if that were made by anyone but Apple, it wouldn't have been covered at all! (What am I talking about, it was made by everyone, and with 10x the HD and for half the price, and the media was willing to pretend Apple was making something new!) and while their products are stylish and have religiously loyal followers, really have never been