And stop badgering Windows 95. It looks lame now but it kicked ass on 4 MB computers with broken hardware back in 95.
Oh, yes... right.
I take it you never installed Windows 95 on a computer with 4 MB of RAM.
OK, so neither have I.
But I have installed it on a computer with 8 MB of RAM.
My mother used it for work. She said she'd come into the office, turn the computer on, go grab a coffee, and when she was back, the system was usually up. Or nearly so.
Windows 95 didn't kick ass on computers with 4 MB of RAM. Especially not with broken hardware.
It did make you kick the bloody machine senseless (misery loves company, after all) and kick the ass who said 4 MB was minimum system requirements.
I got Master of Magic working under DOSBoxwithout error... except for occasional discoloration/color inversion, which in turn I remember seeing even with DOS 6.22, so it isn't an issue.
And it's DOSBox 0.63, for I haven't bothered upgrading yet.
Well, they're announcing January 30th now. So I guess they still have time till next Christmas.
Re:It's like nothing we've seen .. since Linux
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
Thirty years ago, all of the computers were controlled and operated by condescending assholes like you. If a 'user' wanted a report, he went to the room with the half door and 'submitted a request' on a form. Two hours later, if he was lucky, a massive greenbar printout would be sitting on the table provided for said purpose. The 'operators' wore lab coats and were the only people allowed to touch the computer.
I sincerely doubt anybody is gonna let a fucking priesthood like that take over again. One of the ways the Personal Computer was liberating is that it blew away that kind of bullshit. 'Power to the people' and all that.
Condescending assholes like me were the ones who knew how to use the bloody things. Users who submitted requests didn't.
And they didn't want to learn.
Well, the ones that wanted, did so.
The only difference between then and now is the fact that condescending assholes like me are basically good-natured and helpful, and not condescending assholes at all, otherwise we wouldn't be helping dozens of people each. Because they don't have the will, the time or whatever to learn the stuff.
People today need professional sysadmins - the mere fact that they leave their computers completely open for all sorts of attacks confirms this - but they value their data too little to care.
Frankly, if you ask me, if this generation of children is raised like this, a fucking caste, not a priesthood, of sysadmins will take over. The few who know, the many who don't.
Re:It's like nothing we've seen .. since Linux
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
That's why I said "mostly useful".
Re:It's like nothing we've seen .. since Linux
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
i get sick of programmers that think everyone should know how to program. we should also all grow our own produce and raise animals instead of having grocery stores too I suppose? and learn to maintain our cars on our own. hell, by that rationale, we should be building our own cars.
Well, if you want to call me every time something's wrong with your computer, it's fine by me. You do it with your car as well, no doubt.
And if you want to see where your attitude's leading, look at the cooking analogy:
Nowadays it is possible to buy a ready-made meal, just unpack it and shove it in the microwave.
You don't need to know how to cook; someone has done it for you already and you just have to push a button and there's your meal.
Programming is the same: if you want to perform the simplest of tasks, sure: press a button or two and there you are.
But if you want to cook something by yourself, to your own taste, and not to the taste of some smarty-pants cook who can never get it quite right, you'd better learn to cook. Pick out the right kind of groceries in the right kind of state, pick out or think up recipes and prepare the food properly.
I just don't see anyone asking for kitchen utensils that will adjust to your every need themselves, without you at least changing something yourself. Then again, I prefer simple tools, in the kitchen as well as in programming.
Re:It's like nothing we've seen .. since Linux
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
Normal people can't do that. I can't program worth shit, and I don't even know how to mess with the Kernal. They mean an OS that changes with you, without you having to do it with coding. If Linux could do that, it would be MUCH better.
Who needs to get killed before people realise: you need a driver's license to be allowed to drive. You should need a license to be allowed to operate a computer.
But as computers crept up on us in every possible sphere of our work and communication, everyone and his brother uses computers although they know absolutely nothing about them. Because they're easy.
They're not.
Certain tasks are easier to perform with the help of a computer. Just like bloody abused (metaphor-wise) driving isn't easy or perfectly safe, neither is using a computer. And if you want to do it, you'd better learn how to.
Lazy-ass.
Re:It's like nothing we've seen .. since Linux
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
The fact is, making something "user friendly" means making the front-end more simple -- and thus making the back-end more complicated.
That's why I suggest a new term - idiot-friendly.
For some reason, user-friendly doesn't necessarily mean stuff like keeping the design consistent or providing good, structured documentation; instead it means making things "intuitive". Someone or another noted that the only intuitive interface is the nipple, and I wholeheartedly agree.
And this is a problem with all GUIs[1] I know: writing good documentation is an almost-forgotten art. Users are left to "discover" things...
[1] At least in my experience, CLI programs tend to have mostly useful manpages. And one could learn quite a lot of stuff ftrom MS-DOS and 4DOS help; I know I did back when I was a kid.
All you need to do, in that case, is write a C interpreter in assembler that can interpret enough of the C language to run the compiler interpretatively as it compiles the compiler. Then you know what the interpreted compiler is doing {because you wrote the interpreter code yourself} and that the compiler it's compiling really is clean {because you checked the compiler source}.
I just imagined Nigel Hawthorne explaining this bit to me.
Never mind it is Sony that makes it, a company that can do no good these days.
I probably won't acquire any of these devices - or anything like them - for a few more years certainly... but one thing is certain: I will never ever buy anything from them again.
And I'm encouraging people to avoid them at all costs.
The good news is that Firefox is still gaining marketshare, and in certain areas it's pretty high up, too... and the users are starting to demand rightly-done websites.
If you define language as an audible, message-based communication, then a whole bunch of species have it. What they don't have, as evidenced by research on apes, is grammar.
I don't define language as necessarily audible in the first place. That definition would imply that deaf people are incapable of linguistic communication, which we all know is rubbish.
Some linguists and semioticians define language as a system of signs which can be used to describe all other systems of signs. This is the definition I find the most adequate, though it is not the only one.
On the oher hand, audible communication you mentioned is closer to the definition of speech phoneticians use. However, even the phoneticians impose severe limits on their definition of speech: not only the speech of parrots and crows and other speech-capable birds is excluded from their definition, but also the speech of deaf people, for it is not an optimal communication method to them.
I've had to come to terms with the fact animals don't have language as well; it seemed very counter-intuitive at the time.
Thing is, language and communication are not one and the same. While you can communicate with animals in more or less limited way, there are many features of language that simply lack in their communication. And they all begin at a cognitive level, too, according to some research.
I said "grasp of physics", not "knowledge of physics". Not, perhaps, the knowledge of formulae and all the maths needed to calculate the friction or whatnot, but the understanding of the concepts themselves.
I was amazed to see how many people who have graduated from highschool still believe a heavier object will fall before a lighter one.
Now, I don't know about American schools, but I know what level of knowledge vs. understanding is needed in Croatian primary schools. I knew most of that stuff by the age of 6. I never played football[1]; I sat at home reading about physics, chemistry, technology... all at a primary school level, but still.
[1] Americans call it soccer, I believe.
Re:Partial credit
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Oh, my bad. But vision is something even older and more fundamental than language, so I guess my point remains.
As for the Chomsky quote, and the whole innateness theory, sorry, but I remain unconvinced. The capability of learning, understanding and speaking a language is obviously innate just as much as our senses are, but Chomskian views on that matter I find rather... lacking.
Then again, I'm a convinced cognitivist, so this is no wonder.
The 'critical period' aspect of language is probably because of its innateness, and not its complexity.
Whyever do you seem to think that innateness and complexity have nothing in common?
Take a look at the current optical recognition software, from OCR to robotic sight. How far have we gone in developing those technologies?
Compare that to the state of NLP. Especially for morphologically rich languages, which have made Chomsky alter his theories time and again.
Sight, hearing, language... all these require extensive training at a certain point in life. At a certain early point in life. And the reason for this is, I'd guess, because of their complexity. I've read of jungle tribes whose members can only visually comprehend distances up to 10 m or so; they never get to see anything farther away than that. In our world, they'd be maladjusted; in theirs, we would be.
These perceptive and cognitive functions are way too complex to be fully innate; instead, capabilities for development of those functions are innate, and the functions develop according to the surroundings.
Slashdot Mirror
Including a Rolling Stones innuendo, as it were.
So, Microsoft's 8 years behind Apple, is that what you're saying?
Interesting...
Hey, if it compiles, ship it!
BTW, if I'd been drinking, you'd owe me a new keyboard.
P.S. Kamineko? God-kitten? Do you kill yourself when someone masturbates?
Oh, yes... right.
I take it you never installed Windows 95 on a computer with 4 MB of RAM.
OK, so neither have I.
But I have installed it on a computer with 8 MB of RAM.
My mother used it for work. She said she'd come into the office, turn the computer on, go grab a coffee, and when she was back, the system was usually up. Or nearly so.
Windows 95 didn't kick ass on computers with 4 MB of RAM. Especially not with broken hardware.
It did make you kick the bloody machine senseless (misery loves company, after all) and kick the ass who said 4 MB was minimum system requirements.
</rant>
Stick a "Hasta la Vista, baby" sticker instead.
I heard of a multiplayer hack... I'll have to test it someday.
I got Master of Magic working under DOSBoxwithout error... except for occasional discoloration/color inversion, which in turn I remember seeing even with DOS 6.22, so it isn't an issue.
And it's DOSBox 0.63, for I haven't bothered upgrading yet.
I know boobs are for looking at... fondling... sucking... but I never tried listening to one. Or two.
Well, they're announcing January 30th now. So I guess they still have time till next Christmas.
Condescending assholes like me were the ones who knew how to use the bloody things. Users who submitted requests didn't.
And they didn't want to learn.
Well, the ones that wanted, did so.
The only difference between then and now is the fact that condescending assholes like me are basically good-natured and helpful, and not condescending assholes at all, otherwise we wouldn't be helping dozens of people each. Because they don't have the will, the time or whatever to learn the stuff.
People today need professional sysadmins - the mere fact that they leave their computers completely open for all sorts of attacks confirms this - but they value their data too little to care.
Frankly, if you ask me, if this generation of children is raised like this, a fucking caste, not a priesthood, of sysadmins will take over. The few who know, the many who don't.
That's why I said "mostly useful".
Well, if you want to call me every time something's wrong with your computer, it's fine by me. You do it with your car as well, no doubt.
And if you want to see where your attitude's leading, look at the cooking analogy:
Nowadays it is possible to buy a ready-made meal, just unpack it and shove it in the microwave.
You don't need to know how to cook; someone has done it for you already and you just have to push a button and there's your meal.
Programming is the same: if you want to perform the simplest of tasks, sure: press a button or two and there you are.
But if you want to cook something by yourself, to your own taste, and not to the taste of some smarty-pants cook who can never get it quite right, you'd better learn to cook. Pick out the right kind of groceries in the right kind of state, pick out or think up recipes and prepare the food properly.
I just don't see anyone asking for kitchen utensils that will adjust to your every need themselves, without you at least changing something yourself. Then again, I prefer simple tools, in the kitchen as well as in programming.
Who needs to get killed before people realise: you need a driver's license to be allowed to drive. You should need a license to be allowed to operate a computer.
But as computers crept up on us in every possible sphere of our work and communication, everyone and his brother uses computers although they know absolutely nothing about them.
Because they're easy.
They're not.
Certain tasks are easier to perform with the help of a computer. Just like bloody abused (metaphor-wise) driving isn't easy or perfectly safe, neither is using a computer. And if you want to do it, you'd better learn how to.
Lazy-ass.
That's why I suggest a new term - idiot-friendly.
For some reason, user-friendly doesn't necessarily mean stuff like keeping the design consistent or providing good, structured documentation; instead it means making things "intuitive". Someone or another noted that the only intuitive interface is the nipple, and I wholeheartedly agree.
And this is a problem with all GUIs[1] I know: writing good documentation is an almost-forgotten art. Users are left to "discover" things...
[1] At least in my experience, CLI programs tend to have mostly useful manpages. And one could learn quite a lot of stuff ftrom MS-DOS and 4DOS help; I know I did back when I was a kid.
By default.
I just imagined Nigel Hawthorne explaining this bit to me.
I probably won't acquire any of these devices - or anything like them - for a few more years certainly... but one thing is certain: I will never ever buy anything from them again.
And I'm encouraging people to avoid them at all costs.
Every little bit helps.
Well, there's breathing... Though any yoga instructor will tell you you don't really know how to breathe, so there goes that one...
On a Croatian keyboard, [ is AltGr+F.
What about switching Esc and CapsLock then?
Though I find some things annoying in vi(m) - but that's more of a problem with the Croatian keyboard than anything else...
The good news is that Firefox is still gaining marketshare, and in certain areas it's pretty high up, too... and the users are starting to demand rightly-done websites.
So it's moving....
I don't define language as necessarily audible in the first place. That definition would imply that deaf people are incapable of linguistic communication, which we all know is rubbish.
Some linguists and semioticians define language as a system of signs which can be used to describe all other systems of signs. This is the definition I find the most adequate, though it is not the only one.
On the oher hand, audible communication you mentioned is closer to the definition of speech phoneticians use. However, even the phoneticians impose severe limits on their definition of speech: not only the speech of parrots and crows and other speech-capable birds is excluded from their definition, but also the speech of deaf people, for it is not an optimal communication method to them.
I've had to come to terms with the fact animals don't have language as well; it seemed very counter-intuitive at the time.
Thing is, language and communication are not one and the same. While you can communicate with animals in more or less limited way, there are many features of language that simply lack in their communication. And they all begin at a cognitive level, too, according to some research.
I'm sorry, sir, but you appear to have violated the EULA stated in my signature.
My lawyers will be contacting you soon.
Have a nice day.
I said "grasp of physics", not "knowledge of physics". Not, perhaps, the knowledge of formulae and all the maths needed to calculate the friction or whatnot, but the understanding of the concepts themselves.
I was amazed to see how many people who have graduated from highschool still believe a heavier object will fall before a lighter one.
Now, I don't know about American schools, but I know what level of knowledge vs. understanding is needed in Croatian primary schools. I knew most of that stuff by the age of 6. I never played football[1]; I sat at home reading about physics, chemistry, technology... all at a primary school level, but still.
[1] Americans call it soccer, I believe.
Oh, my bad. But vision is something even older and more fundamental than language, so I guess my point remains.
As for the Chomsky quote, and the whole innateness theory, sorry, but I remain unconvinced. The capability of learning, understanding and speaking a language is obviously innate just as much as our senses are, but Chomskian views on that matter I find rather... lacking.
Then again, I'm a convinced cognitivist, so this is no wonder.
Whyever do you seem to think that innateness and complexity have nothing in common?
Take a look at the current optical recognition software, from OCR to robotic sight. How far have we gone in developing those technologies?
Compare that to the state of NLP. Especially for morphologically rich languages, which have made Chomsky alter his theories time and again.
Sight, hearing, language... all these require extensive training at a certain point in life. At a certain early point in life. And the reason for this is, I'd guess, because of their complexity. I've read of jungle tribes whose members can only visually comprehend distances up to 10 m or so; they never get to see anything farther away than that. In our world, they'd be maladjusted; in theirs, we would be.
These perceptive and cognitive functions are way too complex to be fully innate; instead, capabilities for development of those functions are innate, and the functions develop according to the surroundings.