All kidding aside, it's amazing how "recreational activities" end up pushing the limits and levels of technology to a point that it can eventually be used for more "serious" purposes. Examples?
Pr0n had a lot to do with pushing the massive webserver throughput / broadband increases we've seen in the past several years.
Gaming is directly responsible for the graphics technology that can later be used in training simulations for going to Mars.
Of course, if NASA uses the Quake engine for training for trips to Mars, they may also need to equip the astronauts with railguns...
We have a couple computers in our place. One is the family computer in the family room and the others are in the home office.
My son, 5, uses the one in the family room. While he's not old enough to get into the 'bad' stuff yet, I've still found it very useful to keep VNC installed on it. This is mainly useful when he comes to me because something is broken (usually 20-30 Firefox windows open to noggin.com).
When he gets older, this will be my 'instant spot check' system if I happen to be working in my office. I would recommend this highly, especially to anyone who allows their kids to have a networked computer in their bedrooms. While I personally don't expect to allow it when the time comes, I can understand that some people would.
What I don't understand is when someone with today's technology would allow a child's computer to go unmonitored - no matter where its physical location.
It's entirely possible that Gates tried FF, but the big question is "What did he actually *look* at?" If all he saw were a bunch of VB-script-riddled intranet pages, then of course he'll say IE is better.
I doubt he spent the time to explore the features intimately. He probably went to their internal home page, clicked around a bit, muttered "this sux0rs", and went on to make bazillions elsewhere.
It's not deceit, it's just his (possibly doomed from the start) user experience. Never attribute to malice...yaddda yadda...
Indeed, and I've thought of this. Unfortunately, this brings us to the problem of the unweildy size of the flourescent bulbs (even the cute little light bulb shaped ones that are still 25% bigger than normal bulbs), combined with finite space in the lighting fixtures of rental properties.:-(
For everyday people? Probably not. Not in your home, at least, where you probably want it dark when you turn off the lights.
I mostly agree with your post, except for this last part. My house is REALLY dark when the lights are out, since there's not a lot of light from outside that would come in through the windows.
This presents a problem, because I also have two small children, who have a hard time getting around in the dark. We use night lights, but they're about as effective as spitting in a monsoon because of the layout of the house.
We have to make due, because the only alternative to night lights is leaving 3 60-W hall lights turned on all night (they're all wired together). This 'hack' [sic] is a GREAT thing, since, even at night, you don't necessarily want the WHOLE house dark -- just where you're sleeping. Unfortunately, since the alternative is increadibly uneconomical, that's what we end up doing.
I didn't RTFA, but assuming that these are reasonably bright, they'd be really effective and economical night lights - great safety feature, and it scares the Boogey Man away to boot!
It appears that a fair number of./-ers see the word 'Corporation' and immediately associate it with the 'Evil-MS-Empire' babble. What people fail to realize is that being "incorporated" is simply a legal status affording limitation of liability to its owners and certain different tax rules -- no more, no less. It implies nothing of size or the morality of those who govern the corporation.
There are many "small" corporations of 5 people (or, like me, corporations of one). In fact, as I write this, I am surrounded by the presidents/sole shareholders/sole employees of four corporations. It's getting to be a required legal status for professional consulting.
While the "morality" of a given corporation may *tend* to be inversely proportional to its size, that's all it is: a tendency. There are many corporations, large and small, that treat their employees right, make tremendous charitable contributions, or, at the very least, govern themselves responsibly. It's just that the ones that make the trouble make the news. It's not fair, based on the troubles of a relative few who got carried away, to brand all corporations as 'evil'.
I hope (likely in vain) that./-ers will refrain from making judgements as to the intentions of the Mozilla Foundation based on a single, neutral word. Make your judgements based on what they do, instead.
It's funny how we all know Vigilantism is 'wrong', but most of us have spent time and money to go watch them in theaters. The likes of Spiderman and Batman are the obvious ones, but think of every movie you've ever seen where it comes down to 'One Man Who Can Save the Universe!'.
The point is that I'm not sure that 'we all know vigilantism is wrong'. In reality, I think 'we all know' that sometimes vigilantism is the only way to get things done.
You don't have liberty without security, so what's the point of talking about preserving all your civil liberties when you're not free anyway? In reality compromises must be made to maximise freedom.
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" -- Benjamin Franklin
As a professional Linux/Unix developer in my 3rd major international corporation, I have to wonder why this obviously silly argument keeps coming up. I realize that you are probably being sarcastic, but plenty of people say the same thing, and are actually serious.
Linux/FOSS has not only been accepted at major corporations, it's thriving. While the desktop market share of Linux may be relatively small, to suggest that this implies that no 'serious' work can be done with FOSS is simply unrealistic.
The job market here is incredible for people with *nix development skills, and Linux experience is a huge plus on the resume. In fact, *nix developers are *better* paid than Windows developers -- at least here in NYC, where Linux and OSS are increasingly helping to make the world turn (technologically speaking).
Generally, only front-end work is done on the Windows platform, and even this is increasingly being shifted toward web-based interfaces. Almost always, the heavy lifting is done on a Unix variant.
I don't want to dwell on this too much, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that your statement is true. Me, and my wife and two kids.
Slashdot Mirror
All kidding aside, it's amazing how "recreational activities" end up pushing the limits and levels of technology to a point that it can eventually be used for more "serious" purposes. Examples?
Pr0n had a lot to do with pushing the massive webserver throughput / broadband increases we've seen in the past several years.
Gaming is directly responsible for the graphics technology that can later be used in training simulations for going to Mars.
Of course, if NASA uses the Quake engine for training for trips to Mars, they may also need to equip the astronauts with railguns...
We have a couple computers in our place. One is the family computer in the family room and the others are in the home office.
My son, 5, uses the one in the family room. While he's not old enough to get into the 'bad' stuff yet, I've still found it very useful to keep VNC installed on it. This is mainly useful when he comes to me because something is broken (usually 20-30 Firefox windows open to noggin.com).
When he gets older, this will be my 'instant spot check' system if I happen to be working in my office. I would recommend this highly, especially to anyone who allows their kids to have a networked computer in their bedrooms. While I personally don't expect to allow it when the time comes, I can understand that some people would.
What I don't understand is when someone with today's technology would allow a child's computer to go unmonitored - no matter where its physical location.
It's entirely possible that Gates tried FF, but the big question is "What did he actually *look* at?" If all he saw were a bunch of VB-script-riddled intranet pages, then of course he'll say IE is better.
I doubt he spent the time to explore the features intimately. He probably went to their internal home page, clicked around a bit, muttered "this sux0rs", and went on to make bazillions elsewhere.
It's not deceit, it's just his (possibly doomed from the start) user experience. Never attribute to malice...yaddda yadda...
Indeed, and I've thought of this. Unfortunately, this brings us to the problem of the unweildy size of the flourescent bulbs (even the cute little light bulb shaped ones that are still 25% bigger than normal bulbs), combined with finite space in the lighting fixtures of rental properties. :-(
For everyday people? Probably not. Not in your home, at least, where you probably want it dark when you turn off the lights.
I mostly agree with your post, except for this last part. My house is REALLY dark when the lights are out, since there's not a lot of light from outside that would come in through the windows.
This presents a problem, because I also have two small children, who have a hard time getting around in the dark. We use night lights, but they're about as effective as spitting in a monsoon because of the layout of the house.
We have to make due, because the only alternative to night lights is leaving 3 60-W hall lights turned on all night (they're all wired together). This 'hack' [sic] is a GREAT thing, since, even at night, you don't necessarily want the WHOLE house dark -- just where you're sleeping. Unfortunately, since the alternative is increadibly uneconomical, that's what we end up doing.
I didn't RTFA, but assuming that these are reasonably bright, they'd be really effective and economical night lights - great safety feature, and it scares the Boogey Man away to boot!
It appears that a fair number of ./-ers see the word 'Corporation' and immediately associate it with the 'Evil-MS-Empire' babble. What people fail to realize is that being "incorporated" is simply a legal status affording limitation of liability to its owners and certain different tax rules -- no more, no less. It implies nothing of size or the morality of those who govern the corporation.
./-ers will refrain from making judgements as to the intentions of the Mozilla Foundation based on a single, neutral word. Make your judgements based on what they do, instead.
There are many "small" corporations of 5 people (or, like me, corporations of one). In fact, as I write this, I am surrounded by the presidents/sole shareholders/sole employees of four corporations. It's getting to be a required legal status for professional consulting.
While the "morality" of a given corporation may *tend* to be inversely proportional to its size, that's all it is: a tendency. There are many corporations, large and small, that treat their employees right, make tremendous charitable contributions, or, at the very least, govern themselves responsibly. It's just that the ones that make the trouble make the news. It's not fair, based on the troubles of a relative few who got carried away, to brand all corporations as 'evil'.
I hope (likely in vain) that
It's funny how we all know Vigilantism is 'wrong', but most of us have spent time and money to go watch them in theaters. The likes of Spiderman and Batman are the obvious ones, but think of every movie you've ever seen where it comes down to 'One Man Who Can Save the Universe!'.
The point is that I'm not sure that 'we all know vigilantism is wrong'. In reality, I think 'we all know' that sometimes vigilantism is the only way to get things done.
You don't have liberty without security, so what's the point of talking about preserving all your civil liberties when you're not free anyway? In reality compromises must be made to maximise freedom.
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" -- Benjamin Franklin
As a professional Linux/Unix developer in my 3rd major international corporation, I have to wonder why this obviously silly argument keeps coming up. I realize that you are probably being sarcastic, but plenty of people say the same thing, and are actually serious.
Linux/FOSS has not only been accepted at major corporations, it's thriving. While the desktop market share of Linux may be relatively small, to suggest that this implies that no 'serious' work can be done with FOSS is simply unrealistic.
The job market here is incredible for people with *nix development skills, and Linux experience is a huge plus on the resume. In fact, *nix developers are *better* paid than Windows developers -- at least here in NYC, where Linux and OSS are increasingly helping to make the world turn (technologically speaking).
Generally, only front-end work is done on the Windows platform, and even this is increasingly being shifted toward web-based interfaces. Almost always, the heavy lifting is done on a Unix variant.
I don't want to dwell on this too much, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that your statement is true. Me, and my wife and two kids.