That's funny, all of the thought I've put into this involves making a completely anonymous, untracable network, with identifiable information only existing if it is explicitly turned on. But what do I know, I suppose I should just plug myself back into the Matrix like a good little monkey.
So this artificial bone material is similar to artificial bone, why is that suprising? I could say the same thing about wood if it was used as artificial bone (http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF086AD-Yarteries.jpg# 153), it doesn't mean it would be good or bad at the job. If it has the nanostructure of bone then that is significant.
From reading this along with the previous articles it seems like that was the previous attitude: Windows everywhere, and allow those who had Macs to use them if they wanted to. Then, after trying OSX he realised that it does have its merits (he even prefers it to Windows and after the first experiments ditched Windows himself for a Mac) and decided to give any Mac users in his network equal support, since forcibly enforcing a system that one doesn't like or even run personally upon people over whom one does not have the authority to do so is hypocritical to say the least. Of course completely switching from XP to OSX would have the same problems, not to mention the Windows-specific applications. He found RedHat/Fedora promising but lacking (although this may be down to the time between testing RedHat/Fedora, Suse and Ubuntu, along with the fact that some laptops were preloaded and others not, so it doesn't completely count as a distro-war battle). In terms of overall cost (licensing and hardware mainly, maintainance being a very small part) he thought Suse would do well for kiosk-type systems, ie. simple one-task machines. Not standardising on Windows here would probably be beneficial, since Windows and the horsepower needed to run it would not only be overkill for the required tasks, but whilst tech support for it would be cheaper the amount of tech support needed would be higher. From this article he seems to have ditched his newly found OSX for Ubuntu, and thus the whole hypocrisy of not supporting his preferred system crops up again.
I would say that the biggest reason this guy is not standardising on Windows (which will need to be there somewhere to support the Windows-only apps) is precisely because he sees the danger of causing reliance on a single provider with no easy way of migrating away. Starting such a painful migration early and sensibly, with sufficient research (like TFA), is a good idea, since no third-party then wields power over the system. Switching to OSX would probably be easier, due to many proprietary Windows apps having OSX ports, but I would say Linux is more sensible in the long run, as switching around in the future is made much easier due to the common components being available across Linux distros, other *NIX systems and even Windows.
I could do the same thing on my Dell PC if it wasn't for the fact that Apple would sue me for daring to use their OS on someone else's hardware. Plus, I'm not going to pay for Windows, Mac OSX and Suse when I am already quite happy just using Ubuntu. One system, one user, one configuration, one layout, one look 'n' feel, etc. (Plus the article breaks it down for different user *types*, ie. there are lots of different OSs mentioned but each person would only be running one. Your solution would either involve 4 people sharing the same laptop, or a massive amount of expensive redundancy)
People and organisations are going to extremely far lengths to do this kind of thing, a lot of the time for no direct monetary gain. The code is out there for people to study, use and improve. Lots of FOSS code is under terms like the BSD licenses which allow incorporation in non-free, secret, undisclosed code. When efforts like this are going on it amazes me that Microsoft's FUD campaigns about FOSS still seem to be taken seriously by the mainstream media (try finding a recent mainstream story about Linux which doesn't mention Microsoft's software patent crap), even though they come from what appears to be the biggest code-stealer/patent infringer on the planet (Google around, the lawsuits and payoffs are everywhere, well the publicly known ones are). I'm willing to bet money that Microsoft uses GPL code in some parts of its software portfolio without following the terms, yet we'll never know since their code is locked up away from prying eyes.
It is a sad situation, but I think a Software Freedom Marketing Centre might be needed just to level the playing field:(
My AI lecturer keeps saying that AI is a tough area to work in, since you get loaded with every problem that regular software developers can't figure out ("Sorry, you need AI for that") but then after any solution is found you never get any credit ("That's not AI, that's just a database-backed checksum comparison and Fourier waveform analysis system"). The lines about what AI actually is vary depending on whether it is effort or praise involved.
Surely pervasive Wifi is the issue here, like meshes and things? I mean, if cell phones can connect from pretty much anywhere, then why not a PDA or a laptop? (In fact, they can connect THROUGH a cell phone).
As far as I was aware the hardware needed to use MPX is a computer with a screen and some USB ports. Just plug in, like, 18 mice (I think that's the number they bothered going up to). If you want to have some multi-touch hardware using the same technology as TFA then there is a guide here: http://www.instructables.com/id/EJIXKOEF3ER7VN5/ . Thing is, MPX is a modified X. I would like to see it as an extension for regular X, then you could, for example, let people giving you support control an unclickable mouse pointer on your desktop (through a modified VNC client or something) to say "Click this", "Type your name in here" and things like that. This is sorely needed, and why a lot of people think Linux is command-line oriented, since at the moment people helping via text interfaces (forums, IRC, etc.) find it a lot easier to say "run 'chown bob file.txt'" rather than "open your home folder, right click on file.txt and select properties, go to the permissions tab, change the user to bob and click OK" (this is the whole issue of CLI having masses of functionality instantly available if you know how to use it (and those helping newbies generally do), compared to GUIs which require navigating through a hierarchy of menus, tabs, wizards, etc.)
You're exactly right, so get the hell hell off Slashdot and sell your computer to get some bread to give to these countries. And whilst you're at it, dismantle your house, since I'm sure the plumbing system would come in handy for an irrigation system and there are countless other things you could do. Everybody should give up any modern technology they have until everyone in the world has it. Otherwise how else will the world advance? Surely nothing to do with new technological advances helping those less fortunate people in the world, because banging stuff together in huts has much more potential than mass production in modern robot-filled factories with the output being flown by aeroplane to those that need it.
Or maybe you could stop flaming the efforts of people to make a difference in countries that could do with a boost. Yes there are many people out there who would be incredibly offended if their governments gave them a computer instead of some food, but guess what? They're not the governments who the OLPC project is targetting! They are targetting countries whith decent infrastructure, but where education could be given a boost. So instead of spending masses and masses of money on textbooks which are single-purpose, become obsolete, can be damaged, etc. how about making a laptop which can replace all of them, whilst costing about the same amount as one? Plus the fact that all of the collaboration and networking stuff in the laptops means that they let kids learn in places where there are no schools and are no teachers, since the current system of sit down, shut up and listen to the teacher doesn't really work without one.
As for the actual news story, so what? Intel screw the OLPC project by making a computer in the complete opposite way (instead of inventing new technologies to overcome limitations, they just rip any useful functionality out of an ordinary laptop until it costs $200), then use their financial might to sell it below cost, to the exact countries that the OLPC guys have negotiated with, where it is pretty much useless anyway (for the software it runs it is WAY underpowered, it is not sealed so it can't even run underwater and would clog in a desert (you wouldn't be scoffing if you only had 2 seasons, rainy and dry), it can only be charged from an electrical outlet (yeah, plenty of those is remote villages...), its Wifi can't mesh, meaning it needs an access point just for 2 of them sitting side by side to be able to talk, the battery only lasts 2 hours, the screen is unreadable in bright sunlight (ie. outside), the list goes on). They then join the OLPC board, but do nothing to halt this product they have made. So where is the news? Come back when the Classmate piece of crap has been scrapped, THEN at least Intel will at least be close to breaking even, since the fact they did it at all gives them -1000 points.
The capitalist idea of 'choice' does not apply in this situation. To someone with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In an area like this it is way way way better to stick to one open, changable design and improve any shortcomings over time, than it is to allow multiple efforts to compete over resources until neither of them have enough left to survive. For Intel that is the point, since they have a solid base to win a war of attrition. The fact that they are waging it completely without just cause against a charity which didn't ask for it makes me sick, and I would have no problem at all taking a dump in the mouth of whatever Intel suit came up with this sordid plan. That is, unless they're into that kind of stuff, in which case I'd settle for tattooing "DON'T TRUST ANYTHING I SAY" to their forehead.
It is classic Microsoft thinking. If you follow the standards and make your products compatible and interchangable with those of competitors' then you can sell your products to anyone, no matter what system they use. HOWEVER, if you lock down the whole system and use obfuscated, secret standards then, if marketed sufficiently, you can sell people every application they use (a Windows smartphone connecting via Exchange on Server 2003 to Outlook, accessed via Internet Explorer, on XP, to transfer Word documents for opening in Office in order to access the ASF stream addresses inside so that they can be sent via MSN Messenger to a friend who can open them in Windows Media Player and transfer them to his Zune). If a large enough portion of a userbase can be sucked into this kind of system then it will grow exponentially, since everyone contacting those users will need to switch over in order to interoperate properly with them.
There are lots of feedback loops involved in this type of thing, and as I've had to say to people before, switching from Windows to Mac is just changing the drug dealer, whereas switching to Free Software IS different, since it breaks these loops by not pushing a particular product (although there are obviously some poster boys), and instead pushes a way of working where locking in becomes incredibly difficult. I might encourage people to use Ubuntu now, but if Canonical do something I am really against then I can simply switch over to Debian and advocate that, and if Linus makes an important decision I am against then I can switch to a BSD and advocate that, since I can still use pretty much every other part of the system I am used to and it causes very little hassle. I am not against proprietary software per se, because there are great projects out there like Opera which do their job well and stick to the standards to let users switch to and fro easily. It is this ability to pick and choose which is what consumers should push for, but which is exactly what those who control these whole stacks do not want to give, since it would require them to make their products desirable, rather than letting them get away with making them unnecessarily necessary.
The BBC's charter says that they must provide a public service to those that pay the license fee, and also that any actions it takes don't disrupt the markets too much (since the BBC obviously has an unfair advantage over the broadcasters which came along later, and therefore must be regulated in this regard).
The complaints about the iPlayer are firstly that the BBC is offering the public service of broadcasting analogue (PAL standard) and digital (DAB standard) TV to all who can receive it and therefore the license fee applies to anyone capable of receiving it (the equipment needed has no other long-term costs since many channels in the UK are part of Freeview, a one-time-cost digital TV service, which includes all extra BBC channels), but now it is expanding this service to include video-on-demand type services using a less than universal format. These new services are not being payed for by those using it, instead they are bundled into the cost that everyone is paying, so those without it are still paying for the privileges of those who can.
The second issue, which I think is a more concrete way of tackling them on this issue, is the one of market interference. The current defence is "Most people use Windows so it is OK", but I think the big point that needs to be stressed here is that markets do not just have a position, they also have a momentum. The computer system market is undeniable moving AWAY from Windows. New Windows users are pretty much all new computer users who are not switching away from anything, whilst new Mac/Linux/whatever users are pretty much all ex-Windows users. Although figures about Linux usage are obviously unavailable I would be surprised to hear anyone say that the numbers are not increasing, and as for Mac, their recent sales figures are staggering. If a snapshot is taken of the current distribution of users, and another one in 5 or 10 years, then it would be pretty clear that something has been disrupting the market if the 2 snapshots are identical, however the BBC's argument would make this a perfectly reasonable outcome. The short of it is this; If the availability of BBC content stops people ditching Windows then it has affected the market, since that is the current trend.
That might work in a software case, but software can be patched pretty easily. A standard is a set-in-stone way that things should be done. To 'patch' a standard requires a new standard (just look at the process involved in making every variation of 802.11). To avoid unneeded extra standards each one goes through a long process of theoretical uses to make sure it covers every possible application in its field, removing parts which unnecessarily duplicate the work of existing stadards, and that it does so in a general way, thus allowing unforseen future advances to integrate seamlessly into the standard, in a way that is backwards and forwards compatible (eg. HTML can embed all manner of things, but this doesn't make browsers which don't support these things crash, they just ignore them) whilst also allowing future standards to extend it in incompatible ways if needed (eg. XHTML). Then, after agreement between all of those affected has been reached, this theoretical standard is written down and released, never to be changed. People wanting to implement this standard are free to do so without any extra permissions needed than they would need without using the standard and going their own way. Thus the theoretical fantasy land where this all works is turned into a real world product used in real world situations, with real world bugs, etc.
OOXML is the complete opposite to a standard. It was not heavily thought out in a theoretical sense to make it easily changeable to ensure the best possible ideas were encapsulated regardless of running code or specific implementations, instead it takes a real world application with real world bugs, real world limitations and inflexibilities, etc. which has not been reviewed and amended by anyone outside those that propose it (Microsoft had control throughout their initial standardisation procedure), it does not cover everything in its field in a general way (it even defines a limited set of borders that can be used!), it doesn't use existing standards for those areas it does not need to cover (even the DATE is specified! And the OOXML spec includes their own vector drawing system which has no reason to be there and could just as easily be the standard SVG), in itself it could simply exist as an extension to the ODF standard (if such an extension is indeed needed). The whole process has been hacked apart until only the final 2 stages are left, making it a standard then implementing it, and then those have been reversed. It would be a disgrace if it went through ISO. In a decade or so, when Microsoft is finally competing on a level playing field with some competition, such an ISO standard will still exist, with all of its incredibly legacy ideas and implementations (in 10 years time who the hell is going to implement functions "like Word 95"?), and we'll all look back and laugh at what a disgrace the system was in.
Of course, we might all be looking back at ODF through the MSN Portal of Truth (the wayback machine got shut down for copyright violation) and wondering how the heck such a poorly centralised rabble of differing vendors got anybody to take them seriously without paying any implementation tax and we'd be loling to each other through our MSN phones about how people back then were all sitting on Slashdot and hurling abuse around about using firearms to take down governments without actually bothering to write a letter to their local government representative outlining the issues they felt so strongly about.
If the record companies/artists don't make tutorials on playing their songs then why should they stop someone else doing it? They aren't in competition or anything. I understand the whole artists-should-get-the-money thing, but if they aren't providing it then they shouldn't get any money for it, so in this case the real artists are those making the tutorials.
I personally think the whole infinite parallel universes idea is bogus. It might be a neat conclusion to some complex Mathemetical forumlae used to model the Universe, but that doesn't make it real. The Maths should fit the Universe, the Universe shouldn't restructure itself based on the formula du jour. I mean, even modelling something as simple as constant-acceleration motion, which is done in high school, often ends up with quadratic equations giving 2 solutions to a problem. If, for example, 2 time values are found, one positive and one negative, it doesn't mean that our view of the Universe should be changed to reflect the 'fact' that bodies follow paths based on what acceleration will occur in the future, because it is clearly not the case. The formula is flawed , but it is easy to correct by discounting any negative time values. This is a very basic example, I know, but I am all for simplicity, Occam's Razor and all that. I think the chances of us having our esoteric Maths flawed is more likey than all of the massive restructuring of our Universe models based on this Math.
Also, as a SciFi fan, I *hate* it whenever multiple parallel Universes are introduced, because there is absolutely no point to anything else that ever happens in that story, because according to the author an infinite amount of protagonists are going to succeed in whatever it is they are doing, an infinite amount are going to fail, and an infinite amount are going to spontaneously turn into petunias. The whole idea of cause and effect is thrown out of the window because I *know* that they are going to succeed and fail at the same time. Who gives a crap about the particular Universe the author portrays if she also says "By the way, you may as well make up your own story since in this world it is also perfectly valid." All of my suspense, feelings and emotion towards the characters is gone, because I know that they are all, somewhere, baby eating vampires. It is just an easy way to avoid thinking up a decent plot device.
Second, "God helps those who help themselves." Just because someone else shouldn't do something doesn't mean you shouldn't do something to try to prevent it. If the cross-walk sign says go you still check for cars right? Other people should stop, but they may not... so you look anyway. Whether you should have to or not, you protect yourself.
Actually, stepping out into the road as soon as the sign changes in the hope of getting hit, and therefore a ton of cash in the following legal proceedings, is an ever-increasing prospect.
He also had a Blueray/HDDVD combo high def disc player integrated into a 42" plasma screen, 7.1 surround sound system and portable microwave with popcorn.
Y'know, so he could get that true cinema experience, right in the comfort of... Oh, wait
Didn't you hear? Windows is the perfect operating system for every computerised task in the world, it really is a case of one size fits all! Well, it doesn't fit some situations, but of course those situations must be illegal/competing with Microsoft/not particularly profitable/doing something Microsoft hasn't thought of (ie. "innovation")/afflicted by a bug in Windows Geniune Advantage/etc. and must therefore be stopped at all costs.
And of course, the "Business" editions of Vista get the productivity enhancing see-through window borders which is of no use to "Basic" users who might, you know, want there home PC interface to look nice or something equally ridiculous.
National Archives: Excuse me Microsoft, but all of these documents we have won't render properly in the latest version of your software
Microsoft: Don't worry, we can sell you copies of each of the versions of our Office software used to make them
National Archives: Oh, they'll all run in Vista? That's OK then
Microsoft: Actually, they won't. But we can sell you copies of each of the versions of our Windows software that will run them
National Archives: How will we run all of these different versions of Windows?
Microsoft: Well we can sell you copies of our virtualisation software to run the different versions of our Windows software to run the different versions of our Office software to open the different versions of our Office files
National Archives: This seems a little over the top. Now that we have realised how serious this problem is we should take action and use an open format!
Microsoft: Well we can sell you another copy of our Office software which uses a format we call "Office Open XML"
National Archives: And this format is open is it? We will know exactly how to render these documents several decades in the future?
Microsoft: Well, it has "Open" in the name we gave it, so it must be open. And here are the instructions you need to understand the files.
*forklift truck enters room carrying OOXML spec*
National Archives: That is really long, we can't be bothered to read all of it. If you say it is open then we believe you
3 Years Later
National Archives: Excuse me? Microsoft?
Microsoft: Yes?
National Archives: Erm, this new version of your Office software won't display these Open XML files properly
Microsoft: Well that format is obsolete. We have a new format now
National Archives: Why have a new format?
Microsoft: Well, Open XML was just a dump of Office 2007's data structures, and the specification didn't allow any expansion or generalisation of the format so now we have Office 2010 those structures are different and we need a new format to put them in. This new format is open by the way. You can tell because we've called it "Open 2.0", and the 2.0 means better than.
National Archives: Well how can we use this new format?
Microsoft: Just use Office 2010
National Archives: But it won't run on our Vista machines!
Microsoft: That is because it uses DirectX 12 features that are only available on Windows Vienna so it can have these new 3D window effects we just invented called Window WobbleTM and Cube SpaceTM
National Archives: But our computers won't run Vienna!
Microsoft: That's OK, just buy new computers
National Archives: So what do we do about these Open XML documents?
Microsoft: You'll need to have a virtual machine to run Office 2007 in to open them
National Archives: OK, we'll do that. Wow Microsoft, your advice always helps us through!
Microsoft: You do realise that you'll need to pay for new Vista licenses don't you? The versions you are using aren't allowed to be virtualised
National Archives: Oh, well that seems reasonable
20 Years Later
Gordon Brown: OK, the rioting seems to be under control now that our CCTV-mounted lasers have dealt with those unemployed protestors. How the hell did the economy get into this state?! I'm looking at your and your computer budgets National Archives
National Archives: How dare you accuse us of spending all of the country's money without any evidence!
Gordon Brown: OK, I want to see every invoice, every receipt, everything documenting your spending!
National Archives: Well, the thing is, they are all "Open Open Open Open Openy Open Honestly-This-Time-It-Is-Open XML" files which won't load on the Windows WeOwnTheWorldNowHaHaHaHa computers we've just deployed
The Red Flag Linux supplied didn't have all needed drivers
This is an unfortunate situation, but the point of these Ubuntu preloaded systems is to address these issues. The rest of your post is some garbage about not being supplied the correct drivers for DOS or Windows XP with you Linux laptops. You know what? I didn't get BSD drivers with my Dell laptop. I'm gonna sue!
Can you get my 3D graphics card to do 3D for me please? And stop the kernel panics from happening when power management is enabled? And make my wireless card run faster then 11Mb/s? And make all of these "Hibernate" "Standby" and things work which I've heard a lot about but just seem to mean "Make my screen go black and force me to hard-reset"?
I am not whinging about Ubuntu, I love Ubuntu, but I have a 1501 and your statement is wrong.
"You're not going to shop Dell's site as a Windows lover with no Linux experience and say, "since Dell is selling Linux, I think I'll give it a try and buy a computer without Windows!""
If someone is a Windows lover then this probably won't happen (unless they want to save $50 and wipe over Ubuntu with an illegal Vista disc), but most people I talk to either don't realise that Windows is an option, that is just how computers work and what they look like (I was telling someone just before the Windows Vista launch that they should steer clear of it and carry on using Windows XP. They thought I was on about our University's webmail!), or those that do know what Windows is (probably because they know that a few years ago computers looked different, and the only difference was that "98" changed to "XP") are regularly frustrated with it, because they know that "Computers crash", "Computers get viruses", "Computers get blue screens that delete all of your work" etc. are actually using the word "Computer" instead of "Windows". Yes, other operating systems can crash but in all my years of Linux, whilst some applications have crashed (usually browsers using Adobe's proprietary Flash plugin) the actual system has only ever gone down because of hardware. It even carried on running fine when my hard drives died (although when I clicked "Next" in the picture viewer I got File Not Found, and got command not found when I ran "reboot").
These people are the ones who will buy Dell Ubuntu computers, the people who save $50 and go "Oo! This new computer looks different to the old one!" and the people who previously used Windows because they were caught in the more developers>more applications>more users>more developers loop and knew this, but were putting up with it all until the day a big enough kick up the arse made them switch (and the price is the kick) or were not comfortable messing with their system themselves with no experience/trusting their computer to some company like "Canonical" which they've never heard of and might be spyware/worrying whether their hardware would work in Linux/worrying about support/etc. and a big name like Dell offering Ubuntu and making sure it all works out of the box is the reassurance they need to take the plunge.
Solid state storage is indeed more reliable, and the cost for masses of storage is getting lower. However, since hard drives keep getting bigger, and are currently much more economic at vast sizes, it seems like solid state storage is not cheap enough or large enough for devices. A few years ago a reasonably priced solid state 60GB drive would seem the clear winner over hard drives, but with 250GB and 500GB hard drives being dirt cheap these days many serious computer users don't want to lose out on space (and more space = more backups to take care of the reliability issue), and relatively 'computer illiterate' people buying new machines are going to go for the cheaper one with the bigger numbers on the sticker.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, all of the thought I've put into this involves making a completely anonymous, untracable network, with identifiable information only existing if it is explicitly turned on. But what do I know, I suppose I should just plug myself back into the Matrix like a good little monkey.
So this artificial bone material is similar to artificial bone, why is that suprising? I could say the same thing about wood if it was used as artificial bone (http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF086AD-Yarteries.jpg# 153), it doesn't mean it would be good or bad at the job. If it has the nanostructure of bone then that is significant.
I would say that the biggest reason this guy is not standardising on Windows (which will need to be there somewhere to support the Windows-only apps) is precisely because he sees the danger of causing reliance on a single provider with no easy way of migrating away. Starting such a painful migration early and sensibly, with sufficient research (like TFA), is a good idea, since no third-party then wields power over the system. Switching to OSX would probably be easier, due to many proprietary Windows apps having OSX ports, but I would say Linux is more sensible in the long run, as switching around in the future is made much easier due to the common components being available across Linux distros, other *NIX systems and even Windows.
I could do the same thing on my Dell PC if it wasn't for the fact that Apple would sue me for daring to use their OS on someone else's hardware. Plus, I'm not going to pay for Windows, Mac OSX and Suse when I am already quite happy just using Ubuntu. One system, one user, one configuration, one layout, one look 'n' feel, etc. (Plus the article breaks it down for different user *types*, ie. there are lots of different OSs mentioned but each person would only be running one. Your solution would either involve 4 people sharing the same laptop, or a massive amount of expensive redundancy)
It is a sad situation, but I think a Software Freedom Marketing Centre might be needed just to level the playing field :(
My AI lecturer keeps saying that AI is a tough area to work in, since you get loaded with every problem that regular software developers can't figure out ("Sorry, you need AI for that") but then after any solution is found you never get any credit ("That's not AI, that's just a database-backed checksum comparison and Fourier waveform analysis system"). The lines about what AI actually is vary depending on whether it is effort or praise involved.
Oh yeah, now I remember. Money.
As far as I was aware the hardware needed to use MPX is a computer with a screen and some USB ports. Just plug in, like, 18 mice (I think that's the number they bothered going up to). If you want to have some multi-touch hardware using the same technology as TFA then there is a guide here: http://www.instructables.com/id/EJIXKOEF3ER7VN5/ . Thing is, MPX is a modified X. I would like to see it as an extension for regular X, then you could, for example, let people giving you support control an unclickable mouse pointer on your desktop (through a modified VNC client or something) to say "Click this", "Type your name in here" and things like that. This is sorely needed, and why a lot of people think Linux is command-line oriented, since at the moment people helping via text interfaces (forums, IRC, etc.) find it a lot easier to say "run 'chown bob file.txt'" rather than "open your home folder, right click on file.txt and select properties, go to the permissions tab, change the user to bob and click OK" (this is the whole issue of CLI having masses of functionality instantly available if you know how to use it (and those helping newbies generally do), compared to GUIs which require navigating through a hierarchy of menus, tabs, wizards, etc.)
Or maybe you could stop flaming the efforts of people to make a difference in countries that could do with a boost. Yes there are many people out there who would be incredibly offended if their governments gave them a computer instead of some food, but guess what? They're not the governments who the OLPC project is targetting! They are targetting countries whith decent infrastructure, but where education could be given a boost. So instead of spending masses and masses of money on textbooks which are single-purpose, become obsolete, can be damaged, etc. how about making a laptop which can replace all of them, whilst costing about the same amount as one? Plus the fact that all of the collaboration and networking stuff in the laptops means that they let kids learn in places where there are no schools and are no teachers, since the current system of sit down, shut up and listen to the teacher doesn't really work without one.
As for the actual news story, so what? Intel screw the OLPC project by making a computer in the complete opposite way (instead of inventing new technologies to overcome limitations, they just rip any useful functionality out of an ordinary laptop until it costs $200), then use their financial might to sell it below cost, to the exact countries that the OLPC guys have negotiated with, where it is pretty much useless anyway (for the software it runs it is WAY underpowered, it is not sealed so it can't even run underwater and would clog in a desert (you wouldn't be scoffing if you only had 2 seasons, rainy and dry), it can only be charged from an electrical outlet (yeah, plenty of those is remote villages...), its Wifi can't mesh, meaning it needs an access point just for 2 of them sitting side by side to be able to talk, the battery only lasts 2 hours, the screen is unreadable in bright sunlight (ie. outside), the list goes on). They then join the OLPC board, but do nothing to halt this product they have made. So where is the news? Come back when the Classmate piece of crap has been scrapped, THEN at least Intel will at least be close to breaking even, since the fact they did it at all gives them -1000 points.
The capitalist idea of 'choice' does not apply in this situation. To someone with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In an area like this it is way way way better to stick to one open, changable design and improve any shortcomings over time, than it is to allow multiple efforts to compete over resources until neither of them have enough left to survive. For Intel that is the point, since they have a solid base to win a war of attrition. The fact that they are waging it completely without just cause against a charity which didn't ask for it makes me sick, and I would have no problem at all taking a dump in the mouth of whatever Intel suit came up with this sordid plan. That is, unless they're into that kind of stuff, in which case I'd settle for tattooing "DON'T TRUST ANYTHING I SAY" to their forehead.
There are lots of feedback loops involved in this type of thing, and as I've had to say to people before, switching from Windows to Mac is just changing the drug dealer, whereas switching to Free Software IS different, since it breaks these loops by not pushing a particular product (although there are obviously some poster boys), and instead pushes a way of working where locking in becomes incredibly difficult. I might encourage people to use Ubuntu now, but if Canonical do something I am really against then I can simply switch over to Debian and advocate that, and if Linus makes an important decision I am against then I can switch to a BSD and advocate that, since I can still use pretty much every other part of the system I am used to and it causes very little hassle. I am not against proprietary software per se, because there are great projects out there like Opera which do their job well and stick to the standards to let users switch to and fro easily. It is this ability to pick and choose which is what consumers should push for, but which is exactly what those who control these whole stacks do not want to give, since it would require them to make their products desirable, rather than letting them get away with making them unnecessarily necessary.
The complaints about the iPlayer are firstly that the BBC is offering the public service of broadcasting analogue (PAL standard) and digital (DAB standard) TV to all who can receive it and therefore the license fee applies to anyone capable of receiving it (the equipment needed has no other long-term costs since many channels in the UK are part of Freeview, a one-time-cost digital TV service, which includes all extra BBC channels), but now it is expanding this service to include video-on-demand type services using a less than universal format. These new services are not being payed for by those using it, instead they are bundled into the cost that everyone is paying, so those without it are still paying for the privileges of those who can.
The second issue, which I think is a more concrete way of tackling them on this issue, is the one of market interference. The current defence is "Most people use Windows so it is OK", but I think the big point that needs to be stressed here is that markets do not just have a position, they also have a momentum. The computer system market is undeniable moving AWAY from Windows. New Windows users are pretty much all new computer users who are not switching away from anything, whilst new Mac/Linux/whatever users are pretty much all ex-Windows users. Although figures about Linux usage are obviously unavailable I would be surprised to hear anyone say that the numbers are not increasing, and as for Mac, their recent sales figures are staggering. If a snapshot is taken of the current distribution of users, and another one in 5 or 10 years, then it would be pretty clear that something has been disrupting the market if the 2 snapshots are identical, however the BBC's argument would make this a perfectly reasonable outcome. The short of it is this; If the availability of BBC content stops people ditching Windows then it has affected the market, since that is the current trend.
That might work in a software case, but software can be patched pretty easily. A standard is a set-in-stone way that things should be done. To 'patch' a standard requires a new standard (just look at the process involved in making every variation of 802.11). To avoid unneeded extra standards each one goes through a long process of theoretical uses to make sure it covers every possible application in its field, removing parts which unnecessarily duplicate the work of existing stadards, and that it does so in a general way, thus allowing unforseen future advances to integrate seamlessly into the standard, in a way that is backwards and forwards compatible (eg. HTML can embed all manner of things, but this doesn't make browsers which don't support these things crash, they just ignore them) whilst also allowing future standards to extend it in incompatible ways if needed (eg. XHTML). Then, after agreement between all of those affected has been reached, this theoretical standard is written down and released, never to be changed. People wanting to implement this standard are free to do so without any extra permissions needed than they would need without using the standard and going their own way. Thus the theoretical fantasy land where this all works is turned into a real world product used in real world situations, with real world bugs, etc. OOXML is the complete opposite to a standard. It was not heavily thought out in a theoretical sense to make it easily changeable to ensure the best possible ideas were encapsulated regardless of running code or specific implementations, instead it takes a real world application with real world bugs, real world limitations and inflexibilities, etc. which has not been reviewed and amended by anyone outside those that propose it (Microsoft had control throughout their initial standardisation procedure), it does not cover everything in its field in a general way (it even defines a limited set of borders that can be used!), it doesn't use existing standards for those areas it does not need to cover (even the DATE is specified! And the OOXML spec includes their own vector drawing system which has no reason to be there and could just as easily be the standard SVG), in itself it could simply exist as an extension to the ODF standard (if such an extension is indeed needed). The whole process has been hacked apart until only the final 2 stages are left, making it a standard then implementing it, and then those have been reversed. It would be a disgrace if it went through ISO. In a decade or so, when Microsoft is finally competing on a level playing field with some competition, such an ISO standard will still exist, with all of its incredibly legacy ideas and implementations (in 10 years time who the hell is going to implement functions "like Word 95"?), and we'll all look back and laugh at what a disgrace the system was in. Of course, we might all be looking back at ODF through the MSN Portal of Truth (the wayback machine got shut down for copyright violation) and wondering how the heck such a poorly centralised rabble of differing vendors got anybody to take them seriously without paying any implementation tax and we'd be loling to each other through our MSN phones about how people back then were all sitting on Slashdot and hurling abuse around about using firearms to take down governments without actually bothering to write a letter to their local government representative outlining the issues they felt so strongly about.
My personal worst interface element? Blogs with "Read the rest here" links.
If the record companies/artists don't make tutorials on playing their songs then why should they stop someone else doing it? They aren't in competition or anything. I understand the whole artists-should-get-the-money thing, but if they aren't providing it then they shouldn't get any money for it, so in this case the real artists are those making the tutorials.
Also, as a SciFi fan, I *hate* it whenever multiple parallel Universes are introduced, because there is absolutely no point to anything else that ever happens in that story, because according to the author an infinite amount of protagonists are going to succeed in whatever it is they are doing, an infinite amount are going to fail, and an infinite amount are going to spontaneously turn into petunias. The whole idea of cause and effect is thrown out of the window because I *know* that they are going to succeed and fail at the same time. Who gives a crap about the particular Universe the author portrays if she also says "By the way, you may as well make up your own story since in this world it is also perfectly valid." All of my suspense, feelings and emotion towards the characters is gone, because I know that they are all, somewhere, baby eating vampires. It is just an easy way to avoid thinking up a decent plot device.
Actually, stepping out into the road as soon as the sign changes in the hope of getting hit, and therefore a ton of cash in the following legal proceedings, is an ever-increasing prospect.
Yes. I am a very cynical person.
Y'know, so he could get that true cinema experience, right in the comfort of... Oh, wait
Somehow, I don't think I'll be camping outside my local Apple store anytime soon...
And of course, the "Business" editions of Vista get the productivity enhancing see-through window borders which is of no use to "Basic" users who might, you know, want there home PC interface to look nice or something equally ridiculous.
Sex
The New World has:
Sex, as long as you're willing to pay the guy who thought of it. Oh yeah, and it's not real.
Kinda glad I could never get the SL client to work now.
National Archives: Excuse me Microsoft, but all of these documents we have won't render properly in the latest version of your software Microsoft: Don't worry, we can sell you copies of each of the versions of our Office software used to make them National Archives: Oh, they'll all run in Vista? That's OK then Microsoft: Actually, they won't. But we can sell you copies of each of the versions of our Windows software that will run them National Archives: How will we run all of these different versions of Windows? Microsoft: Well we can sell you copies of our virtualisation software to run the different versions of our Windows software to run the different versions of our Office software to open the different versions of our Office files National Archives: This seems a little over the top. Now that we have realised how serious this problem is we should take action and use an open format! Microsoft: Well we can sell you another copy of our Office software which uses a format we call "Office Open XML" National Archives: And this format is open is it? We will know exactly how to render these documents several decades in the future? Microsoft: Well, it has "Open" in the name we gave it, so it must be open. And here are the instructions you need to understand the files. *forklift truck enters room carrying OOXML spec* National Archives: That is really long, we can't be bothered to read all of it. If you say it is open then we believe you 3 Years Later National Archives: Excuse me? Microsoft? Microsoft: Yes? National Archives: Erm, this new version of your Office software won't display these Open XML files properly Microsoft: Well that format is obsolete. We have a new format now National Archives: Why have a new format? Microsoft: Well, Open XML was just a dump of Office 2007's data structures, and the specification didn't allow any expansion or generalisation of the format so now we have Office 2010 those structures are different and we need a new format to put them in. This new format is open by the way. You can tell because we've called it "Open 2.0", and the 2.0 means better than. National Archives: Well how can we use this new format? Microsoft: Just use Office 2010 National Archives: But it won't run on our Vista machines! Microsoft: That is because it uses DirectX 12 features that are only available on Windows Vienna so it can have these new 3D window effects we just invented called Window WobbleTM and Cube SpaceTM National Archives: But our computers won't run Vienna! Microsoft: That's OK, just buy new computers National Archives: So what do we do about these Open XML documents? Microsoft: You'll need to have a virtual machine to run Office 2007 in to open them National Archives: OK, we'll do that. Wow Microsoft, your advice always helps us through! Microsoft: You do realise that you'll need to pay for new Vista licenses don't you? The versions you are using aren't allowed to be virtualised National Archives: Oh, well that seems reasonable 20 Years Later Gordon Brown: OK, the rioting seems to be under control now that our CCTV-mounted lasers have dealt with those unemployed protestors. How the hell did the economy get into this state?! I'm looking at your and your computer budgets National Archives National Archives: How dare you accuse us of spending all of the country's money without any evidence! Gordon Brown: OK, I want to see every invoice, every receipt, everything documenting your spending! National Archives: Well, the thing is, they are all "Open Open Open Open Openy Open Honestly-This-Time-It-Is-Open XML" files which won't load on the Windows WeOwnTheWorldNowHaHaHaHa computers we've just deployed
You bought some laptops with Linux
The Linux system wasn't preloaded
The Red Flag Linux supplied didn't have all needed drivers
This is an unfortunate situation, but the point of these Ubuntu preloaded systems is to address these issues. The rest of your post is some garbage about not being supplied the correct drivers for DOS or Windows XP with you Linux laptops. You know what? I didn't get BSD drivers with my Dell laptop. I'm gonna sue!
Can you get my 3D graphics card to do 3D for me please? And stop the kernel panics from happening when power management is enabled? And make my wireless card run faster then 11Mb/s? And make all of these "Hibernate" "Standby" and things work which I've heard a lot about but just seem to mean "Make my screen go black and force me to hard-reset"?
I am not whinging about Ubuntu, I love Ubuntu, but I have a 1501 and your statement is wrong.
PS: This is not a joke. Please. I want 3D!
"You're not going to shop Dell's site as a Windows lover with no Linux experience and say, "since Dell is selling Linux, I think I'll give it a try and buy a computer without Windows!"" If someone is a Windows lover then this probably won't happen (unless they want to save $50 and wipe over Ubuntu with an illegal Vista disc), but most people I talk to either don't realise that Windows is an option, that is just how computers work and what they look like (I was telling someone just before the Windows Vista launch that they should steer clear of it and carry on using Windows XP. They thought I was on about our University's webmail!), or those that do know what Windows is (probably because they know that a few years ago computers looked different, and the only difference was that "98" changed to "XP") are regularly frustrated with it, because they know that "Computers crash", "Computers get viruses", "Computers get blue screens that delete all of your work" etc. are actually using the word "Computer" instead of "Windows". Yes, other operating systems can crash but in all my years of Linux, whilst some applications have crashed (usually browsers using Adobe's proprietary Flash plugin) the actual system has only ever gone down because of hardware. It even carried on running fine when my hard drives died (although when I clicked "Next" in the picture viewer I got File Not Found, and got command not found when I ran "reboot"). These people are the ones who will buy Dell Ubuntu computers, the people who save $50 and go "Oo! This new computer looks different to the old one!" and the people who previously used Windows because they were caught in the more developers>more applications>more users>more developers loop and knew this, but were putting up with it all until the day a big enough kick up the arse made them switch (and the price is the kick) or were not comfortable messing with their system themselves with no experience/trusting their computer to some company like "Canonical" which they've never heard of and might be spyware/worrying whether their hardware would work in Linux/worrying about support/etc. and a big name like Dell offering Ubuntu and making sure it all works out of the box is the reassurance they need to take the plunge.
Solid state storage is indeed more reliable, and the cost for masses of storage is getting lower. However, since hard drives keep getting bigger, and are currently much more economic at vast sizes, it seems like solid state storage is not cheap enough or large enough for devices. A few years ago a reasonably priced solid state 60GB drive would seem the clear winner over hard drives, but with 250GB and 500GB hard drives being dirt cheap these days many serious computer users don't want to lose out on space (and more space = more backups to take care of the reliability issue), and relatively 'computer illiterate' people buying new machines are going to go for the cheaper one with the bigger numbers on the sticker.