This story is a bit old (well, it's from Roland after all). There was a demo of this tech by Blaise Aguera y Arcas at TED earlier this year. the two underlying components are Seadragon and Photosynth, both of which are mighty impressive. Also, despite the Mozilla-esque name 'Seadragon', both of these technologies are actually owned by Microsoft. There is a tech preview of Photosynth up for download, but I don't think Seadragon is available yet.
There is a video of the TED demo, which shows off some of the things Seadragon and Photosynth can do, the including Notre Dame example mentioned in T(second)FA. The talk is also on YouTube.
The BBC don't have ads... that's their biggest plus point IMHO
I would argue that the licence fee was (counterintuitively) their biggest plus point. It gives them editorial independence which, while imperfect, is the reason they are able to be critical of those which would normally be able to influence them - chiefly companies and the government.
While your comment was funny, I had to reread it a few times to understand that the subject was unrelated to the body of your post. As has been explained before/. was around at a time where the discussions happened in the main on mailing lists, so the subject line is a holdover from then.
I would argue that the subject lines are useful in outlining the content of what you want to say - they are helpful in scanning and taking in the point you're trying to make. When you misuse the subject lines, people waste time trying to parse it and get confused. I'm a native English speaker too, so I'd imagine someone who understands the language less well would be even more confused.
Oh, and that goes for those that use the subject line as part of their first sentence too. Shall I demonstrate? Compare this:
My feelings about Vista are clear: it (Score: 2)
sucks. It's slow and bloated and yadda yadda yadda...
--
to this:
Vista isn't good (Score: 2)
My feelings about Vista are clear: it sucks. It's slow and bloated and yadda yadda yadda...
--
This is nothing personal, I'd just like to see people making proper use of subjects. Others would like to see that too. It makes the discussion look nicer; and let's face it, we all come to/. for the discussion. Cheers.
Isn't the biggest problem with heroin the crime associated with trying to finance the habit. If things were legal wouldn't the price of the drug drop and the quality improve (less toxic unknown chemicals), hell lets get the government involved in providing a quality standard and taxation. Making it illegal does not stop anyone who wants to do it; it simply makes the suffering worse for everyone (both the user and society).
It is a problem, yes, though I would argue that a bigger problem is that people are dying from using the drug (overdoses, self-neglect, AIDS through needle sharing etc). It's hard to say whether or not the price would drop if it was legal - it probably would, but by how much? If we got the government in, what's to stop them taxing it to high heaven à la alcohol / petrol (both highly taxed here in the UK, YMMV)? Also, it is hard to work with a heroin habit (understatement), so with no income how would a user pay for even this cheaper heroin?
Also, I think you may have missed my point slightly when you say "making it illegal does not stop anyone who wants to do it". It may or may not deter people already on a habit, but it sure as heck deters people from starting, which with heroin is very important.
As I claimed you can do what you like to yourself by your own free will that is your inalienable god given right. If you do so much heroin that you die, so what ?
I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or perhaps exaggerating to make a point, but I'll assume your reply is on the level. The "so what" is that we live in an allegedly civilised society, and in my opinion we should try and prevent as many deaths as we can. You may disagree with this view, if so fair enough. Despite much noise being made about self-sufficiency and not-relying-on-anyone-but-yourself, we humans are social creatures, and societal co-operation is beneficial to us. Also, while I agree that you should be pretty much* allowed to do what you want to yourself, heroin rarely affects solely the user.
* Sadly, I do think there should be some limits, or rather, protection of those who have an altered cognitive function (where 'free will' may not have the same meaning). For example, I think euthanasia can be humane in some purposes, but should we allow someone who is depressed to kill themselves? It is tricky to accommodate every situation.
My other reply has some other points that I wont repeat here, but do I ask that you read it.
In a society where heroin is legal, there would probably be less stigma associated with its use, and so getting help for a heroin addiction would be easier.
Part of my point was that with few exceptions you don't want to come off heroin once you are on it; at least until damage has been done.
There would probably be less restrictions on methadone too, which is used to ween people off heroin.
No arguments as such here, except that where I live (UK), you can already get methadone detoxification, and will not be denied it unless you violate your 'contract' - eg by taking other hard illicit drugs while on detox (some are tolerated), or by attempting to sell it (harder to do now there is supervised consumption at pharmacies).
In my experience of those heroin users that request detox, not all complete it, and those that do often return to their habit. Even with help, it is very very hard to kick.
And of course in a society where all drugs are legal, its very likely that the population would be more educated about the different drugs so make the sensible choice on their own.
But you don't have to take heroin, even if its legal. There's lots of people who don't drink at all, or smoke, or consume caffeine in the current world, and theres lots of people who do some illegal drugs without others. IIRC nicotine is getting on for as addictive as heroin, but the withdrawal symptoms aren't as bad.
I don't buy this -- very few people start off thinking "I'll do some heroin today". They start on smaller drugs - for whatever reason - and gradually get introduced to harder stuff, generally by friends or fellow users that are already on it, or by dealers looking to make a bigger profit. Of course, some people won't take drugs no matter how legal or not they are, but based on what I know, what I've seen, and people I know, I would say that there would be more damage done in a society where heroin is legal.
It actually kind of pains me to take this line as I am very much in favour of individual freedoms (as opposed to economic libertarianism) and letting people make and learn from their mistakes. The problem is that there are some areas that make the concept of "free will" and "choice" problematic.
PS As I understand it, nicotine is not as chemically addictive as heroin, but it is 'effectively' more addictive than it actually is, as it is easily available legally, financially and socially.
I've been into alternative energy since the 60s (you??) when I first worked with my dad and we built from scratch some solar heating for our swimming pool (added a month decent swimming both spring and fall for only a couple hundred bucks and some labor),
Impressive. That sounds like the exact kind of project many slashdotters would be interested in. Have you thought about doing a writeup and sharing with the world? It may be straightforward (or not), but the crowd on here would love to hear about how you went about doing it then, what you would do different now, etc. Maybe we could learn from your hands-on experience.
In one of the previous discussions a helpful poster quoted Theo saying that he thought the relicensing was a moral issue - ie that Linux devs had taken code and made it 'less free''. This is a view I can appreciate, as FLOSS developers should be pooling efforts as much as possible. but the spirit I understand. I think it was more of a "Hey guys, you're meant to be on our side! We can't use this code anymore!". Of course, I find it hard to reconcile with the BSD license saying 'do what you want, just credit us'. I can understand his frustration though.
I thought the legality was clear cut - the code in question said [roughly] license under either BSD or GPL, and in any case saying 'follow BSD and GPL' is the same as saying 'follow the GPL' (was it Moglen that said that?).
I like OpenBSD, I've even donated, and I think Theo is a clever guy who does occasionally make some very good points. Problem is, I think he tends to assume the worst intentions in people - I don't think defusing situations is high on his agenda. Maybe if a more conciliatory tone was taken, we could find a solution that satisfies both the Linux and BSD devs.
There are good (and cheap) ways of decontaminating water. Something as simple as "boiling". Some substances (like bleach and potassium permanganate) also do the trick.
Do some microbiology and try again - regular boiling won't kill anything that can exist as a spore (which is a surprising number of microbes). Heck, even chlorination etc won't kill something like Cryptosporidium. While cryptosporidiosis isn't a big problem in the first world, a pathogen that causes diarrhoea in places where water is already scarce (like, say... an area hit by a natural disaster) is a very Bad Thing.
I quite agree, but it would be a shame to undermine your comment with potentially incorrect information,
Then I heard a roomer that you could only register the software twice, THEN have to call this number to get a new key. Isn't correct as far as I know. As much as I abhor quoting TFA:
Consumers are now allowed to activate their copy of BioShock a total of five times via the SecuROM network. (my emphasis)
So it would seem you get five shots at it, although your source is actually probably just as trustworthy as GamerBOB. I really dislike that a single player game has to be activated online (and yet it still checks for the DVD, hmph!), but then I'm part of the problem - I think the goodness of the game outweighs the DRM. Not by much though.
Okay, I was getting myself good and riled up over this piece of news. I was even ready to return the game first thing tomorrow despite it being a lot of fun. Then I did the unthinkable - I RTFA.
Seems this is a big load of nothing. SecureROM installs a service to let those running without admin privileges run the SecureROM stuff. This is kinda bitterweet - yes, SecureROM is bad etc but running as a restricted user is good. This is assuming you trust SecureROM's website which says (from TFA):
SecuROM(TM) will install a Windows(TM) service module called "User Access Service" (UAService) on your system. This is a standard interface commonly used by several other applications as well. It is no spyware or rootkit at all. This module has been developed to enable users without Windows(TM) administrator rights the ability to access all SecuROM(TM) features. Please be assured that this service is installed only for security and convenience purposes. Since it is a standard Windows(TM) service, you can stop and delete this service, like any other Windows(TM) service. If deleted, the access for non-administrator users to SecuROM(TM) protected applications will be affected. As opposed to TFA which makes it sound something sinister. However, I don't trust GamingBOB due to his own admission:
Using "rootkit" brings the traffic. It's all about the SEO, and is why this article is on top in Google. I would add my own emphasis, but I don't think it needs it. Someone finds out a service is installed along with a game and demo and calls it a rootkit to gain traffic / links / ad revenue. Slashdot should not link to crap like this. It would be newsworthy if it were true: I think many people here - myself included - would return the game if it had a true rootkit installed along with it. But this...?
When I first read your post I thought you were trying to make a dry joke, but I figure from your other posts that you are serious. If you really want a dedicated police force for this sort of thing why not show local politicians that it is feasible, important, and not a waste of money (the last one is the most important). If you can give them an example ("Here is a guy I tracked down in 5 hours. He controls 10,000 bots he can do $50,000 worth of damage an hour. He has probably misappropriated 1000 identities. Etc.") and pitch it to them at an angle that shows it as a way for them to win brownie points with their superiors/voters/whoever they might just do something about it.
Once there is something like that at a local level you have what is known as a 'test case' or 'pilot project'. If it works other people will jump on the bandwagon.
This vigilantism shows us that it is possible to track down who is controlling the networks (or at the very least pin them to an IP address), but like I say, taking down bots here and there is futile and will only encourage them to evolve.
Actually, I haven't proffered my services like that, but I actually think it's a good idea. When I move into my next apartment (looking for a place at the moment) I think I'll give it a shot. As you say it may not have a great success rate but it is a good icebreaker.
I'd recommend other folk try this too - it can come in very handy to have a reputation as 'that helpful guy in the building / on the block'.
I have mod points, but I'd like to collectively reply to a few of the comments I see here. for those of you that are commending this act of vigilantism, stop and think - is this the most effective way to tackle the problem? The way I see it is that being a vigilante is akin to being involved in a constant game of whack-a-mole. The only problem is that when you start taking down bots (or even whole botnets), the people running them begin to realise that their current generation of malware isn't effective enough, and create something that is harder to detect. As the summary notes, we've already seen them trying to improve their resources. There was another post I saw on here that put it more eloquently, essentially saying: vigilantism only helps the bad guys work out where they need to improve.
So how about instead of trying to fight a brushfire with an extinguisher, we get to the root of the problem and start educating users. Yes, that takes effort. I can't begin to count the hours I've spent trying to explain to folk why using an alternative browser (or OS or whatever) is a good idea, and what they should look for in a reputable site, and so on and so on ad nauseum. It's a slow process, but the more people that are aware of the risks - and more importantly, the reasons for the risks - the less there potential 'marks' there are for all the script kiddeez, rooters and organised criminals out there.
And for us on/. - less requests to fix the family computer when we visit at Christmas.
Minerals don't move by osmosis, water does. Drinking pure water is unlikely to kill you either, unless you drink a LOT of it. Distilled/filtered water is fine.
[/pedant mode]
PS What species of fish is it undergoing male parthenogenesis where you live? I've heard of the female variety, but not male.
I have mod points for a change, but come on - anyone can play that game.
What is 'Zune' ? What is 'Outlook Express'? What is 'PowerPoint' ?
Your point is spot on though. Some FOSS apps are horribly named (as are some proprietary ones of course). Recursive acronyms and obscure references are fun, yes, but half the battle is marketing.
Yep, I'm a Brit that remembers using an Acorn. I'm not sure of the OS - the newer ones loaded and ran Windows Terminal Services (ugh) which may have been on top of Archimedes (sadly I never paid much attention to the OS back then). I'm surprised at your sentiments about being taught on a so-called "obscure OS" though. I think it's a Damn Good Thing(TM). It's often repeated here that most folk don't learn how to use computers; they just learn to repeat steps that achieve the desired result (eg 'reboot to fix Windows'). Using an OS with different fundamentals and a different presentation on a machine with a different architecture (IIRC the Acorns used ARM processors?) will surely encourage people to experiment with the machine and learn to use it rather than iterating over a list of steps to do a task?
The ACME corporation can help you out...
on
A Space Junkyard
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I suggest you consult a Mr Wile E. Coyote, who has experience in these matters.
Slashdot Mirror
This story is a bit old (well, it's from Roland after all). There was a demo of this tech by Blaise Aguera y Arcas at TED earlier this year. the two underlying components are Seadragon and Photosynth, both of which are mighty impressive. Also, despite the Mozilla-esque name 'Seadragon', both of these technologies are actually owned by Microsoft. There is a tech preview of Photosynth up for download, but I don't think Seadragon is available yet.
There is a video of the TED demo, which shows off some of the things Seadragon and Photosynth can do, the including Notre Dame example mentioned in T(second)FA. The talk is also on YouTube.
In school I used BBC micros, and later, Acorns running RISC OS. We actually had plenty of interesting software for both.
I would argue that the licence fee was (counterintuitively) their biggest plus point. It gives them editorial independence which, while imperfect, is the reason they are able to be critical of those which would normally be able to influence them - chiefly companies and the government.
While your comment was funny, I had to reread it a few times to understand that the subject was unrelated to the body of your post. As has been explained before /. was around at a time where the discussions happened in the main on mailing lists, so the subject line is a holdover from then.
I would argue that the subject lines are useful in outlining the content of what you want to say - they are helpful in scanning and taking in the point you're trying to make. When you misuse the subject lines, people waste time trying to parse it and get confused. I'm a native English speaker too, so I'd imagine someone who understands the language less well would be even more confused.
Oh, and that goes for those that use the subject line as part of their first sentence too. Shall I demonstrate? Compare this:
to this:
This is nothing personal, I'd just like to see people making proper use of subjects. Others would like to see that too. It makes the discussion look nicer; and let's face it, we all come to /. for the discussion. Cheers.
It is a problem, yes, though I would argue that a bigger problem is that people are dying from using the drug (overdoses, self-neglect, AIDS through needle sharing etc). It's hard to say whether or not the price would drop if it was legal - it probably would, but by how much? If we got the government in, what's to stop them taxing it to high heaven à la alcohol / petrol (both highly taxed here in the UK, YMMV)? Also, it is hard to work with a heroin habit (understatement), so with no income how would a user pay for even this cheaper heroin?
Also, I think you may have missed my point slightly when you say "making it illegal does not stop anyone who wants to do it". It may or may not deter people already on a habit, but it sure as heck deters people from starting, which with heroin is very important.
As I claimed you can do what you like to yourself by your own free will that is your inalienable god given right. If you do so much heroin that you die, so what ?I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or perhaps exaggerating to make a point, but I'll assume your reply is on the level. The "so what" is that we live in an allegedly civilised society, and in my opinion we should try and prevent as many deaths as we can. You may disagree with this view, if so fair enough. Despite much noise being made about self-sufficiency and not-relying-on-anyone-but-yourself, we humans are social creatures, and societal co-operation is beneficial to us. Also, while I agree that you should be pretty much* allowed to do what you want to yourself, heroin rarely affects solely the user.
* Sadly, I do think there should be some limits, or rather, protection of those who have an altered cognitive function (where 'free will' may not have the same meaning). For example, I think euthanasia can be humane in some purposes, but should we allow someone who is depressed to kill themselves? It is tricky to accommodate every situation.
My other reply has some other points that I wont repeat here, but do I ask that you read it.
Part of my point was that with few exceptions you don't want to come off heroin once you are on it; at least until damage has been done.
There would probably be less restrictions on methadone too, which is used to ween people off heroin.No arguments as such here, except that where I live (UK), you can already get methadone detoxification, and will not be denied it unless you violate your 'contract' - eg by taking other hard illicit drugs while on detox (some are tolerated), or by attempting to sell it (harder to do now there is supervised consumption at pharmacies).
In my experience of those heroin users that request detox, not all complete it, and those that do often return to their habit. Even with help, it is very very hard to kick.
And of course in a society where all drugs are legal, its very likely that the population would be more educated about the different drugs so make the sensible choice on their own.But you don't have to take heroin, even if its legal. There's lots of people who don't drink at all, or smoke, or consume caffeine in the current world, and theres lots of people who do some illegal drugs without others. IIRC nicotine is getting on for as addictive as heroin, but the withdrawal symptoms aren't as bad.
I don't buy this -- very few people start off thinking "I'll do some heroin today". They start on smaller drugs - for whatever reason - and gradually get introduced to harder stuff, generally by friends or fellow users that are already on it, or by dealers looking to make a bigger profit. Of course, some people won't take drugs no matter how legal or not they are, but based on what I know, what I've seen, and people I know, I would say that there would be more damage done in a society where heroin is legal.
It actually kind of pains me to take this line as I am very much in favour of individual freedoms (as opposed to economic libertarianism) and letting people make and learn from their mistakes. The problem is that there are some areas that make the concept of "free will" and "choice" problematic.
PS As I understand it, nicotine is not as chemically addictive as heroin, but it is 'effectively' more addictive than it actually is, as it is easily available legally, financially and socially.
I appreciate this view; but what about heroin, which arguably will sooner or later (more likely sooner) make you unable to refuse it?
For those of you unfamiliar with Aussie vernacular, here's an explanation (scroll down). This pun was a real beaut.
Impressive. That sounds like the exact kind of project many slashdotters would be interested in. Have you thought about doing a writeup and sharing with the world? It may be straightforward (or not), but the crowd on here would love to hear about how you went about doing it then, what you would do different now, etc. Maybe we could learn from your hands-on experience.
In one of the previous discussions a helpful poster quoted Theo saying that he thought the relicensing was a moral issue - ie that Linux devs had taken code and made it 'less free''. This is a view I can appreciate, as FLOSS developers should be pooling efforts as much as possible. but the spirit I understand. I think it was more of a "Hey guys, you're meant to be on our side! We can't use this code anymore!". Of course, I find it hard to reconcile with the BSD license saying 'do what you want, just credit us'. I can understand his frustration though.
I thought the legality was clear cut - the code in question said [roughly] license under either BSD or GPL, and in any case saying 'follow BSD and GPL' is the same as saying 'follow the GPL' (was it Moglen that said that?).
I like OpenBSD, I've even donated, and I think Theo is a clever guy who does occasionally make some very good points. Problem is, I think he tends to assume the worst intentions in people - I don't think defusing situations is high on his agenda. Maybe if a more conciliatory tone was taken, we could find a solution that satisfies both the Linux and BSD devs.
Do some microbiology and try again - regular boiling won't kill anything that can exist as a spore (which is a surprising number of microbes). Heck, even chlorination etc won't kill something like Cryptosporidium. While cryptosporidiosis isn't a big problem in the first world, a pathogen that causes diarrhoea in places where water is already scarce (like, say... an area hit by a natural disaster) is a very Bad Thing.
I quite agree, but it would be a shame to undermine your comment with potentially incorrect information,
Then I heard a roomer that you could only register the software twice, THEN have to call this number to get a new key. Isn't correct as far as I know. As much as I abhor quoting TFA: Consumers are now allowed to activate their copy of BioShock a total of five times via the SecuROM network. (my emphasis)So it would seem you get five shots at it, although your source is actually probably just as trustworthy as GamerBOB. I really dislike that a single player game has to be activated online (and yet it still checks for the DVD, hmph!), but then I'm part of the problem - I think the goodness of the game outweighs the DRM. Not by much though.
Okay, I was getting myself good and riled up over this piece of news. I was even ready to return the game first thing tomorrow despite it being a lot of fun. Then I did the unthinkable - I RTFA.
Seems this is a big load of nothing. SecureROM installs a service to let those running without admin privileges run the SecureROM stuff. This is kinda bitterweet - yes, SecureROM is bad etc but running as a restricted user is good. This is assuming you trust SecureROM's website which says (from TFA):
SecuROM(TM) will install a Windows(TM) service module called "User Access Service" (UAService) on your system. This is a standard interface commonly used by several other applications as well. It is no spyware or rootkit at all. This module has been developed to enable users without Windows(TM) administrator rights the ability to access all SecuROM(TM) features. Please be assured that this service is installed only for security and convenience purposes. Since it is a standard Windows(TM) service, you can stop and delete this service, like any other Windows(TM) service. If deleted, the access for non-administrator users to SecuROM(TM) protected applications will be affected. As opposed to TFA which makes it sound something sinister. However, I don't trust GamingBOB due to his own admission: Using "rootkit" brings the traffic. It's all about the SEO, and is why this article is on top in Google. I would add my own emphasis, but I don't think it needs it. Someone finds out a service is installed along with a game and demo and calls it a rootkit to gain traffic / links / ad revenue. Slashdot should not link to crap like this. It would be newsworthy if it were true: I think many people here - myself included - would return the game if it had a true rootkit installed along with it. But this...?I don't see the issue here.
When I first read your post I thought you were trying to make a dry joke, but I figure from your other posts that you are serious. If you really want a dedicated police force for this sort of thing why not show local politicians that it is feasible, important, and not a waste of money (the last one is the most important). If you can give them an example ("Here is a guy I tracked down in 5 hours. He controls 10,000 bots he can do $50,000 worth of damage an hour. He has probably misappropriated 1000 identities. Etc.") and pitch it to them at an angle that shows it as a way for them to win brownie points with their superiors/voters/whoever they might just do something about it.
Once there is something like that at a local level you have what is known as a 'test case' or 'pilot project'. If it works other people will jump on the bandwagon.
This vigilantism shows us that it is possible to track down who is controlling the networks (or at the very least pin them to an IP address), but like I say, taking down bots here and there is futile and will only encourage them to evolve.
Actually, I haven't proffered my services like that, but I actually think it's a good idea. When I move into my next apartment (looking for a place at the moment) I think I'll give it a shot. As you say it may not have a great success rate but it is a good icebreaker.
I'd recommend other folk try this too - it can come in very handy to have a reputation as 'that helpful guy in the building / on the block'.
Aw, give the lad a break. Even Drew Carey made that mistake.
"It's also a big continent if you're a geographer."
Anyone care to explain the joke to me? I'd rather like to get it as I'm Glaswegian...
I have mod points, but I'd like to collectively reply to a few of the comments I see here. for those of you that are commending this act of vigilantism, stop and think - is this the most effective way to tackle the problem? The way I see it is that being a vigilante is akin to being involved in a constant game of whack-a-mole. The only problem is that when you start taking down bots (or even whole botnets), the people running them begin to realise that their current generation of malware isn't effective enough, and create something that is harder to detect. As the summary notes, we've already seen them trying to improve their resources. There was another post I saw on here that put it more eloquently, essentially saying: vigilantism only helps the bad guys work out where they need to improve.
So how about instead of trying to fight a brushfire with an extinguisher, we get to the root of the problem and start educating users. Yes, that takes effort. I can't begin to count the hours I've spent trying to explain to folk why using an alternative browser (or OS or whatever) is a good idea, and what they should look for in a reputable site, and so on and so on ad nauseum. It's a slow process, but the more people that are aware of the risks - and more importantly, the reasons for the risks - the less there potential 'marks' there are for all the script kiddeez, rooters and organised criminals out there.
And for us on /. - less requests to fix the family computer when we visit at Christmas.
[pedant mode]
Minerals don't move by osmosis, water does. Drinking pure water is unlikely to kill you either, unless you drink a LOT of it. Distilled/filtered water is fine.
[/pedant mode]
PS What species of fish is it undergoing male parthenogenesis where you live? I've heard of the female variety, but not male.
So, Indy, you gave up on archaeology and fighting Nazis to hack PHP and Perl?
I have mod points for a change, but come on - anyone can play that game.
What is 'Zune' ?
What is 'Outlook Express'?
What is 'PowerPoint' ?
Your point is spot on though. Some FOSS apps are horribly named (as are some proprietary ones of course). Recursive acronyms and obscure references are fun, yes, but half the battle is marketing.
"Can you come here and pick this up for me?"
That's the kind of thing you wanted, right?
"Mr Grebekel, sir? There's a Mr Ballmer on the line for you..."
Yep, I'm a Brit that remembers using an Acorn. I'm not sure of the OS - the newer ones loaded and ran Windows Terminal Services (ugh) which may have been on top of Archimedes (sadly I never paid much attention to the OS back then). I'm surprised at your sentiments about being taught on a so-called "obscure OS" though. I think it's a Damn Good Thing(TM). It's often repeated here that most folk don't learn how to use computers; they just learn to repeat steps that achieve the desired result (eg 'reboot to fix Windows'). Using an OS with different fundamentals and a different presentation on a machine with a different architecture (IIRC the Acorns used ARM processors?) will surely encourage people to experiment with the machine and learn to use it rather than iterating over a list of steps to do a task?
I suggest you consult a Mr Wile E. Coyote, who has experience in these matters.