I hate this Linux/Windows argument as I happy to be that 1% that can surf the net safely as hackers and virus makers are targeting the 99% of other internet users.
The one thing that irks me about MS and the other corporate gangsters is the lack of freedom it gives me. So that not to cause flame, I will use a non-OS situtation that sums up freedom for me.
I used to have an mobile phone. If I wanted to change the ringtone, I had to download one at £2.50 or more that was midi and mostly sounded nothing like what I paid for. I now have a new phone where I can edit part of a MP3 file on my PC, transfer it to my mobile and then set my ringtone to that MP3 sample.
This function was created by a corporate company that set proprietary music formats onto me but it gave me the freedom to change a feature of my phone without having to pay a company for a product that is not entirely to my satisfaction.
Did they not say from the start that the business model of it was to make money through a sponsored search engine?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/31/03 58225
For info, firefox can be set so that all locally stored data can be deleted every time you exit.
I've talked to a few people who I would term tech savvy rather than computer savvy. They know the latest technology ie ipods, DVD recorders, youtube but they're not computer savvy. They know how to connnect these to computers but they don't know how to rip CDs or edit DVD's on the PC without pushing a few buttons.
This may be an argument to make Linux more accessible but IMHO, I can't see them converting to linux, MS, whether you like it or not, is a brand, it is a philisophy of being able to doing something with a few clicks. Linux can never or should emulate that if it hopes it becomes mainstream. It just will never happen, the MS brand is too strong.
I can't really see an ad-driven OS being successful but maybe software.
Lets take an example. Kde/Qt library win port is stable enough to allow a media player called Ama... to run on windows. It is a free download from a popular shopping site called Ama.... When somebody downloads and installs Amarok on their Windows XP. They like it and explore the features. They turn on the last.fm feature and find out about other people who enjoy the music they do. They listen to music that were recommended by other users in last.fm. They either like it or not.
At the bottom of Ama... they see a sub-window saying 'As you listened to this..you may be interested in this... >'
This is a hypothetical supposition posted by myself and in no means bears any resemblance to software created or to be created in future.
The second ailement you mentioned is right and wrong. There is a problem with the worship at the alter of a shockingly small pantheon of performers.
Performers is exactly what they are. Hollywood has always been about the cult of the Star but unfortunately there are no Stars today, only performers. You mentioned "Sylvester", "Bruce", "Arnold", "Meryl!" but they were Stars, alright some of them couldn't act to save themselves but they had screen presence and they were were always larger than life. They were always watchable even in the stinkers.
The problem is theres nobody to take over the mantle from them. Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise are dull, Colin Farrell is ok and Vin Disel has lost the plot with the parts he has chosen.
They were toying with the idea of using digitial images of past stars in new films. Compared with the likes of performers today, it would be a joy to see the likes of John Wayne, Jimmy Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Edward G Robinson, Charles Bronson again. They would certainly outact these overpaid wannabes anyday!!!
The Original Mad Max movie, made in 1979, cost about $80,000 in today money I think. It is the blueprint for modern action movies, car chases, explosions etc. Compare Mad Max to any big buget Hollywood action movie out now and it blows them away. Even for technical proficency, Mad Max is quite impressive.
Just look at the films of Enzo G Castellari and Sergio Martino from the seventies and early eighites. They created action masterpieces on miniscule budgets that were exciting and had beautiful art direction. Other examples of small budgets not getting in the way of big stories is the Exterminator and the Phantasm series.
BTW, it's cheaper to produce films now with digital cameras and editing. Even CGI is inexpensive, look at Star Wreck, shot by students in Finland for next to nothing.
http://www.starwreck.com/gallery_screenshots.php
actually Python and TkInter as the GUI is quite easy to learn and applications can be built quite quickly although as far as I know there the IDE's that are as easy as VB6
I find these rating systems crazy, all they go for popularity where they don't realise that you are going to buy more from a variety rather than a limited selection of the most 'popular items'.
I would love to see an imdb type site where you look up a movie or TV programme, read the reviews sent in by fellow surfers and if you like it then download the movie. This way you get a chance to see what you really like rather than what the corporate big-wigs want you to see.
The telco's allocates more bandwidth to one website at the expense of another, then are they are not still using the same bandwidth they currently have? If they use bandwidth in this manner how can they need more?
If I subscribe to a website in which I pay x amount of fee to download media at x amount of download speed then that's the service I'm entititled to. If I browse a site that has limited graphics why should I expect it to go slowly?
I pay my ISP for a service and expect it to be fulfilled. Why should I pay for example for 1Mb broadband service and the sites I browse take about 2 or 3 minutes to access as they can't afford to pay the telco's for preferential bandwidth?
If I want I can pay for higher download speeds but I can't be expected to pay the same amount of money for slower download speeds.
I had posted a previous one but with certain movies, definately science fiction and fantasy, could do with pre-networking.
Science fiction/fantasy films, have a lot of backstory and background that is not or have little time to be explored in the film. If film companies provided more internet content exploring this before the film is released then they could generate more interest i and maybe even make the movie better as some of the plot will make more sense.
As movies are a subjective medium, people discuss movies based on what they got out of it after watching it whereas with games you discuss what cool features you want to be in it.
As to Hollywood being out of touch, it has always been the case of movies coming out of nowhere and capturing the peoples imagination.
A number of linux distro and non-aligned forums are like that but even as a semi experienced Linux user I have found Ubuntu forums to be a friendly place to ask for help.
Considering most if not all of the commercial linux companies specialise in the server market and pay little regard to the Desktop, it would make more sense to have one desktop linux distro and base their products around it.
It is a more efficient way of concentrating resources by maintaining just one packaging and linux system to the LSB standard. It would also mean that more resources could be diverted to projects that are both benficial to the commerical and home desktops like KDE, Gnome etc.
The only downside is that the financial support for Community distro's would most likely be cut.
I haven't been on the job market myself but my mate has and he went through a similar interview process. On describing the interview to me, I thought to myself, if this is the interview what is the job going to be like?
Slashdot Mirror
he's been on a date?
Microsoft Windows is a brand like the ipod. It will always be no 1.
I hate this Linux/Windows argument as I happy to be that 1% that can surf the net safely as hackers and virus makers are targeting the 99% of other internet users. The one thing that irks me about MS and the other corporate gangsters is the lack of freedom it gives me. So that not to cause flame, I will use a non-OS situtation that sums up freedom for me. I used to have an mobile phone. If I wanted to change the ringtone, I had to download one at £2.50 or more that was midi and mostly sounded nothing like what I paid for. I now have a new phone where I can edit part of a MP3 file on my PC, transfer it to my mobile and then set my ringtone to that MP3 sample. This function was created by a corporate company that set proprietary music formats onto me but it gave me the freedom to change a feature of my phone without having to pay a company for a product that is not entirely to my satisfaction.
Did they not say from the start that the business model of it was to make money through a sponsored search engine? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/31/03 58225
For info, firefox can be set so that all locally stored data can be deleted every time you exit.
I've talked to a few people who I would term tech savvy rather than computer savvy. They know the latest technology ie ipods, DVD recorders, youtube but they're not computer savvy. They know how to connnect these to computers but they don't know how to rip CDs or edit DVD's on the PC without pushing a few buttons. This may be an argument to make Linux more accessible but IMHO, I can't see them converting to linux, MS, whether you like it or not, is a brand, it is a philisophy of being able to doing something with a few clicks. Linux can never or should emulate that if it hopes it becomes mainstream. It just will never happen, the MS brand is too strong.
I can't really see an ad-driven OS being successful but maybe software. Lets take an example. Kde/Qt library win port is stable enough to allow a media player called Ama... to run on windows. It is a free download from a popular shopping site called Ama.... When somebody downloads and installs Amarok on their Windows XP. They like it and explore the features. They turn on the last.fm feature and find out about other people who enjoy the music they do. They listen to music that were recommended by other users in last.fm. They either like it or not. At the bottom of Ama... they see a sub-window saying 'As you listened to this..you may be interested in this... >' This is a hypothetical supposition posted by myself and in no means bears any resemblance to software created or to be created in future.
The second ailement you mentioned is right and wrong. There is a problem with the worship at the alter of a shockingly small pantheon of performers. Performers is exactly what they are. Hollywood has always been about the cult of the Star but unfortunately there are no Stars today, only performers. You mentioned "Sylvester", "Bruce", "Arnold", "Meryl!" but they were Stars, alright some of them couldn't act to save themselves but they had screen presence and they were were always larger than life. They were always watchable even in the stinkers. The problem is theres nobody to take over the mantle from them. Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise are dull, Colin Farrell is ok and Vin Disel has lost the plot with the parts he has chosen. They were toying with the idea of using digitial images of past stars in new films. Compared with the likes of performers today, it would be a joy to see the likes of John Wayne, Jimmy Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Edward G Robinson, Charles Bronson again. They would certainly outact these overpaid wannabes anyday!!!
Films aimed at teens in an industry where the average age is in the fities.
The Original Mad Max movie, made in 1979, cost about $80,000 in today money I think. It is the blueprint for modern action movies, car chases, explosions etc. Compare Mad Max to any big buget Hollywood action movie out now and it blows them away. Even for technical proficency, Mad Max is quite impressive. Just look at the films of Enzo G Castellari and Sergio Martino from the seventies and early eighites. They created action masterpieces on miniscule budgets that were exciting and had beautiful art direction. Other examples of small budgets not getting in the way of big stories is the Exterminator and the Phantasm series. BTW, it's cheaper to produce films now with digital cameras and editing. Even CGI is inexpensive, look at Star Wreck, shot by students in Finland for next to nothing. http://www.starwreck.com/gallery_screenshots.php
actually Python and TkInter as the GUI is quite easy to learn and applications can be built quite quickly although as far as I know there the IDE's that are as easy as VB6
I find these rating systems crazy, all they go for popularity where they don't realise that you are going to buy more from a variety rather than a limited selection of the most 'popular items'.
Would not a solution to deal with high bandwith content is that these sites get their data cached locally by ISP's?
I would love to see an imdb type site where you look up a movie or TV programme, read the reviews sent in by fellow surfers and if you like it then download the movie. This way you get a chance to see what you really like rather than what the corporate big-wigs want you to see.
The telco's allocates more bandwidth to one website at the expense of another, then are they are not still using the same bandwidth they currently have? If they use bandwidth in this manner how can they need more? If I subscribe to a website in which I pay x amount of fee to download media at x amount of download speed then that's the service I'm entititled to. If I browse a site that has limited graphics why should I expect it to go slowly? I pay my ISP for a service and expect it to be fulfilled. Why should I pay for example for 1Mb broadband service and the sites I browse take about 2 or 3 minutes to access as they can't afford to pay the telco's for preferential bandwidth? If I want I can pay for higher download speeds but I can't be expected to pay the same amount of money for slower download speeds.
I had posted a previous one but with certain movies, definately science fiction and fantasy, could do with pre-networking. Science fiction/fantasy films, have a lot of backstory and background that is not or have little time to be explored in the film. If film companies provided more internet content exploring this before the film is released then they could generate more interest i and maybe even make the movie better as some of the plot will make more sense.
As movies are a subjective medium, people discuss movies based on what they got out of it after watching it whereas with games you discuss what cool features you want to be in it. As to Hollywood being out of touch, it has always been the case of movies coming out of nowhere and capturing the peoples imagination.
A number of linux distro and non-aligned forums are like that but even as a semi experienced Linux user I have found Ubuntu forums to be a friendly place to ask for help.
Considering most if not all of the commercial linux companies specialise in the server market and pay little regard to the Desktop, it would make more sense to have one desktop linux distro and base their products around it. It is a more efficient way of concentrating resources by maintaining just one packaging and linux system to the LSB standard. It would also mean that more resources could be diverted to projects that are both benficial to the commerical and home desktops like KDE, Gnome etc. The only downside is that the financial support for Community distro's would most likely be cut.
I haven't been on the job market myself but my mate has and he went through a similar interview process. On describing the interview to me, I thought to myself, if this is the interview what is the job going to be like?
http://www.tuttletimes.com/viewarticle.php?id=744 Is that a real PC in the background?