Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:You are not entirely right (Score 1) 223

Sure, I wouldn't dare advocate the Cyrillic alphabet for English. But for Polish, which is a West Slavonic language and thus not a million miles away from Russian, it would be a great step in the right direction - indeed the right tool for the job! Actually, proposals were made to change to Cyrillic in the 1850s... the reason it never happened are myriad, but mainly Political. Which is also why it'll never happen! Poles are none to fond of their neighbours, for much the same reasons as Moldovans if I can hazard a guess. It's a real shame, because szsz is the classic case in point, it's really just one letter... and that's what you'd get with Cyrillic, namely a (and /. won't allow it, but the W with a tail, which no Russian would have a problem pronouncing)

Anyway, the adoption of the Latin alphabet in Poland is most likely due to the hegemony of the Roman Catholic church and the prevalence of Latin in the early church. Indeed, nothing much has changed in that respect. Every town in Poland worth it's salt has at least one street, school or square named Jan Pawel II... Polish is also a bit of an oddity, because whereas most Slavic languages using the Latin alphabet picked up the Czech orthographic system, Polish orthography developed independently.

By the way, if you speak Russian, Polish should be reasonably easy to pick up once you get past the orthography and learn to gadac[talk]. After all, spell piwo however you like, the best thing to do is still to drink it :)

Submission + - What's the future of Windows?

CuriousCuller writes: "OK, before we begin, the subject's not meant as flamebait as I'm not referring to the Microsoft product in particular, but rather windows in their generic GUI sense. There's a naming lesson to be learnt there! Anyway, like many people my age the the venerable (and still sexy) Amiga 500 first introduced me to the current GUI paradigm. Despite what the Mac owners will tell you, as far as I'm concerned the Amiga laid down the foundations of modern desktops. Unfortunately, as I was lacking pubes at the time, I was mostly interested in Stunt Car Racer and didn't appreciate it in the slightest. In retrospect I marvel at its prescience. It was a pre-emptive multitasking, multimedia, 4096 coloured, wimp marvel (and in 1985!). Apparently even the almighty "sage" that is Steve Jobs was shitting bricks when he caught site of Workbench. Alas, thanks to some truly appalling Commodore marketing, many of you are reading this with Windows XP instead of Workbench X.X, which is a real a pity; but then again, you probably had VHS instead of Betamax. What can I say except: these things sadly happen.

Sorry, I digress, my actual point/question is this: ever since I cut my GUI teeth on the Amiga not much has actually changed for me. Sure, there's the internet and what's under the hood has evolved beyond anyone's wildest dreams, but ultimately what I do as a user really hasn't. I'm still holding the mouse in my right hand, clicking on grey buttons and pulling down menus. It might look sexier and thanks to compiz my windows now wobble, but it's really like comparing a Sopwith Camel to an F16 — things have got a lot faster and a lot better looking, but it's still the same basic principles behind them both. So, what's next in human-machine interaction? Are KDE, Gnome, Aqua, Aero et al really the most efficient means for me to "talk" with my PC, or is something as revolutionary as the mouse waiting just around the corner? In other words, what are my kids realistically going to be doing with their computers? Or, on the other hand, is what we're using now destined for the long haul? Is it the most efficient means, or have other "better" ideas been swept aside? After all, there are 6 billion or so people in world and I guess changing the goal posts now would mean a hell of a lot of expensive retraining for most of them."
The Military

Journal SPAM: BBC: British Nukes Were Protected by Bike Locks 3

In a revelation that got little attention on the US side of the pond, BBC Newsnight "discovered that until the early days of the Blair government the RAF's nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key. There was no other security on the Bomb itself." American and Russian nukes have tamper-proof combination locks called Permissive Action Links - or PALs - which would prevent them being armed unless one or more

Slashdot Top Deals

Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death. -- James F. Byrnes