Slashdot Mirror

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/matrix.ht ml?pg=2

They already do, here is an article from nearly two years ago:

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60747,00 .html

Read this.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Blew It

That's right... the irony is that the evidence against Microsoft was so overwhelming that the judge couldn't hide his sneer, which caused most of the case to get tossed due to bias. Would you believe?!?!

This mistake is really what's causing us to be condemned to umpteen more years of hegemony.

I know some studies would disagree with presumptions that are not even your own that you state as fact. If slashdot and places like it are not an indication that at least one new subclass of human is emerging than I don't know what is. Evolution takes time but I think some of the stereotypical geek traits are undoubtedly genetic in nature at least in part or it would not explain the similiar nature of some intelligent people to exhibit them over vast geographic distances unless you solely attribute such to likeliehood of them using the same internet websites. I think most of us were what we are warts and all before we came here though.

until such time as they can get leading foreign scientists to relocate to China

As for the broader point... I'm not sure which ridiculous extreme is actually better for the growth of a technological base: "Copy whatever you want, who cares if the originator doesn't get a dime" as in China, or "Don't write that code, there might be a ludicrous patent you'll have to spend $10 million getting declared invalid" as in the US. Certainly one can point to US industries such as the Hollywood movie business(*) that wouldn't exist today without rampant violation of intellectual property laws in the past.

Personally, I think China is going to give the west a rather solid run for its money in software. Our fervor for ever-stronger intellectual property laws is a legislative gun with which we're taking repeated potshots in the direction of our feet. I've been involved in IP disputes on both sides, and they are almost always big wastes of time and money that don't end up benefitting anyone but the lawyers. To the extent that Chinese companies won't have to suffer from that overhead, they'll be in stronger competitive positions. All of their web sites will have one-click ordering, one can assume.

Finally, the "they're just copying our stuff" point was a pretty common accusation leveled at Japan in the 80s and early 90s, if memory serves. It seems to have proven itself untrue over the years, and I have every expectation the same will be true of China.

(*) The reason the movie studios are in Hollywood is that they didn't want to pay royalties to Edison Labs for use of Edison's patented film production equipment. So the early would-be studio bosses headed west, where they'd be able to strike it rich before the folks on the east coast could track them down to demand payment. For some reason you don't find that little factoid on any of the movie studios' "history of Hollywood" web pages. Reference.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64596,00. html

It's okay, your mom still loves you.

What article?

Summary: 95 words Article: 157 words

Is any Slashdot Games reader unaware of the gaming culture in Korea? Was there anything informative in this article?

How about a link to an article that actually has some content (and possibly some research figures):
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/korea.htm l [wired.com]

The only thing today's article has that the previous one doesn't is, "Hey, this could be America!"

Sure, cool. Sure, sounds like a sci-fi flick soundtrack... but for sure that is not a "sound" someone would "hear".

This is an arbitrarily distorted representation of radio waves. No one would ever "hear" this, so what's really the point?

Same goes for images, really. Here's an Interesting article about calibration... It shows the possible outputs from the same base images. Compare these two Viking Images.

Everything is relative... Some singers use Auto-Tuners to "sound better". Pr0n images are often photoshopped/ airbrushed to hide flaws, enhance shapes or just faked (cool article and you can google for "fake-detective" for the guy's site)...

Is this "space sound" real? Are these singers singing for real? Are these photos real? What is "real"? Where do you draw the line?

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/solar.htm l?pg=1&topic=solar&topic_set=

Here's the link to the Wired story.

Super Monkey Ball 1 and 2 as well as Sega's Soccer Slam performed reasonably well and I suspect that if Sega brought Jet Set Radio Future to the Gamecube it would have also sold reasonably well.

I very much doubt that. SMB was a cutesy puzzle game and fits in nicely with Mario and Zelda. JSRF was a 3rd person rollerblading game. JSRF simply doesn't fit Nintendo.

I don't understand why Sega is so XBox friendly

Because Sony are their mortal enemies? This is the company that once had advertisements making fun of Sony's PS2 supply problems. And as the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Microsoft welcomed them to the Xbox.

If you really gave a damn about Sega's games, you'd buy an Xbox. There was even a Sega Xbox retail bundle that included two Sega games: Sega GT and JSRF (which you can still get used for $129, which is only $30 more than the $50 each game cost when first released).

But may I respectfully point out that there has been no case in history where the pioneer became the dominant producer, whether you are talking about a business or a science. The most successful innovators are the creative imitators, the Number Two.

This is probably true (and not just of Americans, but of most people). The way to motivate them is to make it easy for them to conserve, and save them money in the process. For example, I bet a company that offered to install Sunflowers on peoples' roofs for free, and then split the monthly profits/savings with them thereafter, could do really well.

This is not your father's stock market. Didn't anyone else realize that this technological growth spurt would also carry with it a new reality of the stock market? Once technology allowed John Smith to trade stocks in his living room, the stock market changed forever. The stock market is no longer rational people evaluating business; instead it is now the public wagering on the future. And the stakes (and the stocks) are high.

This is not your father's stock market. This revolution is not about market cap, future potential or any other factor that is measurable. It is about knowledge and progress, rather than nuts and bolts. It is about people supporting what they like on the assumption that the price of the stock will continue to raise while good things are still happening at that business. It is not about ROI, dividends and PE ratios; rather, it is about visibility, selling price and simple popularity.

This is not your father's stock market. This is the American thermometer that reflects our collective knowledge. Several weeks ago, Wired published an article that cited a report stating that the people in the World Trade Center on 9/11 were much better informed than the emergency workers on site. To quote classis sci-fi, "A person is smart. People are stupid, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it." But there is a third category: an informed group can be much more than the sum of its parts. If you need proof, go look up collaborative intelligence in the wikipedia.

To your father who is now complaining about the unnatural state of the market, I have just one piece of advice: welcome to the next generation. We may not be the greatest generation, but we certainly know what we like and we are showing you. If all this seems a bit too unpredictable, then get out of the way because there are no leaders here and the followers will certainly lose money.

Welcome to the new world order -- Welcome to MY World.

So many dupes, while my unduped are always rejected.

Like Monkeys Don't Write Shakespeare or 'Human-brained' monkeys

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/xbox.html

From that article:

For Allard, Xbox 360 is all about gaming. For Microsoft, it's about gaming - and a whole lot more. The big picture isn't 10 million hardcore gamers trash-talking one another over a massively multiplayer version of Halo 3. It's 100 million Middle Americans using Xbox 360 as the linchpin of their Windows-powered digital home.

from http://wired.com/news/games/0,2101,68284,00.html?t w=wn_tophead_1

The industry group revoked the game's M rating, which labeled it appropriate for players 17 or older, and re-filed it under AO for "adults only" -- raising the minimum age to 18, the year at which a delicate teen becomes less susceptible to the harmful influence of computer-generated cartoon sex.

That pretty much sums up what I think about this whole issue.

Anyone remember him? I was surprised to not find him on the list. Didn't leave his house for a year and relied on the net for everything he needed.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,40940,00. html

Shareware? ha. If you get 2% of people paying for it, you're doing good.
Books? We all saw what a train wreck Stephen King's The Plant was, selling it for $1 per chapter online. If HE can't turn a profit after advertising, server costs, etc., how is someone smaller going to do it? That's like Paul McCartney not being able to make it work, but expecting Joe and the Dudes from down the block being able to.

Put on top of that the 'if it's online it's free' post-Napster mentality...and the honor system for buying music falls apart rather quickly.

If I'm going to remit money if I download something, I'm going to download it from iTunes. No questions about quality or availability, two major issues with the current d/l situation.

I work for the U.S. Government, and I find while I wait for the computer to process the information (using a dual g5) I usually have to wait about 45 minutes per video file i'm working on. In a given day I complete 8 - 20 dvd Videos depending on how quickly Final Cut Pro HD can process information. Infact, in the midst of writing this I had to set another file up to render.

I will admit though, during the time that I'm waiting I read all the important news sites (http://www.cnn.com/, http://www.wired.com/, http://www.slashdot.org/, http://news.google.com/) and then I find myself editing websites (http://www.ethereallan.org/,http://www.ledmonthly .com/, and 3 other webprojects I'm working on). Then I'm off to check my e-mail at the numerous different sites that I've managed to get email for myself.

But what it comes down to in the end of the day, I get my work done. I've been told that I do more work over a summer(I'm a summer student) then most employee's do in a year. I'm constantly being told to "lower my standards" and to not "work as hard". Studies like these can only really work if you're in a business where you don't see your employees getting done everything they're assigned to do in a certain period of time. Then it is lost work productivity and yes it would make sense.

No, they want to sell more of their clients' products, for less outlay. If you can target your most cost effective audience, you're more likely to make a profit in the changing, web-enabled landscape. Have a look at this Wired article, which explains. What appears to be counter-intuitive, makes sense.

Wired Issue 5.03 (March 1997)

Cover Story

Wired Issue 5.03 (March 1997)

Cover Story

And that's what he's doing. But hey, the US is putting its head up its ass, with Shrubery and theocrats in charge...

There was a great article about how Japan decided that they were falling behind the onlineness, and how they went about correcting that deficit nationally.

Of course I can't find that piece online now. It's archived somewhere, but I'm not digging it out (where's my desktop google application guys?)

This paper seems to talk about the regulatory and policy changes that lead to Japanese dominance:
http://www.jiad.org/vol4/no1/taniwaki/

Historically (1999), Japan sucked at connectivity:
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,20 282,00.html

Some current news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3278375.stm

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

For the past 100 years or so, we've all been taught the rather simplistic idea that dinosaurs died and created oil deposits. There is a distinct possibility that is just fantasy.

The theory of Abiotic Oil states that oil is produced as a geological process - not a biological one. In fact, Russia (where the theory originated) has been using this theory successfully for several decades to predict where to search for new oil deposits.

Who knows? Perhaps its some of both... but the point is do not buy wholesale into the latest fad theory.

Larry Loeb is just recylcling this article. which I came across the day the Intel switch was announced.

"Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet.

According to News.com, the Intel transition will occur first in the summer with the Mac mini, which I'll bet will become a mini-Tivo-cum-home-server.

Hooked to the internet, it will allow movies to be ordered and stored, and if this News.com piece is correct, loaded onto the video iPod that's in the works.

Intel's DRM scheme has been kept under wraps -- to prevent giving clues to crackers -- but the company has said it will allow content to be moved around a home network, and onto suitably-equipped portable devices.

And that's why the whole Mac platform has to shift to Intel. Consumers will want to move content from one device to another -- or one computer to another -- and Intel's DRM scheme will keep it all nicely locked down."

I don't think this was the SOLE reason for Apple's decision. but I bet it was the deciding factor. Bottom line is that the success of the iPod has influenced Apple's focus. Now a majority of people associate Apple with iPod and iTunes not OS X or PCs. They pretty much own the portable music player market and will try to extend this to video as well,.. blah blah blah... Anyways, The real question is whether they will be able to use this newfound brand awareness coupled with cheaper systems to increase their share of the PC market. Maybe, just maybe, they can generate enough revenue selling media devices and start licensing OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. Would you like your new Dell with OS X or Windows? Ha. Its not unimaginable anymore.

You must be thinking about Forgent, who basically abandoned their scheduling product line in favor of buying up patent portfolios, and suing everyone in sight that might be violating them. Unlike SCO, Forgent has actually succeeded in ripping off millions of dollars in licenses for such things like JPEG, and are moving into suing PVR manufacturers.

My question: How is this different from any other major technological advance? For goodness sake, there were backlashes against the railroad, against the first steam engines. More recently we have backlashes against cloning, and nuclear power.

Some technologies disturb people due to the so-called "yuck" factor. They feel that it will lead to unemployment, societal breakdown or moral decay. Other technologies are aguably so dangerous that they threaten the very existence of human life (as opposed to the stability of human society). Cloning and steam engines could never have been construed threaten human life. Nuclear power might have been so-construed before it was properly understood. Nanontechnology is also so-construed. There is a 98% chance that everything will work out alright and we won't destroy all life on earth. But the other 2% chance is worth some thought and discussion rather than knee-jerk reaction. University is exactly the right forum for having that discussion.

The faith that new technology could never endanger human society is, in my opinion, in the same class as the faith that God (or aliens or leprechauns) will protect us.

Interactive whiteboards are actually not all that uncommon these days.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67710, 00.html/

Still, development of products like this should certainly help accelerate the widespread acceptance/affordability of technological integration in the classroom.

So would you contend that guzzling amphetamines and going on bombing sorties is lawful? Or responsible?

Melis launched a company, Melis Energy, in 2001 to try to commercialize a technique that harnesses algae's ability to turn sunlight into hydrogen. In the fall of 2001, the company built a bioreactor containing 500 liters of water and algae that can produce up to 1 liter of hydrogen per hour. A siphoning system extracts the hydrogen, which is stored in its gaseous state.

So, we have the means to make the hydrogen. We also have vehicles (mainly demonstration models) which can run on the hydrogen. Although at this point, I must interject that fuel cells are not the way to go - hydrogen fuel cells use platinum as a catalyst - do the math on how many people in the US have vehicles and how much platinum a fuel cell requires, and how much platinum is available worldwide, then ask yourself if such fuel cells are viable in the long run. Fuel cell vehicles are not the answer, but directly "burning" the hydrogen can be, we just need a way to store it in an easy form to get it in a car. You can't simply put it into a tank made of any material - hydrogen simply migrates through the material (it is one of the reasons why water is such a good solvent) - it turns steel brittle over time. Plus, in order to get a good volume/energy ratio, you have to store it as a liquid - and it is a very, very cold liquid. I can't ever imagine a homeowner having a car carrying liquid hydrogen parked in their garage. Most people aren't even intelligent enough to manage proper handling of gasoline, let alone liquid hydrogen.

So - you need a different storage mechanism. This one mentioned in the article proposes to use sodium, which we already know is an inefficient transfer medium. What else could be used? One company (whose website seems to be down, or they are not in business anymore) proposed to use hydrides to store the hydrogen - their name was Powerball Technologies, and they supposedly had a working product (IIRC, back when they first announced this several years back, GM had a demonstration vehicle running on the system). What wasn't clear was how much energy it took to convert the hydrogen into hydride - it might have been as ineffient as the methods mentioned in the article we're discussing.

Wait - don't we already have a method of storing hydrogen in a dense form, that we use everyday? Remember what gasoline is made out of - long hydrocarbons chains. Perhaps the answer is here? Maybe instead of trying to use hydrogen directly - we should look at methods to take pure hydrogen and carbon, and form hydrocarbons. A system in which you could put hydrogen and carbon in one end, and get hydrocarbon based fuels out the other - could be the ideal method. It would probably take a lot of energy input, but perhaps that energy could come from solar power (ie - a solar furnace or something similar). The hydrogen could come from huge algae bioreactors (if they can get them working better for industrial use). The carbon could come from the atmosphere (CO2). Vehicles could use this fuel (which would end up being something like gasoline - could even be identical to gasoline, maybe - this may help with the answer) - such a fuel might even burn cleaner than today's gasoline, it might even work in current engines. Perhaps we can sequester the carbon monoxide output for recycling back to the refineries making the stuff

...and AOL ruled supreme.

Huh? I remember that when AOL unleashed its users onto the Usenet there were howls and whines because of all the newbs. I believe this was still in the days before the green card lawyers...but not too many days before.

You are lost in a maze of twisty little analogies, all alike.

What it is NOT like is the Ticketmaster decision in the US which ruled that a link is not copyright infringement. I don't think this ruling could stand in the US.

I'm running a 800MHz iMac G4 that's really feeling its age in other places, but spotlight is neither noticeably sprightly nor decrepit. I've seen people with slow computers posting good and bad and people with fast computers doing the same.

My guess is that faster computers tend to belong people with more ancient junk to search through, but whatever it is, Apple really ought to figure out a way to get some consistency out of their revolutionary, folder-ending idea. I wouldn't mind giving up some features in it to speed it up. Call me old fashioned, but I really don't need to remember an email I wrote a few years ago about the world's ugliest dog, and if I decide to find it, I can search for it with Mail.

I look forward to a couple rooftop technologies

* This fall: Lightweight rooftop solar concentrators will be hitting the market. They use a small amount of high efficiency solar panels, combined with heliostat mirrors controlled by a single motor. Manufactured in China, sized to a shipping pallet, and easy to install, they're projected to reduce rooftop solar costs by 30%, and an additional 20% in two years.

* 4-5 years: Nanosolar, Nanosys, Konarka, and a few others will all be unveiling their respective high efficiency thin-plastic organic solar cell technologies. Since each company is pursuing a different production methodology, it seems likely that at least one will pay off. Thin-plastic organic cells have the potential to really revolutionize the planet, because they have the very real potential to be cheaper per kWh than fossil fuels (to the end user, at least), and are light enough to install essentially anywhere. I've read over Nanosolar's patent, and it's pretty clever - organic solar cells are normally inefficient because the densities and spacings between the electron donor and recipient often don't fall within the critical range. Their process lays down successive particles inside a nanoscale scaffolding, and then gets rid of the scaffolding.

Wired had an article this month about rooftop solar power that was kinda cool. I thought that the project they highlighted (no pun intended) could be DIY with a little money and time.

Wired had an article this month about rooftop solar power that was kinda cool. I thought that the project they highlighted (no pun intended) could be DIY with a little money and time.

You know, pay me a tenth of what is being charge and I will set up a few of these Sony cameras for them that will do the same trick! Although I would hate to give them up from my collection. What else will I do at the beach each weekend now?

I had a Wired subscription as well, and recently cancelled, however I can NOT believe how many freakin times I have recived a "bill" in the mail for another $40.00 CDN to continue my subscription. So I decided to call them up, and verbally cancelled and ensured that verbally it was cancelled. So it goes. Then I get another bill/invoice for $40.00 CDN, I phone them back and state, "I don't care whatever buttons you gotta punch to make it end up like this but, I dont want anything else, period, no offers, remove me from any lists I'm on, put your Privacy Flag on my account, and make sure my status is CANCELLED. Thank you."

I received one more card from them later on, stating everything was finally cancelled and have heard nothing since then. With this much hassle in cancelling your subscription I am *NEVER* ever re-subscribing to them again, besides, you can go to wired.com anyways, and just read everything thats in the magazine in full (yes - I've sat and compared the online version and the magazine version) - the only difference is the 70% of ads they plow into it and all their NEXFest promotional stuff.

I subscribed because the articles are very well written and researched, and thought I might support them a bit, but never again.

By the way, here's their nasty cover:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/full.html

Now, tell me that's not completely obnoxious!!!

Fucking Wired.

See: http://www.wired.com/news/feedback/

For new Wired magazine subscriptions e-mail subscriptions@wiredmag.com or call 800-SOWIRED (800-769-4733) inside the U.S. and Canada or 303-678-0354 from all other countries. Hey, it's a free call on their dime!

Public Relations, for a good time contact:
Kathy O'Reilly, Kathy.O'Reilly@lycos-inc.com,
Direct#: 781-370-3454

Snail Mail Wired News
660 3rd Street, 1st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107

For the VoIP users:
Phone: 415-276-8400
Fax: 415-276-8500

I just got through reading a Wired story about new Rooftop Mirror Arrays available in the fall. Unfortunately, the story isn't avail on-line until July 11: http://www.wired.com/wired/ The Rooftop Solar Revolution Dotcom king Bill Gross wants to sell you a high-energy, low-cost solar concentrator that will fit on your roof. And overthrow the powers that be. I have no idea if this is applicable to you, but I thought you might enjoy the info.

As a college student, it goes without saying that I am against any increases in tuition...and guess what Dell 'helping out college campuses' would do to it of course. They are a pay-for service, and the college/university would have to pay for it somewhere.

I really appreciate the effort, but living off Top Ramen is hard enough. 'Giving' us this service just like they gave all Duke incoming freshmen iPods is really just passing the bill onto the students.


--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !

Here's a novel concept....use more standard forms of security...eg...lock your doors. Back when I was living in college dorms 6 years ago (is it bad I already feel old?) the most common reason people had their laptop stolen is because they left their dorm door unlocked and went to take a shower, etc... Laptop locks have been around a long time as well (of course, as we learned from the bike-lock world, sometimes the best lock can be defeated by a BiC pen) Granted everyone will be able to come up with a what if this scenario, what if that, but the best solution to solve the problem is to be like an onion and have layers (ok, shoot me for the lame joke). A layered approach is always the best bet. Lock your door, lock down the laptop to the desk if you so choose, and install some "Phone Home" software if you like. But of course, given physical access and enough time, anything can be defeated.

On the flip side, I would think that most people who steal laptops are going to wipe them or snoop around in them for awhile before connecting to the net and surf for porn. So this should hardly be viewed as a perfect solution for catching thieves (although WiFi certainly helps).

It is amazing what you can do remotely with a stolen laptop before the thief notices anything.

Above article is a story about a guy who retreives his sister's computer by using Timbuktu Pro (a VNC like client/server solution for Mac). Same article also mentions this BS:

Absolute's CompuTrace software programs computers to call the company's tracking center in Vancouver, B.C., at prescheduled times. If a machine is reported stolen, the monitoring center waits for it to dial in, then reprograms it to call every 15 minutes until its location can be traced. The software is very difficult to remove, and works even if the hard drive is reformatted or repartitioned. The company has been operating since 1997 and claims a 95-percent success rate.

Now, what can you do with this data? Well, once it is in the google index - tomorrow, I suspect. Then the 3.5mb page of 80k validated pieces of knowledge will be able to do for consensus internal knowledge what wikipedia does for consensus external knowledge. I hope that eventually, google will trust Mindpixel as it does Wikipedia. Then commercial applications of semantic spectrum based technology can proceed, and the 50,000 owners of the

The Star Destroyer is a benchmark of construction in some Lego circles. Groups get together to speed-build the thing. A few years back I saw one put together in a little over an hour. (Wired News)

The prospect of technological leverage will of course raise the specter of unemployment. I'm surprised people still worry about this. After centuries of supposedly job-killing innovations, the number of jobs is within ten percent of the number of people who want them. This can't be a coincidence. There must be some kind of balancing mechanism.

So now that we've got this ruling, does this mean that we can bring back third voice?

So, it's merely concidence that those that get attention and credibility are those who are able to clearly communicate?

I think you're missing the point. It's not self-presentation; it's the ability to communicate ideas. If you can't send a message clearly, consisely, and reliably, nobody's going to listen. Think of the difference between a group of lobbyists presenting hard numbers to a fact-finding committee versus a group of nude protesters at a storefront. Yes, the protesers will get the press, but the well-reasoned argument might actually change opinion.

If you can't communicate your ideas, then your ideas hold effectively zero clout. The merit is merely secondary.