Slashback: OSS, Lawsuits, History

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Record Label civil war, more big-business software getting tossed into open source, US Government says 2008 IPv6 still on track, EU Warned Microsoft source code not enough, RIM celebrates a victory in Germany, 10th planet a reality, and looking forward to the year 2001 -- Read on for details.

Record Label Supports Accused File-Sharer. arabagast writes "The Nettwerk Music Group has said it will pay for the defense of David Greubel. Greubel is the defendant in a complaint filed by the RIAA in a U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas accusing him of having 600 illegally downloaded music files on his home computer."

Qluster's OpenQRM goes OSS. Decibel writes "While Microsoft, Oracle and now IBM have made news by releasing free versions of their databases, other companies have gone one better and released versions of their products as OSS. Qlusters is one example, in that they just released OpenQRM. The CTO's previous company (Symbiot) also made a similar play, releasing OpenSIMS. Could this be the start of a change to where commercial software starts melding more and more into OSS?"

US Government says 2008 IPv6 still on track. DrkShadow writes to tell us that the Government is holding fast to their 2008 IPv6 switch commitment. From the article: "The White House Office of Management and Budget said it would issue a policy memorandum dictating full federal 'IPv6' compliance in an effort to spur its deployment throughout government agencies."

EU Warned Microsoft source code not enough. Joe Barr writes "According to WindowsITPro, the Wall Street Journal has obtained a copy of a confidential memo sent from the EU to Microsoft last month which warned Microsoft that an offer of the source code would not be enough to satisfy the EU's requirements for interoperability. Open source advocates have blasted the offer because it lacks the knowledge required to interoperate with Windows behind its IP licensing, thus making it unusable."

RIM celebrates a victory in Germany. PDG writes "Looks like not everything is going bad for RIM as they have recently won another patent based lawsuit, but this time in Germany. At least they don't have all their legal eggs in one basket."

10th planet a reality. smooth wombat writes "After measuring twice and cutting once, a team of German astrophysicists at the University of Bonn led by Frank Bertoldi have concluded that the object located beyond the orbit of Pluto and named 2003 UB313, is 435 miles larger in diameter than Pluto. As a result, there will be increasing pressure on the IAU (International Astronomical Union) to classify this object as the 10th planet. From the article: '"It is now increasingly hard to justify calling Pluto a planet if UB313 is not also given this status," Bertoldi said.'"

Looking forward to the year 2001. ChristianNerds writes "Atari Magazine is serving up an article written in 1989 concerning what the next century would be like. From the article: 'A typical morning in the year 2001: You wake up, scan the custom newspaper that's spilling from your fax, walk into the living room. There you speak to a giant screen on the wall, part of which instantly becomes a high-quality TV monitor. When you leave for work, you carry a smart wallet, a computer the size of a credit card. When you come home, you slip on special eyeglasses and stroll through a completely artificial world.' They got a great deal right, like the spread of optical disk usage, the internet (ISDN), and parallel processing."

Comments

Artificial World

[biocute]

stroll through a completely artificial world

Must be wOw, SecondLife or The Sims.

Re:Artificial World

[TubeSteak]

Or working in a cubicle for 8 hrs a day.

that's a fairly artifical world if you ask me.

"US Government says 2008 IPv6 still on track."

[scenestar]

slashback me again when it is finally done.

Re:"US Government says 2008 IPv6 still on track."

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet in 2008 I'll be able to play duke nukem forever on my phantom console using IPv6

Re:"US Government says 2008 IPv6 still on track."

[gnarlin]

on track maybe, but off it's rails; certainly.

10th planet

[brian0918]

It seems like the IAU could pin down a definition of what a "planet" is by setting some cutoff based on the object's gravitational effect on the Sun, which fall off as 1/r^2, so that even though the object is slightly larger than Pluto, it is so much farther away from the Sun than Pluto that its gravitational influence is below some arbitrary cutoff.

Re:10th planet

[Anonymous Coward]

"It seems like the IAU could pin down a definition of what a "planet" is by setting some cutoff based on the object's gravitational effect on the Sun, which fall off as 1/r^2, so that even though the object is slightly larger than Pluto, it is so much farther away from the Sun than Pluto that its gravitational influence is below some arbitrary cutoff."

but then my balls would no longer be considered planets

Re:10th planet

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, this would probably only affect your balls if they were farthe away than Pluto. If that's the case, then you have greater things to worry about than if they're listed as planets.

Re:10th planet

[brian0918]

"Don't worry, this would probably only affect your balls if they were farthe away than Pluto. If that's the case, then you have greater things to worry about than if they're listed as planets."

I can see the book now... "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, Women have sent Men's Balls into a Trans-Neptunian Orbit"

Re:10th planet

[kfg]

Yes, this would work, if you, for some reason, wanted to arbitrarily limit the number of Heliocentric planets to nine.

KFG

Re:10th planet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey there. You make a very convincing and logical point, illustrating my exact sentiments. However, if you would allow me to correlate one concept with your very keen wisdom; all those years standing naked in front of a mirror taught me that "size doesn't matter"...

If it did, I'd say my self indulgent delusions are wrong, and we should just throw out Pluto all together and stick with just 8 good planets.

Re:10th planet

[Petrushka]

I figure if you take UB313 as having a density of 6 kg/m^3 (very dense) and diameter 340,000 (largest estimate), and take its minimum distance from the sun (37 AU), it exerts roundabout the same gravitational force on the sun as an object of about 7 x 10^14 kg at a distance of 1 AU from the sun.

So by your definition Phobos and Deimos - at a distance of 1.3 to 1.7 AU from the sun - would both be planets.

In case anyone isn't aware, Phobos and Deimos are really small ...

Re:10th planet

[brian0918]

According to this, the object orbits at 52-62 AU, not 37 AU, but I wouldn't put it past the Slashdot editors to be wrong. How does Pluto compare to Phobos and Deimos?

Re:10th planet

[CharlesDonHall]

I think we should just decide based on the name.

If the Romans named one of their Gods after it (e.g. Pluto), then it's a planet. If it's named after a person (Hale-Bopp) then it's a comet. If the name is just some random string of letters (UB313) then it's an asteroid.

(Note: Under this system, the asteroids Juno, Pallas, Vesta, etc. would be reclassified as planets.)

Re:10th planet

[kfg]

How does Pluto compare to Phobos and Deimos?

How would you like to walk around an equator in less than an hour?

Don't walk too fast though, you might achieve orbital velocity, or even escape if you tried to jog.

KFG

Re:10th planet

[n54]

Interesting idea but as other replies have pointed out it would need more details and some sort of excuse for rogue planets.

Personally I'm not overly concerned about the classification debate but privately I view any object with large enough mass to compress itself by gravity into a spheroid shape as a planet unless it orbits another such planet in which case I see it as a moon. Yes that means Ceres is a planet imo and that Pluto/Charon is a double moon with two additional moons P1 & P2... lol at least the discussion should show people how diverse our solar system is :)

If one takes spheroid shape as the starting point one can still continue the debate to ones hearts delight by arguing over subgroups such as "miniature planets" and what should be the criteria for each subgroup.

Re:10th planet

[Anonymous Coward]

This post craves mod points. If only I wasn't too lazy to sign up.

Re:10th planet

[mrchaotica]

If the Romans named one of their Gods after it (e.g. Pluto)

(Note: Under this system, the asteroids Juno, Pallas, Vesta, etc. would be reclassified as planets.)

But Pluto still wouldn't be, because it wasn't the Romans who named it.

In fact, I can't recall -- did the Romans know about any planets beyond Jupiter? It would be kind of silly to re-classify Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune as asteroids!

Re:10th planet

[taylortbb]

One of the most interesting definition I've heard of so far is that something is a planet if it dominates gravitationally in the area. This would mean that Pluto isn't a planet and wouldn't give an arbitrary size for is/isn't a planet. It also means that an astroid belt of very large astroids wouldn't all have to be planets, if something like that ever were to be found in another solar system.

Re:10th planet

[squeemey]

You've got problems with this.

What do you define as spherical? The earth has its bumps and valleys also. How arbitrarily spherical should it be defined?

It would be better to say that a planet IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM has to be not only heliocentric, but in the same plain as the first eight planets.

For other sysetems yet to be discovered, set the definition to fit the properties and/or characteristics.

Re:10th planet

[SlayerDave]

If it were up to me, I'd define a planet as a body that:

1. Has sufficient gravity to have formed into a spheroid (arbitrarily defined)

2. Orbits a star and not some other body orbiting the star (to exclude moons)

3. Is not a comet

Obviously my definition has as much ambiguity as the original poster's, but it seems to my (non-astronomer's) mind to capture the basic characteristics of a planet.

Re:10th planet

[jonadab]

> Yes, this would work, if you, for some reason, wanted to arbitrarily limit the
> number of Heliocentric planets to nine

The problem here is that the number of known small iceballs out there past Neptune is growing fairly rapidly, and if we classify them all as planets, we'll no longer be able to teach elementary school children the list of planets.

Personally, I think Pluto should be grandfathered in just because it was classified as a planet before its size was known, but apart from Pluto anything with less than about 5% of Earth's mass should be considered a "minor planet" or "planetoid" if it's roughly spherical, a comet if it has a "tail" pointing away from the primary more than about twice its diameter in the other direction (at periapsis), or an asteroid (or meteoroid, or speck of dust if it's really small). This is all assuming that the bulk of its acceleration relative to the rest of the system is due to the gravitational pull of a primary; if a planet has a larger impact on its motion than the primary does, then it's a moon. (That leaves the definition of "primary" to be sorted out later, but for the purposes of the solar system the Sun is obviously the only primary.)

Re:10th planet

[kfg]

The problem here is that the number of known small iceballs out there past Neptune is growing fairly rapidly

No, not really. That assumed figure for individual members of the Ort Cloud is about a trillion and has been for quite some time.

. . .and if we classify them all as planets. . .

But we already classify these as comets, because they're small iceballs.

. . . we'll no longer be able to teach elementary school children the list of planets.

Why, ummmmmmmm, on Earth, do you feel this is an important issue?

Personally, I think Pluto should be grandfathered in just because it was classified as a planet before its size was known . . .

This is not science and would set a bad example for elemetary school children.

. . .a comet if it has a "tail" pointing away from the primary

So Halley's isn't a comet, but will suddenly become one in about 70 years, but then it won't be again, but then. . .

Most comets never have tails.

. . .if a planet has a larger impact on its motion than the primary does, then it's a moon.

But now the Gas Giants each have a godzillion moons. We'll never be able to name them all, let alone teach a list of their names to elementary school children.

Classification isn't always so easy, because, you see, the object itself keeps insisting that it, as it is, is the only reality, not its classification.

As Mark Twain pondered, it's all very well for a naturalist to classify a bug, but how does he then go about explaining it to the bug?

KFG

Re:10th planet

[n54]

Hehe most people and scientists agree that for all intents and purposes the Earth, the Moon, all the major planets and most of their moons are spherical. It's not really much of a debate, I'm sure you yourself can easily classify a basketball (it has slight grooves and bumped texture) as spherical while you wouldn't say the same for a tetrahedra, most potatoes, a banana or almost all naturally occuring rocks (even those polished by water/ice as they tend to be flat).

Re:10th planet

[n54]

Pluto & Charon do together dominate their area; they've captured two moons at some point in time. Yes the area is small so that definition makes it a debate about arbitrary scale again.

Very large asteroids are increasingly spherical unless they've recently broken up -- being speherical is a property of mass/gravity and as such a natural border of classification which will hold in any solar system or outside for that matter.

Re:10th planet

[cpt kangarooski]

All the planets through Saturn have been known since antiquity. Uranus was found in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930. That's about 75 years on average between finding new planets, which means that we're due for a new one now anyway. But rather than name it for a Roman god, I say we call it Planet X. That's a lot cooler.

Re:10th planet

[cpt kangarooski]

Classification isn't always so easy, because, you see, the object itself keeps insisting that it, as it is, is the only reality, not its classification.

Well that's why we need the space program: so that someday we can get out there and move, alter, and demolish various bodies until the Solar System conforms to what we think it ought to be.

Re:10th planet

[kfg]

Isn't that how we ended up with Detroit?

KFG

Re:10th planet

[sbaker]

Astronomers and their ilk simply need to abandon terms like 'planet', 'moon' and possibly even 'star' and invent new words with precise meanings. It's not uncommon to have to do this in science when the meaning of old words becomes impossibly difficult to deal with.

Non-scientists have words like 'butterfly' and 'moth' - which have no clear scientific distinction - we also make distinctions where there are none. In common parlance, we orbit a "Sun" - not a "Star". Stars are little dots in the sky - but a sun is a huge nearby thing. ...until we imagine ourselves ourselves are close by a distant star - when we'll want to call it a 'Sun' again. When we sit on a sunny day on some extrasolar planet, we'll still say "What a nice day it is, the sun is shining"...no matter how much the astronomers complain about it.

So scientific rigor can only be satisfied by making new words with rigerous definitions - rather than trying to pin down arbitary non-scientific historical usage of existing words.

If they allow new solar-orbiting bodies to be called planets then whatever cutoff they choose will be utterly arbitary. If they define Pluto to not be a planet then a few billion people will have learned the wrong thing in school and a similar number of books will now be *WRONG* for no other reason than we decided to make them wrong. You can't easily change what people believe to be a fact - and you certainly can't re-publish a billion text books.

So: Pluto is a "Planet" because it always was one. Astronomers should not care a damn about whether the 10th 'thing' is a planet or not because the word 'planet' and 'asteroid' carry about as much distinction as 'butterfly' and 'moth' or 'sun' and 'star'.

They just need new words.

We can do this - and it's easier than arguing about definitions of commonplace words that do not have (and never have had) a formal definition.

Re:10th planet

[Chmarr]

This is not science and would set a bad example for elemetary school children.

But, it's an EXCELLENT example of how science bends and changes as new discoveries are made, and new theories proven or disproven. For a great example, look how many times certain species have had their Genus changed. The tiger is "Panthera tigris", "Tigris tigris" and "Neofelis tigris", depending on who you ask, and when.

Science is malleable. This is really neat and simple way to teach children this.

Re:10th planet

[AJWM]

The problem here is that the number of known small iceballs out there past Neptune is growing fairly rapidly

No, not really. That assumed figure for individual members of the Ort Cloud is about a trillion and has been for quite some time.

See the word "known" in the original. In any case, I believe we're talking about the Kuiper Belt, not the Oort cloud.

However, I agree with most of your other points.

Re:10th planet

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called xena. There you have your x i suppose :)

Re:10th planet

[kfg]

I believe we're talking about the Kuiper Belt, not the Oort cloud.

I'll accept this correction, since really the Oort cloud is actually still hypothetical, but with the caveat that it really is apropos to the issue.

See the word "known" in the original.

This is the specific objection I was waiting for. If we take "known" to be an individual object that has been definatively seen your objection is well placed, however, I chose to interpret known (knowing it was a twist that might raise objection) to mean what we take for granted or at least except without any particular controversy. See my caveat about the Oort Cloud. I think we'd be more surprised to discover that it isn't there than that it is.

For the want of better technical terms we "know" there's a "shitload" of stuff floating around out there past Neptune, even if we haven't seen it yet and the issue is how to classify that stuff as groups.

KFG

Re:10th planet

[dalek_killer]

I think we should just decide based on the name. If the Romans named one of their Gods after it (e.g. Pluto), then it's a planet. If it's named after a person (Hale-Bopp) then it's a comet. If the name is just some random string of letters (UB313) then it's an asteroid. (Note: Under this system, the asteroids Juno, Pallas, Vesta, etc. would be reclassified as planets.) Planets are named after gods, moons after characters from Shakespear's plays comets after the discover/discovers. and they get them after the IAU classify them. I think that Juno, Pallas, and Vesta would be re-reclassed as planets by your methode because they where originally classify as plants.

Re:10th planet

[Not a coward any mor]

But Pluto still wouldn't be, because it wasn't the Romans who named it.

Parent said "if the romans named a God after it". See the irony? Not a planet named after a god, but a god named after planet.

Re:10th planet

[jschrod]

Now you just have to answer the question if Xena (the originally proposed name) is a goddess, a person, or a random string of letters... There are arguments for each of them. :-)

Re:10th planet

[Splinton]

Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, but Gay Men Are From Uranus...

Re:10th planet

[thaWhat]

Here is as good a place as any to butt in, i guess. Everyone is quick to suggest what is not a planet, so how about we take a few calls, to hear what the listeners have to say and maybe discover just what does constitute a planet? Who knows, maybe someone from the IAU is reading...

Re:10th planet

[thaWhat]

How about if it does (or did) support an atmosphere? (damn! I guess we're back to 8!)

Re:10th planet

[cyclop]

This way we're already to ten: former asteroid 1 Ceres would surely be a planet, following your definition! Cool.

Re:10th planet

[Zwets]

That's an easy one - she's a warrior princess, isn't she?

Re:10th planet

[jschrod]

who destroyed all gods and gave birth to Eve... or so. Perhaps we should name the 10th planet Gabrielle. ;-)

Re:10th planet

[Anonymous Coward]

a density of 6 kg/m^3 (very dense)

I think you've got your decimal point in the wrong place. 12 pounds per cubic yard? Sand weighs over 2000 pounds per cubic yard. Gold weighs 1200 pounds per cubic foot. Maybe you mean 6 kg / cm^3 ? That would really be very dense.

Re:10th planet

[jonadab]

> > The problem here is that the number of known small iceballs out there past
> > Neptune is growing fairly rapidly

> No, not really.

Yes, really.

> That assumed figure

I said "known", not "guessed".

> for individual members of the Ort Cloud

We don't actually know whether the Oord Cloud exists in the proposed form, because
it's too far out to observe with current equipment, and we haven't sent anything
out far enough to look. (We do know that comets come from somewhere, obviously...
but that doesn't imply the details of the Oort Cloud as usually stated are correct.)

Furthermore, by "small iceballs" I meant the things the other poster was proposing
to classify as major planets, mainly KBOs. In the last year alone we've seen half
a dozen new ones just in postings on slashdot, and several of them have been proposed
to be called the "tenth planet".

> > we'll no longer be able to teach elementary school children the list of planets.
> Why, ummmmmmmm, on Earth, do you feel this is an important issue?

The IAU has this on their mind, because if they don't keep up a decent rapport with
school teachers, the university departments responsible for much of their funding will
end up closing down in a few years for lack of students. Learning the list of the
major planets in the solar system is one of two major astronomy-related items in the
curriculum of most school systems. (The other is a field trip to a planetarium.) If
you take that away, kids will grow up with no interest in astronomy. It's bad enough
that with the cold war over the boys don't all want to be astronauts anymore.

Re:10th planet

[wrfelts]

Learning the list of the major planets in the solar system is one of two major astronomy-related items in the curriculum of most school systems.

"My - Very - Educated - Mother - Just - Served - Us - Nine ..."

For goodness sakes! we can't do without Pluto! The kids would just lose interest!

:>

Re:10th planet

[Ransak]

The best idea I've heard is to simply make the designation 'planet' a non scientific term. Given the confusion and sometimes less than civil debate, it's a comprimise that could work for both camps.

Re:10th planet

[SlayerDave]

former asteroid 1 Ceres would surely be a planet, following your definition! Cool.

Exactly. I think there are around 10 or so large asteroids that are (mostly) spherical and which account for most of the mass of the asteroid belt. However, it would be difficult to determine which were formed by gravitational accretion and which were formed by the pulverization of a larger body. Also, I would imagine that most of their orbits criss-cross heavily, which seems un-planetlike to me. Oh, well.

Re:10th planet

[Alsee]

How does Pluto compare to Phobos and Deimos?

Weightwise... if the Earth's moon were one of those huge fire department pumper trucks, Pluto would be a typical SUV, the largest asteroid in the asteroid belt would be a motorcycle, the correct(*) absolute minimum mass for a planet would be an orange, and Deimos would be about a pea. Deimos is really really small.

(*) When the the prior poster did his math he used horribly incorrect data. The correct figures for Pluto can be found at Wikipedia Pluto. So I took the correct figures, I took his proposed definition of planet based on gravitational influence on the sun, and I re-did the math.

Deimos could not qualify as a planet under that definition... not unless it were so close to the sun that the heat would vaporize it away.

The closest iron can get to the sun without vaporizing away (sublimating to be particular) from the heat is maybe half the radius of Mercury's orbit, and that is assuming an abnormally high rate of rotation to keep the day side from raising too far above the median temperature. At that orbital distance a mass of 2.5*10^17 kg would qualify as a "planet" under that gravitaty-based definition. As I indicated above, 2.5*10^17 kg is the equivalant of an orange in that analogy scale.

-

Re:10th planet

[Alsee]

Astronomers and their ilk simply need to abandon terms like 'planet', 'moon' and possibly even 'star' and invent new words with precise meanings.

Considering that scientists decided to name the new planet/object/whatever Quaoar (pronounced KWAH-o-ar), I say they've lost any right to make up new words.

-

Re:10th planet

[Alsee]

Well that's why we need the space program: so that someday we can get out there and move, alter, and demolish various bodies until the Solar System conforms to what we think it ought to be.

Astronomy, USA style.
Chuckle.

-

Re:10th planet

[jonadab]

> For goodness sakes! we can't do without Pluto! The kids would just lose interest!

Taking away Pluto's status as a major planet is possible, although a lot of people do have an emotional attachment to it. What would be undesirable (for the reasons I already discussed) would be adding Quoar and Sedna and UB313 et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam ad bedlam.

Yes, where IS my flying car?

[ursabear]

I was promised a flying car, dangit!

It is a good thing, however that not all predictions come true.

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[WillAffleckUW]

I'm sorry, but when they cancelled the monorail here in Seattle, the Big 5 Automakers had to cancel production of the Flying Car, due to concerns over personal injury lawsuits.

But you can still use your jetpack, so no problems!

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is your hovering car right here:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/30/11384 69638185.html

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[geekoid]

They have them, there called "Airplanes".
They even have there own special place to be stored called "AirPorts".

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[JanneM]

I was promised a flying car, dangit!

As you hint, and others like to point out, there is no way we could have widespread personal flying transportation like that due to legal issues.

But of course, would the car be invented today, it would most likely not be allowed either - having tons of steel hurtle down the streets as high speed, only inches from where people are walking - there'd be a class-action lawsuit happening within ten second of the first vehicle hitting anything.

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would probably work if the vehicle were programmed to hit only lawyers. Hence, no lawsuits.

Paralegals are safe.

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[netringer]

The problem is not when you'll get the flying car, it's how much is it worth to you?

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[jonwil]

Start small and allow flying cars but only if you have a proper pilots licence and know how to fly airplanes. That way, anyone flying one would know how to avoid mid-air collisions etc.

CEOs, business executives and anyone else rich enough could just hire "pilot chauffers" (after all, they generally already have personal drivers) and avoid being stuck in traffic.

Slowly more people would buy "flying cars" (as the prices fell) and get the requisite pilots licence to fly them.

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[Verteiron]

So let China build 'em. When all X billion of China's citizens have a flying car, it'll be too late to legislate them out of existence.

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[Jamey]

> It is a good thing, however that not all predictions come true.

Damn straight! "Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

That movie has too many right predictions already!

Re:Yes, where IS my flying car?

[drachenstern]

you mean like on the macintosh notebooks?

NTP just lost a BIG one.

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. patent office rules in RIM's favour again
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2006/02/ 01/rim-060201.html

NTP has 30 days to respond to the non-final rejection of its 5 critical patents against RIM. There is a court date on February 24, 2006 to start the shutdown of the RIM network in the U.S. It is going to be an interesting court case.

Re:NTP just lost a BIG one.

[SpaceLifeForm]

USDOJ gets involved, Stout promises reversal.

If by 2008 we'll be finally using IPv6

[WillAffleckUW]

I guess I can quit holding my breath.

I remember last century wondering if IPv6 would ever get implemented.

Guess a few billion Chinese with email addresses and IP-enabled devices probably forced the issue, huh? That plus the fact that my fridge, toaster, TV, computers, and microwave oven all have IP addresses ...

Re:If by 2008 we'll be finally using IPv6

[Luban Doyle]

Actually the Chinese are using IPv6 in quite a few places already. We aren't because od CIDRing and keeping machines behind firewalls and routers which allow you to use addresses that aren't used/routable on the Internet (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x to 172.32.x.x and 192.168.x.x)

Re:If by 2008 we'll be finally using IPv6

[WillAffleckUW]

Actually the Chinese are using IPv6 in quite a few places already.

Now, that would make a great /. story!

See, I didn't know they were already using IPv6 in China.

Re:If by 2008 we'll be finally using IPv6

[geekoid]

this has been the plan for a while.
Nothing new here.

Re:If by 2008 we'll be finally using IPv6

[Jesapoo]

I'll miss the days of knowing my IP address off the top of my head.

*sigh*

happy days...

Re:If by 2008 we'll be finally using IPv6

[WillAffleckUW]

I'll miss the days of knowing my IP address off the top of my head.

You only have one?

IPv6

[wesw02]

I my self have not yet messed with IPv6, but I am curious if anyone knows of or works for a business that is currently using IPv6, if so what issues are you having with it?

Re:IPv6

[wesw02]

All this talk about IPv6, has stirred up my curiosity about IPv6 intergration. Possibley someone can answer me this, are we going to slowly move over to IPv6 (a few servers at a time), or is there going to be some set date that everything is going to switch (having a set date to switch seems to me like it's asking for a catastrophe).

Re:IPv6

[XMilkProject]

We had to setup a medium sized IPv6 network, as we develop alot of military related software and their GIG (Global Information Grid) is IPv6 based.

It all seems to work pretty well, although there was some learning curve involved on translating between networks and such.

Oh, and it's a real pain in the ass when you are used to being able to memorize many IPv4 addresses in your head.... Although your localhost IP address is now simpler :)

from the cnn article on pluto's successor

[awing0]

...concluded a space body located in the outer reaches of the solar system is 435 miles (700 kilometers) larger than Pluto, the smallest planet.
brWTF does that mean? Are we speaking circumference, diameter, radius, surface area? Who writes these articles?

Re:from the cnn article on pluto's successor

[Lithgon]

435 miles larger in uselessness.

Looking forward to the Year 2000 slashback

[WillAffleckUW]

I notice that they talk about how we'll all be using ISDN.

Maybe I should turn off the Gigapop Internet we use at the UW, huh?

Re:Looking forward to the Year 2000 slashback

[Detritus]

ISDN was a worthwhile technology, putting a low-latency multiplexed digital communications link on existing copper wiring. The problem, at least in the USA, was how it was marketed, priced, and promoted by the telephone companies. The telephone companies wanted to push centrex and the "intelligent" circuit-switched network. They had no interest in selling cheap packet-switched data links to individuals and small businesses. They hate the concept of the dumb network. There's no great profit to be made running a dumb network.

Re:Looking forward to the Year 2000 slashback

[monkeydo]

ISDN is circuit switched, and is far from a "dumb" network. Additionally PRI's are in extrememly wide use as voice trunks in the US.

Re:Looking forward to the Year 2000 slashback

[jonwil]

Also, ISDN is quite common as a backup link.

So a company might have T1 or Frame Relay or Fibre or whatever as the main link to the outside world but will then have an ISDN BRI link in case the main link fails.

Wow. It did happen.

[Teresh]

"Looking forward to the year 2001. ChristianNerds writes "Atari Magazine is serving up an article written in 1989 concerning what the next century would be like. From the article: 'A typical morning in the year 2001: You wake up, scan the custom newspaper that's spilling from your fax, walk into the living room. There you speak to a giant screen on the wall, part of which instantly becomes a high-quality TV monitor. When you leave for work, you carry a smart wallet, a computer the size of a credit card. When you come home, you slip on special eyeglasses and stroll through a completely artificial world.' They got a great deal right, like the spread of optical disk usage, the internet (ISDN), and parallel processing."

I get custom RSS feeds, that pretty much counts as a custom newspaper for me. I've seen voice-controlled switches and HDTVs, wouldn't surprise me that some people have connected the two. American Express makes Blue, a credit card that is quite really a computer. I haven't seen the virtual world like described, but most MMORPGs would count if your monitor is big enough.

Wow. I never thought predictions of the new millennium would be accurate. Turns out they were mostly right. :O

2001: A web oddysey

[Spy der Mann]

The prediction guys aren't quite wrong. they just got some ideas 10 or 20 years ahead.

Voice recognition: Check.
E-paper on the wall: Kinda, but the technology's there.
3-D glasses: Well um...

Vast amounts of information: "With instant referencing of thousands of volumes of information, computing will be like working with an army of electronic elves, all ready to fetch in a flash any tidbit you like."

They got it half right... had they thought about the internet, they might have figured about Google and Wikipedia. No, Encarta doesn't count. It sucks :P

"It'll also allow you to store audio and video". DivX - check :)
""You'll be able to capture segments of a show you like, cut them out, and put them in a video report for school."
TiVo is here :) but companies' interests kinda screwed that up. However, Google video search is here, too :)

Hmmm. Pretty interesting.

Re:2001: A web oddysey

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you say encarta sucks because encarta sucks, or do you say encarta sucks because it is the slashdrone thing to say? Personally I have stopped using Wikipedia because with recent events, I can no longer be certain that anything that I read there has not been tainted by someone with an agenda.

Re:2001: A web oddysey

[Keruo]

> computing will be like working with an army of electronic elves

So Packet Loss occurs because of the underpant gnomes?(or should we call them transport layer gnomes instead?)

1. steal tcp packet
2. ???
3. profit

Re:2001: A web oddysey

[Anonymous Coward]

>""You'll be able to capture segments of a show you like, cut them out, and put them in a video report for school."

Ha! And you'll get hit with an IP lawsuit the very next day... (if it takes then even *that* long).

Re:2001: A web oddysey

[marktoml]

>computing will be like working with an army of electronic elves

A mutinous army it seems (on most days)

Re:2001: A web oddysey

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you say encarta sucks because encarta sucks, or do you say encarta sucks because it is the slashdrone thing to say? Personally I have stopped using Wikipedia because with recent events, I can no longer be certain that anything that I read there has not been tainted by someone with an agenda.

Do you know of a source where you can be CERTAIN that nothing will be tainted by someone with an agenda?

[cue hazy comments about degrees of certainty]

In my opinion, that bit about having thousands of electronic elves working for us has come true pretty precisely, not just half right. Too bad most seem to take it all for granted now. I wish I had the internet when I was 8, or even 15. Having to wait until my mid 20s was BS and I blame God, the government, evolution, cmndrtaco, and a few other people/things/principles.

Re:2001: A web oddysey

[mrchaotica]

Not mutinous; just stupid. Come to think of it, that would make a great tagline:

"Google Search: Like an army of elves -- just really, really stupid ones."

Re:2001: A web oddysey

[AoT]

That's Gnu/Gnomes to you!

Wait just a minute

[SeanTobin]

From TFA:

McBride, however, disagreed, saying litigation doesn't benefit artists.

"Litigation is not 'artist development,'" McBride said. "Litigation is a deterrent to creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love. The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists' best interests."

So now I'm supposed to cheer for someone named McBride?

Re:Wait just a minute

[ClamIAm]

There once was a man named McBride
Who fell down an outhouse and died
McBride had a brother
Who fell down another
And now they're interred side by side.

--My Grandfather

(PS: if you don't get it, say the word "interred" slowly, out loud)

Re:Wait just a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

So now I'm supposed to cheer for someone named McBride?

Forget McBride.

Give us McNeal, if you do not give Us McNeil, we will raise your planet's temperature by one billion degrees every hour.

END TRANSMISSION

Uhhh, not quite so easy.

[jd]

It would mean they'd have to reclassify all of the planets without stars for the same reason. And nobody is going to seriously suggest that a gas ball 100s of times the size of Jupiter is an asteroid or a comet. For a start, the press would crucify them.

It would be reasonable to define a planet in terms of composition and structure (and I've argued that case before) - the problem with that is that you'd need to define something as an unknown until you actually did enough of a geological survey to determine those things. I'm not sure NASA or the ESA would object too loudly, provided they got the funding. Missions like that make for great photo ops, as well as good science. Astronomers would likely complain, though, as it would mean they couldn't prove anything (other than gas giants) were planets.

Actually, when you get right down to it, NASA and the ESA have more money and more political clout than the IAU, so maybe that would actually be practical to enforce.

Re:Uhhh, not quite so easy.

[brian0918]

"It would mean they'd have to reclassify all of the planets without stars for the same reason. And nobody is going to seriously suggest that a gas ball 100s of times the size of Jupiter is an asteroid or a comet. For a start, the press would crucify them."

Am I the only one for whom this statement made absolutely no sense? We were talking about a lower limit, not an upper limit... and we were talking about our Solar System. Defining planets as asteroids or comets??? Where did that come from?

Re:Uhhh, not quite so easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did that come from? It was your suggestion! If you define a planet in terms of mass versus distance from a star, then extrasolar gas giants cannot be considered planets. Or were you suggesting two rules for deciding whether something is a planet or not - one rule for our solar system, and one rule for everywhere else in the universe?

Re:Uhhh, not quite so easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I see now. You were just being an asshole about it.

He was talking about defining a planet in terms of mass versus distance from THEIR HOST star. Not all planets in the universe in terms of mass versus distance from our own Sol. Only an asshole would attempt to take that as his intention. Any definitive cut-off for our solar system would work for any other solar system in defining a planet in terms of mass versus distance from the host star.

Re:Uhhh, not quite so easy.

[monkeydo]

So, do all planets have to orbit a star?

Re:Uhhh, not quite so easy.

[AoT]

And what if they do not have a host star?

Re:Uhhh, not quite so easy.

[Almost-Retired]

And nobody is going to seriously suggest that a gas ball 100s of times the size of Jupiter is an asteroid or a comet.

I suggest you analyze that statement better, a lot better. Jupiter is now large enough that one could say it missed being a star in its own right by only 3 or 4 of its masses. 100 times more massive and this system would have been a binary system visible from 5% of the way across the visible universe by the likes of Hubble. In fact I would expect, since that would still make it smaller than our own star, the sun, it would be a quite long lived binary and be lighting up our night sky after 5 billion years a heck of a lot brighter than its current albedo does...

I think the question then would have to be, would life have developed on this planet if it had a second, albeit dimmer, sun to impart energy to it in the varying amounts resulting from the interplay of orbits, or would that increased Jovian mass have perturbed the orbits of the rest of the planets such that most of them were eventually ejected long before a stable environment that lead to life had been achieved?

It would be an interesting whatif to work out by someone with experience in orbital mechanics, to simulate both the environment and the orbital effects of a 100 times more massive Jupiter that just happened to fire up its internal fusion fires on the rest of this system over the last 5 billion years.

Interesting indeed.

--
Cheers, Gene

Is OSS documentation any better?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft had previously turned over 12,000 pages of technical information describing software protocols that developers could use to interact with Windows Server products. But the EU says that its technical experts spent over 42 hours working on very simple applications that interact with those protocols, and they couldn't get anything to work. The experts called Microsoft's documentation "totally unusable" and complained that it lacks an index, illustrations, or even section headings. Developers at companies such as IBM, Novell, Oracle, and Sun Microsystems also all complained that the documentation was unusable, the report notes."

Is Open Source documnetation any better?

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Behold, the power of hyperlinking!

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[cswiger2005]

That depends on which Open Source project you consider, of course. I happen to think that Apache, MySQL, Samba have pretty good documentation for what they do, as does FreeBSD, and even Sun's documentation for OpenSolaris is extremely good.

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[PigIronBob]

By virtue of the fact that it exists, i would have to say YES

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[ajdlinux]

Doxygen. Combined with KDevelop or similar IDE, it produces quite good API docs.

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[Anonymous Coward]

OSS isn't under court order to provide interoperability.

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[spitzak]

I know you think you are making some kind of profound statement, but the terrible state of OSS documentation just reinforces this.

Despite the fact that you can literally cut & paste the code into your application (not allowed with Microsoft's code) it is obvious that availability of source code is almost useless to interoperability. OSS does a great job of implemented documented standard interfaces, such as HTML and network protocols, but it is obvious that the ability of one piece of OSS to talk to another using some new protocol invented by that other one is very limited and slow. Witness the fact that most non-project programs don't install desktop shortcuts or icons on KDE and Gnome, this is due to the inability to figure out how using the code and the lack of documentation (there was documentation for the directory used by Gnome and enough programs used that that Gnome has to be compatable with it, but nothing I can find for how to use their new registry-like stuff).

I would say that the state of OSS proves conclusively that the source cannot be used and documentation is needed. Now I realize that their stuff probably is not documented and they don't want to try to write it (not any more than any OSS project wants to write documentation), so I think the EU and MS are going to have to compromise by them releasing into the public domain sufficient excerpts from their code to make a program that interoperates. That will at least get things to the cut & paste level.

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[artg]

We're not comparing user manuals here, but protocol specs. The nearest thing in the OSS world (since OSS projects don't, in the main, invent new communications protocols) are the internet RFCs.

So yes, OSS provably do a whole lot better : all the OSS and proprietary code that uses those protocols was based on the specs.

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[xouumalperxe]

Wel,, possibly not. But no sort of F/OSS is being accused of monopolistic practices and being demanded to comply with court rulings. And F/OSS tends to follow standard protocols rather than come up with new ones (though that can and will happen, look at at freeBSD's firewall protocol thingy).

Re:Is OSS documentation any better?

[cswiger2005]

I would say that plenty of OSS projects invent communications protocols, and yes, many are documented in the Internet RFC's. Things like IP, UDP, TCP, SMTP, HTTP, IMAP, OpenPGP, LDAP, XDR, RPC, etc...

UB313's name

[renrutal]

Hopefully it will be named Persephone, for the delight of Douglas Adams, Arthur C. Clarke's and Star Trek fans.

Re:UB313's name

[ville]

Or asspuhelin would be equally nice. // ville

It's diameter

[jd]

But it's along the longest side. The shortest side is only about 2/3rds the diameter of Pluto. (The new object is extremely squished, which led to a lot of problems on determining the actual size and whether it had a moon or not.)

10th planet: Proserpine?

[Spy der Mann]

From TFA:

Scientists determined 2003 UB313's diameter is about 1,864 miles (3,000 kilometers), which is 435 miles (700 kilometers) larger than Pluto.

I wonder what name they'll come up with. I would choose "Proserpine", Pluto's wife.

Re:10th planet: Proserpine?

[awing0]

I realize it did specify later, but why not mention a huge freakin' detail in the article summary?

Re:10th planet: Proserpine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rupert.

IBM's polarized LCD monitor

[jd]

I saw many demos, at SC|05, of 3D glasses using polarized light from a single monitor using polarized light. It was actually very good. You can do full colour, because the glasses are not colour filters. In fact, you can get a wider range of colours, because the different views needn't use the same colour for the same pixel. The effect is vastly superior to the two colour glasses and doesn't leave you with the headaches that the shutter-glasses (where each eye was blanked alternately) did.

The drawback is that it only produces 3D if you are in the same plane as the polarizing filter AND are in roughly a direct line with the center of the image.

An alternative 3D glasses system would be the Virtual Reality goggles, which are still nowhere near where they could be. you can't get the resolution you'd want using a LCD screen. There have been reports of the military experimenting with systems that project onto the retina using (very low power) lasers, and even using transmitters to stimulate the optic nerve directly, but I know of no reliable information on where those technologies currently are.

But as for 3D glasses - they're around and they're improving.

Re:IBM's polarized LCD monitor

[sbaker]

I don't think direct-to-retina laser displays are likely.

A few flight simulators from back in the late 1980's projected laser imagery directly onto the pilot's retina. It was pretty tricky technology though.

In order to create a bright enough image while scanning the entire retina, you needed a laser that would damage the retina if it ever STOPPED scanning and just sat in one place for a while. (Imagine a 1000 scan-line display that would be bright enough to look good...now imagine the vertical scanning device breaks and draws all of those thousand lines on top of each other on the retina. You'd have a thousand times more average brightness - and within a very short space of time, a permenant black line across your vision).

So it was necessary to implement layers of safety into the system that would be impossible in a consumer-grade device.

OK, had to be said

[real gumby]

1989 is calling. They want their 2001 back.

2001, information, and IP

[lilmouse]

It's funny how so many of the things fortold in 1989 aren't around today - but not because of technological limitations! Consider these:

• Desktop libraries - sure, we've got wikipedia, but not in 2001, and there is still *vast* amounts of stuff out there we can't have today. Why not? IP.
• Remote controls that let you automatically record a set of TV shows. Sure, there's Tivo...but even Tivo doesn't want you to be able to watch this stuff whenever you want! You're expected to pay money for it.

So many people dreamed of unfettered access to vast amounts of knowledge thanks to the internet... And we do have vast amount of access - but no authoritative, complete libraries at our fingertips. Companies have managed to lay claim to information, and it's no longer shared with everyone, but kept in chains.

Welcome to the 21st century!

--LWM

Re:2001, information, and IP

[ClamIAm]

The Internet: allowing a Library of Alexandria available to all, yet denied by a few.

Re:2001, information, and IP

[RedWizzard]

Remote controls that let you automatically record a set of TV shows. Sure, there's Tivo...but even Tivo doesn't want you to be able to watch this stuff whenever you want!

MythTV certainly lets you do whatever you want with your recordings. Or do only commercial solutions count?

And we do have vast amount of access - but no authoritative, complete libraries at our fingertips.

We're probably there in terms of what many people in 1989 were thinking of. If you need to find out about something you can do that online whereas back then you'd have had to go to a library. As for authoritative, well that's a debatable point about regular libraries too - just because you read something in a book doesn't make it automatically true.

What we don't have is online access to most specific works. I can't look something up in "The Art of Computer Programming" online, for example. But even that situation is slowly improving.

Re:2001, information, and IP

[Guspaz]

They DID get a surprising amount correct, though. The big thing they missed out on is the internet (and the ubiquity of it). It supplants a lot of their other predictions.

Their pridictions about optical storage going up 50x in size from 656MB was a bit off. By 2001, I think we only had DVD-RW, a mere ~15x increase. By 2006, though, we've got 50GB BluRay rewritables, a 78x increase. So they were just off by a few years.

Another interesting thing they got right was CD-ROMs being able to store higher quality sound than audio CDs. A CD-ROM today can store 24-bit 96khz 5.1 audio with a greater playing time than a similar audio CD. So the quality increase is there too (~1.2 megabits is a LOT of bits to work with for compressed digital audio), and the technology to do so was around in 2001 (DVDs, for example, use compressed 24-bit audio).

Re:2001, information, and IP

[sbaker]

Many of their predictions are wrong because we realised we didn't WANT these things.

I could certainly rather easily build a system to print me a custom newspaper from the web - but who actually wants that. Most people's reaction would be "What a waste of Fax paper". If we want news - on any conceivable topic - at any time of day or night - it's right there on the web.

We could have voice-operated devices - but most people either feel embarassed by them - or they realise that the damned things won't work when there is a lot of other noise around - or that you'd say: "I don't think much of the format of this web site"...only to find their laptop saying "Format started....Format complete". Voice commands only work in the human world because we maintain eye contact - or have a lot of personal context surrounding a command. In a busy 'cube farm' type of office, having everyone issuing voice commands would *suck*. We have pretty good voice recognition - but we USE it mostly only for automated telephone response services and such.

We do have large screen TV's - but we prefer to reserve that screen for entertainment because it's got a big comfey sofa in front of it - and use a smaller screen with an ergonomic office chair, a keyboard and mouse for doing computing stuff. If one part of the family is watching TV, they don't want an inset view of me buying stuff on eBay distracting them in one corner of the screen.

The problem wasn't that they misjudged the technological capabilities of the year 2001 - they basically applied Moores Law kinds of prediction and nailed that pretty accurately. It was that they failed to think through the consequences of those technologies in terms of what people actually WANT out of their lives.

Re:2001, information, and IP

[thaWhat]

Another interesting thing they got right was CD-ROMs being able to store higher quality sound than audio CDs. A CD-ROM today can store 24-bit 96khz 5.1 audio with a greater playing time than a similar audio CD. So the quality increase is there too (~1.2 megabits is a LOT of bits to work with for compressed digital audio), and the technology to do so was around in 2001 (DVDs, for example, use compressed 24-bit audio).
No they didn't. okay, you might get 5.1 sound, but only through lossy compression. There are gains and losses. 1.2 megawhats? how do think that compression is achieved? I think you've missed the point....

Re:2001, information, and IP

[silicon not in the v]

We have pretty good voice recognition - but we USE it mostly only for automated telephone response services and such.

Maybe other implementations of it are better, but the ones I've encountered on the telephone systems suck a$$. They can almost never recognize my voice, and it is so bad that I usually give the phone to my wife if she's around because they can usually understand her. It is rather annoying to be anywhere around people and have to carry on this conversation just to get some movie listings.

"movies"
"MOVIES"
"MOVIES"
"boise, idaho"
"BOISE, IDAHO"
"BOISE, IDAHO!!!!! YOU BROKEN DOWN PIECE OF %^&*@*%$^!!!"

Re:2001, information, and IP

[Guspaz]

They were right about the customized newspapers, though. They essentially describe RSS-by-fax. Keep in mind that the internet didn't exist in the 1980s, so fax seemed the logical method of delivery.

Re:2001, information, and IP

[Guspaz]

In order to get the same amount of digital audio on a data CD as on an audio CD, you use roughly 1.2 megabits for the audio bitrate. I was incorrect about DVDs using 24-bit audio, though.

You have to look past the lossy/lossless compression issue though. For the VAST majority of people, lossy audio at sufficiently high bitrate is indistinguishable from lossless. I'm not talking about audiophiles here, but regular average Joe.

CD quality lossy MP3 compression happens at about 192kbit for most people. Assuming a linear increase in storage requirements to go to 24-bit/96khz, that is a 4x increase in bandwidth. We're up to 768kbit of MP3.

Now, MP3 is not the most efficient audio codec available. Both AAC and Vorbis provide significantly higher quality at the same bitrate. Both AAC and Vorbis were available in 2001. A rough rule of thumb seems to indicate that these newer codecs are up to a third more efficient, so we can drop the bandwidth usage down to 576kbit. Now, we want 5.1 audio, and we're using 2 channels. I'm going to assume that the bass channel isn't going to use any appreciable bandwidth (After all, we're already encoding bass for each individual channel). While a linear assumption would say that this would take us up to 1440kbit, that would be ignoring joint stereo (not the intensity stereo part of it, but the M/S Stereo part) and other similar techniques that take advantage of redundancy. I'm not sure what sort of efficiency JS lends to the stream, but I'm pretty sure that it is enough to bring us down to 1.2 megabits at a reasonable quality.

Now, I also don't know what kind of bitrate increase is required to go up to 24kbit/96khz. I'm betting that that isn't a linear increase too, but I'll play it safe and stick with that assumption.

Do you think that I'm cutting the quality down too much in order to get the 5.1 audio into the 1.2megabit range? Fine. Let's just consider pure quality.

Assume AAC/Vorbis at 320kbit for a stereo signal. Even audiophiles can't tell lossy and lossless audio apart at bitrates that high. Now, multiply by four to go from 16-bit 44.1khz to 24/96 (Yes, I know that 96/44.1 is 2.17, but close enough). That is about 1.25 megabits per second, and it will sound significantly better than an audio CD to even the most demanding audiophiles.

Please keep in mind than when I say "going from" 16 to 24 kbit, I'm not talking about upsampling. I'm talking about encoding 16-bit source audio vs encoding 24-bit source audio.

Re:2001, information, and IP

[sbaker]

We had usenet and bulletin boards - for news delivery, they could approximate the Internet pretty well.

Re:2001, information, and IP

[Guspaz]

I don't think you could compare 1989 usenet and bulletin boards to something like Digg or Google News. Usenet and bulletin boards are also not customized. Unless you consider reading a dozen different newsgroups to be customized.

With an RSS aggregator, you choose the subjects you're interested in and they all arrive in one go.

On the other hand, for all I know, there was some BBS that specialized in aggregating news from various newsgroups. Still, network access wasn't as prevalent then as the internet is now ;)

RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering, could this be defended in court:

"I discovered that my Windows machine had been remotely hacked, and the hacker had downloaded a heap of mp3s, and was sharing them on p2p. A friend helped me work this out, because I don't know much about computers. I don't even like the music they downloaded. I've now deleted the mp3s, and Windows. I'm running Ubuntu now, so hopefully this won't happen again."

thoughts?

Re:RIAA

[zcat_NZ]

That's a great arguement.

Now all you need is to match the RIAA dollar-for-dollar in lawyers fees and you just might have a case!

Definition of a planet?

[ArbitraryConstant]

I've given this a bit of thought, and it seems to me that the term "planet" demands that the object have some special property that sets it apart from all the countless bodies in a solar system.

The only thing I can think of that makes sense in light of these new objects being discovered in the outer solar system is that the object must dominate its orbit. This excludes Pluto, since it crosses the orbit of Neptune, but that seems to be a much more elegant solution than the mental gymnastics it takes to include Pluto but exclude all the many other trans-Neptunian objects out there. The problem seems to be that too many people are unwilling to allow Pluto to lose its planet status.

Honestly, the trans-Neputnian objects probably need their own classification system that allows for larger bodies like Pluto and UB313 to have the recognition they deserve.

Re:Definition of a planet?

[kfg]

. . .the trans-Neputnian objects probably need their own Big Rock classification system . . .

KFG

Re:Definition of a planet?

[techno-vampire]

Actually, Pluto only seems to cross Neptune's orbit if everything's drawn in two dimensions. In a three-dimaensional view, it's clear that the orbits don't really cross even though there are times that Pluto's nearer to the Sun than Neptune, such as happened at the end of the last century. Even if Pluto and Neptune were right at the "crossing point" at the same time, they'd still be several billion miles apart.

Re:Definition of a planet?

[robbak]

Me Too!,/AOL>

Reasonable size, dominant object in orbit, near-circular orbit, near orbital plane. Yes, they made a mistake calling Pluto a planet, but that's no reason to repeat the mistake.

The other option is to recognise that the word 'planet' is no longer a scientific term, and let the newspapers call whatever they like a planet. It may cause less angst, and less slashdot articles!

Re:Definition of a planet?

[trollable]

The only thing I can think of that makes sense in light of these new objects being discovered in the outer solar system is that the object must dominate its orbit.

IMHO, we should call such objects a planet only if there are inhabitants. This is why the moon is not a planet but Pluto is (check the litterature about the light red Plutonians). That said, no one knows if there are inhabitants on UB313, even less how to call them.

Re:Definition of a planet?

[m50d]

Pluto's orbit doesn't actually go anywhere near that of Neptune, it's only when you project things into two dimensions that it looks like that.

Personally, I say open the floodgates. If it's large enough that its gravity makes it round, it's a planet. That goes for Ceres and Vesta too.

Re:Definition of a planet?

[ArbitraryConstant]

I realize that (or they would have collided or passed close enough that Pluto would get captured or flung out of the solar system long ago), but Pluto passes closer to the Sun than Neptune, meaning that it doesn't account for most of the mass at that distance from the Sun.

Re:Definition of a planet?

[techno-vampire]

Pluto passes closer to the Sun than Neptune, meaning that it doesn't account for most of the mass at that distance from the Sun.

And this means what? Considering that Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune for something less than 1/10 of its orbit, I find it hard to see why it's at all significant.

Re:Definition of a planet?

[ArbitraryConstant]

It means Pluto isn't the dominant body at that distance from the Sun. Even if it isn't at that distance from the Sun most of the time.

By my proposed definition of "planet", that is the most important criteria.

excellent way

[r00t]

I like that. If it isn't round, it isn't a planet. We can allow for minor mountains like Earth has, and a slightly squished shape from high rotation like Saturn has. but not some potato-shaped thing.

I don't think that word means what you think it me

[Anonymous Coward]

Sol is not the only star in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet

Botched conversions...

[luvirini]

No... 3000km with the resolution they have does not equate 1,864 miles.. I think there is probably at most 2 significant digits in the 3000. So... 1900 or 2000 miles would likely be much better number. I wonder where they recruit science writers....

My problems aren't technical

[numbski]

My problem with IPv6 is fiscal. I go to ARIN and want to deploy a community wireless network using all IPv6. They want to charge me just as much for IPv6 addresses as they're charging for IPv4. What's worse, is that if I do use IPv6, I still have to pay for IPv4 addresses so that I can translate for the rest of the world, as IPv6 addresses can easily go to a IPv4 subnet, but the reverse is not true, I have to do some form of translation. :\

So basically ICANN is causing the slowed adoption themselves. It's either $1200/yr for IPv4, or $2400/yr for IPv6. Take a wild guess what I'll wind up doing despite wanting to use IPv6. :(

Re:My problems aren't technical

[wesw02]

Really?! From what I heard ICANN is trying to push IPv6, that does not seem like a very good incentive to me.

"Use IPv6 it's new, it's better, and it's more expensive"

As you stated the reverse subnet for IPv4 to IPv6 requires some translation, I am curious what that translation is like and how much work is actually required to make this work?

Re:My problems aren't technical

[schon]

I go to ARIN and want to deploy a community wireless network using all IPv6. They want to charge me just as much for IPv6 addresses as they're charging for IPv4.

I call bullshit.

From the link:

Organizations that are General Members in good standing prior to requesting an initial IPv6 allocation are not charged IPv6 registration fees. Annual renewal fees for IPv6 allocations are also waived for General Members in good standing. ARIN will continue to waive these fees as long as the organization remains a General Member in good standing at the time of renewal, up until Dec. 31, 2006.

Also, if you do have to pay, that page shows that IPV6 addresses are less expensive than IPV4, because the blocks are larger. An IPV4 /21 (2048 addresses) costs the same amount as an IPV6 /48 (1.2e24 addresses)

Re:My problems aren't technical

[numbski]

I don't think I've ever been happier to have B.S. called on me. Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

That has to be the most useful response I've been given on /. in ages.

Re:My problems aren't technical

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if you do have to pay, that page shows that IPV6 addresses are less expensive than IPV4, because the blocks are larger. An IPV4 /21 (2048 addresses) costs the same amount as an IPV6 /48 (1.2e24 addresses)

Having to pay $73242187500000000000000/year for a block of IPv6 would be the royal suck. And may warp the international economy quite severely.

Sorry: if potato-shaped things can't be planets...

[tlambert]

Sorry: if potato-shaped things can't be planets...

Then we physicists are in a lot of trouble: the only thing we ever teach students to calculate moments of inertia on are rigid bodies. And, as any physicist knows, "a general rigid body is a potato-shaped object, able to undergo rotational and translational motion. It may be considered to be assembled out of a large number of point masses."

The only way any of these calculations make sense for planets is if we assume planets are also potato-shaped.

We can only thank God the Michelson-Morley experiment proved once and for all that the Earth was at the center of the universe by demonstrating that an Earth-based experment observed no drift through the luminiferous aether, or we'd all be in deep doo-doo...

-- Terry

Your flying car is here

[RonGHolmes]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/23/flying_car / Although now all signs say it has driven off.

Predictions for 2001

[jonwil]

They got some right and some wrong.

Optical disks DID take off in a big way.
Digital libraries DID arrive (although google and wikipedia and the like appeared instead of the vision of optical disks full of information, mostly thanks to the .com boom and the broadband revolution.
HDTV is here on the tech side but the content providers are holding it back by instisting on locking it up with copy protection.

ISDN as a protocol didnt really take off, it got replaced by Fibre Optic links, DSL, Cable and Wireless. But the idea of a global interconnected network did arrive.

We still dont have the vision of a true "multimedia" center yet (people dont want to use their computer, email, internet etc in the living room, they want to do it in the office). Although devices like the X-Box with XBMC or MCE, Tivo and others are moving towards the idea of being able to have ALL your media in one place (although again the media corps want to lock it up with copy protection and stop all this)

Best quote from the article "The personal computer as we know it will persist longer in the home than in business," he predicts. "But by 1996-1997, they'll start to disappear. They'll become a low-end commodity like the typewriter". Like thats gonna happen.

Also "Movies will probably be squirted into the home through the telecommunications lines and compressed into eight seconds on the erasable disk in your living room". Yeah right, like hollywood is going to allow THAT to happen :)

Voice Recognition has never really taken off, probobly because its such a pain in the ass to use. (plus, in order for it to be accurate, you have to spend a large amount of time training it to recognize your voice).

The VCR isnt dead yet but the Tivo and friends are clearly gaining. If they werent so expensive, I would buy one just so I could record all the stuff I cant watch because I have to go to work.

Home automation by computer never quite made it, no idea why though. (cost?)

The musings on portability reflect PDAs like palms and pocket PCs perfectly. They didnt get the whole "students at school and uni will be using computers instead of pen and paper" thing right though (probobly because portable computers still arent affordable enough to give to students to use)

Virtual worlds (including the idea of eyeglass-type HUDs) never really took off because science hasnt yet overcome the motion sicness & headache problems that VR machines cause.

Laser printers never became a fixture in the home when the Ink Jet printer became the affordable option (dot-matrix printers seem to have gone the way of the dodo so they got that bit right)

The prediction of hypertext encyclopedias is dead on (look at Wikipedia as well as the cd-rom encyclopedias from companies like britannica and world book)

Seems like the area where they made the most wrong guesses is in the area of the "digital home" where everything is connected and talking to each other and where your TV set can flash an icon in the corner to let you know that important email you were waiting for has just arrived or where your fridge can tell the supermarket computer that you are out of milk and to put it on the shopping list.

Re:Predictions for 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? go to any modern western university today and tell me that people aren't using laptops. Honestly, laptops at most universities outnumber desktops now. Don't believe me? Go to your nearest university and look. Considering you can get a decent laptop for $2-400 more than a desktop, it's almost right on the money. Consider-
A desktop PC can be sub $500 now.
A laptop can be in the $1000 range...

5 years ago this would've been unheard of.

Re:Predictions for 2001

[jonwil]

True, it is happening at universities.
But, there are STILL a lot of people using paper and pen.
We are nowhere near the vision (not just in this article but many other future thinking books and articles) where every student has a computer and all lessons are done on the computer.

Delicious

[grcumb]

"Open source advocates have blasted the offer because it lacks the knowledge required to interoperate with Windows behind its IP licensing, thus making it unusable."

I'm sure the submitter meant to write 'locks'. But this version was worth a chuckle.

RIAA's arguments remind me of this guy's...

[dis astranagant]

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121 Both tend to be baseless and humorously assinine.

Re:RIAA's arguments remind me of this guy's...

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww...what a cute little pseudo-Moses.

I don't believe it!

[saskboy]

I can't understand how Atari missed predicting Duke Nukem Forever!

And they said nothing about a 10th planet being on the faxed paper too.

Wall-sized TV

[Animats]

The wall-sized TV that doesn't require a darkened room has been a fantasy since the 1950s. We finally do have flat-screen TV sets you can hang on the wall (though this still requires rather big bolts). And there is the Panasonic 103 inch flat panel. But we're not there yet.

(Larry Ellison actually did have a wall-sized sunlight-visible TV in his old house. It used a projector intended for much larger screens.)

Re:Sorry: if potato-shaped things can't be planets

[n54]

Hmm I think you're in trouble whether or not your a physicist lol :)

Funny???

[brian0918]

It wasn't supposed to be funny... but sure...

eyedb

[lovebyte]

On the subject of open sourcing database management system, I would like to mention that eyedb, an OODBMS, has just been released under the LGPL. (I know the main author).

Re:As Einstein once said...

[thaWhat]

Precisely. Sometimes knowledge can limit our ideas of what we can do. If we don't know it to be impossible, then we will find a way. As I recall, communications satellites were effectively invented by a science fiction writer... I think that his name was Arthur C. Clarke....

Charged with illegally downloading???

[Anonymous Coward]

...District Court in Fort Worth, Texas accusing him of having 600 illegally downloaded music files on his home computer."

Who wrote this, the RIAA? I doubt they have charged him with this. How would they know he illegally downloaded these tunes? How would they know what is on his computer? What they probably charged him with is offering 600 tunes for uploading (i.e. sharing) regardless if he "illegally downloaded" them or ripped them from CDs he owns.

This kind of sloppy reporting is the norm for the popular press. Slashdot should do better.

Hak.5

[slapout]

You wake up, scan the custom newspaper that's spilling from your fax, walk into the living room

Hak.5 had a segment where they did that very thing (except it was from the printer and not the fax).

IPv6 still on track

[sargon]

Hmmmm. The poster links to an article from 29-Jun-05. That article appeared the same day as the OMB's original announcement. So, how is this an update of the original announcement from seven months ago?