Why don't more people use Emacs LISP? It has the features Java has, and a 'friendly' development environment. And everybody's favorite, the LISP language syntax! Therefore, no one cares that it's byte-compiled, architecture-neutral, blah, blah, blah...
That's what it all comes back down to: syntax and style. People don't use Smalltalk because they learned C, and procedural modes of thought (BASIC instead of LOGO, FORTRAN instead of LISP...).
Also, back then the paradigm was new, too; real hardcore OO Programmers still tend to migrate back to Smalltalk, if they find out about it, so you'll probably see more people using it, but not that many more. Lots of people aren't comfortable with functional programming, either.
Also, I don't know what sort of extensions Smalltalk supports now, but that's also a compelling reason to use a language. C, C++, Java and Perl all have a lot of built-in API functionality, and have gained a lot of third-party contributions. Many less popular languages don't, and therefore haven't. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Try w3m; it's really usable in a big xterm, especially with the mouse support and whatnot.
However, if you need a graphical browser on that box... well... There are a few browsers around designed for low-end machines, like Arachne, but they probably work better in DOS. And some other ones that tend to be pretty were generally designed primarily as file-browsers, like kfm... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, IE 5.0 is released for the Mac, too, and it supports DHTML, so it probably has this loophole in it as well. And it's ugly, and completely IE-specific. "Client-side cookies", basically, which is a really dumb idea. I'd trust server info to persist, but not client info...
I think Gates is past that phase; now its all about control... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Any player can do this, including a licensed one; all you have to do is capture the bitstream that it outputs, and that requires no knowledge of CSS whatsoever.
Also, the CSS module for Linux is 'css-auth'; all it does is allow the drive to play its content, and its purpose *is* to allow users to watch DVDs under Linux.
However, this is another red herring, because the real pirates will still be the ones burning unlicensed DVDs with fake cover-art and whatnot... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hey, I completely agree; the same arguments apply in the home, too. (manager->parent; employee->child)
There are a couple of other solutions, too. If you actually filter incoming *content*, then you can block what actually gets to the user; this could be done by having a proxy/firewall for the business, and only allowing web access to that. (unless you implement, say, a DNS/HTTP tunnel, or something equally ludicrous.;)
The problem with that is, content filtering doesn't work very well. Often, people can't correctly identify or distinguish offensive material from art or literature, or have differing opinions, ("Huckleberry Finn", for example; I say it is literature, and relatively accurate period historical fiction; other people obviously don't know enough about the period...) so you really can't expect a computerized regexp parser to be even *that* good....and when it comes to analyzing, identifying and parsing images, well, a 5-year-old does a better job of that, still.
Therefore, we've already shown that filtering by URL often doesn't work, and accurate content filtering is pretty much impossible with today's technology, so it's gonna be unfair, and it's not the answer.
However, I believe you can buy software like babelfish from SYSTRAN, so suggest that to your boss instead. Heck, it'd probably be quicker to do it locally, and more full-featured as well. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Also, what's redundant here? Redundant *across* slashdot stories? That's a new one... I guess first post would be redundant under that reasoning. Or bitching about someone else's comment... Or just about anything, actually... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Mod that up! They're working on some cool stuff...
My favorites: black holes at the center of galaxies (yeah, eventually we'll *really* have to move...), and the origin of cosmic/gamma rays. (Finally, we'll know the truth about what *really* happened to Reed Richards & company!:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
However, back when it was meaningful, he would have posted that without the bonus, so as to get moderated down less, and up more...
So explain to me: what is the point of being a member of the "I Hate Signal 11" club? I mean, really? Sure, he says some stupid stuff sometimes; I do too. And lots of people are members of the "I Hate Anonymous Coward" club, because he posts even *stupider* stuff. But why the vindictiveness?
I think you value Karma more than he does; that is to say, the answer here would be envy. Which is funny, since you're posting as an AC. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yes, actually. I think 'geeklawyer' does that occasionally, and I've seen it a few other times. But he was complaining that when he *does* post a lengthy explanation, no one notices...:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
You're right, that was somewhat simplified. Napster only hosts the directory, and the clients have the files. But after a person searches for a file, then it's just like Samba: a transaction involving two people and a file, where Napster (the company) is not involved.
I don't think they really exclude a computer, as such. They try to, but I don't think they accomplished it. Provided you keep only digital audio recordings on a drive, of course.:)
Incidentally, a Rio or a car-mp3 player would definitely qualify; apparently, it just depends on the extent to which you devote that machine to digital audio. So buy a Pentium with a 40GB HD, and burn an mp3 downloading/ripping program into ROM!;) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, I looked, and I couldn't find the link to legal rulings. Could you link to it for me? Or link to that post?
I did, however, find a link to the actual copyright law, and it looks like you're right; you get no license, you merely own a copy. Now I'm trying to find out what rights you do have.
Under fair use, in the scenario I've outlined, it would be non-commercial, and it shouldn't affect sales. (since both people already bought a copy!)
Incidentally, I looked through some of the digital audio laws, too.
The 'digital-audio recording device' argument looks bogus, because this is what the law says:
(3) A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or
device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by
individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some
other machine or device, the digital recording function of which
is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is
capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private
use, except for -
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio
recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for
the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of
nonmusical sounds.
Therefore, computers count; the digital audio recording device is a part of some other machine or device (the computer), but the sound card and the CD-ROM drive are definitely designed with audio recording and transmission in mind. Specifically, what other purpose could a line-in on a soundcard, or a DAC on a CD-ROM have? It *records* sound. And its part of your computer. So your computer contains at least one recording device, and can be used as such.
However, this part of the law is even more messed up:
(5)
(A) A ''digital musical recording'' is a material object -
(i) in which are fixed, in a digital recording format, only
sounds, and material, statements, or instructions incidental to
those fixed sounds, if any, and
(ii) from which the sounds and material can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with
the aid of a machine or device.
(B) A ''digital musical recording'' does not include a material
object -
(i) in which the fixed sounds consist entirely of spoken word
recordings, or
(ii) in which one or more computer programs are fixed, except
that a digital musical recording may contain statements or
instructions constituting the fixed sounds and incidental
material, and statements or instructions to be used directly or
indirectly in order to bring about the perception,
reproduction, or communication of the fixed sounds and
incidental material.
The way I interpret this is as follows: make sure you devote one hard-drive entirely to mp3's, people! Put your mp3 player on the other drive!;)
But no, it doesn't make any sense.
Also interesting is this:
(6) ''Distribute'' means to sell, lease, or assign a product to
consumers in the United States, or to sell, lease, or assign a
product in the United States for ultimate transfer to consumers
in the United States.
Good thing we aren't selling anything! --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Most of what they give you either involves a couple of buttons and a headphone jack on a CD-ROM drive, a port for a digital camera, and if you pay too much for it, external versions of the usual internal devices that take up valuable space up front, or get stacked up nearby and have too many cables.
However, if you could move the power supply to the front, turn the case around, punch some holes in the back, and move at least the external drives over there, and fake some paneling, and... etc., etc.
Really, it'd be best to design your own case. If you don't know how, find some people who can make plans for it, and know how to bend metal and whatnot. If you have to, you can paint that, or build a prototype out of whatever you have lying around.
But the bottom line is, if you like it, and other people like it, then maybe you can sell it, or at least sell the idea! I'm sure it'd go great with a 'Happy Hacker Keyboard', preferably hooked up in the front too, like they used to be. (like my XT was...;) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
CD's do cost too much; that's why I stopped buying them. Unfortunately, CD sales are going up, so obviously someone out there didn't get the message.
I quote: '...though we say "All information should be free", it is not. Information is power and currency of the virtual world we inhabit, so mistrust Authority.'; points for identifying the quote.
You can read the lengthier version in the actual Cyberpunk Manifesto, but I think this is what we mean when we say "Information wants to be free", or more generally, "All Information should be free"...
Actually, lots of bands give away music. I realize that radio is paid for by advertisements, but that money doesn't go to the artists; the publicity does. And yes, the RIAA does rip off artists, and I favor any system that cuts them out of the picture. Hence, me not buying CD's...
Napster won't make any money from me trying to sell demographic info; what makes you think I'd give it to them? I have no idea what their privacy policy is, either, but there's something else that needs some work...
Also, nowhere in your argument do you touch on copyright or downloading. Napster provides a service much like Samba or FTP; it's a file-sharing protocol. And once you pick a file to download, it's a point-to-point transaction. The only people involved in violating copyright law are individual people, and they might or might not be doing this on a case-by-case basis. However, in many cases, the RIAA offers no recourse even *to* copyright holders.
Let us assume for the moment that when I buy a tape, I'm actually just buying a license to listen to that music. Does that mean that I can trade in my tape for a CD? What rights do I have? If I buy a CD, and rip the mp3's, and share them, can someone else who bought the tape download my mp3's? They should have a license for the same music, and therefore no violation could take place. If I'm wrong here, please explain why in detail, because if I *didn't* buy a license, then I'd be pissed. That's how copyright is supposed to work, and that's how the RIAA claims it does. If it doesn't, well, CD's should be easily $8 cheaper, and freely distributable, or the RIAA should be sued into the ground for not giving us our rights in the first place (a class-action suit for damages over the past 50 years should cover it, thank you. This includes the consumers and the artists.) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, so from their definition, my 'sound card' qualifies as a digital-audio recording device, but my PC doesn't? Or, if you want to be stricter about it, at least the 'line-in' on my sound card qualifies, and my CD-ROM drive qualifies. Also, individually, they cannot perform this function without storage, so they *need* the PC to even function as a recording device!
My PC can also check e-mail and connect to the web and program and manipulate images and play video games, but it is a general-purpose machine, so attempting to assign it a specific purpose is stupidity.
Could I argue that many people use a boom-box primarily to listen to Audio CD's and the radio, and therefore it doesn't count as a 'recording device' even though it also can record?
Does my microwave not tell time?
Therefore, I argue that politicians do not represent their constituents at all because they primarily eat, sleep, and pander to corporate interests all the time, and because of this we should hold a Constitutional Convention, and design a government that *primarily* serves the people. Anyone remember that goal? --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No; you aren't circumventing anything. Their program is writing to your devices, and what you do with that input is your business. Devices are just files.
Any other interpretation of that is insane, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were ruled illegal regardless of sanity, as usual... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Read the preceding sentence; if they can't do that for two years (since Oct 1998) then they can't do a lot. 1201(b) looks unclear, but it looks like it attempts to make an exception to that two-year period, but doesn't really say what. 1201(c) says you have to take it up with their librarian. Oh no!:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't more people use Emacs LISP? It has the features Java has, and a 'friendly' development environment. And everybody's favorite, the LISP language syntax! Therefore, no one cares that it's byte-compiled, architecture-neutral, blah, blah, blah...
That's what it all comes back down to: syntax and style. People don't use Smalltalk because they learned C, and procedural modes of thought (BASIC instead of LOGO, FORTRAN instead of LISP...).
Also, back then the paradigm was new, too; real hardcore OO Programmers still tend to migrate back to Smalltalk, if they find out about it, so you'll probably see more people using it, but not that many more. Lots of people aren't comfortable with functional programming, either.
Also, I don't know what sort of extensions Smalltalk supports now, but that's also a compelling reason to use a language. C, C++, Java and Perl all have a lot of built-in API functionality, and have gained a lot of third-party contributions. Many less popular languages don't, and therefore haven't.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I don't think so, but more than one poster has mentioned something about a userdata persistence option...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Try w3m; it's really usable in a big xterm, especially with the mouse support and whatnot.
However, if you need a graphical browser on that box... well... There are a few browsers around designed for low-end machines, like Arachne, but they probably work better in DOS. And some other ones that tend to be pretty were generally designed primarily as file-browsers, like kfm...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, IE 5.0 is released for the Mac, too, and it supports DHTML, so it probably has this loophole in it as well. And it's ugly, and completely IE-specific. "Client-side cookies", basically, which is a really dumb idea. I'd trust server info to persist, but not client info...
I think Gates is past that phase; now its all about control...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
A "feature".
...like a VW with the license plate "feature", right?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Any player can do this, including a licensed one; all you have to do is capture the bitstream that it outputs, and that requires no knowledge of CSS whatsoever.
Also, the CSS module for Linux is 'css-auth'; all it does is allow the drive to play its content, and its purpose *is* to allow users to watch DVDs under Linux.
However, this is another red herring, because the real pirates will still be the ones burning unlicensed DVDs with fake cover-art and whatnot...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hey, I completely agree; the same arguments apply in the home, too. (manager->parent; employee->child)
;)
...and when it comes to analyzing, identifying and parsing images, well, a 5-year-old does a better job of that, still.
There are a couple of other solutions, too. If you actually filter incoming *content*, then you can block what actually gets to the user; this could be done by having a proxy/firewall for the business, and only allowing web access to that. (unless you implement, say, a DNS/HTTP tunnel, or something equally ludicrous.
The problem with that is, content filtering doesn't work very well. Often, people can't correctly identify or distinguish offensive material from art or literature, or have differing opinions, ("Huckleberry Finn", for example; I say it is literature, and relatively accurate period historical fiction; other people obviously don't know enough about the period...) so you really can't expect a computerized regexp parser to be even *that* good.
Therefore, we've already shown that filtering by URL often doesn't work, and accurate content filtering is pretty much impossible with today's technology, so it's gonna be unfair, and it's not the answer.
However, I believe you can buy software like babelfish from SYSTRAN, so suggest that to your boss instead. Heck, it'd probably be quicker to do it locally, and more full-featured as well.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Babelfish is a proxy; you can use it to load blocked sites by having altavista do the heavy lifting.
:)
See if they block the zippy filter, too...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Wow; you've proven my point beautifully!
Also, what's redundant here? Redundant *across* slashdot stories? That's a new one... I guess first post would be redundant under that reasoning. Or bitching about someone else's comment... Or just about anything, actually...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Mod that up! They're working on some cool stuff...
:)
My favorites: black holes at the center of galaxies (yeah, eventually we'll *really* have to move...), and the origin of cosmic/gamma rays. (Finally, we'll know the truth about what *really* happened to Reed Richards & company!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, I think 'storage' (i.e. copying) counts as digital recording, but I don't think it can record analog audio, no.
:)
Of course, I also don't have one, but...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No, Karma really is meaningless now.
However, back when it was meaningful, he would have posted that without the bonus, so as to get moderated down less, and up more...
So explain to me: what is the point of being a member of the "I Hate Signal 11" club? I mean, really? Sure, he says some stupid stuff sometimes; I do too. And lots of people are members of the "I Hate Anonymous Coward" club, because he posts even *stupider* stuff. But why the vindictiveness?
I think you value Karma more than he does; that is to say, the answer here would be envy. Which is funny, since you're posting as an AC.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, a good argument against this (for us CSC folks) is as follows:
Sure, you *could* write a C interpreter/compiler in LISP, but why would you want to?
;)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yes, actually. I think 'geeklawyer' does that occasionally, and I've seen it a few other times. But he was complaining that when he *does* post a lengthy explanation, no one notices... :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yeah, I was noticing those laws too; they frighten me. But you don't have to record copyright info.
Does the Rio contain anything like that internally?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
You're right, that was somewhat simplified. Napster only hosts the directory, and the clients have the files. But after a person searches for a file, then it's just like Samba: a transaction involving two people and a file, where Napster (the company) is not involved.
Good call!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I don't think they really exclude a computer, as such. They try to, but I don't think they accomplished it. Provided you keep only digital audio recordings on a drive, of course. :)
;)
Incidentally, a Rio or a car-mp3 player would definitely qualify; apparently, it just depends on the extent to which you devote that machine to digital audio. So buy a Pentium with a 40GB HD, and burn an mp3 downloading/ripping program into ROM!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I did, however, find a link to the actual copyright law, and it looks like you're right; you get no license, you merely own a copy. Now I'm trying to find out what rights you do have.
Under fair use, in the scenario I've outlined, it would be non-commercial, and it shouldn't affect sales. (since both people already bought a copy!)
Incidentally, I looked through some of the digital audio laws, too.
The 'digital-audio recording device' argument looks bogus, because this is what the law says:
Therefore, computers count; the digital audio recording device is a part of some other machine or device (the computer), but the sound card and the CD-ROM drive are definitely designed with audio recording and transmission in mind. Specifically, what other purpose could a line-in on a soundcard, or a DAC on a CD-ROM have? It *records* sound. And its part of your computer. So your computer contains at least one recording device, and can be used as such.
However, this part of the law is even more messed up:
The way I interpret this is as follows: make sure you devote one hard-drive entirely to mp3's, people! Put your mp3 player on the other drive!
But no, it doesn't make any sense.
Also interesting is this:
Good thing we aren't selling anything!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Most of what they give you either involves a couple of buttons and a headphone jack on a CD-ROM drive, a port for a digital camera, and if you pay too much for it, external versions of the usual internal devices that take up valuable space up front, or get stacked up nearby and have too many cables.
;)
However, if you could move the power supply to the front, turn the case around, punch some holes in the back, and move at least the external drives over there, and fake some paneling, and... etc., etc.
Really, it'd be best to design your own case. If you don't know how, find some people who can make plans for it, and know how to bend metal and whatnot. If you have to, you can paint that, or build a prototype out of whatever you have lying around.
But the bottom line is, if you like it, and other people like it, then maybe you can sell it, or at least sell the idea! I'm sure it'd go great with a 'Happy Hacker Keyboard', preferably hooked up in the front too, like they used to be. (like my XT was...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
CD's do cost too much; that's why I stopped buying them. Unfortunately, CD sales are going up, so obviously someone out there didn't get the message.
I quote: '...though we say "All information should be free", it is not. Information is power and currency of the virtual world we inhabit, so mistrust Authority.'; points for identifying the quote.
You can read the lengthier version in the actual Cyberpunk Manifesto, but I think this is what we mean when we say "Information wants to be free", or more generally, "All Information should be free"...
Actually, lots of bands give away music. I realize that radio is paid for by advertisements, but that money doesn't go to the artists; the publicity does. And yes, the RIAA does rip off artists, and I favor any system that cuts them out of the picture. Hence, me not buying CD's...
Napster won't make any money from me trying to sell demographic info; what makes you think I'd give it to them? I have no idea what their privacy policy is, either, but there's something else that needs some work...
Also, nowhere in your argument do you touch on copyright or downloading. Napster provides a service much like Samba or FTP; it's a file-sharing protocol. And once you pick a file to download, it's a point-to-point transaction. The only people involved in violating copyright law are individual people, and they might or might not be doing this on a case-by-case basis. However, in many cases, the RIAA offers no recourse even *to* copyright holders.
Let us assume for the moment that when I buy a tape, I'm actually just buying a license to listen to that music. Does that mean that I can trade in my tape for a CD? What rights do I have? If I buy a CD, and rip the mp3's, and share them, can someone else who bought the tape download my mp3's? They should have a license for the same music, and therefore no violation could take place. If I'm wrong here, please explain why in detail, because if I *didn't* buy a license, then I'd be pissed. That's how copyright is supposed to work, and that's how the RIAA claims it does. If it doesn't, well, CD's should be easily $8 cheaper, and freely distributable, or the RIAA should be sued into the ground for not giving us our rights in the first place (a class-action suit for damages over the past 50 years should cover it, thank you. This includes the consumers and the artists.)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, so from their definition, my 'sound card' qualifies as a digital-audio recording device, but my PC doesn't? Or, if you want to be stricter about it, at least the 'line-in' on my sound card qualifies, and my CD-ROM drive qualifies. Also, individually, they cannot perform this function without storage, so they *need* the PC to even function as a recording device!
My PC can also check e-mail and connect to the web and program and manipulate images and play video games, but it is a general-purpose machine, so attempting to assign it a specific purpose is stupidity.
Could I argue that many people use a boom-box primarily to listen to Audio CD's and the radio, and therefore it doesn't count as a 'recording device' even though it also can record?
Does my microwave not tell time?
Therefore, I argue that politicians do not represent their constituents at all because they primarily eat, sleep, and pander to corporate interests all the time, and because of this we should hold a Constitutional Convention, and design a government that *primarily* serves the people. Anyone remember that goal?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, so we all know that Al Gore invented the internet, right?
:)
But did you know that without his help, Vinton Cerf never would have invented TCP/IP?*
Yeah. I guess I'll vote for Nader, then.
(*Helpful hint for ACs and moderators: read the link!)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
First Person Shooter: Documentary? That *has* to be a new category.
:)
"And now, the life and times of Duke Nukem: once a side-scrolling adventurer, he finally realized his potential in Duke3D."...
No, I don't think it'll ever fly. Unless they enter 'idspispopd', of course.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No; you aren't circumventing anything. Their program is writing to your devices, and what you do with that input is your business. Devices are just files.
Any other interpretation of that is insane, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were ruled illegal regardless of sanity, as usual...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Read the preceding sentence; if they can't do that for two years (since Oct 1998) then they can't do a lot. 1201(b) looks unclear, but it looks like it attempts to make an exception to that two-year period, but doesn't really say what. 1201(c) says you have to take it up with their librarian. Oh no! :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.