Then the fault is truly with ourselves, my friend.
I'm probably going to get ignored or generate a lot of flak for saying such things, but it seems to me to be true.
I'm not suggesting that Sony, the MPAA, or the RIAA have not done some very bad things, but the simple fact is this: WE ARE ALL BEING GREEDY! Them and us. And why? Because they produce something that we do not need, but want. If we cannot change them, then change ourselves: do not want what they offer. We DO have the power if we choose to exercise it.
Re:The Author Doesn't Know What An OS is...
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 2
I would say that the "Operating System" (i.e. the system that operates) consists of the code that, when removed, the device it is controlling ceases to function.
Everything else is an application. Many applications affect the state and configuration of the OS, but that doesn't make them PART of the OS.
That's a pretty literal reading of the phrase, I suppose.
The print button in Word "operates" the printer more effectively than the printer setup in control panel (which only prints a test page) - does that make it a part of the OS? Not by the definition I presented - you can remove everything down to the printer driver and still have a technically functional printer. I can't wait for someone to sue MS for not including this essential component with Windows as a freebie.:-)
This is not to say that notepad, emacs, Explorer, Netscape, etc. are not important, nor that they should not be bundled with the OS, but they are not fundamental. I think MS demonstrated that with their pathetic attempt to make Explorer an "inseparable component of the OS."
Probably much too late in the day for anyone to ever read this, much less moderate, but I just have to write something.
Disclaimer: I am a computer game developer for a very large game company. My comments are my own. Copyright law lets me make a good living doing what I love to do - program, make and play games. But things are just getting stupid.
-
We must stop defining ourselves by our entertainment products.
We must understand that the media corporations lie to us.
We must release ourselves from the bonds of advertising.
We must realize that we do not need these things to be happy.
We must realize that we have given up control of our thoughts for the price of entertainment.
We must realize that we have done this to ourselves.
We must realize that we do not need these things. Not to be happy. Not to be entertained.
We must discover ourselves again.
We must not forget.
-
I am not encouraging wholesale revolution or a boycott of the MPAA/RIAA.
All things in moderation.
But we must realize what we are doing.
We must tell others.
Do not see movies unless you have very good reason to believe it is worthwhile.
Do not buy DVDs if the MPAA does not want us to watch them.
You can live without these things.
You can be happy without these things.
Make your own entertainment.
Make something worth being entertained by.
-
I do not want to be told what kind of program I can or can't write. Reasonable restrictions can be placed on the use of those programs, but not on their very existence.
Code is a mathematical expression of an idea. It is the best (arguably only) way for Computer Scientists to express and test ideas.
I think... I think I understand Galileo. A scientist of a different age and a different idea, but a scientist not allowed to express and test his ideas.
There is hope. History has shown us hope that we can persevere. But if there is any parallel between the Church and Science, and Corporations and Hackers, we will not see the end of this road in our time, if indeed an end can be reached.
I have signed similar things before, but I never really thought it was a big deal. I think this sort of thing is largely to make sure that, if one of the interviewers accidentally lets something slip, that there is some recourse if you deflate their hype machine.
Who am I going to tell though? How much important information could I pick up in a couple of hours that isn't already publicly known or speculated upon? (The amount will vary by company, of course.)
OK, maybe I could have stolen one-click shopping.:-)
Corporations, as I understand it, are essentially "virtual people" - essentially a convenience for tax and legal purposes. But if corporations don't get to vote, why should they get to influence the voting process in a way that appears to be more influential than an individual vote, or the individual votes of the corporation's employees?
If people want to contribute personal money to a campaign, that's fine. Since corporations are taxed and affected by government laws, I can understand some corporate influence - but the balance is off.
As for canditates "needing" the money - I'm pretty sure elections were held before mass media and smear campaigns. As long as everyone is on equal footing, I don't see a problem. Perhaps people would be motivated to learn about their candidates instead of being told about them (or lied to about them).
Why are corporations allowed to make donations to political campaigns? If the government is elected by the people, for the people, then where do corporations get allowed into the equation at all?
Just curious. I'm not an American, so maybe I Just Don't Understand.
He claimed that this was the investment the companies made that justified the high prices
I noticed something interesting the other day - the RIAA seems a bit uppity about how it's so expensive to record an album. I don't have numbers, and I know studio time can be expensive (relatively speaking)...
BUT - I noticed several DVDs on sale for about $15. I noticed several CDs on sale for $20. Now, a) I'm sure the movie cost more to make and market than any CD in the store, and b) the media is more expensive to produce by nature, and by volume.
And C is not the easiest language for VLIW compilers.
Just to be a bit picky...
Don't we really need a better ASSEMBLER? I wrote a compiler as a university project for a MIPS processor - it just spewed out the instructions I wanted and let the assembler deal with the instruction pairing. That seems like a much more reasonable place to do it anyway, because it's more language (and processor) independent.
Of course, that's probably hard to do and make things run fast, but that's the nature of the processor - if you have strong data inter-dependence, then VLIW may be the wrong architecture - it seems to me to be somewhat algorithm and application specific (i.e. if it can't be done in parallel, you're screwed). Do we need to create a new language to help specify this type of data relation, or are we going to discover that VLIW is not general purpose enough, and won't help (or will hinder) general computing needs?
OK, maybe they're not targeting general computing... but that's a lot of money to throw at a niche market.
I'm a software guy, so I'm not too well informed about the VLIW debate... there is a debate, right? Intel isn't just running after a catch term without knowing there are significant advantages, right? Right? Anybody?
Would you trust the person making the web page with that kind of information? It probably wasn't intentional - I would have given the page creator with bogus information.
That to me seems the key - it's kind of a Uncertainty Principle of life. You can't live without being affected by the world. If you are affected by the world, your chances of getting cancer increase, because there is some probabiliy, however slight, that just about anything can disrupt a little genetic code here or there.
The real question is, what ARE the probabilities, and who's lying to who about it?
I was thinking that if output of a program under GPL wasn't protected by the GPL, then what about a program that reformats code? Just run every program through it and suddenly you have GPL free code...
But that's not really right. If you put GPL code in, you get GPL code out. If you put freeware code in, you get freeware code out. This code is still derived from GPL code.
Programs generated out of Thin Air (TM) are only protected by the Thin Air (TM) license.
1. Math - calculus, matrix math (important for graphics - and I make games), logic (transforming logical expressions) 2. Discipline - hacking is fun, but a large project with lots of people needs structure and well thought out and clear implementation. 3. Design - most of this came from teaching myself C++:-) but similar to discipline, I learned that code that works is better than code that runs really really fast (but doesn't). 4. Algorithms - I'm pretty smart, but there are lots of smart people who have been thinking about lots of things for a lot longer than I've been alive. This is a great place to hear them - you usually only hear things worth hearing (institutional idiot filter) and, as I mentioned, it seems easier to find the information there.
Basically, I thought I was pretty hot stuff in 1991 (I'm 27 now as well). My time at university was a bit tiresome because either I already knew what I was being taught or could have figured it out on my own, but over 5 or 6 years (too much time spent doing my own stuff or working:-) I just got better because my way of doing things improved. No amount of technical knowledge gets you that.
I'm sure you're doing well for yourself - I just hope you don't look back on yourself someday and say, "Man, was I ever an arrogant, ignorant prick." I pretty much think that about my attitude at 18. I guess the best thing about university is it fixed both the arrogance and the ignorance.
I think the main thing that gets hackers, in the non-malicious meaning, so upset, is that this is a group of people who are already misunderstood by the public in general. And then they misunderstand even the name they chose for themselves!
It's just a way of saying, look, it's bad enough you treat us like weirdos because we like sitting in front of a computer all day, exploring this virtual world of computer instructions. Just when we have this group of people where maybe we fit in, suddenly we're all told we're evil, immature lawbreakers with way too much time on our hands. And just because people in general misassociated a term with a certain behaviour.
It was pretty easy, I admit - from the outside, most people probably can't tell the difference, and really don't care. Apparently, even a good number of people on Slashdot don't know or care either. I remember trying to explain this to people in high school in 1991. Nobody listened, nobody cared (probably just thought I was even weirder) and I'm sure nobody remembers.
In any case, original usage and common usage have diverged. I just stick with "programmer" because people understand that and don't throw a hissy fit. Until computer games officially become the Next Great Evil anyway, then I'm screwed.
1) Is "making available to steal" the same as "stealing?" 2) If not, what are the US laws for false accusation (if #1 is not the case)?
If I leave my CD collection sitting outside my front door... and someone comes along, copies it, and leaves the original, am I somehow liable for making the CD available for them to copy?
Is it my responsibility when someone steals my copy of a copyrighted work? What kind of security am I obligated to put my copy of such work under?
A peculiar situation... but essentially the one we have with Napster.
You can find some good information on the "solving" of checkers at the Chinook site - "Chinook is the World Man-Machine Champion, the first computer program to win a human world championship. This feat is recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records." I heard this guy (Dr. Jonathan Schaeffer of the Department of Computing Science at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) talk last year, and it was really interesting - much of it was about the human side of the story, and how it affected one of the greatest checkers players ever to be defeated by a computer. A lot of it was the technical side though, and the large network of computers used to grind through the moves.
Chess is somewhat more complicated, but a similar "solution" is possible - the main theory is that you determine "book moves" for start AND end positions, and put some AI in the middle that tries to get you from your current board state to a state where you already know you can't lose (i.e. can force a win or draw).
Easier said than done of course, but the main point to consider is that you don't need to calculate EVERY board position. Since the computer has half of the control over the direction the game takes, you can try to steer away from "obviously bad" situations as well.
There already is a new language surrounding the internet though - it's a modification of English. I have to be very careful when speaking to my parents and grandparents, where I'm likely to slip in acronyms or phrases that are "common language" on the net, but totally foreign to them.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Operating System" is "The System That Operates." Everything else is just fluff or secondary applications.
Duh.
Yousa speaka English?
Mmm... that's missing the point.
I'm not talking about, "Damn it, I really wanted to see that movie, but these guys are being a bunch of jerks, so I'm not going to."
I'm talking about, "Damn it, keep your freaking DVD, I didn't want to see it anyway."
And meaning it.
Am I going to have to live an a f*cking tent? Don't make me live in a f*cking tent. I don't want to live in a f*cking tent.
(See my other posts if you need a frame of reference.)
Then the fault is truly with ourselves, my friend.
I'm probably going to get ignored or generate a lot of flak for saying such things, but it seems to me to be true.
I'm not suggesting that Sony, the MPAA, or the RIAA have not done some very bad things, but the simple fact is this: WE ARE ALL BEING GREEDY! Them and us. And why? Because they produce something that we do not need, but want. If we cannot change them, then change ourselves: do not want what they offer. We DO have the power if we choose to exercise it.
I would say that the "Operating System" (i.e. the system that operates) consists of the code that, when removed, the device it is controlling ceases to function.
:-)
Everything else is an application. Many applications affect the state and configuration of the OS, but that doesn't make them PART of the OS.
That's a pretty literal reading of the phrase, I suppose.
The print button in Word "operates" the printer more effectively than the printer setup in control panel (which only prints a test page) - does that make it a part of the OS? Not by the definition I presented - you can remove everything down to the printer driver and still have a technically functional printer. I can't wait for someone to sue MS for not including this essential component with Windows as a freebie.
This is not to say that notepad, emacs, Explorer, Netscape, etc. are not important, nor that they should not be bundled with the OS, but they are not fundamental. I think MS demonstrated that with their pathetic attempt to make Explorer an "inseparable component of the OS."
If you no longer want what these corporations offer, they will lose all power over you.
Napster becomes irrelevant. DVDs become irrelevant.
As soon as we no longer want what they offer, they, and all of the strings attached, will disappear.
I was thinking last night...
There are strong parallels between Church vs. Galileo (and science in general) and Corporation vs. Hacker (and computer science in general).
So, if history is any indication... we have a long, troubled road ahead.
There are simply too many contradictory absolute truths.
Probably much too late in the day for anyone to ever read this, much less moderate, but I just have to write something.
Disclaimer: I am a computer game developer for a very large game company. My comments are my own. Copyright law lets me make a good living doing what I love to do - program, make and play games. But things are just getting stupid.
-
We must stop defining ourselves by our entertainment products.
We must understand that the media corporations lie to us.
We must release ourselves from the bonds of advertising.
We must realize that we do not need these things to be happy.
We must realize that we have given up control of our thoughts for the price of entertainment.
We must realize that we have done this to ourselves.
We must realize that we do not need these things. Not to be happy. Not to be entertained.
We must discover ourselves again.
We must not forget.
-
I am not encouraging wholesale revolution or a boycott of the MPAA/RIAA.
All things in moderation.
But we must realize what we are doing.
We must tell others.
Do not see movies unless you have very good reason to believe it is worthwhile.
Do not buy DVDs if the MPAA does not want us to watch them.
You can live without these things.
You can be happy without these things.
Make your own entertainment.
Make something worth being entertained by.
-
I do not want to be told what kind of program I can or can't write. Reasonable restrictions can be placed on the use of those programs, but not on their very existence.
Code is a mathematical expression of an idea. It is the best (arguably only) way for Computer Scientists to express and test ideas.
I think... I think I understand Galileo. A scientist of a different age and a different idea, but a scientist not allowed to express and test his ideas.
There is hope. History has shown us hope that we can persevere. But if there is any parallel between the Church and Science, and Corporations and Hackers, we will not see the end of this road in our time, if indeed an end can be reached.
There are simply too many fools.
I have signed similar things before, but I never really thought it was a big deal. I think this sort of thing is largely to make sure that, if one of the interviewers accidentally lets something slip, that there is some recourse if you deflate their hype machine.
:-)
Who am I going to tell though? How much important information could I pick up in a couple of hours that isn't already publicly known or speculated upon? (The amount will vary by company, of course.)
OK, maybe I could have stolen one-click shopping.
OK...
Corporations, as I understand it, are essentially "virtual people" - essentially a convenience for tax and legal purposes. But if corporations don't get to vote, why should they get to influence the voting process in a way that appears to be more influential than an individual vote, or the individual votes of the corporation's employees?
If people want to contribute personal money to a campaign, that's fine. Since corporations are taxed and affected by government laws, I can understand some corporate influence - but the balance is off.
As for canditates "needing" the money - I'm pretty sure elections were held before mass media and smear campaigns. As long as everyone is on equal footing, I don't see a problem. Perhaps people would be motivated to learn about their candidates instead of being told about them (or lied to about them).
Quick question:
Why are corporations allowed to make donations to political campaigns? If the government is elected by the people, for the people, then where do corporations get allowed into the equation at all?
Just curious. I'm not an American, so maybe I Just Don't Understand.
He claimed that this was the investment the companies made that justified the high prices
I noticed something interesting the other day - the RIAA seems a bit uppity about how it's so expensive to record an album. I don't have numbers, and I know studio time can be expensive (relatively speaking)...
BUT - I noticed several DVDs on sale for about $15. I noticed several CDs on sale for $20. Now, a) I'm sure the movie cost more to make and market than any CD in the store, and b) the media is more expensive to produce by nature, and by volume.
So... what's up with that?
And C is not the easiest language for VLIW compilers.
Just to be a bit picky...
Don't we really need a better ASSEMBLER? I wrote a compiler as a university project for a MIPS processor - it just spewed out the instructions I wanted and let the assembler deal with the instruction pairing. That seems like a much more reasonable place to do it anyway, because it's more language (and processor) independent.
Of course, that's probably hard to do and make things run fast, but that's the nature of the processor - if you have strong data inter-dependence, then VLIW may be the wrong architecture - it seems to me to be somewhat algorithm and application specific (i.e. if it can't be done in parallel, you're screwed). Do we need to create a new language to help specify this type of data relation, or are we going to discover that VLIW is not general purpose enough, and won't help (or will hinder) general computing needs?
OK, maybe they're not targeting general computing... but that's a lot of money to throw at a niche market.
I'm a software guy, so I'm not too well informed about the VLIW debate... there is a debate, right? Intel isn't just running after a catch term without knowing there are significant advantages, right? Right? Anybody?
A consortium of movie studios formed to quickly hack together a more open standard that they could use for free.
Is that the same consortium that gave us CSS on DVD and is having a hissy fit over DeCSS?
Would you trust the person making the web page with that kind of information? It probably wasn't intentional - I would have given the page creator with bogus information.
They did milk it for all it was worth though.
One thing the article mentioned though:
You can get better performance from a lower-clocked Athlon anyway, because its FPU is just better....
GHz doesn't always matter.
Face it: life causes cancer.
That to me seems the key - it's kind of a Uncertainty Principle of life. You can't live without being affected by the world. If you are affected by the world, your chances of getting cancer increase, because there is some probabiliy, however slight, that just about anything can disrupt a little genetic code here or there.
The real question is, what ARE the probabilities, and who's lying to who about it?
I was thinking that if output of a program under GPL wasn't protected by the GPL, then what about a program that reformats code? Just run every program through it and suddenly you have GPL free code...
But that's not really right. If you put GPL code in, you get GPL code out. If you put freeware code in, you get freeware code out. This code is still derived from GPL code.
Programs generated out of Thin Air (TM) are only protected by the Thin Air (TM) license.
There is no such thing as dangerous information!
Thank you.
What I learned at university:
:-) but similar to discipline, I learned that code that works is better than code that runs really really fast (but doesn't).
:-) I just got better because my way of doing things improved. No amount of technical knowledge gets you that.
1. Math - calculus, matrix math (important for graphics - and I make games), logic (transforming logical expressions)
2. Discipline - hacking is fun, but a large project with lots of people needs structure and well thought out and clear implementation.
3. Design - most of this came from teaching myself C++
4. Algorithms - I'm pretty smart, but there are lots of smart people who have been thinking about lots of things for a lot longer than I've been alive. This is a great place to hear them - you usually only hear things worth hearing (institutional idiot filter) and, as I mentioned, it seems easier to find the information there.
Basically, I thought I was pretty hot stuff in 1991 (I'm 27 now as well). My time at university was a bit tiresome because either I already knew what I was being taught or could have figured it out on my own, but over 5 or 6 years (too much time spent doing my own stuff or working
I'm sure you're doing well for yourself - I just hope you don't look back on yourself someday and say, "Man, was I ever an arrogant, ignorant prick." I pretty much think that about my attitude at 18. I guess the best thing about university is it fixed both the arrogance and the ignorance.
I recently discovered this startling statistic:
Approximately 0% of men become mothers!
This enormous segment of the male population (including me) will never know the wonders of giving birth!
Personally, I blame sex education for imposing these roles.
I also discovered one other interesting statistic:
Approxmiately 99% of all people who try to prove things with statistics are fscking idiots.
I AM KREYGHOLIO!
I think the main thing that gets hackers, in the non-malicious meaning, so upset, is that this is a group of people who are already misunderstood by the public in general. And then they misunderstand even the name they chose for themselves!
It's just a way of saying, look, it's bad enough you treat us like weirdos because we like sitting in front of a computer all day, exploring this virtual world of computer instructions. Just when we have this group of people where maybe we fit in, suddenly we're all told we're evil, immature lawbreakers with way too much time on our hands. And just because people in general misassociated a term with a certain behaviour.
It was pretty easy, I admit - from the outside, most people probably can't tell the difference, and really don't care. Apparently, even a good number of people on Slashdot don't know or care either. I remember trying to explain this to people in high school in 1991. Nobody listened, nobody cared (probably just thought I was even weirder) and I'm sure nobody remembers.
In any case, original usage and common usage have diverged. I just stick with "programmer" because people understand that and don't throw a hissy fit. Until computer games officially become the Next Great Evil anyway, then I'm screwed.
What I want to know:
1) Is "making available to steal" the same as "stealing?"
2) If not, what are the US laws for false accusation (if #1 is not the case)?
If I leave my CD collection sitting outside my front door... and someone comes along, copies it, and leaves the original, am I somehow liable for making the CD available for them to copy?
Is it my responsibility when someone steals my copy of a copyrighted work? What kind of security am I obligated to put my copy of such work under?
A peculiar situation... but essentially the one we have with Napster.
Chess is somewhat more complicated, but a similar "solution" is possible - the main theory is that you determine "book moves" for start AND end positions, and put some AI in the middle that tries to get you from your current board state to a state where you already know you can't lose (i.e. can force a win or draw).
Easier said than done of course, but the main point to consider is that you don't need to calculate EVERY board position. Since the computer has half of the control over the direction the game takes, you can try to steer away from "obviously bad" situations as well.
Yes, I make computer games for a living. :-)
There already is a new language surrounding the internet though - it's a modification of English. I have to be very careful when speaking to my parents and grandparents, where I'm likely to slip in acronyms or phrases that are "common language" on the net, but totally foreign to them.