That is high. For $1 per song, I expect a live performance (and I get it). I don't expect compressed downloads over data pipes I pay for at that price. I believe it to be usurious. So I don't (and will likely never have) an "iTunes" (whatever Apple calls it) subscription.
There are people who have given Apple a billion dollars. Makes Apple really smart, and those people really dumb in my opinion.
In fact, I believe that it doesn't matter if Apple decides to obsolete these peoples music (format, physical, whatever). They will applaud and probably give Apple another billion dollars.
File based crpto is the wrong place to apply, or the wrong level of the stack. In the below discussion, "I" means "black-hat crypto cracker".
Metadata leakage, including filenames. This generally tells me the files I need to attack. I don't need mymod.ko, but earnings.sxc would be interesting.
Generally, file-based approaches only encrypt the file data. BAD, because EVEN if the filenames themselves are encrypted, and allocation maps are encrypted, it is still possible to do entropy analysis on the drive. What appears random is data!
If you use a crypto system that uses the same key to encrypt blocks, with the same results, this is bad. I can again GUESS the plaintext, by guessing the file system, and the common layout information (allocation tables). This can provide a lot of information.
What we want is to encrypt at the block level, and to spew random numbers ALL OVER the drive before using it, and to use a crypto implementation that gives reasonable results (block number as part of the key).
"Please look up the concept of "less than 100% efficiency"
It MUST emit what it consumes (at least, using normally acceptable models). It MAY NOT be 100% what is desired, but it sure is emitted. An incandescent light bulb does not convert 100% of it used power into visible light -- go ahead and touch one!
But it sure does emit what it consumes. Indeed, this is such a basic concept that the original poster didn't want credit.
As long as interconnect speed paces processor power at a particular ratio (or better), the "beowulf" loosely connected cluster remains viable as a supercomputer. If the ratio tips, it doesn't work.
As an example -- you generally wouldn't think to build a "beowulf cluster" using an interconnect of 9600 baud modems, right? Even though you could, the cluster would, in general, not gain much.
In '96 (or thereabouts), such a loose cluster composed of Pentium Pros, with 100MB interconnects could make some sense. Now, we have optical interconnects, and are generally 1 order of magnitude in performance beyond that.
My point was that what we are looking for is a processor leap that leaves the interconnect "in the dust", thus making the loose interconnect concept silly again.
We aren't there yet. "Quantum Computing" won't be it, either. What is needed is an attack on ILP (instruction level parallelism). Which forces architectural changes. And programming changes. "C" (and its ilk) won't cut it, because algorithms are not exposed at a high enough level. Which was the big failing of Itanium.
If processor speeds could be increased by an order of magnitude TODAY, "beowulf clusters" cease to be relevant.
Now, on to some observations. We have been at a state of equilibrium now for a few years.
It is slightly difficult to determine exactly what the bounds are, because we are in it right now. I am guessing that the "slowdown" started around the time of the Pentium Pro ('96?).
The "clue" was the introduction of "Beowulf" clusters where processing is balanced with communications overhead.
Intel is fighting this with Itanium, SUN with Niagra.
I suspect that the new "Moores Burst" will begin with death of the cluster as supercomputer. I have always predicated that Itanium (or something architecturally similar) will win (and the pun is intended).
I bought a 300 watt power supply for $17 (CDN) - call it under $15.
The issue is: how to make it QUIET. I take a "system" level approach to the problem. Built a cabinet around the whole computer, providing sound-proofing. Did the cabinet cost around $135? It was less. Much less.
Now, my power supply has a fan (it actually has two). But so does the processor, the video card, and there are two fans in the hard drive carrier.
6 fans making noise. The box also has 3 hard drives, and a DVD.
A lot of stuff making noise. Taken care of by the cabinet. Note that the expensive power supply would have only taken care of two of the fans. Whereas my solution takes are of all of the problem.
Obviously, ATi and nVidia licensed to make "inactive robust" devices. That would let them put "HDCP-ready" in the lit.
How are what forces these to become "active", I wonder? Technically, its Vista. Now, we have to dig into Vista HDCP plans: A quote from Microsoft:
".. video resolution will need to be set to 480p. Display device drivers must support the DirectX Video Acceleration Certified Output Protection Protocol (COPP) for software signaling of HDCP..."
And how do we support COPP?
Vista support IAMCertifiedOutputProtection class. Method KeyExchange() returns the driver cert (including public key) to Vista.
And how do we obtain such a driver cert?
From Microsoft, who also signs the driver.
So, there should be no problem supporting driver-based HDCP.
Now this link tells us that the cable industry has to sign off on the whole thing:
Which they JUST have. But, I can't get my hands on a copy of that agreement.
What this boils down to:
- You can be compliant with HDCP as an "inactive" device
- You can be compliant with HDCP as an "active" device
- The difference seems to be the "trust" level that Microsoft has in your device driver, and the presence of another chip
- The entire secure path in XP/2 and VISTA appears to require the vetting of the copyright interests (CableLabs, others?)
- There appears to be agreement in that area, but exactely what, we are not sure
- Even if you have an HDCP "ready" video card, it may not be able to participate, UNLESS Microsoft keys and certifies a new driver.
- Even if you have an HDCP video card WITH a key-chip, it STILL requires a Microsoft certified driver.
- Drivers are probably going to be "time-stamped" (my read on the HDCP licensing, but I may be wrong -- my head started to hurt). Expiry based on certificate expiry.
And, no, I don't know for sure that the HDCP will be retrofitted, or not. Mostly because I can't get my mitts on the Cable/MS agreement.
*IF* the driver is trusted, the chip is not needed. But, such a driver *may* be trusted by Microsoft, but won't be trusted by the "copyright industry".
So, no content for you. The CI has spoken.
If Microsoft said "HDCP" will be supported in Vista, why wouldn't the video board manufacturers believe it? Microsoft cowed to the CIs, and ATi and nVidia can't put the feature in the driver, and customers are left holding the bag of shit.
Go ahead -- sue suE SUE!!! It will be fun to watch. Class action against ATi (and nVidia). Who, in turn sue Microsoft, who, in turn, sues (?) in the CI business.
Of course all those video cards are "HDCPI Ready". They *can* generate the encrypted content. No sweat.
But (and here's the rub), the content providers (strike that, the "copyright industry", or CI) have decided to not trust any "home-brew" system. Which means that the keys won't go to the cards (because the *system* isn't trusted) and the feature is now useless.
Of course, a new system can have exactly the same chip, and it will then work.
Its the CI backlash against the DVD crack (which, of course, a vendor of playback equipment was responsible for -- which is NOT being forgotten). Coupled with some bad crypto choices, and DVDs are now wide open. The CIs would want to prevent this, and are now qualifying everything (my opinion).
External boxes can only produce SD (DVD) quality output on analog, which is what Vista will generate as well.
ATI make chips, boards and drivers. They (in my opinion) couldn't care less -- they just implement the spec. They put it the feature, and now can't use it because of key control concerns; they have been caught with their pants down.
Is is possible for ATI to sue the CIs? Because if I were in ATI, I would be as mad as a wet hen right now.
The problem with MDI and multiple anything is that the windows that could previously be controlled are now one.
That said, your other issues have (mostly) been dealt with, but not from the perspective of duplicating Microsoft Windows(tm) function. Focus follows mouse allows input to a window without changing stacking. Stacking commands can control window z-placement (lower/raise). Those of us who are "old-school" Unix heads have a problem with the Microsoft Windows(tm) approach. I generally use mwm.
I'll probably write an "MDI hack" for X, now that there has been some interest expressed. Or maybe such a thing exists... Anyway, if you are interested, XReparentWindow() in Xlib should do the trick, just reparent the window from root to an application window. You may want to resize and position it as well.
Not true. First, the file being shared may be shared with the permission of the copyright holder. Second, the file being shared may be in the public domain. Third, it depends on which jurisdiction you are in.
My site(s) use self-signed SSL certificates. You can contact me for the fingerprint, and then accept the certificate.
This tells you that the communication is with the correct computer and gives you "end to end" crypto.
Having the certificate "signed" is supposed to allow the certificate to be trusted without the fingerprint verification.
What does "trust" mean? It means that the computer you are communicating with is the correct computer AND that that computer is "trustworthy" from the perspective of the user.
What THAT means is that either it IS the correct computer, or if not, that the owner can be easily tracked down for suitable consequences.
And that's a minimum service level that I would expect. If the certificate holder CANNOT be easily traced, I cannot have much faith in the "trusted certificate issuer". Because THEY hold the trust.
I will have to look into that box... but my FIRST "impression" is that it doesn't quite do what you think...
Nobody cares (content providers) if the HD signal is decimated prior to being output analog. I implemented that code for a major TV chip vendor myself. The idea is that horizontal and vertical filtering is applied to effectively reduce the HD content to SD.
The "Spatz" box is probably doing the same thing. That way they get the decrypt stuff, and provide a nice analog output. Of course COMPONENT ONLY HD users suffer.
But, I'll investigate the box. because I have a component only HD set.
So here's the thing... I was the "Unix Guy" at a company, doing the "Unix" reimplementation of the products.
Everybody else is using Windows, and the Microsoft IDE for C++. I use VIM.
So heres the thing. The MS IDE doesn't believe tabs are 8. It picks something else (3, 4?). No big deal, because a space is a space. They want my code, so I tell VIM to use spaces rather than tabs. Whenever I get code back, I have to replace tabs with spaces. Extra step for me, but hey.
The MS IDE will edit files with \n terminators. Unlike VIM, it doesn't actually REMEMBER this, so new lines have \r\n terminators. A mess. Now, its only a single command in VIM to fix this, but is a nuisance.
Now, several other people had to come to the "Unix" side. They didn't know the "magic" VIM command to fix the line-end nonsense, and would have given up on VIM in disgust (fwiw,:1,$s/^V^M//g where ^ means control-key). Once they knew the "magic", the disgust factor went to the MS IDE for doing such a "stupid" thing.
It is also (IMHO good) common practice to put "meta information" into files if the "default" isn't being followed. The "default" is defined by what happens when you dump the file to the terminal session with "cat" (TYPE). Note that generally this means that tabs should be assumed expand to 8.
If they are another size, please put in the (VIM|EMACS) information required to set the tabulation. Add the following line to the bottom of your C source file:/* vi:set ts=4: */
The Microsoft IDE doesn't understand this, but you WILL make the "Unix Guy" a lot happier. Especially if you are using a really odd-ball size for tabulation (say, 5). And, who knows? maybe one day the MS IDE will respect it.
Now I have to spell out SARCASM? I fully understand the GPs point -- and in the past this thinking led to COBOL. Who knows what it may lead to today (because it ALSO gave us PL/1 and ADA).
If you can get yourself on the "Standardization Committee", you can probably even have REAL fun! Like -- ask stupid questions: how does the language express factorial 10,000? Can I see some sample code? How about implementation of Knuth's Algorithm for sorting tape runs (whatever). How about dynamic programming? Backtracking? Functional programming? OOP support? Report generation from databases. GUI interfacing? Multi-threading?
You get the drift. I am sure that you could generate at least 1,000 pages of samples, criteria, &etc.
A number of copyright holders around the world lobbied in the last decades and WON the right to a surcharge on blank media. Every cassette tape, blank CD, etc. would be levied, the proceeds to go to the artists.
Seemed like a good think at the time, I guess.
In exchange for the levy, "private copying" was allowed. Basically, you are allowed to exchange music with your friends. Seems that this has been generally interpreted by the courts (in serveral countries) to mean "non-commercial, benefiting only the person". Which, given the nature of the surcharge, AND the fact that only material you ASK for is copied, AND that the P2P transfer is not commercial, makes sense.
It seems that the definition of "private" is then "non-commercial"
Other interpretations lead to some very bizzare results.
Of course the Music Association could now lobby to have the levy overturned (who knew about P2P?). But to loose out on all that guaranteed money from media sales? I don't think its likely. But they have to test the "private copy" against P2P in every jurisdication (somewhere they MAY be able to have the cake, and eat it too!).
You said...no x86...no home or business computers...
Which leaves? Embedded, gaming consoles, etc.
Still -- what about Sparc? Power? These aren't "business computers".
Me? I would like a 4GHz Power system. Sure! Make it a 4 way, and I would be real happy (for a couple of years, anyway).
Would Apple switch? How the frig would I know.
Something I DO suspect though, is that IF Apple switches, the premium for the box will be far more than I care to spend.
And something I DO know. When released, Linux will be running on it. So, if you've got big CPU plans, and are using Linux, you are pretty much "good to go" when the hotties are released.
Mr. Stallman has been ranting for 25 years. A long time. Pushing the GNU message.
He has predicted doom and gloom for 25 years.
The sorry and sad part? Even though the GNU GPL 2 has been widely accepted, the "doom and gloom" has come to pass. As predicted. DMCA, Copyright Extensions, DRM.
25 years of Stallman activism -- can you use a new XBOX for anything interesting? 25 years of Stallman activism -- you can be brought up on charges for taking apart a toner cartridge. 25 years of Stallman activism -- are component HD actually useful for HD?
Slashdot Mirror
$1 for one song.
The rest of your rant was irrelevant.
But, I would like to comment on $1 per song.
That is high. For $1 per song, I expect a live performance (and I get it). I don't expect compressed downloads over data pipes I pay for at that price. I believe it to be usurious. So I don't (and will likely never have) an "iTunes" (whatever Apple calls it) subscription.
There are people who have given Apple a billion dollars. Makes Apple really smart, and those people really dumb in my opinion.
In fact, I believe that it doesn't matter if Apple decides to obsolete these peoples music (format, physical, whatever). They will applaud and probably give Apple another billion dollars.
Sad, really.
File based crpto is the wrong place to apply, or the wrong level of the stack. In the below discussion, "I" means "black-hat crypto cracker".
Metadata leakage, including filenames. This generally tells me the files I need to attack. I don't need mymod.ko, but earnings.sxc would be interesting.
Generally, file-based approaches only encrypt the file data. BAD, because EVEN if the filenames themselves are encrypted, and allocation maps are encrypted, it is still possible to do entropy analysis on the drive. What appears random is data!
If you use a crypto system that uses the same key to encrypt blocks, with the same results, this is bad. I can again GUESS the plaintext, by guessing the file system, and the common layout information (allocation tables). This can provide a lot of information.
What we want is to encrypt at the block level, and to spew random numbers ALL OVER the drive before using it, and to use a crypto implementation that gives reasonable results (block number as part of the key).
Please keep your data safe!
"It emits what it consumes".
"Please look up the concept of "less than 100% efficiency"
It MUST emit what it consumes (at least, using normally acceptable models). It MAY NOT be 100% what is desired, but it sure is emitted. An incandescent light bulb does not convert 100% of it used power into visible light -- go ahead and touch one!
But it sure does emit what it consumes. Indeed, this is such a basic concept that the original poster didn't want credit.
Nor do I - no modding this up.
Ratboy.
As long as interconnect speed paces processor power at a particular ratio (or better), the "beowulf" loosely connected cluster remains viable as a supercomputer. If the ratio tips, it doesn't work.
As an example -- you generally wouldn't think to build a "beowulf cluster" using an interconnect of 9600 baud modems, right? Even though you could, the cluster would, in general, not gain much.
In '96 (or thereabouts), such a loose cluster composed of Pentium Pros, with 100MB interconnects could make some sense. Now, we have optical interconnects, and are generally 1 order of magnitude in performance beyond that.
My point was that what we are looking for is a processor leap that leaves the interconnect "in the dust", thus making the loose interconnect concept silly again.
We aren't there yet. "Quantum Computing" won't be it, either. What is needed is an attack on ILP (instruction level parallelism). Which forces architectural changes. And programming changes. "C" (and its ilk) won't cut it, because algorithms are not exposed at a high enough level. Which was the big failing of Itanium.
If processor speeds could be increased by an order of magnitude TODAY, "beowulf clusters" cease to be relevant.
Ratboy.
Thank you! Very insightful post.
And you can quote me.
Now, on to some observations. We have been at a state of equilibrium now for a few years.
It is slightly difficult to determine exactly what the bounds are, because we are in it right now. I am guessing that the "slowdown" started around the time of the Pentium Pro ('96?).
The "clue" was the introduction of "Beowulf" clusters where processing is balanced with communications overhead.
Intel is fighting this with Itanium, SUN with Niagra.
I suspect that the new "Moores Burst" will begin with death of the cluster as supercomputer. I have always predicated that Itanium (or something architecturally similar) will win (and the pun is intended).
Ratboy
I bought a 300 watt power supply for $17 (CDN) - call it under $15.
The issue is: how to make it QUIET. I take a "system" level approach to the problem. Built a cabinet around the whole computer, providing sound-proofing. Did the cabinet cost around $135? It was less. Much less.
Now, my power supply has a fan (it actually has two). But so does the processor, the video card, and there are two fans in the hard drive carrier.
6 fans making noise. The box also has 3 hard drives, and a DVD.
A lot of stuff making noise. Taken care of by the cabinet. Note that the expensive power supply would have only taken care of two of the fans. Whereas my solution takes are of all of the problem.
YMMV Ratboy
Have a gander at:
6 .pdf
..."
+ HDTV+support/2100-1042_3-5956408.html
http://www.digital-cp.com/home/HDCPLicense0126200
Obviously, ATi and nVidia licensed to make "inactive robust" devices. That would let them put "HDCP-ready" in the lit.
How are what forces these to become "active", I wonder? Technically, its Vista. Now, we have to dig into Vista HDCP plans: A quote from Microsoft:
".. video resolution will need to be set to 480p. Display device drivers must support the DirectX Video Acceleration Certified Output Protection Protocol (COPP) for software signaling of HDCP
And how do we support COPP?
Vista support IAMCertifiedOutputProtection class. Method KeyExchange() returns the driver cert (including public key) to Vista.
And how do we obtain such a driver cert?
From Microsoft, who also signs the driver.
So, there should be no problem supporting driver-based HDCP.
Now this link tells us that the cable industry has to sign off on the whole thing:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+inks+cable+deal+for
Which they JUST have. But, I can't get my hands on a copy of that agreement.
What this boils down to:
- You can be compliant with HDCP as an "inactive" device
- You can be compliant with HDCP as an "active" device
- The difference seems to be the "trust" level that Microsoft has in your device driver, and the presence of another chip
- The entire secure path in XP/2 and VISTA appears to require the vetting of the copyright interests (CableLabs, others?)
- There appears to be agreement in that area, but exactely what, we are not sure
- Even if you have an HDCP "ready" video card, it may not be able to participate, UNLESS Microsoft keys and certifies a new driver.
- Even if you have an HDCP video card WITH a key-chip, it STILL requires a Microsoft certified driver.
- Drivers are probably going to be "time-stamped" (my read on the HDCP licensing, but I may be wrong -- my head started to hurt). Expiry based on certificate expiry.
And, no, I don't know for sure that the HDCP will be retrofitted, or not. Mostly because I can't get my mitts on the Cable/MS agreement.
Ratboy.
Actually, wrong.
*IF* the driver is trusted, the chip is not needed. But, such a driver *may* be trusted by Microsoft, but won't be trusted by the "copyright industry".
So, no content for you. The CI has spoken.
If Microsoft said "HDCP" will be supported in Vista, why wouldn't the video board manufacturers believe it? Microsoft cowed to the CIs, and ATi and nVidia can't put the feature in the driver, and customers are left holding the bag of shit.
Go ahead -- sue suE SUE!!! It will be fun to watch. Class action against ATi (and nVidia). Who, in turn sue Microsoft, who, in turn, sues (?) in the CI business.
Ratboy
Of course all those video cards are "HDCPI Ready". They *can* generate the encrypted content. No sweat.
But (and here's the rub), the content providers (strike that, the "copyright industry", or CI) have decided to not trust any "home-brew" system. Which means that the keys won't go to the cards (because the *system* isn't trusted) and the feature is now useless.
Of course, a new system can have exactly the same chip, and it will then work.
Its the CI backlash against the DVD crack (which, of course, a vendor of playback equipment was responsible for -- which is NOT being forgotten). Coupled with some bad crypto choices, and DVDs are now wide open. The CIs would want to prevent this, and are now qualifying everything (my opinion).
External boxes can only produce SD (DVD) quality output on analog, which is what Vista will generate as well.
ATI make chips, boards and drivers. They (in my opinion) couldn't care less -- they just implement the spec. They put it the feature, and now can't use it because of key control concerns; they have been caught with their pants down.
Is is possible for ATI to sue the CIs? Because if I were in ATI, I would be as mad as a wet hen right now.
Ratboy.
The problem with MDI and multiple anything is that the windows that could previously be controlled are now one.
That said, your other issues have (mostly) been dealt with, but not from the perspective of duplicating Microsoft Windows(tm) function. Focus follows mouse allows input to a window without changing stacking. Stacking commands can control window z-placement (lower/raise). Those of us who are "old-school" Unix heads have a problem with the Microsoft Windows(tm) approach. I generally use mwm.
I'll probably write an "MDI hack" for X, now that there has been some interest expressed. Or maybe such a thing exists... Anyway, if you are interested, XReparentWindow() in Xlib should do the trick, just reparent the window from root to an application window. You may want to resize and position it as well.
Ratboy.
If MDI is implemented that way, then ANY SDI application can be easily brought into an MDI, by simply mentioning the class and having it brought in.
There must be some other feature of MDI though -- window to window interaction or *something*.
Because if that's really all you want, my argument is that, again, it should be left up to the window manager.
Ratboy.
Linux does Flash. No problem at all. I have Flash coming out the Wazoo in my browser.
It Flash AUTHORING that is in question here. Do you author those things? If you do, stick with Windows.
Ratboy.
Arguments AGAINST MDI
1 - Your window manager provides perfectly good window control -- why would you need this duplicated into the application.
2 - If the window manager is changed, how does MDI accomodate the new controls?
3 - MDI doesn't work with virtual desktops.
There are more problems with MDI, but these are the top three. Basically, NO application should EVER use MDI. Certainly not in a Unix environment.
Ratboy.
"p2p file sharing ... is against copyright law"
Not true. First, the file being shared may be shared with the permission of the copyright holder. Second, the file being shared may be in the public domain. Third, it depends on which jurisdiction you are in.
Ratboy.
Not true -
My site(s) use self-signed SSL certificates. You can contact me for the fingerprint, and then accept the certificate.
This tells you that the communication is with the correct computer and gives you "end to end" crypto.
Having the certificate "signed" is supposed to allow the certificate to be trusted without the fingerprint verification.
What does "trust" mean? It means that the computer you are communicating with is the correct computer AND that that computer is "trustworthy" from the perspective of the user.
What THAT means is that either it IS the correct computer, or if not, that the owner can be easily tracked down for suitable consequences.
And that's a minimum service level that I would expect. If the certificate holder CANNOT be easily traced, I cannot have much faith in the "trusted certificate issuer". Because THEY hold the trust.
Ratboy.
I will have to look into that box... but my FIRST "impression" is that it doesn't quite do what you think...
Nobody cares (content providers) if the HD signal is decimated prior to being output analog. I implemented that code for a major TV chip vendor myself. The idea is that horizontal and vertical filtering is applied to effectively reduce the HD content to SD.
The "Spatz" box is probably doing the same thing. That way they get the decrypt stuff, and provide a nice analog output. Of course COMPONENT ONLY HD users suffer.
But, I'll investigate the box. because I have a component only HD set.
Ratboy.
I blaim the Microsoft IDE.
:1,$s/^V^M//g where ^ means control-key). Once they knew the "magic", the disgust factor went to the MS IDE for doing such a "stupid" thing.
/* vi:set ts=4: */
So here's the thing... I was the "Unix Guy" at a company, doing the "Unix" reimplementation of the products.
Everybody else is using Windows, and the Microsoft IDE for C++. I use VIM.
So heres the thing. The MS IDE doesn't believe tabs are 8. It picks something else (3, 4?). No big deal, because a space is a space. They want my code, so I tell VIM to use spaces rather than tabs. Whenever I get code back, I have to replace tabs with spaces. Extra step for me, but hey.
The MS IDE will edit files with \n terminators. Unlike VIM, it doesn't actually REMEMBER this, so new lines have \r\n terminators. A mess. Now, its only a single command in VIM to fix this, but is a nuisance.
Now, several other people had to come to the "Unix" side. They didn't know the "magic" VIM command to fix the line-end nonsense, and would have given up on VIM in disgust (fwiw,
It is also (IMHO good) common practice to put "meta information" into files if the "default" isn't being followed. The "default" is defined by what happens when you dump the file to the terminal session with "cat" (TYPE). Note that generally this means that tabs should be assumed expand to 8.
If they are another size, please put in the (VIM|EMACS) information required to set the tabulation. Add the following line to the bottom of your C source file:
The Microsoft IDE doesn't understand this, but you WILL make the "Unix Guy" a lot happier. Especially if you are using a really odd-ball size for tabulation (say, 5). And, who knows? maybe one day the MS IDE will respect it.
Ratboy.
By The Holy Balls of Crom!
Now I have to spell out SARCASM? I fully understand the GPs point -- and in the past this thinking led to COBOL. Who knows what it may lead to today (because it ALSO gave us PL/1 and ADA).
Ratboy.
Sure...
Hire me for my MAD technical skills, and then override my decisions based on other criteria.
Hire a "new JAVA guy" to maintain Python and Ruby code.
Why not just write a super-duper "COmmon Business Oriented Language", so the suits can review (and even write) code to ensure it meets business needs.
Sounds good to me! Let me know how it all works out.
Ratboy.
If you can get yourself on the "Standardization Committee", you can probably even have REAL fun! Like -- ask stupid questions: how does the language express factorial 10,000? Can I see some sample code? How about implementation of Knuth's Algorithm for sorting tape runs (whatever). How about dynamic programming? Backtracking? Functional programming? OOP support? Report generation from databases. GUI interfacing? Multi-threading?
You get the drift. I am sure that you could generate at least 1,000 pages of samples, criteria, &etc.
Ratboy
Um... different definition of "private".
A number of copyright holders around the world lobbied in the last decades and WON the right to a surcharge on blank media. Every cassette tape, blank CD, etc. would be levied, the proceeds to go to the artists.
Seemed like a good think at the time, I guess.
In exchange for the levy, "private copying" was allowed. Basically, you are allowed to exchange music with your friends. Seems that this has been generally interpreted by the courts (in serveral countries) to mean "non-commercial, benefiting only the person". Which, given the nature of the surcharge, AND the fact that only material you ASK for is copied, AND that the P2P transfer is not commercial, makes sense.
It seems that the definition of "private" is then "non-commercial"
Other interpretations lead to some very bizzare results.
Of course the Music Association could now lobby to have the levy overturned (who knew about P2P?). But to loose out on all that guaranteed money from media sales? I don't think its likely. But they have to test the "private copy" against P2P in every jurisdication (somewhere they MAY be able to have the cake, and eat it too!).
Ratboy.
I am called "Ratboy" because I "suffer" from Aspergers. Great concentration and focus, and a tendency to "go down ratholes" and obsess with problems.
The "666" is from my Unix background (SUN Staff Engineer). Of course, it means "universal read and write access".
I like "Rat's Ass". But then, I like rats (I find them cute and cuddly, smart as rodents go).
Welcome to my "fan" list!
Ratboy
You said ...no x86...no home or business computers...
Which leaves? Embedded, gaming consoles, etc.
Still -- what about Sparc? Power? These aren't "business computers".
Me? I would like a 4GHz Power system. Sure! Make it a 4 way, and I would be real happy (for a couple of years, anyway).
Would Apple switch? How the frig would I know.
Something I DO suspect though, is that IF Apple switches, the premium for the box will be far more than I care to spend.
And something I DO know. When released, Linux will be running on it. So, if you've got big CPU plans, and are using Linux, you are pretty much "good to go" when the hotties are released.
Ratboy
And here's a counter.
Mr. Stallman has been ranting for 25 years. A long time. Pushing the GNU message.
He has predicted doom and gloom for 25 years.
The sorry and sad part? Even though the GNU GPL 2 has been widely accepted, the "doom and gloom" has come to pass. As predicted. DMCA, Copyright Extensions, DRM.
25 years of Stallman activism -- can you use a new XBOX for anything interesting? 25 years of Stallman activism -- you can be brought up on charges for taking apart a toner cartridge. 25 years of Stallman activism -- are component HD actually useful for HD?
Maybe Stallman hasn't been strident enough?
Ratboy
And all I can say is: Thanks, Preach on BROTHER!
Amen.
Ratboy