ICANN higher-ups have specifically said that there will be no content-specific TLDs. That is, a TLD whose domain is a form of content (e.g..mus for music), as the policing of that content should be outside the ICANN domain. TLDs can, however, define content by regulating who can register domains --.edu or.gov is a good example. The US can legislate all it want; ICANN won't go for it.
Re:I kind of agree with the court.
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 1
No.
The issue here is that Felten's argument is a First Amendment one. An important consideration in First Amendment cases is the presence of a "chilling effect" on speech This results from a situation in which a person is uncertain whether what's being said is legal or not, and so doesn't speak for the sake of being safe. For example, while the lawsuit threatened against Felten might not have succeeded, its threat was enough to lead him to initially not present the paper.
The EFF's argument is that the MPAA can, by merely threatening lawsuits, effectively chill a form of speech that might be constitutionally protected. What they're trying to obtain is a ruling that says not only Felten can't be sued, but future researchers can't either.
I'm currently taking Professor Samuelson's Cyberlaw class, and have been reasonably impressed with her degree of technical knowledge. While there are some in the area of Internet Law who are fairly clueless, her opinions and commentary in class demonstrate a good understanding of how all this stuff works.
The purpose of an education is not to teach skills for "the real world." Not at any University I'd go to, at least. The kinds of schools that teach about the "real world" are called "technical colleges."
Yeah exactly. Sun make good hardware, but their software has been going backwards ever since they switched from SunOS 4.1.2 to Solaris, and made the c compiler an (expensive) optional extra. What difference does their endorsement of Gnome make to anything.
What are you talking about? What's so much worse about Solaris?
Are you going to tell me that the slab allocator, LWPs, the filenode interface, and interrupt handling threads are a setback? I don't know when 4.1.2 was released (and therefore which of these kernel structures were present), but I think it's pretty simple to say that Sun leads the pack on many (but certainly not all) kernel mechanisms.
Of course, as more features are added, it's inevitable that the system will slow down. I really doubt that Linux could ever approach the power and versatility of Solaris without being left in the dust in terms of performance. Just look at the TCP/IP stack as it is now.
What this means to you is that if I teach you C, to the point that you become good at it, I can teach you perl, APL, and several other languages in very little time.
No. No. No.
Just because a pair of languages are compatible does not mean that a person can learn the second one quickly. I can translate LISP to C, but this doesn't mean that having written LISP for fifty years will make learning C easy.
We're not simple turing machines that can take one language in our input tape and spit out the other.
Something that's often popular is some form of friendly competition. A common technique I've seen used in graduate courses is to set an algorithmic problem, then have people compete to write the fastest solution. Of course, issues like time complexity matter, but the students can't just shrug off constant factors.
Take all the solutions, and give them a wide range of input sets, and figure out some way of determining the winner. Make sure to promote people working together and bouncing ideas off fellow students. If the prize is something trivial (the class gets to watch a movie of the winner's choice, for example), then hopefully there won't be bad blood. Let people work in teams if the class is large.
Depending on the proficency level of the class, you can assign anything from as simple as sorting an array to combinitorial optimization.
I suspect that this is precisely the sort of question that the NSA cannot (and will not) answer. It questions exactly what their capabilities are, and how limitations to those capabilites are dealt with.
There is a reason we are all driving filthy petroleum burning cars despite having had the technology for clean hydrogen burning motors for over forty years. (The oil companies bought up the patents and buried them - only now are a few buses finally burning hydrogen fuel and filling the air with water vapor instead of carcinogens - the patents are expiring.)
No.
This something called "folklore." That is, information which is spread by word of mouth. Sometimes, folklore is true. More often, and in this case, it's not. I'm friends with a professor of English at The University of Colorado at Boulder whose specialization is folklore. He's even currently writing a book specifically on car lore. He looked into this, and found no factual support for these sorts of claims.
The reason has more to do with the cost of modifying and building assembly lines, developing assembly processes, etc. There's a big cost to switch over, and industries know all sorts of tricks and techniques for current technologies to make manufacture more cost efficent.
Of course, if you do find a patent which some automaker bought out and buried, you'll most probably make it into the credits of his book.
Engineers use GAs to a significant degree, it's true. The reason? It's a lot easier to use a GA than to come up with an intelligent solution.
Genetic algorithms are, when you boil it down, a randomized search with a heuristic. Being randomized, you're not sure if you have the best answer. Their use usually doesn't even make solving problems that much faster. You spend about the same amount of time, and get a solution which isn't optimal.
GAs sure sound sexy and are an interesting idea, but they really don't stand up to thinking about a problem and constructing a good deterministic solution. They're popular not because they're better, but because they're easier. There are plenty of journals focused on them: why? Because nobody really has spent the effort to really figure out how to make them work well almost all of the time. (At least neural networks have a strong theoretical basis in linear equations.) You don't see journals on alpha-beta pruning or A* search because they're tried and true techniques, unlike these monkey randomized searches that people think are cool because their name suggests biology and therefore intelligence.
The Itsy is a research prototype, and isn't really well suited to an end user. I've done some work on them. On one hand, they're very powerful for their size, and can do almost anything you need. On the other hand, the stylus interface can be troublesome at times, and the hardware can be downright demanding. As just a single example, if the case is screwed on too tight, this can cause undue pressure on some components which results in a noisy interface to the flash systems, causing a boot failure.
That is, the Itsy doesn't really have the reliability and fortitude that an end user wants. Now, sure a unit which does could be designed, but that's quite different than mass producing Itsys.
It depends what you mean by using application independent formats. XML is not a formatting language: it's a content marking language. Formatting is then left to XSL or some equivalent language. Certainly MSWord could manipulate documents in an XML format; in order to display them and make them pretty, however, it would need to translate them, perhaps to its proprietary binary format.
The question then arises as to whether some standardized DTDs will appear, which then word processors could recognize and have their own XSL templates for. I'd argue this won't happen; more likely, MS would come up with a DTD, and others would follow.
On one hand, professional work would certainly stay within the ideas presented by a DTD (this is a paragraph: see, it's indented). On the other, random users wouldn't; they desire a final look, not a semantically consistent document. Someone who wants to indent a paragraph might use the wrong word processor feature; it's an ordered list of one element with no bullets. Put it into another program, and it might look entirely different.
I competed once in an ACM programming contest (the regional one this year), and have to agree that it's a sketchy affair run by people who really don't know what they're doing.
For example, it was fairly obvious that the problem writers had no real grasp of Java, even though its use was allowed. One problem in the contest involved taking the reciprocal of arbitrarily long integers that are a power of 2 or 5. My group was the only one to finish this problem: all the other groups thought it was one of the most difficult. Considering that Java has its java.lang.BigInteger class, solving the problem was trivial, and a no-brainer.
Getting an "Ivy-League" quality education online is impossible.
A single thing separates schools from the Ivy League and others of their quality (such as Stanford, Berkeley, Reed, or MIT): the students that attend them. Any university administrator worth their salt will tell you the reason a community college can never give you the same education an univerisity can, simply because there is no society of students that have an open discourse as an integral part of their life.
When you fork over $30K a year to attend Harvard or Princeton, you're not really paying for the professors; research credentials and significance in an academic field have nothing to do with how well someone can teach. You're paying for your fellow students. You could assemble the best professors from every school in the nation, Ivy League included, create an "online university" with them, and a student would not emerge as educated as one who went to Brown.
Some have brought up the fact that V2 doesn't seem well suited for general use, as there's no memory protection. On the other hand, it's writting in x86 ASM, which makes it not that well suited to special use devices. The question is then, what do the designers and writers have in mind?
I took a look at the "native" filesystem of V2, v2_fs, which seems to be have a strangely specific purpose for a default OS filesystem. From their site:
"It is designed and optimized especially for fast hard diskaccess, which is very usefull for, for example, a digital audio/videoplayer/mixer."
"-Videoframes are stored sector-aligned, for faster loading to disk/decompression-buffers -All data is stored sequentially, this eliminates the need for the physical disk-heads to jump and search around."
They also have some precise technical information on the filesystem layout.
Their claims of no need of defragmentation seem really strange in light of the requirement that files are entirely sequential on disk; sure, you might have less internal fragmentation because you can use a small block size, but... no external fragmentation? I'd like to see how they accomplish that.
The strange marketing style descriptions they have aside, I think the filesystem suggests what the kernel writers had in mind, which is an OS well suited to deadline-oriented tasks like video, without bringing out the spectre of real-time.
Slashdot Mirror
Then all I need to do to launch a DoS attack is send a piece of spam?
We're from Berkeley, man. While sensor networks can be used for killing people better, that's not what motivates me in this research.
ICANN higher-ups have specifically said that there will be no content-specific TLDs. That is, a TLD whose domain is a form of content (e.g. .mus for music), as the policing of that content should be outside the ICANN domain. TLDs can, however, define content by regulating who can register domains -- .edu or .gov is a good example. The US can legislate all it want; ICANN won't go for it.
No.
The issue here is that Felten's argument is a First Amendment one. An important consideration in First Amendment cases is the presence of a "chilling effect" on speech This results from a situation in which a person is uncertain whether what's being said is legal or not, and so doesn't speak for the sake of being safe. For example, while the lawsuit threatened against Felten might not have succeeded, its threat was enough to lead him to initially not present the paper.
The EFF's argument is that the MPAA can, by merely threatening lawsuits, effectively chill a form of speech that might be constitutionally protected. What they're trying to obtain is a ruling that says not only Felten can't be sued, but future researchers can't either.
Incidentally, this case really frightens me.
The purpose of an education is not to teach skills for "the real world." Not at any University I'd go to, at least. The kinds of schools that teach about the "real world" are called "technical colleges."
If this could be attacked in front of the European Court of Justice, especially given the free speech implications.
What makes you think that European nations and the EU have free speech protections like the US does?
The worst reason to do anything when writing software is laziness.
If the reason you don't like Java is that it's more verbose than C++, that's a pretty petty reason. Sure, in C++ you can write:
char** cp;for (; *cp; cp++) {}
But is that a good thing?
You should be using System.out anyways; you should put output through a class so you can redirect or duplicate as necessary.
What are you talking about? What's so much worse about Solaris?
Are you going to tell me that the slab allocator, LWPs, the filenode interface, and interrupt handling threads are a setback? I don't know when 4.1.2 was released (and therefore which of these kernel structures were present), but I think it's pretty simple to say that Sun leads the pack on many (but certainly not all) kernel mechanisms.
Of course, as more features are added, it's inevitable that the system will slow down. I really doubt that Linux could ever approach the power and versatility of Solaris without being left in the dust in terms of performance. Just look at the TCP/IP stack as it is now.
What this means to you is that if I teach you C, to the point that you become good at it, I can teach you perl, APL, and several other languages in very little time.
No. No. No.
Just because a pair of languages are compatible does not mean that a person can learn the second one quickly. I can translate LISP to C, but this doesn't mean that having written LISP for fifty years will make learning C easy.
We're not simple turing machines that can take one language in our input tape and spit out the other.
What about the X consortium? Sure, they don't necessarily hack mad code for your use, but that's not their purpose.
Take all the solutions, and give them a wide range of input sets, and figure out some way of determining the winner. Make sure to promote people working together and bouncing ideas off fellow students. If the prize is something trivial (the class gets to watch a movie of the winner's choice, for example), then hopefully there won't be bad blood. Let people work in teams if the class is large.
Depending on the proficency level of the class, you can assign anything from as simple as sorting an array to combinitorial optimization.
I suspect that this is precisely the sort of question that the NSA cannot (and will not) answer. It questions exactly what their capabilities are, and how limitations to those capabilites are dealt with.
There is a reason we are all driving filthy petroleum burning cars despite having had the technology for clean hydrogen burning motors for over forty years. (The oil companies bought up the patents and buried them - only now are a few buses finally burning hydrogen fuel and filling the air with water vapor instead of carcinogens - the patents are expiring.)
No.
This something called "folklore." That is, information which is spread by word of mouth. Sometimes, folklore is true. More often, and in this case, it's not. I'm friends with a professor of English at The University of Colorado at Boulder whose specialization is folklore. He's even currently writing a book specifically on car lore. He looked into this, and found no factual support for these sorts of claims.
The reason has more to do with the cost of modifying and building assembly lines, developing assembly processes, etc. There's a big cost to switch over, and industries know all sorts of tricks and techniques for current technologies to make manufacture more cost efficent.
Of course, if you do find a patent which some automaker bought out and buried, you'll most probably make it into the credits of his book.
Engineers use GAs to a significant degree, it's true. The reason? It's a lot easier to use a GA than to come up with an intelligent solution.
Genetic algorithms are, when you boil it down, a randomized search with a heuristic. Being randomized, you're not sure if you have the best answer. Their use usually doesn't even make solving problems that much faster. You spend about the same amount of time, and get a solution which isn't optimal.
GAs sure sound sexy and are an interesting idea, but they really don't stand up to thinking about a problem and constructing a good deterministic solution. They're popular not because they're better, but because they're easier. There are plenty of journals focused on them: why? Because nobody really has spent the effort to really figure out how to make them work well almost all of the time. (At least neural networks have a strong theoretical basis in linear equations.) You don't see journals on alpha-beta pruning or A* search because they're tried and true techniques, unlike these monkey randomized searches that people think are cool because their name suggests biology and therefore intelligence.
That is, the Itsy doesn't really have the reliability and fortitude that an end user wants. Now, sure a unit which does could be designed, but that's quite different than mass producing Itsys.
Not really. It's HTML based, not XML based. Just because it's based on HTML doesn't mean that anyone else can look at the document.
It depends what you mean by using application independent formats. XML is not a formatting language: it's a content marking language. Formatting is then left to XSL or some equivalent language. Certainly MSWord could manipulate documents in an XML format; in order to display them and make them pretty, however, it would need to translate them, perhaps to its proprietary binary format.
The question then arises as to whether some standardized DTDs will appear, which then word processors could recognize and have their own XSL templates for. I'd argue this won't happen; more likely, MS would come up with a DTD, and others would follow.
On one hand, professional work would certainly stay within the ideas presented by a DTD (this is a paragraph: see, it's indented). On the other, random users wouldn't; they desire a final look, not a semantically consistent document. Someone who wants to indent a paragraph might use the wrong word processor feature; it's an ordered list of one element with no bullets. Put it into another program, and it might look entirely different.
I competed once in an ACM programming contest (the regional one this year), and have to agree that it's a sketchy affair run by people who really don't know what they're doing.
For example, it was fairly obvious that the problem writers had no real grasp of Java, even though its use was allowed. One problem in the contest involved taking the reciprocal of arbitrarily long integers that are a power of 2 or 5. My group was the only one to finish this problem: all the other groups thought it was one of the most difficult. Considering that Java has its java.lang.BigInteger class, solving the problem was trivial, and a no-brainer.
A single thing separates schools from the Ivy League and others of their quality (such as Stanford, Berkeley, Reed, or MIT): the students that attend them. Any university administrator worth their salt will tell you the reason a community college can never give you the same education an univerisity can, simply because there is no society of students that have an open discourse as an integral part of their life.
When you fork over $30K a year to attend Harvard or Princeton, you're not really paying for the professors; research credentials and significance in an academic field have nothing to do with how well someone can teach. You're paying for your fellow students. You could assemble the best professors from every school in the nation, Ivy League included, create an "online university" with them, and a student would not emerge as educated as one who went to Brown.
Some have brought up the fact that V2 doesn't seem well suited for general use, as there's no memory protection. On the other hand, it's writting in x86 ASM, which makes it not that well suited to special use devices. The question is then, what do the designers and writers have in mind?
I took a look at the "native" filesystem of V2, v2_fs, which seems to be have a strangely specific purpose for a default OS filesystem. From their site:
"It is designed and optimized especially for fast hard diskaccess, which is very usefull for, for example, a digital audio/videoplayer/mixer."
"-Videoframes are stored sector-aligned, for faster loading to disk/decompression-buffers
-All data is stored sequentially, this eliminates the need for the physical disk-heads to jump and search around."
They also have some precise technical information on the filesystem layout.
Their claims of no need of defragmentation seem really strange in light of the requirement that files are entirely sequential on disk; sure, you might have less internal fragmentation because you can use a small block size, but... no external fragmentation? I'd like to see how they accomplish that.
The strange marketing style descriptions they have aside, I think the filesystem suggests what the kernel writers had in mind, which is an OS well suited to deadline-oriented tasks like video, without bringing out the spectre of real-time.