What is the current state of trust networks? Many problems (spam, SEO, 'gaming')
seem to hinge on the absence of a trust certificate for ratings. Further, the value of ratings is subjective. I shouldn't have to `trust' Wikia selected users with their ratings. I myself should choose users whose ratings I value for a particular topic.
Is there some fundamental flaw in current trust network algorithms that prevent them from being implemented?
The world as a whole is not poorer because someone overpaid for hosting.
Erm, yes it is. That difference in price could have been used to produce value. If you believe that the world is in fact not poorer, then you believe that the point of an economy is just to shuffle money around.
Java applets get back in the game. All someone (Sun? Fluendo?) needs to do is provide
a (good) replacement for the myriad of atrocious, platform dependent, Flash video players. Surely Java applets can provide something better?
Provide the server-side stuff, and the basic streaming/decoding base for the client, abstract the away the player interface (GUI, controls... etc) so people can customize the look+feel (they love to do that for some reason, even if they are shit at it) and make it relatively efficient (You couldn't do worse than Flash in performance if you tried).
If the competition is Flash the goal is so low you can't help but succeed.
Flumotion is on their way:
http://stream.fluendo.com/demos.php
Mr. Small (a lawyer for blackboard) and Eben Moglen had a discussion about the patent in question and the convenant not to sue free software at a recent Sakai conference (search for the audio recording. It's worth having a listen to see how awful Blackboard really is).
Small made it clear that they promised not to sue free software, using the argument that no one
was making money from it (i.e. they won't sue a charity because it makes the look bad). It was implied^ however, that you would indeed be sued if you supported free software financially. For example, if you made a business that sold the software, provided support services, or funded development (It would sue a RedHat-like company for example).
The covenant not to sue is then essentially worthless to important groups like *Universities* who would presumably be very eager to support development of free (price+freedom) alternatives to the POS that is Webct. Further, schools won't see free software solutions as a viable alternative if there is no available enterprise (commercial) support services.
^ Or maybe stated outright, I can't remember.
Erm, you do know about the Desire2Learn lawsuit? The one where Blackboard pro-actively sued a company using their junk patent?
Doesn't sound so much like covering as much as raping.
WTF? You do know that the N800 doesn't run on x86 (it uses ARM) and is in fact using Flash version *7* right?
http://mg.pov.lt/maemo-irclog/%23maemo.2007-01-08. log.html#t2007-01-08T00:57:15
Given how long it has taken to get version 9 on x86 Linux and how many more people are waiting for x86_64 for both Windows and Linux (which, if the past is any indication, will be developed in a non-portable manner, requiring separate development for each) you will have to wait a long, long, time for Flash 9 on ARM. And even when and if that day comes, I shudder at the thought of the absurdly high CPU usage of Flash on a mobile device.
Holy crap. Somebody on Slashdot that actually gets it. I had to read it twice to make sure.
The Internet flourished on freed(dom), open standards. It will stagnate if anyone (e.g. Adobe) manages to become a de facto gatekeeper.
If you need permission, or need to rely on, Adobe (or anyone else) to create an device X that runs on some new processor Y to access a large fraction of web pages, something is seriously wrong. It's not good for anybody (except Adobe). That is the situation we are in now and it needs to stop.
There's no excuse for Flash taking 40-50% CPU time of a 1.8 GHz to decode a damn video when traditional video decoders can do it in a fraction of that.
Even non-video Flash sometimes makes my laptop step up to the highest frequency, resulting in all the noisy fans ramping up. Ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there some fundamental flaw in current trust network algorithms that prevent them from being implemented?
Erm, yes it is. That difference in price could have been used to produce value. If you believe that the world is in fact not poorer, then you believe that the point of an economy is just to shuffle money around.
See the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
Java applets get back in the game. All someone (Sun? Fluendo?) needs to do is provide a (good) replacement for the myriad of atrocious, platform dependent, Flash video players. Surely Java applets can provide something better? Provide the server-side stuff, and the basic streaming/decoding base for the client, abstract the away the player interface (GUI, controls... etc) so people can customize the look+feel (they love to do that for some reason, even if they are shit at it) and make it relatively efficient (You couldn't do worse than Flash in performance if you tried). If the competition is Flash the goal is so low you can't help but succeed. Flumotion is on their way: http://stream.fluendo.com/demos.php
Mr. Small (a lawyer for blackboard) and Eben Moglen had a discussion about the patent in question and the convenant not to sue free software at a recent Sakai conference (search for the audio recording. It's worth having a listen to see how awful Blackboard really is). Small made it clear that they promised not to sue free software, using the argument that no one was making money from it (i.e. they won't sue a charity because it makes the look bad). It was implied^ however, that you would indeed be sued if you supported free software financially. For example, if you made a business that sold the software, provided support services, or funded development (It would sue a RedHat-like company for example). The covenant not to sue is then essentially worthless to important groups like *Universities* who would presumably be very eager to support development of free (price+freedom) alternatives to the POS that is Webct. Further, schools won't see free software solutions as a viable alternative if there is no available enterprise (commercial) support services. ^ Or maybe stated outright, I can't remember.
Erm, you do know about the Desire2Learn lawsuit? The one where Blackboard pro-actively sued a company using their junk patent? Doesn't sound so much like covering as much as raping.
WTF? You do know that the N800 doesn't run on x86 (it uses ARM) and is in fact using Flash version *7* right? http://mg.pov.lt/maemo-irclog/%23maemo.2007-01-08. log.html#t2007-01-08T00:57:15
Given how long it has taken to get version 9 on x86 Linux and how many more people are waiting for x86_64 for both Windows and Linux (which, if the past is any indication, will be developed in a non-portable manner, requiring separate development for each) you will have to wait a long, long, time for Flash 9 on ARM. And even when and if that day comes, I shudder at the thought of the absurdly high CPU usage of Flash on a mobile device.
Holy crap. Somebody on Slashdot that actually gets it. I had to read it twice to make sure. The Internet flourished on freed(dom), open standards. It will stagnate if anyone (e.g. Adobe) manages to become a de facto gatekeeper. If you need permission, or need to rely on, Adobe (or anyone else) to create an device X that runs on some new processor Y to access a large fraction of web pages, something is seriously wrong. It's not good for anybody (except Adobe). That is the situation we are in now and it needs to stop.
There's no excuse for Flash taking 40-50% CPU time of a 1.8 GHz to decode a damn video when traditional video decoders can do it in a fraction of that. Even non-video Flash sometimes makes my laptop step up to the highest frequency, resulting in all the noisy fans ramping up. Ridiculous.