I don't think it's patents, per se. Software patents just didn't exist in the days that most of what we now consider to be 'Unix' was written.
While computer algorithm patent enforcement didn't begin until the 80's and 90's, patents on processes were being granted as far back as the 1960's. IIRC, IBM patented a file sorting algorithm in 1967. So it is very possible that AT&T patented much of the UNIX algorithms.
Will bending the card cause a head crash? Or are these more like zip drives, in which the read head is in the reader and engages the disk only when inserted?
I can't imagine too many people would want to carry these around in their wallets if a slight bend could destroy them....
Okay, I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes....
From the article:
She urged the major music labels, which include Sony Music, Warner Music, EMI, Universal Music and Bertelsmann's BMG, to ease licensing restrictions, develop digital copyright protections for music, and invest more in promoting subscription download services.
With the exception of digital copyright protections, isn't this just what the slashdot crowd has been calling for?
Also note that the article said that they would propose charging fees to those who visit song swapping sites - a far cry from the "tax every user" scheme used on CD-Rs (which we've been reminded of too many times...). Ironic, isn't it, that the RIAA is finally trying to focus its enforcement mechanisms on those who actually pirate music rather than blanket punishment for internet users....
less focus than you'd expect is put onto making machines secure in the first place. The responsibility for putting a computer on the Internet is that of a system administrator, but frequently system administrators are incompetent, and will happily leave computers hooked up to the Internet without ensuring that they're "good Internet citizens
But what is even more frequent is users with broadband access who lack the technical expertise and time to secure their Windows 9x/ME machines against the local hacker element. I don't mean to flame, but every time I've seen a DDOS attack on my servers, they've come from machines on the local class C running Windows 9x or ME. These aren't businesses - they are average users with broadband access. There are far more naive Windows users than incompetent admins, which gives hackers a never ending supply of zombie machines.
Microsoft undercuts its competitors to the point where the competition simply CANNOT sell any lower because they dont have the BILLIONS in resources to stay in business like Microsoft can, their strategy is to out live the competitor.
If I follow your logic correctly, then Linux should be gaining a monopoly in the desktop market, because Microsoft simply CANNOT sell any lower.
Somehow, I wonder if this is actually true. OpenOffice and StarOffice have been free for a long time (IIRC, Sun is starting to charge for StarOffice now...), yet they have barely made a dent into the MSOffice monopoly, in spite of the fact that MSOffice is about $550 more. So it would seem that marketing has a far greater effect on sales than price or performance.
With this being the case, I believe that the MPEG folks will be able to charge twice what MS does, because obviously it's worth more if they're charging so much...
Sorry to say it, but some people want to be suckered. Musicians, especially, have a reputation for selling themselves short and allowing themselves to be exploited by Corporate America(TM), and I don't think this is going to change anytime in the near future. Thus, the MPEG folks have nothing to fear - they're charging too much for an (arguably) inferior* product (in other words, using the same tactics that made Microsoft rich).
MPEG has a far greater market saturation than Windows Media 9. Microsoft knows this; their trying to turn the tide their direction. However, Microsoft has historically been very inept at catering to niche markets (Apple, anyone - they can charge twice as much, yet their machines still sell). For this reason, I don't think that Windows Media Player 9 will have any impact, nor gain significant market share. AVI has been around since the Windows 95 days, but has yet to gain any significant market share - Apple's QuickTime and MPEG-4 are more universally used. Why? Because Apple is an expert at niche marketing, whereas Microsoft is not. It is far more likely that Microsoft will buy out the MPEG group than actually win a marketing war with them.
* - I honestly don't think MPEG is inferior, but hey, I was trying to prove a point. And I'm sure there are some Microsofties who would say this anyway...
Perhaps a little OT, but I've got karma to burn...
what would happen if someone managed to steal a profitable company's telephone number?
This actually happened to me, though not in the manner that you might think. I've moved twice, and it turns out that the phone company forwarded the phone number of a successful business to my new number, rather than forwarding my old number. The really embarassing thing is that they did it twice - even though my phone number changed two times, I was still getting calls for the same business.
Quite frankly, it would get annoying to get calls for someone's business, and after a while, I complained to the phone company. Nothing was done - we still get the occasional call for "Just Name It For Kids". But I can't imagine the hassle that the business owner has gone through - they've had their business phone number forwarded at least twice to a residence. Granted, it wasn't stolen, but the effect is virtually the same - their customers can no longer get in contact with them, and they'll have to advertise (spend $) to let people know their new number.
"We're sitting here wondering how long it will be until Microsoft gets sued,"
Personally, I'm waiting for the content faction (RIAA, MPAA, et al...) to take on Microsoft for "contributory copyright infringement". It is illegal to market a device whose primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, and it appears that the new Windows functionality does just this*. It's only a matter of time before:
The content faction sues Microsoft, or
Microsoft "retroactively" (via Automatic Update...)incorporates DRM into its OS
From my standpoint, it seems as if option 1 is better for Microsoft; DRM could hamper the widespread adoption of the new Windows OS's. Though Microsoft would like to push Palladium, I think they realize that they'll sell more operating systems without it - simply because people need a good reason to upgrade. Being able to record and swap tv shows is a significant reason to the average PC buyer; without it, Microsoft might have a harder time selling upgrades, especially in this stagnant economy.
Personally, I'd like to see Microsoft buck the content faction, and get sued. As both Microsoft and the content faction have lots of money, it would be interesting to see them embroiled in a legal battle against each other, rather than trying to screw their customers...
* - yes, ATI has produced hardware which allowed PC users to record tv shows, however, it is not nearly as universally recognized or used as Microsoft. Microsoft's backing of tv recording programs has a much bigger impact, as the software will be on virtually every desktop sold.
So will they blame terrorists...
on
Droning On
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
When one goes out of control and crashes into a commercial passenger jet?
The problem with drones is that they don't have a thinking pilot. Where as two pilots will do everything in their power to avoid a midair collision, a drone is not even aware that a collision is imminent in such a situation. Which basically leaves the pilot in the situation of having to "guess" which way the drone will steer next.
Now it is possible that these drones are radio controlled, however, that's even worse, as the terrorist will need do little more than hack the signal and fly the drone into a commercial aircraft, all from the safety of their white van...
Either way, it's a terrible safety threat. To allow unmanned drones to fly in U.S. airspace is bad safety practices at best, and potentially deadly at worst.
The second part of your post was pure flamebait, and boiled down to "If you find Gawd, you'll be happy; if you don't, you're screwed."
Actually, the OP never said anything about being screwed if one didn't find God. I think you're reading to much of your own prejudices into what was posted to understand the point.
I think that the OP's point was that the enjoyment of life is not necessarily tied to materialistic goals. He found fulfillment in a lifestyle espoused by scripture. The issue of finding God was mentioned only in passing.
I too, have asked myself often whether or not God really exists. But inevitably, I come back to the same conclusion. However, trying to explain it rationally is often more trouble than it's worth - so many people will hear the word "God" and tune out, or they will assume they know what you're saying and end up repeating the same tired, thoughtless arguments. I've come to realize that logical arguments almost never make a difference in what a person believes - what happens most often is that the person has a hunch about the truth and goes off seeking arguments to support his or her view.
Now for the flamesuit:
And I cannot even begin to discuss religious topics without someone trying to label me as this or that kind of person and dismissing the argument completely. The extent to which a person will go to avoid a thoughtful, well reasoned dialog, or even thinking, for that matter, never ceases to amaze me.
Okay, you can put me back in your "religious nutcase" box right next to the "evangelists with superiority complexes" box.
I've been looking for a truly "portable" OS for quite some time - one that I could fit on a single bootable floppy and have a GUI interface.
Upon failing to find anything suitable, I have since started writing my own.
As I have a penchant for assembly language programming, I'm about halfway done with it.
Hopefully, someday the OS will be completely irrelevant. It would be really nice if I could carry around all of my key data on a self booting floppy, rather than having to worry about synchronizing multiple data sets between different machines (work, home, laptop, etc...) That way, it wouldn't matter what OS was used on a particular machine.
what makes humans so special that we should treat ourselves better than we do animals?
Well, just a few points:
Humans are capable acting according to reason, rather than instinct. In times of famine, individual humans can suppress their urge to gorge themselves so that scarce resources are equitably distributed, and everyone lives. Even herding animals (deer, in particular) will starve in such conditions - the stronger, or more fortunate will eat all of the available food leaving the weaker ones to die of starvation.
Humans are capable of love and compassion.
Humans are capable of appreciating beauty.
Humans are capable of understanding morality, and often seek to do what is right. Animals show no such understanding; even the most advanced species are nowhere close to being as benevolent as some of the most selfish humans. It would seem that animals are incapable of altruism - their actions are almost entirely motivated by self-interest, whether driven by instinct or external stimuli.
Humans are conscious, if even in a rudimentary sense, of their Creator.
Okay, I'll qualify the last two. At the most basic level, almost all people believe their is a difference between right and wrong, and that we should seek to do what's right. Even though opinions vary widely about which behaviors are right and wrong, whether or not God exists (and if so, what He's like), very few people are indifferent to evil. Animals show no indication of understanding a morality, or of any difference between ordered and disordered actions. I sincerely doubt that the rabbit who ate the carrots in my mother's garden felt any sense of guilt for having done so. However, I also doubt that my mother could shoot a rabbit without feeling some guilt - even though such an action would benefit her personally. This ability to be empathetic to others, even to the point of guilt, is perhaps one of the most striking differences between animals and humans. Though we may be very similar to animals from a biological point of view, one could not claim that humans are animals without ignoring the artistic, technological, sociological, and theological aspects of our existence.
What makes humans so special that we should be exempt from any kind of experimentation?
This is very shallow reasoning, but unfortunately very common. When the line between animals and humans is blurred, treating humans as animals becomes ethically justifiable. If the notion that humans are little more than advanced animals is allowed to lodge in the collective political mindshare, then abuses far worse than what the Nazis did will become commonplace.
The battle over cloning is not a battle to prevent the advance of technology. The problem is one of ethics - if cloning becomes widespread, humans may very well become disposable - subject to arbitrary termination when their "useful" lives are over. The primary problem of the human condition has never been the cure of disease, but rather the lack of respect that various groups show each other. All of the major atrocities in history start with the devaluation of the human: the Nazis devalued the lives of Jews; Stalin devalued the lives of his opponents; Pol Pot, the lives of his people; the American South, the lives of Blacks. Once the notion that certain classes of people were somehow inferior to others arose, it followed logically that the inferior were not worthy of the respect of the superior (whoever they claimed to be...) Cloning represents the separation of humans into two classes, cloned and uncloned. Once this distinction is made, and once obtaining an "ideal" (read: obedient, hard-working, easily exploitable) human becomes a matter of technology, people in general will become commodified and exploited in ways far worse than they have been in the past. There will be little need to treat a person with dignity and respect once obtaining a "replacement" becomes a simple matter of gathering a few hairs and calling a cloning agency.
For each of us aspiring to a technical career, there comes a moment when we must choose between creating knowledge and creating property. Both choices are legitimate and important, but only one is science.
Interestingly, the same thing could be said of computer science and programmers. As a programmer, I have two options:
I can create intellectual "property" for the benefit of Corporate America(tm).
I can release the source code of my work so that the whole of society benefits.
Unfortunately, I can make a living doing the first, but not the second. Even worse, should the company patent my ideas, I will be denying others the ability to use even rudimentary algorithms without the paying of exorbitant royalties; not only will I exclude my own work from the benefit of others, but I will be actively destroying the ability of other programmers to make a living.
The choices aren't easy. Fortunately for my sake, my company isn't in the intellectual property business. But the type of coding that I would like to be doing (engineering modeling, GUI design, etc...) inevitably involves me assigning any intellectual property rights for my work to a corporate entity.
The biggest problem with motorcycle accidents is spinal cord and head injuries, which this device will do nothing to prevent. All other types of injuries commonly associated with motorcycle accidents are very survivable (road rash, bruises, the occasional broken bone, etc...).
I remember a few years ago, someone came out with a motorcycle seatbelt which could be retrofitted to a motorcycle. Not surprisingly, very few bought the idea. The reason is simple: it is fairly common for motorcycles to "come out from under" a rider; slick asphalt or gravel, a flat tire, or locking either wheel while braking will cause a motorcycle to fall over, and most riders would rather ditch the bike than be dragged along with it. (motorcycles will slide on the pavement much farther than the rider.) Once again, we have a device which inspires little confidence in its safety because:
The number of accidents in which this device would protect the rider is relatively small, and the degree of protection is relatively minor - the road rash and bruises this device would prevent are relatively insignificant compared to the spinal cord and head injuries feared by the safety-conscious riders.
The possibility of this complicating injuries in an accident is relatively large.
This is the kind of device which is invented by technicians wearing lab coats, rather than real riders. Most riders are open to safety enhancements, however, the nature of motorcycle riding dictates that different methods of safety be used. In cars, ejection of passengers results in injuries more often than not; with motorcycles, it's just the opposite - many motorcyclists (myself included) are still alive today because they separated themselves from the bike before or during an impending accident. While airbags and seatbelts may increase the safety of automobiles, they have the opposite effect in motorcycles - they tend to complicate injuries while offering very little in the way of accident protection.
lifespan is only a few million years, are also excluded from consideration, since complex life would not have had time to evolve in such an environment
What if life was created, rather than evolved? What if the rate of evolution was vastly accelerated on other planets? (Think about it - even if you accept the theory of evolution, we went from sticks and rocks to radio in less than ten thousand years). What if life was "planted" by meteorites, aliens, etc....
It seems a little presumptious to exclude stars just because we believe that earth-like life could not have started there...
An instance of "civilized" country has been recently letting the religious right decide what can and what can not be researched. Steem-cell and cloning studies are being banned because some religious texts were interpreted as saying that this sort of thing is "unholy".
Actually, it's not just the religious right - the Catholic church (associated with the "religious left", if there is such a group...) opposes cloning as well.
Many people fear human cloning for reasons which have nothing to do with religion. If we clone human beings, what rights do they have? Do they have the right to vote? Can their organs be legally harvested for the healthy? If the cloning operation is only partially successful (for instance, if a person is born deformed or retarded), can a cloned person be killed without committing murder? These are not easy questions, and as such, it is much safer politically just to ban the practice than deal with the potential political fallout from allowing cloned humans.
While I generally agree with the principle of pay once for code, I understand that there are cases in which this isn't always in the best interest of the customer. If I can build a solution for a customer that consists of re-using code from previous projects, I can offer that solution to the customer at a much lower price. If, on the other hand, the customer wants to own the source code, I must recode everything from scratch. The customer literally pays me to reinvent the wheel.
Given that most companies simply want to use and modify software, rather than sell it, I think that it is a good idea to re-use source code. This provides them with a break on their IT costs. However, releasing the source to a third party is essentially releasing it to the whole world - if even two customers have bought access to the source code, and later you find said source code on the net, you have no legal recourse, as it will be almost impossible to prove which of the businesses released it.
why the parent post got modded down as a troll. I don't find anything particularly incindiery about what the poster said. Unlike a lot of posters here on slashdot, he actually took the time to think of something unique to say rather than repeating the same tired old arguments.
You may not agree with what he said, but I think he made his points rather well. If you disagree with what the poster said, why not post a reply?
My point was that in the 20 some years the PC has been around, using one has become harder, not easier. We don't exist to serve the computer, it exists to serve us; we shouldn't have to spend hours configuring a system or debugging an installation. When it comes down to it, I shouldn't have to go searching for drivers, recompiling kernels, finagling with registries, etc... I should be able to turn on the machine and start using it.
So you had a good experience with RedHat. So have I. But how many more have given up after realizing that they lacked the expertise to partition their hard drive, or botched an installation because they installed the bootloader in the wrong place, or had incompatible hardware, etc...
Linux is not the solution, it's the problem. Windows is not the solution, either - it's the question (Where do I want to crash today...). The solution will be found when programmers come out of their collective holes and recognize that their users are not the computer experts that they are. The solution will come when computer scientists are able to differentiate between the way an OS could be designed, and the way it should be designed. As much as I like free software, I hate to say that I haven't seen anything original or creative come from it - most free software projects are simply copying an existing proprietary program. What needs to happen is that the open source community needs to step up to the plate and produce an OS that is easy to install and easy to use. And simple.
IIRC, it's a Sony CDE 140 SE. Anyway, I've done some research and even though RedHat supports most Sony drives, I bought the one that they just happened not to support. But that's not the point. If I'm running Windows, I can go into any Best Buy and buy hardware, knowing that it will work. With Linux, I have to research specific models and numbers, then go get it from Best Buy. And then I have to download and compile the drivers, and do a kernel compile. Which, btw, hasn't worked yet (RH 7.3). For some reason, I'm getting compiler errors.
Do you really believe that with a beautiful fiancee and a wedding to plan that I have the time to spend my evenings/weekends filtering through header files to find a syntax error?
Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing. Honestly, I can make enough money in the time it would take to configure a Linux system to go out and buy WinXP. And I won't have to worry about HW or SW support.
Unfortunately, the expectation of most computer users is that they should be able to just turn the thing on and use the software. The average computer user uses a PC to get non-computer related work done, like running a business, or doing personal accounting. To foist on them the burden of constant security updates (Windows), or learning a new operating system and interface (Linux, FreeBSD, etc...) is more than they're willing to put up with. In fact, it's more than they should have to do. After 20 years of PC's, operating systems are now more complex than ever, and farther from the average user's intellectual grasp.
If anything, this speaks of the failure of the PC as a platform. When PC's first came out, installing the OS was as simple as "Format C:/s". Now, to install an OS requires a level of understanding far beyond what even some computer professionals possess (I know quite a few programmers who couldn't install Linux to save their lives...) Expecting the average computer user to understand the arcane details of their OS/browser is akin to requiring drivers to get a degree in mechanical engineering before getting behind the wheel.
Even though Microsoft's software has security holes that one could drive a truck through, there are three crucial reasons that people still use their software:
Time
Features
Hardware support
The open source community expects people to spend hours or even days downloading, compiling, and configuring their software. I estimate that to achieve the equivalent functionality of the average Windoze box, a Linux user would have to spend between 20 and 40 hours downloading drivers, compiling them, recompiling the kernel, downloading software distros, compiling them, configuring them, rejecting those that segfaulted, downloading more software, trying again, etc....
My fiancee would be open to using Linux. But she's going to expect to do all of those things that she did under windows. How do I explain to her that I've switched her operating system and she can no longer burn CD's? How much time should she spend learning to save her files in different formats, all for the priveledge of using non-Microsoft software? How do I explain to her that her favorite websites will no longer work?
And Linux still doesn't support my CD-RW drive. Windows may crash, but at least I can backup my data without having to go out and buy additional hardware (don't forget the joy of finding hardware that will actually work with Linux, either...)
"argued that PubScience amounted to improper government-funded competition with commercial information services."
Since when does the U.S. government have an obligation not to compete with an existing commercial enterprise? This is literally saying that if I'm in the paving business, it's illegal for my local government to have a department of public works...
The world contains bad things, and everyone has to learn how to deal with them.
Yes, but many believe that childhood should be a time when children are allowed to have fun without the worries of the real world. Childhood is a time when parents teach children the way things should be - they'll learn on their own how things really are (while it may be easy for someone to figure out how things really work in the world, the way things should be is less obvious). For this reason, it is wholly appropriate that parents restrict the material available to children. Children are not little versions of adults - they are quite impressionable, and will often believe anything they see or hear without question - they lack the life experience to distinguish the good from the bad.
This domain is more about pleasing congress' constituents than anything else. I don't doubt that some parents will find some of the material objectionable. But this is a step in the right direction, though, because just as we at slashdot filter out "crap" through the moderation system, parents are also seeking a way of ensuring that their kids are protect from what they consider "crap".
This also does give kids the impression of freedom. I don't know of any parent, or any child, that would like to surf the net with their kid - the child will resent it, and the parent will feel unduly burdened. Sometimes, kids need to explore on their own, but within reasonable limits.
Okay, so this is a little snippet of some assembly language I've just recently worked on. Here's the declaration for the input file:
textfile input.txt
That's it. Is this readable? Is it abstracted at a level high enough? The primary difference between assembly and a HLL is that in assembly one must invent their own logical abstractions for a real world problem, where languages such as C/C++ simply provide them.
You've probably noticed that I'm using a lot of macros. In fact, classes, polymorphism, inheritance, and virtual functions are all easily implemented with macros. I'm using NASM right now (though I'm using my own macro processor), and it works very well. Because I understand both the high-level concepts and low level details, I can code rather high-level abstractions in a relatively low level language such as assembler. I get the best of both worlds: the ease of HLL abstraction with the power of low level coding.
Please tell me what you think of this - I would honestly like to know. For the past few years, I've been working on macro sets and libraries that make coding in assembly seem more like a HLL. I've also set rules for function calls, like a function must preserve all registers, except those which are used to pass parms. With a well developed library of classes and routines, I've found that I can develop applications quickly and painlessly. Because I stick to coding standards, I'm able to reuse quite a bit (> 50%) of my assembly code.
You might be tempted to ask, "Why not just write in a HLL then?" I do. In fact, I prefer to write in C++. But when the need arises, it's nice to be able to apply the same abstractions of a HLL in assembly. It just so happens that the need has arisen - I'm working on a project that will last a few weeks, and my boss doesn't consider it fiscally responsible to buy a $1200 compiler that will be used for such a short time.
Interestingly, the use of assembly has made me a better programmer. Assembly forces one to think about what one is doing before coding the solution, which usually results in better code.
Assembly forces me to come up with new abstractions and solutions that fit the problem, rather than fitting the problem into any given HLL's logical paradigm. Once I prove that the abstract algorithm will indeed solve the problem, I'm then free to convert the algorithm into assembly. Notice that this is the opposite of the way most HLL coders go about writing code - they find a way in which to squeeze a real world problem into the paradigm of the language used.
Which leaves them at a loss when "leaky abstractions" occur. Assembly has the flexibility to adapt to the solution best suited to a problem, where as HLL's, while very good at solving the particular problem for which they were designed, perform very poorly for solving problems outside of their logical paradigms. While assembly is easily surpassed by C/C++, Java, or VB for many problems, there are simply some problems that cannot be solved without it. But even if one never uses assembly professionally, learning it forces one to learn to develop logical abstractions on their own - which in turn, increases their general problem solving ability, regardless of the language in which they write.
I see the key difference between a good assembly coder and a HLL coder is that an assembly language coder must invent high level abstractions, where as the HLL coder simply learns and uses them. So assembly is a bit more mental work.
I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me. After 5 years of programming, my favorite language has become assembler - not because I hate HLL's, but rather, because you get exactly what you code in assembler. There are no "Leaky Abstractions" in assembly.
And knowing the underlying details has made me a much better HLL coder. Knowing how the compiler is going to interpret a while statement or for loop makes me much more capable of writing fast, efficient C and C++ code. I can choose algorithms which I know the compiler can optimize well.
And inevitably, at some point in a programmer's career, they'll come across a system in which the only available development tool is an assembler - at which point, the HLL-only programmer becomes completely useless to his company. This actually happened to me quite recently - my boss doesn't want to foot the bill for the rather expensive C++ compiler, so I'm left coding one of my projects in assembly. Because my education was focused on learning algorithms, rather than languages, my transition to using assembly has been a rather graceful one.
Slashdot Mirror
While computer algorithm patent enforcement didn't begin until the 80's and 90's, patents on processes were being granted as far back as the 1960's. IIRC, IBM patented a file sorting algorithm in 1967. So it is very possible that AT&T patented much of the UNIX algorithms.
Will bending the card cause a head crash? Or are these more like zip drives, in which the read head is in the reader and engages the disk only when inserted?
I can't imagine too many people would want to carry these around in their wallets if a slight bend could destroy them....
Okay, I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes....
From the article:
She urged the major music labels, which include Sony Music, Warner Music, EMI, Universal Music and Bertelsmann's BMG, to ease licensing restrictions, develop digital copyright protections for music, and invest more in promoting subscription download services.
With the exception of digital copyright protections, isn't this just what the slashdot crowd has been calling for?
Also note that the article said that they would propose charging fees to those who visit song swapping sites - a far cry from the "tax every user" scheme used on CD-Rs (which we've been reminded of too many times...). Ironic, isn't it, that the RIAA is finally trying to focus its enforcement mechanisms on those who actually pirate music rather than blanket punishment for internet users....
But what is even more frequent is users with broadband access who lack the technical expertise and time to secure their Windows 9x/ME machines against the local hacker element. I don't mean to flame, but every time I've seen a DDOS attack on my servers, they've come from machines on the local class C running Windows 9x or ME. These aren't businesses - they are average users with broadband access. There are far more naive Windows users than incompetent admins, which gives hackers a never ending supply of zombie machines.
Microsoft undercuts its competitors to the point where the competition simply CANNOT sell any lower because they dont have the BILLIONS in resources to stay in business like Microsoft can, their strategy is to out live the competitor.
If I follow your logic correctly, then Linux should be gaining a monopoly in the desktop market, because Microsoft simply CANNOT sell any lower.
Somehow, I wonder if this is actually true. OpenOffice and StarOffice have been free for a long time (IIRC, Sun is starting to charge for StarOffice now...), yet they have barely made a dent into the MSOffice monopoly, in spite of the fact that MSOffice is about $550 more. So it would seem that marketing has a far greater effect on sales than price or performance. With this being the case, I believe that the MPEG folks will be able to charge twice what MS does, because obviously it's worth more if they're charging so much...
Sorry to say it, but some people want to be suckered. Musicians, especially, have a reputation for selling themselves short and allowing themselves to be exploited by Corporate America(TM), and I don't think this is going to change anytime in the near future. Thus, the MPEG folks have nothing to fear - they're charging too much for an (arguably) inferior* product (in other words, using the same tactics that made Microsoft rich).
MPEG has a far greater market saturation than Windows Media 9. Microsoft knows this; their trying to turn the tide their direction. However, Microsoft has historically been very inept at catering to niche markets (Apple, anyone - they can charge twice as much, yet their machines still sell). For this reason, I don't think that Windows Media Player 9 will have any impact, nor gain significant market share. AVI has been around since the Windows 95 days, but has yet to gain any significant market share - Apple's QuickTime and MPEG-4 are more universally used. Why? Because Apple is an expert at niche marketing, whereas Microsoft is not. It is far more likely that Microsoft will buy out the MPEG group than actually win a marketing war with them.
* - I honestly don't think MPEG is inferior, but hey, I was trying to prove a point. And I'm sure there are some Microsofties who would say this anyway...
Perhaps a little OT, but I've got karma to burn...
what would happen if someone managed to steal a profitable company's telephone number?This actually happened to me, though not in the manner that you might think. I've moved twice, and it turns out that the phone company forwarded the phone number of a successful business to my new number, rather than forwarding my old number. The really embarassing thing is that they did it twice - even though my phone number changed two times, I was still getting calls for the same business.
Quite frankly, it would get annoying to get calls for someone's business, and after a while, I complained to the phone company. Nothing was done - we still get the occasional call for "Just Name It For Kids". But I can't imagine the hassle that the business owner has gone through - they've had their business phone number forwarded at least twice to a residence. Granted, it wasn't stolen, but the effect is virtually the same - their customers can no longer get in contact with them, and they'll have to advertise (spend $) to let people know their new number.
Personally, I'm waiting for the content faction (RIAA, MPAA, et al...) to take on Microsoft for "contributory copyright infringement" . It is illegal to market a device whose primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, and it appears that the new Windows functionality does just this*. It's only a matter of time before:
- The content faction sues Microsoft, or
- Microsoft "retroactively" (via Automatic Update...)incorporates DRM into its OS
From my standpoint, it seems as if option 1 is better for Microsoft; DRM could hamper the widespread adoption of the new Windows OS's. Though Microsoft would like to push Palladium, I think they realize that they'll sell more operating systems without it - simply because people need a good reason to upgrade. Being able to record and swap tv shows is a significant reason to the average PC buyer; without it, Microsoft might have a harder time selling upgrades, especially in this stagnant economy.Personally, I'd like to see Microsoft buck the content faction, and get sued. As both Microsoft and the content faction have lots of money, it would be interesting to see them embroiled in a legal battle against each other, rather than trying to screw their customers...
* - yes, ATI has produced hardware which allowed PC users to record tv shows, however, it is not nearly as universally recognized or used as Microsoft. Microsoft's backing of tv recording programs has a much bigger impact, as the software will be on virtually every desktop sold.
When one goes out of control and crashes into a commercial passenger jet?
The problem with drones is that they don't have a thinking pilot. Where as two pilots will do everything in their power to avoid a midair collision, a drone is not even aware that a collision is imminent in such a situation. Which basically leaves the pilot in the situation of having to "guess" which way the drone will steer next.
Now it is possible that these drones are radio controlled, however, that's even worse, as the terrorist will need do little more than hack the signal and fly the drone into a commercial aircraft, all from the safety of their white van...
Either way, it's a terrible safety threat. To allow unmanned drones to fly in U.S. airspace is bad safety practices at best, and potentially deadly at worst.
The second part of your post was pure flamebait, and boiled down to "If you find Gawd, you'll be happy; if you don't, you're screwed."
Actually, the OP never said anything about being screwed if one didn't find God. I think you're reading to much of your own prejudices into what was posted to understand the point.
I think that the OP's point was that the enjoyment of life is not necessarily tied to materialistic goals. He found fulfillment in a lifestyle espoused by scripture. The issue of finding God was mentioned only in passing.
I too, have asked myself often whether or not God really exists. But inevitably, I come back to the same conclusion. However, trying to explain it rationally is often more trouble than it's worth - so many people will hear the word "God" and tune out, or they will assume they know what you're saying and end up repeating the same tired, thoughtless arguments. I've come to realize that logical arguments almost never make a difference in what a person believes - what happens most often is that the person has a hunch about the truth and goes off seeking arguments to support his or her view.
Now for the flamesuit:
And I cannot even begin to discuss religious topics without someone trying to label me as this or that kind of person and dismissing the argument completely. The extent to which a person will go to avoid a thoughtful, well reasoned dialog, or even thinking, for that matter, never ceases to amaze me.
Okay, you can put me back in your "religious nutcase" box right next to the "evangelists with superiority complexes" box.
I've been looking for a truly "portable" OS for quite some time - one that I could fit on a single bootable floppy and have a GUI interface. Upon failing to find anything suitable, I have since started writing my own. As I have a penchant for assembly language programming, I'm about halfway done with it.
Hopefully, someday the OS will be completely irrelevant. It would be really nice if I could carry around all of my key data on a self booting floppy, rather than having to worry about synchronizing multiple data sets between different machines (work, home, laptop, etc...) That way, it wouldn't matter what OS was used on a particular machine.
Well, just a few points:
Okay, I'll qualify the last two. At the most basic level, almost all people believe their is a difference between right and wrong, and that we should seek to do what's right. Even though opinions vary widely about which behaviors are right and wrong, whether or not God exists (and if so, what He's like), very few people are indifferent to evil. Animals show no indication of understanding a morality, or of any difference between ordered and disordered actions. I sincerely doubt that the rabbit who ate the carrots in my mother's garden felt any sense of guilt for having done so. However, I also doubt that my mother could shoot a rabbit without feeling some guilt - even though such an action would benefit her personally. This ability to be empathetic to others, even to the point of guilt, is perhaps one of the most striking differences between animals and humans. Though we may be very similar to animals from a biological point of view, one could not claim that humans are animals without ignoring the artistic, technological, sociological, and theological aspects of our existence.
This is very shallow reasoning, but unfortunately very common. When the line between animals and humans is blurred, treating humans as animals becomes ethically justifiable. If the notion that humans are little more than advanced animals is allowed to lodge in the collective political mindshare, then abuses far worse than what the Nazis did will become commonplace.
The battle over cloning is not a battle to prevent the advance of technology. The problem is one of ethics - if cloning becomes widespread, humans may very well become disposable - subject to arbitrary termination when their "useful" lives are over. The primary problem of the human condition has never been the cure of disease, but rather the lack of respect that various groups show each other. All of the major atrocities in history start with the devaluation of the human: the Nazis devalued the lives of Jews; Stalin devalued the lives of his opponents; Pol Pot, the lives of his people; the American South, the lives of Blacks. Once the notion that certain classes of people were somehow inferior to others arose, it followed logically that the inferior were not worthy of the respect of the superior (whoever they claimed to be...) Cloning represents the separation of humans into two classes, cloned and uncloned. Once this distinction is made, and once obtaining an "ideal" (read: obedient, hard-working, easily exploitable) human becomes a matter of technology, people in general will become commodified and exploited in ways far worse than they have been in the past. There will be little need to treat a person with dignity and respect once obtaining a "replacement" becomes a simple matter of gathering a few hairs and calling a cloning agency.
Interestingly, the same thing could be said of computer science and programmers. As a programmer, I have two options:
- I can create intellectual "property" for the benefit of Corporate America(tm).
- I can release the source code of my work so that the whole of society benefits.
Unfortunately, I can make a living doing the first, but not the second. Even worse, should the company patent my ideas, I will be denying others the ability to use even rudimentary algorithms without the paying of exorbitant royalties; not only will I exclude my own work from the benefit of others, but I will be actively destroying the ability of other programmers to make a living.The choices aren't easy. Fortunately for my sake, my company isn't in the intellectual property business. But the type of coding that I would like to be doing (engineering modeling, GUI design, etc...) inevitably involves me assigning any intellectual property rights for my work to a corporate entity.
I agree, but I'll add something.
The biggest problem with motorcycle accidents is spinal cord and head injuries, which this device will do nothing to prevent. All other types of injuries commonly associated with motorcycle accidents are very survivable (road rash, bruises, the occasional broken bone, etc...).
I remember a few years ago, someone came out with a motorcycle seatbelt which could be retrofitted to a motorcycle. Not surprisingly, very few bought the idea. The reason is simple: it is fairly common for motorcycles to "come out from under" a rider; slick asphalt or gravel, a flat tire, or locking either wheel while braking will cause a motorcycle to fall over, and most riders would rather ditch the bike than be dragged along with it. (motorcycles will slide on the pavement much farther than the rider.) Once again, we have a device which inspires little confidence in its safety because:
-
The number of accidents in which this device would protect the rider is relatively small, and the degree of protection is relatively minor - the road rash and bruises this device would prevent are relatively insignificant compared to the spinal cord and head injuries feared by the safety-conscious riders.
- The possibility of this complicating injuries in an accident is relatively large.
This is the kind of device which is invented by technicians wearing lab coats, rather than real riders. Most riders are open to safety enhancements, however, the nature of motorcycle riding dictates that different methods of safety be used. In cars, ejection of passengers results in injuries more often than not; with motorcycles, it's just the opposite - many motorcyclists (myself included) are still alive today because they separated themselves from the bike before or during an impending accident. While airbags and seatbelts may increase the safety of automobiles, they have the opposite effect in motorcycles - they tend to complicate injuries while offering very little in the way of accident protection.What if life was created, rather than evolved? What if the rate of evolution was vastly accelerated on other planets? (Think about it - even if you accept the theory of evolution, we went from sticks and rocks to radio in less than ten thousand years). What if life was "planted" by meteorites, aliens, etc....
It seems a little presumptious to exclude stars just because we believe that earth-like life could not have started there...
An instance of "civilized" country has been recently letting the religious right decide what can and what can not be researched. Steem-cell and cloning studies are being banned because some religious texts were interpreted as saying that this sort of thing is "unholy".
While I generally agree with the principle of pay once for code, I understand that there are cases in which this isn't always in the best interest of the customer. If I can build a solution for a customer that consists of re-using code from previous projects, I can offer that solution to the customer at a much lower price. If, on the other hand, the customer wants to own the source code, I must recode everything from scratch. The customer literally pays me to reinvent the wheel.
Given that most companies simply want to use and modify software, rather than sell it, I think that it is a good idea to re-use source code. This provides them with a break on their IT costs. However, releasing the source to a third party is essentially releasing it to the whole world - if even two customers have bought access to the source code, and later you find said source code on the net, you have no legal recourse, as it will be almost impossible to prove which of the businesses released it.
why the parent post got modded down as a troll. I don't find anything particularly incindiery about what the poster said. Unlike a lot of posters here on slashdot, he actually took the time to think of something unique to say rather than repeating the same tired old arguments.
You may not agree with what he said, but I think he made his points rather well. If you disagree with what the poster said, why not post a reply?
My point was that in the 20 some years the PC has been around, using one has become harder, not easier. We don't exist to serve the computer, it exists to serve us; we shouldn't have to spend hours configuring a system or debugging an installation. When it comes down to it, I shouldn't have to go searching for drivers, recompiling kernels, finagling with registries, etc... I should be able to turn on the machine and start using it.
So you had a good experience with RedHat. So have I. But how many more have given up after realizing that they lacked the expertise to partition their hard drive, or botched an installation because they installed the bootloader in the wrong place, or had incompatible hardware, etc...
Linux is not the solution, it's the problem. Windows is not the solution, either - it's the question (Where do I want to crash today...). The solution will be found when programmers come out of their collective holes and recognize that their users are not the computer experts that they are. The solution will come when computer scientists are able to differentiate between the way an OS could be designed, and the way it should be designed. As much as I like free software, I hate to say that I haven't seen anything original or creative come from it - most free software projects are simply copying an existing proprietary program. What needs to happen is that the open source community needs to step up to the plate and produce an OS that is easy to install and easy to use. And simple.
Do you really believe that with a beautiful fiancee and a wedding to plan that I have the time to spend my evenings/weekends filtering through header files to find a syntax error?
Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing. Honestly, I can make enough money in the time it would take to configure a Linux system to go out and buy WinXP. And I won't have to worry about HW or SW support.
Unfortunately, the expectation of most computer users is that they should be able to just turn the thing on and use the software. The average computer user uses a PC to get non-computer related work done, like running a business, or doing personal accounting. To foist on them the burden of constant security updates (Windows), or learning a new operating system and interface (Linux, FreeBSD, etc...) is more than they're willing to put up with. In fact, it's more than they should have to do. After 20 years of PC's, operating systems are now more complex than ever, and farther from the average user's intellectual grasp.
If anything, this speaks of the failure of the PC as a platform. When PC's first came out, installing the OS was as simple as "Format C: /s". Now, to install an OS requires a level of understanding far beyond what even some computer professionals possess (I know quite a few programmers who couldn't install Linux to save their lives...) Expecting the average computer user to understand the arcane details of their OS/browser is akin to requiring drivers to get a degree in mechanical engineering before getting behind the wheel.
Even though Microsoft's software has security holes that one could drive a truck through, there are three crucial reasons that people still use their software:
- Time
- Features
- Hardware support
The open source community expects people to spend hours or even days downloading, compiling, and configuring their software. I estimate that to achieve the equivalent functionality of the average Windoze box, a Linux user would have to spend between 20 and 40 hours downloading drivers, compiling them, recompiling the kernel, downloading software distros, compiling them, configuring them, rejecting those that segfaulted, downloading more software, trying again, etc....My fiancee would be open to using Linux. But she's going to expect to do all of those things that she did under windows. How do I explain to her that I've switched her operating system and she can no longer burn CD's? How much time should she spend learning to save her files in different formats, all for the priveledge of using non-Microsoft software? How do I explain to her that her favorite websites will no longer work?
And Linux still doesn't support my CD-RW drive. Windows may crash, but at least I can backup my data without having to go out and buy additional hardware (don't forget the joy of finding hardware that will actually work with Linux, either...)
Since when does the U.S. government have an obligation not to compete with an existing commercial enterprise? This is literally saying that if I'm in the paving business, it's illegal for my local government to have a department of public works...
Yes, but many believe that childhood should be a time when children are allowed to have fun without the worries of the real world. Childhood is a time when parents teach children the way things should be - they'll learn on their own how things really are (while it may be easy for someone to figure out how things really work in the world, the way things should be is less obvious). For this reason, it is wholly appropriate that parents restrict the material available to children. Children are not little versions of adults - they are quite impressionable, and will often believe anything they see or hear without question - they lack the life experience to distinguish the good from the bad.
This domain is more about pleasing congress' constituents than anything else. I don't doubt that some parents will find some of the material objectionable. But this is a step in the right direction, though, because just as we at slashdot filter out "crap" through the moderation system, parents are also seeking a way of ensuring that their kids are protect from what they consider "crap".
This also does give kids the impression of freedom. I don't know of any parent, or any child, that would like to surf the net with their kid - the child will resent it, and the parent will feel unduly burdened. Sometimes, kids need to explore on their own, but within reasonable limits.
many high level abstractions simply do not exist in assembly language.
Consider the following assembly language code:
Okay, so this is a little snippet of some assembly language I've just recently worked on. Here's the declaration for the input file:
That's it. Is this readable? Is it abstracted at a level high enough? The primary difference between assembly and a HLL is that in assembly one must invent their own logical abstractions for a real world problem, where languages such as C/C++ simply provide them.
You've probably noticed that I'm using a lot of macros. In fact, classes, polymorphism, inheritance, and virtual functions are all easily implemented with macros. I'm using NASM right now (though I'm using my own macro processor), and it works very well. Because I understand both the high-level concepts and low level details, I can code rather high-level abstractions in a relatively low level language such as assembler. I get the best of both worlds: the ease of HLL abstraction with the power of low level coding.
Please tell me what you think of this - I would honestly like to know. For the past few years, I've been working on macro sets and libraries that make coding in assembly seem more like a HLL. I've also set rules for function calls, like a function must preserve all registers, except those which are used to pass parms. With a well developed library of classes and routines, I've found that I can develop applications quickly and painlessly. Because I stick to coding standards, I'm able to reuse quite a bit (> 50%) of my assembly code.
You might be tempted to ask, "Why not just write in a HLL then?" I do. In fact, I prefer to write in C++. But when the need arises, it's nice to be able to apply the same abstractions of a HLL in assembly. It just so happens that the need has arisen - I'm working on a project that will last a few weeks, and my boss doesn't consider it fiscally responsible to buy a $1200 compiler that will be used for such a short time.
Interestingly, the use of assembly has made me a better programmer. Assembly forces one to think about what one is doing before coding the solution, which usually results in better code. Assembly forces me to come up with new abstractions and solutions that fit the problem, rather than fitting the problem into any given HLL's logical paradigm. Once I prove that the abstract algorithm will indeed solve the problem, I'm then free to convert the algorithm into assembly. Notice that this is the opposite of the way most HLL coders go about writing code - they find a way in which to squeeze a real world problem into the paradigm of the language used. Which leaves them at a loss when "leaky abstractions" occur. Assembly has the flexibility to adapt to the solution best suited to a problem, where as HLL's, while very good at solving the particular problem for which they were designed, perform very poorly for solving problems outside of their logical paradigms. While assembly is easily surpassed by C/C++, Java, or VB for many problems, there are simply some problems that cannot be solved without it. But even if one never uses assembly professionally, learning it forces one to learn to develop logical abstractions on their own - which in turn, increases their general problem solving ability, regardless of the language in which they write.
I see the key difference between a good assembly coder and a HLL coder is that an assembly language coder must invent high level abstractions, where as the HLL coder simply learns and uses them. So assembly is a bit more mental work.
Amen.
I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me. After 5 years of programming, my favorite language has become assembler - not because I hate HLL's, but rather, because you get exactly what you code in assembler. There are no "Leaky Abstractions" in assembly.
And knowing the underlying details has made me a much better HLL coder. Knowing how the compiler is going to interpret a while statement or for loop makes me much more capable of writing fast, efficient C and C++ code. I can choose algorithms which I know the compiler can optimize well.
And inevitably, at some point in a programmer's career, they'll come across a system in which the only available development tool is an assembler - at which point, the HLL-only programmer becomes completely useless to his company. This actually happened to me quite recently - my boss doesn't want to foot the bill for the rather expensive C++ compiler, so I'm left coding one of my projects in assembly. Because my education was focused on learning algorithms, rather than languages, my transition to using assembly has been a rather graceful one.