Here's the example of Latin:
As more and more people spoke it, they each brutalized the language a little differently -- a little colloquism here and there, different stresses on syllables etc...
It grew to the point where Latin wasn't really latin anymore. Out of this grew the romance languages. From one root, came French, Italian,Spanish etc...
Ahh, but there is a big difference between then and now. In the roman empire, it was difficult to communicate over long distances. People at point A never talked to people at point B, and pretty soon people at point A didn't sound quite like the people at point B anymore and visa-versa. Today, people from point A can drive to the people at point B in a couple hours. They can also call/e-mail points C, D, E, and F. They can even fly to point Z (which just happens to be halfway around the world) in less than 24 hours. People from most of these points also happen to be watching an international news broadcast from (for lack of a better letter) point Q, and the news caster just happens to be trained in speaking perfect English. These people can also listen to a century's worth of recordings over and over of people speaking English.
One of the side effects of mass media, the Internet, and the other information technology that defines out age is preservation of culture. As long as the system remains in place, the culture is preserved for ever. Nothing short of an apocolyptic event is going to destroy English. (Whether or not that will happen is a different argument.)
Look no further than the US. Take that South Dakotan and place him in the South Side of Chichago. Do you think he is going to understand a word of English spoken there?/
Hell yes. A few very strong dialects have developed in very urban (and very rural) areas, but I garuntee you that all of these people can understand normal English and will have no problem communicating if they really needed to. I belive I could go anywhere in the US or Canada (sans Quebec) and be able to understand the people there fully.
The growing number of illeagally traded MP3's is evidence of a much larger problem. The people who do this aren't "Internet Extreamists", they are just ordinary people who have realized that paying $16 for one CD is rediculous. They are not trying to "fuck with you", they just want to listen to music without throwing away this week's paycheck.
This is a rebellion, not against the artists (as most of the traders are fans of the bands whose music they are trading), but against the recording industry. Wake up. The RIAA is a monopoly. There is no free enerprise or competintion in the music industry. A band can't make it without signing with a label that is a memeber of the RIAA, and people can't buy music from anyone but those affiliated with the RIAA. You, yourselves are slaves to the RIAA until your contract runs out.
Now, do people have the right to trade illegal MP3's? Probably not. And you are probably justified in this particular case in wanting to stop these illegal distributors, but I advise you to be more careful in the future. As more and more people get computers and become wise to MP3's, Napster, and gnutella, the rebellion will only get stronger. You say you like to act independantly from the industry; that is a good thing. But unfortunately, you appear to the public to be acting on behalf of the industry. If I were you, I would work now to begin seperating yourslef, at least in the minds of your fans, from the industry.
It is time to chose sides. Are you for the empowerment of both the artist and the consumer, or are you going to defend the RIAA and the profits they are making from your music?
People are just now waking up to the fact that they are being screwed by the industry. More and more of them are realizing that if they don't want the situation to continue, they have two choices: an all out boycott that would be very diffucult to organize, or resorting to trading illegal MP3's on the internet. They usually chose the latter. They have no other alternatives; there is no compertitor. The artist can not sell his music to anyone but the person he signed with. What is needed is for someone, preferably someone with power and influence, to take a stand against the industry and cut out the greedy middle-man. Seriously, if CD's were sold for $5 instead of $15 dollars, I'm sure most people would drop thier MP3 collections in a hearbeat.
You do make a valid point in that many bands need the record labels to just get off the ground and into the public eye, but I would much rather see it in the form of smaller talent-hunting agencies than huge corporations that seem to have a stranglehold on popular culture. I really am tired of the MTV phenomenon where they seem to have the power to tell you what is good, popular, and what you should listen too. I think we would all benifit form a system that responds more to what the public really wants.*
Now, people will say that this whole MP3 problem would go away if the RIAA would just embrace the internet and start selling their music online. I don't agree; I think the problem would only get worse. I don't want the music industry, or for that matter the entire entertainment industry as it exists today, to try to move into the information age. For as they do, they will bring with them an increasing number of draconian copyright laws and the power with wich to enforce them. How would they go about implementing systems that authorize the use of their intellectual property? I really do fear futures like this one.
Also, I must ask that you do not refer to copyright infringement as "theft", "stealing", "piracy", etc. These were terms invented by the industry to help ailienate those who infringe upon their profits from the sympathy of the general public. You cannot equate those who trade illegal MP3's to common theifs, and I encourage you not to use terms that would suggest such a relationship. Removal of physical property that does not belong to you is not the same as unauthorized copying. I am not trying to justify the actions of illegal MP3 traders, but I do think that the label should fit the crime.
I belive many future battles will be fought against the recording industry, and it's power will sharply decline. But as they go down, they will take with them many bands who either depend on them or tried to defend them. Make sure that you are not one of them.
* Wouldn't it be neat if there were a website where unsigned artists could post demos and then the general public could invest in individual bands? But that's just another pipedream...
You can draw your own conclusions about whether this "Consumer Privacy Protection Board" (sic) is intended to actually help Doubleclick change its ways, or whether it is merely intended to help protect the company from lawsuits and adverse governmental action, like, say, the FTC wanting the authority to force companies to respect privacy concerns.
I belive it's obvious from just this biased statement that no, I can not.
I must say that I have never seen _this_ much bias in a Slashdot story before. Hell, even John Katz isn't this bad. Michael, it's one thing to do a little research for us on the backgrounds of the people on the board, it's completely different when you give strong opinions about what you think their intentions are. Next time, give us a factual article and post any personal opinions about the matter to the comments section like the rest of us; we'll decide if they're worth reading.
Bear with me for a moment while I play the devil's advocate. I quote from the GPL:
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Now obviously one can argue that free software by nature shouldn't have a warranty, but that issue is irrelivent when it comes to the law. If we want this aspect of the GPL hold up in court, how can we argue against this recent descision? What if I charge a distribution fee for my GPL'ed software, does this mean that I'm lilable for the quality of that software? Some of use should calm down a bit before we are guilty of hypocracy.
Shouldn't a company be able to sell software with the understanding that there is no warranty? If I had over a million dollars relying on a piece of software, I'd go over the license with a fine tooth comb. Could it be that they just didn't want to pay for a higher quality product and a support contract, and they are just trying to screw the software writers now that it has blown up in their faces?
There, I said it. I feel dirty. Let the flames begin.
Doing *whatever* I want with my code means, putting a license on it that restricts (or doesn't) it's use with whatever terms I wish.
No, it doesn't. You cannot own thought in the same way you can own a physical object. You can't control the use of ideas like you can control to use of your car.
Intellectual property/Copyright are not at all new ideas.
Yes, I know. It all started witht the Gutenberg press. Copyright was origionally just an agreement between publishers and did not really affect average Joes like you and me. Unfortunately, a few hundered years later, copyright has grown into a huge abusive monster that seeks to allow those in power to continually screw the general public.
All "rights" are artificial, period. If you want to appeal to philosophy or religion, there is always another out there that espouses the opposite.
The difference between an "artificial" right and a "natural" one, is that natural rights do stem from philosophy and/or religion, artificial rights do not. I classify my right to life as a natural one. Most religions/philosophies condem murder; it's just plain wrong. Laws are made to protect my right to live becuse, in general, we belive it to be a fundamental part of the human exitence. On the other hand, artifical rights are invented by those who govern a civilazation for (supposedly) the good of society. I know of few philosophies that include the fundamental right to own thought. Intellectual property was invented by the lawmakers to encourage creativity and make it economical. Copyright law protects and artificial right in that it has no ethical basis.
My code, my music, and my writing are not "thought". They are creations. As much so as any house, car, or toaster oven designed and built. It may be practical to define different aritifical rules on them given the fact we have the ability to easily duplicate things, but I certainly feel I own my works at least as much as I own my car or land, or whatever physicial possesion I've purchased with artificially valued currency.
A "creation" is an abstract term. It does not necessarily pertain to a physical object. Music, writing, and code are all thoughts and ideas. They exist only in the human mind. Sure we can encode thought onto physical objects, and one can own the medium that is temporarily holding the thought, but you can't control the thought itself. For example: If you paint a picture, you can own the physical medium (the canvas and paint) that you used to express your thought, but you can't prevent someone from taking a picture of it, making copies, and showing other people. Thats why your comparison to houses, cars, and toasters is bunk, you are comparing apples to oranges.
In a world without copyrights, we're going to need to convince authors that people using their creation for purposes they may consider annoying, offensive, or even harmful is palettable. Not likely to happen. Additionally, we're going to need to find a way to economically support the very sizable number of people on the planet who make their livings through the (now fairly old)existence of copyright and intellectual property.
You are absolutely right. I do not expect to see the death of copyright in my lifetime. It may even out-live the US government itself. But I do hope that in the government and economic systems of the future, copyright law will not be necessary. What we _can_ do now is make an effort stop the current copyright abuses. The DMCA is apalling. 96 years of ownership is rediculously long. I can go on and on... The point is, things like these can be fixed now.
The only solution proposed by RMS that begins hinting at the tip of the iceberg here (no, please don't tell me advertising and co-sourcing by buisness will do it, even if we're just talking about software) is a "Software Tax" levied on all hardware sold and then distributed to developers.
Like I have already said, RMS is alarmingly radical and idealistic, but people like him are necessary to get things moving in the right direction.
No. Freedom is me getting to do whatever I want with my code, including selling it to whoever I want at whatever price I want with whatever conditions I want.
Yes, freedom means that you can do whatever you want with your code, but it doesn't meant that you can tell someone else what they can and can't do with that software. Ownership of intellectual property is an illusion, a byproduct of living in a capitalistic system. Like RMS and the US legal system say, Copyright laws protect an artificial right. The original intent of copyright law was to encourage creativity in a capitalistic system by allowing authors to profit from their work for a limited time, not to uphold some sort of fundamental ethical belif.
The problem today is that copyright law has been abused to no end. It is now a tool for those is power to try to control and own information. That is wrong. They have launched propoganda campaigns in an attempt to convince us that violation of copyright law is "theft" and "piracy" and is the equvalent of a felony. That is just untrue.
Right now I would also like to state that I consider the GPL a necessary evil. Yes, it does force restrictions upon the use of the work, but it is our only weapon against those who would try to take ownership of the work. In a perfect world without copyrights and licensing, everything would be in the public domain and we would not have to protect ourselves from those who would try to own thought.
However, I do sympathise with you in that RMS's approach is quite radical and idealistic, and unfortuntely doesn't do much to help those working in the "real world". That, I feel, is the gap that Open Source fills. While RMS is right in saying that Open Source alone is not what we should be ultimately striving for, it is a step in the right direction. Free Software is not applicable to the current economic situation like Open Source is, but one also has to realize that RMS is not trying to address economic issues. RMS is concerned primarily with ethical issues, and that is a Good Thing(TM). Whether or not we can follow his philosiphies today is not as important as recognising that his belifs are fundamentally good. Only then can we hope to see a world where there is no need for copyrights.
I have a grandfater who likes to collect things. He often scours the countryside looking for autions where he can pick up things like pens, coins, etc. At one of these auctions, he met a fellow collector who told him about this great thing called ebay. He later asked me what ebay was and how he could use it.
At the time, I had built up enough spare parts to build him a decent Pentuim-100 system and set him up on the internet. The hard part was teaching him how to use the computer. Don't get me wrong, my Granfater is a smart guy, but if you asked him about computers, he would start talking about the punch-card machines they used when he taught at IU.
Well, I loaded Win98 onto the freshly built box and started my crash (pun intended) course in computing. Needless to say, he was immediatly overwhelmed by all the buttons and icons, and kept inquiring why the system was so slow and kept turning blue. That's when I had a great idea: BeOS!
Most people are appalled when I suggest anything but Windows; it's different from what they're used to and might not run their favorite apps. But for a total novice who just wants to surf the web, BeOS is perfect. After a quick install, I spent about an hour showing him around, and he left. With only an hour of instruction he was off and running, and since then I have only gotten one (1!) tech support call from him related to e-mail.
Now, I had to ask myself: Why did he pick up BeOS so quickly while other people spend hours/days/a lifetime stressing over how to get stuff done on their computer. The answer is simplicity. BeOS might not be the fanciest or feature-heavy system, but ist's fast, clean, and intuitive. Intead bombarding users with a billion different widgets that do a billion different things, the designers at Be only include what general users really need. NetPositive has 4 (5?) buttons! Everything does what you'd expect it to do without complaining.
I understand that for hacker types like us, though, it's not the same situation. We'd rather have more utility, extensibility, and customization. I think that's why GNOME has become so popular. But if the goal is to design something that can be easily used by anyone regardless of experience, then the UI implemented in BeOS will serve well as a model.
It occured to me that it might be a good idea to donate at least some of the money to the families of those killed in the Columbine tradgedy. There are a number of reasons for this:
1) It makes it absolutely clear to everyone that we are in no way trying to justify the attackers actions. 2) The families have more power than they realize. With the intense media focus on them, thier attitudes and statements can strongly influence future descisions. If we donate money to them, they will become aware of the book and perhaps even read it. Hopefully, then they might realize where the real roots of problems in public shools lie. If the families ever decide to "take action", then they might just end up doing the right thing. 3) Making a donation to them would generate media attention in and of itself, thus making the general public aware of the book.
I know these seem like all the wrong reasons to give money to charity, and I am aware that there are others that could make better use of the money. But this would accomplish alot towards our goal and in the end might end up helping the most people.
Dr. Bakker? Hey, I remember him now. He stayed at my house once when my dad was still teaching Biology at Penn State, but that was 7 years ago. I belive his theories also included that dinosaurs may have been more closely related to birds than reptiles, or at least that they were a link between the two. So, not only is this not breaking news, it's not even the whole story.
Now, isn't it possible that you and the Motion Picture Association, having been in an old-medium mentality for a long time, just don't really get what all of this freedom means? You're suggesting that there's not one single smart guy that works for any of these companies. I just take exception to you. I don't believe that simply because I understand the Internet that I'm smarter, that my vision is longer, my understanding is deeper. That's foolish, totally foolish. We've got some of the most extraordinary people in the world. We've been working with Cal Tech and MIT, and others -- New York Institute of Technology; the finest brains in the so-called technological world, and that's going on all the time.
I think both sides of the debate understand each other well enough. We have a fair understanding of the legal situation, and they have a fair understanding of the technology involved. Fair does not mean perfect, but it's good enough. I don't belive that either party is incapable of comprehending each others arguments, it's just that they don't really want to. I belive that many people are missing the underlying problems that are fueling this battle.
The real issue is one of ethics and, in a way, philosophy. Two completely different points of view are involved. We consider our basic freedoms to be sacred. We feel that we should be able to speak, code, and transfer information as we please. It's not surprising that alot of us get irritated when someone, especially an "outsider" tells us we can't. Valenti does not see the world this way. His environment is one of big business, where the dollar is sacred. His goal is not to freely distribute information, but to maximize profit. In the interview, I find it funny that several questions about freedom are answered in terms of money. He's not concerned about being fair to the customer, he's concerned about licecing terms. He feels that a buisiness should be able to increase profit by just about means deemed legal. The two conflictiong viewpoints are really independant of the technology and the legal issues which they surround.
So, who is right? Well, I belive niether extreme is correct. There has to be a balance. We should have a right to fair-use of information, and they should have be able to make a fair buck.
However, there are a number of smaller problems that need to be resoveld in order to find a solution. How much control over thier intellectual property should they have? Should corporations be able to enforce things like region codes or, for that matter, shrink-wrap licences? How much more money and power are we going to give up to corporations? Where is the line that divides fair-use and piracy?
It is nieve to belive that corporations will ever be able to completely enforce and control the use of their products. At the same time, we must realize that even they have some basic rights to thier intelectual property.
The problem with that approach is that Win2k is not good. I am a student at Purdue, and one of our CS labs has been beta testing Win2k for quite some time, always with the latest build straight from Microsoft. After using and inspecting the system, I can safely say that it is seriously flawed. I even prefer WinNT 4.0 over Win2k. Unless Microsoft makes some serious changes before the release, Win2k will teach the world a lesson about bad system design.
I would support Linux demo day not necessarily to promote Linux, but to save small businesses from needlessly throwing lage sums of money away.
Yes, technically you are correct. Maybe I used a bad example.
...they just have four times the Int and FP power than just a single 800mhz chip.
Yes, that would be the point of having four processors. I suppose if I was only excecuting one instruction, it would get calculated faster on a machine with one 1Ghz processor, but that is rarely ever the case. The idea is to excecute four times as many instructions just a little bit slower.
When you have to share the same bus you lose a good deal of speed between the processor and the rest of the system.
Actually, you can have systems with up to eight processors before system bus traffic becomes a major problem. You do gain some overhead for each processor added, but the net gain can usually justify that. The real problem is in badly designed operating systems, not hardware. For every extra processor added, Windows NT spends something like 20% (I don't know any exact figures off hand) of it processing time just in switching between processors. That's what ends up cancelling out the economic advantages of SMP systems.
...the PIII is almost twice as powerful.
Oh, I don't belive that for one second - unless you like to use Web Outfitter(TM).
I am always amused by the price differences between the fastest processors and ones that are 50 to 100 Mhz slower. The marginal speed gain is negligable, but people still seem to fork over the cash. Let's do some math. (800 Mhz + 800 Mhz) > 1,000Mhz. I don't know about you, but I'll be LMAO when I'm running BeOS on dual (or quad) 800's when Joe Smoe is selling organs so he can run Windows on a new 1Ghz (ONE GIGAHERTZ!?! That chips has just got to be soooo much faster...) machine.
It is exactly that kind of attitude that is going to get you left behind in the ever evolving computer industry. It reminds me of that commercial where a bunch of aging corporate execs gather dust as the say something to the effect of "The customer will get what _we_ want them to have" (the quote is close enogh to help my point:-) ). A personal computer, or any other end-user technology, has one major purpose, to abstract what would otherwise be overwhelmingly complex process to a set a simple and easy to understand intefaces. To suggest that every user, no matter what function they need their computer to perform, has to devote an unreasonable ammount of time to the study of computer science is insane.
Do you know exactly how every compenent of your car functions? Unless you are also a mechanic, I would think not. You may be a automotive enthusiast, change your own filters, and know how how to replace a failing alternator or water pump, but any serious work would still need to be perfomed by a professional. The average driver only needs know how to operate ther vehicle and know where and when to get it serviced. I also understand that there are divers who don't even know how to check and add oil. Are we just to to exclude those without experience and revoke their licences when they forget to rotae their tires? Each one of these groups needs to be addressed speratly when deciding on the apporpriate set of interfaces for them. If you notice, car commercials rarely combine "New V24 engine!" with "5,000,000 miles without a tune-up!"
What is the correct response to a helpless user when their engine starts to make noise? A) Say, "You should know what the problem is. I will not waste my time helping idiots." B) Point them in the right direction to information and possibly even teach them how to maintain a car. C) (If you are an automotive engineer) Design a more robust engine that requires less attention and add dummy lights to the dashboard while possibly still leaving analog gauges for the enthusiasts.
Answer: A) You are arrogant and an eletist. Just because you are an expert in one area does not make you superior to the ignorant. B) Good, if someone politely comes to you for assistance, help them and hope that they'll learn. If they are rude, they probably suffer from a similar condition that sparks response A (see Script Kiddie and Power User). C) Just because we can build our own cars from scratch and are willing to take the time to tweak and maintain every aspect, does not mean the rest of the world wants or has the time to. When designing for the general populace, a major goal is to reduce maintinace and learning curves. This also includes consideration for the common fool.
I understand that no matter how much we try to fool-proof something, a better fool will always come along and amaze yet another technical support person who thought they'd heard everything. Fools are one of the few constans in the universe and trying to tell them to read instructions will usually be a futile attempt. We can only do our best to kill^H^H^H^Haccomodate them.
My point? We cannot expect everyone to have the expertese that we have. (You probably realize by now that I am no whiz at speling.) We have to realize that not everyone needs to learn Perl to send e-mail. What we find intuitive can baffle others. Just because someone is slow and/or uneducated does not give us the right to think of ourselves as superior. Like it or not, there are ADHD children who need to be able to use a computer. I have a family member with attetion disorders and it is obvious to me that I cannot not expect everything to come easily and naturally to them.
Although I completely dissagree with your treatement of users, I do find that your description of the ever declining average inteligence of developers frighteningly real. There has been an ovewhelming rush into the computer industry fuled by the promise of money. Too many students flood into the high-demand marketplace without comlpeting a full study in the area that they are supposed to be qualified. They're are to many IT companies that'll pick up just about anyone that boasts "Hey, I'm NT certified!". What I do disagree with is your perception of the problem. The problem is not those taking advantage of time saving technology such as real time syntax checkers, but those who do not have a true and comple grasp of the technology. Just because we have gotten used to emacs doesn't mean eveyone else has to use it. Besides, if you were a _real_ programmer, you would be writing in assembly; everyone today is too dependant upon high level languages, right?:-)
Wrong, the problem is when I see anxious students running off to a young company who is hiring every programmer they can get their hands on, only to come back after a couple of years to try to finish their education when they realize just how little they knew and were unable to progress. The probllem is that too many people are making money designing bad software while other companies make softwae to try to fix the bad software and the companies that are suckered into investing in shaky technology have to form enourmous IS departments, to often with unqualified individuals, to try to manage the bloated system.
I see to many people who are descent MFC programmers but know nothing else. Too much time is spent developing in bare-bones languages like C, when a language like tcl, Perl, or even Java would be much better suited for the project. A developer needs to know about all the tools that are avaliable to him or her and be able to take advantage of the best technology. BTW, Linux is not _always_ the answer. *gasp!*
Clean, robust, well planned, well excecuted, and well maintained projects written by organized and efficient teams are becoming few and far between.
The author of the comment to which you responded expressed a valid opinion. You, on the other hand, instead of respecting his/her views and presenting a good argument, reacted with "How dare they... ". Your post is obviously bait as I now find myself flaming. Argh! Somebody moderate us both down...
I am also a Purdue student, and I am willing to give you my full support in any way I can. I wish I had known about your site ealier; I know dozens of people who would like a hotmail-like way to read thier mail. Anyway, I'd make the biggest show of force you can right now. If you can make it look like your not going to go down without a bitter fight BEFORE any lawyers get involved, then they may just decide it's not worth it. *sigh* I hate to see trademark law abused in such a way yet again.
I am also a Purdue student, and I am willing to give you my full support in any way I can. I wish I had known about your site ealier; I know dozens of people who would like a hotmail-like way to read thier mail. Anyway, I'd make the biggest show of force you can right now. If you can make it look like your not going to go down without a bitter fight BEFORE any lawyers get involved, then they may just decide it's not worth it. *sigh* I hate to see trademark law abused in such a way yet again.
The purpose of restraining orders.
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 3
I can understand issuing restaining orders to prevent someone who is physically threatening someone from coming near or talking to an individual, but I don't think that public mass flaming/spamming falls under that. Unless a person is actually going out of his/her way to privatly harrass one person in a way that could cause them to fear for thier safety, I don't belive the government has a right to resrict one's right's. The Usenet is a public forum where free speech is fundamental, no matter how irritating or idiotic.
Stuff like this is a problem, but there are ways to deal with it. You can use spam filters and learn to ignore flames. If you still are unable to cope, take your conversation elsewhere. There are plenty of privately operated forums that moderate.
Personally, I think censorship is fine when used in private forums where the owner has the right to decide what can and cannot be said through his or her server, but the Usenet is not private. The govenment does not have the power to decide what can and cannot be siad in public communication mediums.
I belive I read in Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repaing PC's that the traditional 15 IRQ system is a legacy of the ISA bus. In current systems, the PCI bus has it's own interrupt controller that has to be mapped to the ISA system for backwards compatibility. The legacy IRQ system could be completely discarded in a PCI only system. The PCI bus has only 4 interrupts, but unlike ISA, they can almost always be shared becuse PCI associates an ID with the device that generated an interrupt when handling it. Now, imagine the headaches of trying to configure one of these new systems, having to set every PCI card to use interrupt A, what a nightmare.
Furthermore, you wouldn't have to set jumpers to avaoid serial, parellel, and even mouse ports; that's the beauty of USB.
But perhaps the biggest reason MS will fail is because MS doesn't have the balls to compete like video games companies do. You underestimate Microsoft, it is a serious threat. Ruthless competition is the one thing that Microsoft has mastered. I seriously doubt that Sony, Nintendo, and Sega are as confident as you. If you haven't noticed, Microsoft's products don't necessarily have to be better than the competition to beat it.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the example of Latin: As more and more people spoke it, they each brutalized the language a little differently -- a little colloquism here and there, different stresses on syllables etc... It grew to the point where Latin wasn't really latin anymore. Out of this grew the romance languages. From one root, came French, Italian,Spanish etc...
Ahh, but there is a big difference between then and now. In the roman empire, it was difficult to communicate over long distances. People at point A never talked to people at point B, and pretty soon people at point A didn't sound quite like the people at point B anymore and visa-versa. Today, people from point A can drive to the people at point B in a couple hours. They can also call/e-mail points C, D, E, and F. They can even fly to point Z (which just happens to be halfway around the world) in less than 24 hours. People from most of these points also happen to be watching an international news broadcast from (for lack of a better letter) point Q, and the news caster just happens to be trained in speaking perfect English. These people can also listen to a century's worth of recordings over and over of people speaking English.
One of the side effects of mass media, the Internet, and the other information technology that defines out age is preservation of culture. As long as the system remains in place, the culture is preserved for ever. Nothing short of an apocolyptic event is going to destroy English. (Whether or not that will happen is a different argument.)
Look no further than the US. Take that South Dakotan and place him in the South Side of Chichago. Do you think he is going to understand a word of English spoken there?/
Hell yes. A few very strong dialects have developed in very urban (and very rural) areas, but I garuntee you that all of these people can understand normal English and will have no problem communicating if they really needed to. I belive I could go anywhere in the US or Canada (sans Quebec) and be able to understand the people there fully.
The growing number of illeagally traded MP3's is evidence of a much larger problem. The people who do this aren't "Internet Extreamists", they are just ordinary people who have realized that paying $16 for one CD is rediculous. They are not trying to "fuck with you", they just want to listen to music without throwing away this week's paycheck.
This is a rebellion, not against the artists (as most of the traders are fans of the bands whose music they are trading), but against the recording industry. Wake up. The RIAA is a monopoly. There is no free enerprise or competintion in the music industry. A band can't make it without signing with a label that is a memeber of the RIAA, and people can't buy music from anyone but those affiliated with the RIAA. You, yourselves are slaves to the RIAA until your contract runs out.
Now, do people have the right to trade illegal MP3's? Probably not. And you are probably justified in this particular case in wanting to stop these illegal distributors, but I advise you to be more careful in the future. As more and more people get computers and become wise to MP3's, Napster, and gnutella, the rebellion will only get stronger. You say you like to act independantly from the industry; that is a good thing. But unfortunately, you appear to the public to be acting on behalf of the industry. If I were you, I would work now to begin seperating yourslef, at least in the minds of your fans, from the industry.
It is time to chose sides. Are you for the empowerment of both the artist and the consumer, or are you going to defend the RIAA and the profits they are making from your music?
People are just now waking up to the fact that they are being screwed by the industry. More and more of them are realizing that if they don't want the situation to continue, they have two choices: an all out boycott that would be very diffucult to organize, or resorting to trading illegal MP3's on the internet. They usually chose the latter. They have no other alternatives; there is no compertitor. The artist can not sell his music to anyone but the person he signed with. What is needed is for someone, preferably someone with power and influence, to take a stand against the industry and cut out the greedy middle-man. Seriously, if CD's were sold for $5 instead of $15 dollars, I'm sure most people would drop thier MP3 collections in a hearbeat.
You do make a valid point in that many bands need the record labels to just get off the ground and into the public eye, but I would much rather see it in the form of smaller talent-hunting agencies than huge corporations that seem to have a stranglehold on popular culture. I really am tired of the MTV phenomenon where they seem to have the power to tell you what is good, popular, and what you should listen too. I think we would all benifit form a system that responds more to what the public really wants.*
Now, people will say that this whole MP3 problem would go away if the RIAA would just embrace the internet and start selling their music online. I don't agree; I think the problem would only get worse. I don't want the music industry, or for that matter the entire entertainment industry as it exists today, to try to move into the information age. For as they do, they will bring with them an increasing number of draconian copyright laws and the power with wich to enforce them. How would they go about implementing systems that authorize the use of their intellectual property? I really do fear futures like this one.
Also, I must ask that you do not refer to copyright infringement as "theft", "stealing", "piracy", etc. These were terms invented by the industry to help ailienate those who infringe upon their profits from the sympathy of the general public. You cannot equate those who trade illegal MP3's to common theifs, and I encourage you not to use terms that would suggest such a relationship. Removal of physical property that does not belong to you is not the same as unauthorized copying. I am not trying to justify the actions of illegal MP3 traders, but I do think that the label should fit the crime.
I belive many future battles will be fought against the recording industry, and it's power will sharply decline. But as they go down, they will take with them many bands who either depend on them or tried to defend them. Make sure that you are not one of them.
* Wouldn't it be neat if there were a website where unsigned artists could post demos and then the general public could invest in individual bands? But that's just another pipedream...
thePsychotron
You can draw your own conclusions about whether this "Consumer Privacy Protection Board" (sic) is intended to actually help Doubleclick change its ways, or whether it is merely intended to help protect the company from lawsuits and adverse governmental action, like, say, the FTC wanting the authority to force companies to respect privacy concerns.
I belive it's obvious from just this biased statement that no, I can not.
I must say that I have never seen _this_ much bias in a Slashdot story before. Hell, even John Katz isn't this bad. Michael, it's one thing to do a little research for us on the backgrounds of the people on the board, it's completely different when you give strong opinions about what you think their intentions are. Next time, give us a factual article and post any personal opinions about the matter to the comments section like the rest of us; we'll decide if they're worth reading.
thePsychotron
Bear with me for a moment while I play the devil's advocate. I quote from the GPL:
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Now obviously one can argue that free software by nature shouldn't have a warranty, but that issue is irrelivent when it comes to the law. If we want this aspect of the GPL hold up in court, how can we argue against this recent descision? What if I charge a distribution fee for my GPL'ed software, does this mean that I'm lilable for the quality of that software? Some of use should calm down a bit before we are guilty of hypocracy.
Shouldn't a company be able to sell software with the understanding that there is no warranty? If I had over a million dollars relying on a piece of software, I'd go over the license with a fine tooth comb. Could it be that they just didn't want to pay for a higher quality product and a support contract, and they are just trying to screw the software writers now that it has blown up in their faces?
There, I said it. I feel dirty. Let the flames begin.
thePsychotron
Doing *whatever* I want with my code means, putting a license on it that restricts (or doesn't) it's use with whatever terms I wish.
No, it doesn't. You cannot own thought in the same way you can own a physical object. You can't control the use of ideas like you can control to use of your car.
Intellectual property/Copyright are not at all new ideas.
Yes, I know. It all started witht the Gutenberg press. Copyright was origionally just an agreement between publishers and did not really affect average Joes like you and me. Unfortunately, a few hundered years later, copyright has grown into a huge abusive monster that seeks to allow those in power to continually screw the general public.
All "rights" are artificial, period. If you want to appeal to philosophy or religion, there is always another out there that espouses the opposite.
The difference between an "artificial" right and a "natural" one, is that natural rights do stem from philosophy and/or religion, artificial rights do not. I classify my right to life as a natural one. Most religions/philosophies condem murder; it's just plain wrong. Laws are made to protect my right to live becuse, in general, we belive it to be a fundamental part of the human exitence. On the other hand, artifical rights are invented by those who govern a civilazation for (supposedly) the good of society. I know of few philosophies that include the fundamental right to own thought. Intellectual property was invented by the lawmakers to encourage creativity and make it economical. Copyright law protects and artificial right in that it has no ethical basis.
My code, my music, and my writing are not "thought". They are creations. As much so as any house, car, or toaster oven designed and built. It may be practical to define different aritifical rules on them given the fact we have the ability to easily duplicate things, but I certainly feel I own my works at least as much as I own my car or land, or whatever physicial possesion I've purchased with artificially valued currency.
A "creation" is an abstract term. It does not necessarily pertain to a physical object. Music, writing, and code are all thoughts and ideas. They exist only in the human mind. Sure we can encode thought onto physical objects, and one can own the medium that is temporarily holding the thought, but you can't control the thought itself. For example: If you paint a picture, you can own the physical medium (the canvas and paint) that you used to express your thought, but you can't prevent someone from taking a picture of it, making copies, and showing other people. Thats why your comparison to houses, cars, and toasters is bunk, you are comparing apples to oranges.
In a world without copyrights, we're going to need to convince authors that people using their creation for purposes they may consider annoying, offensive, or even harmful is palettable. Not likely to happen. Additionally, we're going to need to find a way to economically support the very sizable number of people on the planet who make their livings through the (now fairly old)existence of copyright and intellectual property.
You are absolutely right. I do not expect to see the death of copyright in my lifetime. It may even out-live the US government itself. But I do hope that in the government and economic systems of the future, copyright law will not be necessary. What we _can_ do now is make an effort stop the current copyright abuses. The DMCA is apalling. 96 years of ownership is rediculously long. I can go on and on... The point is, things like these can be fixed now.
The only solution proposed by RMS that begins hinting at the tip of the iceberg here (no, please don't tell me advertising and co-sourcing by buisness will do it, even if we're just talking about software) is a "Software Tax" levied on all hardware sold and then distributed to developers.
Like I have already said, RMS is alarmingly radical and idealistic, but people like him are necessary to get things moving in the right direction.
thePsychotron
No. Freedom is me getting to do whatever I want with my code, including selling it to whoever I want at whatever price I want with whatever conditions I want.
Yes, freedom means that you can do whatever you want with your code, but it doesn't meant that you can tell someone else what they can and can't do with that software. Ownership of intellectual property is an illusion, a byproduct of living in a capitalistic system. Like RMS and the US legal system say, Copyright laws protect an artificial right. The original intent of copyright law was to encourage creativity in a capitalistic system by allowing authors to profit from their work for a limited time, not to uphold some sort of fundamental ethical belif.
The problem today is that copyright law has been abused to no end. It is now a tool for those is power to try to control and own information. That is wrong. They have launched propoganda campaigns in an attempt to convince us that violation of copyright law is "theft" and "piracy" and is the equvalent of a felony. That is just untrue.
Right now I would also like to state that I consider the GPL a necessary evil. Yes, it does force restrictions upon the use of the work, but it is our only weapon against those who would try to take ownership of the work. In a perfect world without copyrights and licensing, everything would be in the public domain and we would not have to protect ourselves from those who would try to own thought.
However, I do sympathise with you in that RMS's approach is quite radical and idealistic, and unfortuntely doesn't do much to help those working in the "real world". That, I feel, is the gap that Open Source fills. While RMS is right in saying that Open Source alone is not what we should be ultimately striving for, it is a step in the right direction. Free Software is not applicable to the current economic situation like Open Source is, but one also has to realize that RMS is not trying to address economic issues. RMS is concerned primarily with ethical issues, and that is a Good Thing(TM). Whether or not we can follow his philosiphies today is not as important as recognising that his belifs are fundamentally good. Only then can we hope to see a world where there is no need for copyrights.
thePsychotron
I have a grandfater who likes to collect things. He often scours the countryside looking for autions where he can pick up things like pens, coins, etc. At one of these auctions, he met a fellow collector who told him about this great thing called ebay. He later asked me what ebay was and how he could use it.
At the time, I had built up enough spare parts to build him a decent Pentuim-100 system and set him up on the internet. The hard part was teaching him how to use the computer. Don't get me wrong, my Granfater is a smart guy, but if you asked him about computers, he would start talking about the punch-card machines they used when he taught at IU.
Well, I loaded Win98 onto the freshly built box and started my crash (pun intended) course in computing. Needless to say, he was immediatly overwhelmed by all the buttons and icons, and kept inquiring why the system was so slow and kept turning blue. That's when I had a great idea: BeOS!
Most people are appalled when I suggest anything but Windows; it's different from what they're used to and might not run their favorite apps. But for a total novice who just wants to surf the web, BeOS is perfect. After a quick install, I spent about an hour showing him around, and he left. With only an hour of instruction he was off and running, and since then I have only gotten one (1!) tech support call from him related to e-mail.
Now, I had to ask myself: Why did he pick up BeOS so quickly while other people spend hours/days/a lifetime stressing over how to get stuff done on their computer. The answer is simplicity. BeOS might not be the fanciest or feature-heavy system, but ist's fast, clean, and intuitive. Intead bombarding users with a billion different widgets that do a billion different things, the designers at Be only include what general users really need. NetPositive has 4 (5?) buttons! Everything does what you'd expect it to do without complaining.
I understand that for hacker types like us, though, it's not the same situation. We'd rather have more utility, extensibility, and customization. I think that's why GNOME has become so popular. But if the goal is to design something that can be easily used by anyone regardless of experience, then the UI implemented in BeOS will serve well as a model.
thePsychotron
It occured to me that it might be a good idea to donate at least some of the money to the families of those killed in the Columbine tradgedy. There are a number of reasons for this:
1) It makes it absolutely clear to everyone that we are in no way trying to justify the attackers actions.
2) The families have more power than they realize. With the intense media focus on them, thier attitudes and statements can strongly influence future descisions. If we donate money to them, they will become aware of the book and perhaps even read it. Hopefully, then they might realize where the real roots of problems in public shools lie. If the families ever decide to "take action", then they might just end up doing the right thing.
3) Making a donation to them would generate media attention in and of itself, thus making the general public aware of the book.
I know these seem like all the wrong reasons to give money to charity, and I am aware that there are others that could make better use of the money. But this would accomplish alot towards our goal and in the end might end up helping the most people.
thePsychotron
Dr. Bakker? Hey, I remember him now. He stayed at my house once when my dad was still teaching Biology at Penn State, but that was 7 years ago. I belive his theories also included that dinosaurs may have been more closely related to birds than reptiles, or at least that they were a link between the two. So, not only is this not breaking news, it's not even the whole story.
thePsychotron
Now, isn't it possible that you and the Motion Picture Association, having been in an old-medium mentality for a long time, just don't really get what all of this freedom means?
You're suggesting that there's not one single smart guy that works for any of these companies. I just take exception to you. I don't believe that simply because I understand the Internet that I'm smarter, that my vision is longer, my understanding is deeper. That's foolish, totally foolish. We've got some of the most extraordinary people in the world. We've been working with Cal Tech and MIT, and others -- New York Institute of Technology; the finest brains in the so-called technological world, and that's going on all the time.
I think both sides of the debate understand each other well enough. We have a fair understanding of the legal situation, and they have a fair understanding of the technology involved. Fair does not mean perfect, but it's good enough. I don't belive that either party is incapable of comprehending each others arguments, it's just that they don't really want to. I belive that many people are missing the underlying problems that are fueling this battle.
The real issue is one of ethics and, in a way, philosophy. Two completely different points of view are involved. We consider our basic freedoms to be sacred. We feel that we should be able to speak, code, and transfer information as we please. It's not surprising that alot of us get irritated when someone, especially an "outsider" tells us we can't. Valenti does not see the world this way. His environment is one of big business, where the dollar is sacred. His goal is not to freely distribute information, but to maximize profit. In the interview, I find it funny that several questions about freedom are answered in terms of money. He's not concerned about being fair to the customer, he's concerned about licecing terms. He feels that a buisiness should be able to increase profit by just about means deemed legal. The two conflictiong viewpoints are really independant of the technology and the legal issues which they surround.
So, who is right? Well, I belive niether extreme is correct. There has to be a balance. We should have a right to fair-use of information, and they should have be able to make a fair buck.
However, there are a number of smaller problems that need to be resoveld in order to find a solution. How much control over thier intellectual property should they have? Should corporations be able to enforce things like region codes or, for that matter, shrink-wrap licences? How much more money and power are we going to give up to corporations? Where is the line that divides fair-use and piracy?
It is nieve to belive that corporations will ever be able to completely enforce and control the use of their products. At the same time, we must realize that even they have some basic rights to thier intelectual property.
The problem with that approach is that Win2k is not good. I am a student at Purdue, and one of our CS labs has been beta testing Win2k for quite some time, always with the latest build straight from Microsoft. After using and inspecting the system, I can safely say that it is seriously flawed. I even prefer WinNT 4.0 over Win2k. Unless Microsoft makes some serious changes before the release, Win2k will teach the world a lesson about bad system design.
I would support Linux demo day not necessarily to promote Linux, but to save small businesses from needlessly throwing lage sums of money away.
Four 800mhz chips are still running at 800mhz...
...they just have four times the Int and FP power than just a single 800mhz chip.
...the PIII is almost twice as powerful.
Yes, technically you are correct. Maybe I used a bad example.
Yes, that would be the point of having four processors. I suppose if I was only excecuting one instruction, it would get calculated faster on a machine with one 1Ghz processor, but that is rarely ever the case. The idea is to excecute four times as many instructions just a little bit slower.
When you have to share the same bus you lose a good deal of speed between the processor and the rest of the system.
Actually, you can have systems with up to eight processors before system bus traffic becomes a major problem. You do gain some overhead for each processor added, but the net gain can usually justify that. The real problem is in badly designed operating systems, not hardware. For every extra processor added, Windows NT spends something like 20% (I don't know any exact figures off hand) of it processing time just in switching between processors. That's what ends up cancelling out the economic advantages of SMP systems.
Oh, I don't belive that for one second - unless you like to use Web Outfitter(TM).
I am always amused by the price differences between the fastest processors and ones that are 50 to 100 Mhz slower. The marginal speed gain is negligable, but people still seem to fork over the cash. Let's do some math. (800 Mhz + 800 Mhz) > 1,000Mhz. I don't know about you, but I'll be LMAO when I'm running BeOS on dual (or quad) 800's when Joe Smoe is selling organs so he can run Windows on a new 1Ghz (ONE GIGAHERTZ!?! That chips has just got to be soooo much faster...) machine.
It is exactly that kind of attitude that is going to get you left behind in the ever evolving computer industry. It reminds me of that commercial where a bunch of aging corporate execs gather dust as the say something to the effect of "The customer will get what _we_ want them to have" (the quote is close enogh to help my point :-) ). A personal computer, or any other end-user technology, has one major purpose, to abstract what would otherwise be overwhelmingly complex process to a set a simple and easy to understand intefaces. To suggest that every user, no matter what function they need their computer to perform, has to devote an unreasonable ammount of time to the study of computer science is insane.
:-)
Do you know exactly how every compenent of your car functions? Unless you are also a mechanic, I would think not. You may be a automotive enthusiast, change your own filters, and know how how to replace a failing alternator or water pump, but any serious work would still need to be perfomed by a professional. The average driver only needs know how to operate ther vehicle and know where and when to get it serviced. I also understand that there are divers who don't even know how to check and add oil. Are we just to to exclude those without experience and revoke their licences when they forget to rotae their tires? Each one of these groups needs to be addressed speratly when deciding on the apporpriate set of interfaces for them. If you notice, car commercials rarely combine "New V24 engine!" with "5,000,000 miles without a tune-up!"
What is the correct response to a helpless user when their engine starts to make noise?
A) Say, "You should know what the problem is. I will not waste my time helping idiots."
B) Point them in the right direction to information and possibly even teach them how to maintain a car.
C) (If you are an automotive engineer) Design a more robust engine that requires less attention and add dummy lights to the dashboard while possibly still leaving analog gauges for the enthusiasts.
Answer:
A) You are arrogant and an eletist. Just because you are an expert in one area does not make you superior to the ignorant.
B) Good, if someone politely comes to you for assistance, help them and hope that they'll learn. If they are rude, they probably suffer from a similar condition that sparks response A (see Script Kiddie and Power User).
C) Just because we can build our own cars from scratch and are willing to take the time to tweak and maintain every aspect, does not mean the rest of the world wants or has the time to. When designing for the general populace, a major goal is to reduce maintinace and learning curves. This also includes consideration for the common fool.
I understand that no matter how much we try to fool-proof something, a better fool will always come along and amaze yet another technical support person who thought they'd heard everything. Fools are one of the few constans in the universe and trying to tell them to read instructions will usually be a futile attempt. We can only do our best to kill^H^H^H^Haccomodate them.
My point? We cannot expect everyone to have the expertese that we have. (You probably realize by now that I am no whiz at speling.) We have to realize that not everyone needs to learn Perl to send e-mail. What we find intuitive can baffle others. Just because someone is slow and/or uneducated does not give us the right to think of ourselves as superior. Like it or not, there are ADHD children who need to be able to use a computer. I have a family member with attetion disorders and it is obvious to me that I cannot not expect everything to come easily and naturally to them.
Although I completely dissagree with your treatement of users, I do find that your description of the ever declining average inteligence of developers frighteningly real. There has been an ovewhelming rush into the computer industry fuled by the promise of money. Too many students flood into the high-demand marketplace without comlpeting a full study in the area that they are supposed to be qualified. They're are to many IT companies that'll pick up just about anyone that boasts "Hey, I'm NT certified!". What I do disagree with is your perception of the problem. The problem is not those taking advantage of time saving technology such as real time syntax checkers, but those who do not have a true and comple grasp of the technology. Just because we have gotten used to emacs doesn't mean eveyone else has to use it. Besides, if you were a _real_ programmer, you would be writing in assembly; everyone today is too dependant upon high level languages, right?
Wrong, the problem is when I see anxious students running off to a young company who is hiring every programmer they can get their hands on, only to come back after a couple of years to try to finish their education when they realize just how little they knew and were unable to progress. The probllem is that too many people are making money designing bad software while other companies make softwae to try to fix the bad software and the companies that are suckered into investing in shaky technology have to form enourmous IS departments, to often with unqualified individuals, to try to manage the bloated system.
I see to many people who are descent MFC programmers but know nothing else. Too much time is spent developing in bare-bones languages like C, when a language like tcl, Perl, or even Java would be much better suited for the project. A developer needs to know about all the tools that are avaliable to him or her and be able to take advantage of the best technology. BTW, Linux is not _always_ the answer. *gasp!*
Clean, robust, well planned, well excecuted, and well maintained projects written by organized and efficient teams are becoming few and far between.
The author of the comment to which you responded expressed a valid opinion. You, on the other hand, instead of respecting his/her views and presenting a good argument, reacted with "How dare they... ". Your post is obviously bait as I now find myself flaming. Argh! Somebody moderate us both down...
I apologize for the double-post; my browser threw up on me.
I am also a Purdue student, and I am willing to give you my full support in any way I can. I wish I had known about your site ealier; I know dozens of people who would like a hotmail-like way to read thier mail. Anyway, I'd make the biggest show of force you can right now. If you can make it look like your not going to go down without a bitter fight BEFORE any lawyers get involved, then they may just decide it's not worth it. *sigh* I hate to see trademark law abused in such a way yet again.
I am also a Purdue student, and I am willing to give you my full support in any way I can. I wish I had known about your site ealier; I know dozens of people who would like a hotmail-like way to read thier mail. Anyway, I'd make the biggest show of force you can right now. If you can make it look like your not going to go down without a bitter fight BEFORE any lawyers get involved, then they may just decide it's not worth it. *sigh* I hate to see trademark law abused in such a way yet again.
I can understand issuing restaining orders to prevent someone who is physically threatening someone from coming near or talking to an individual, but I don't think that public mass flaming/spamming falls under that. Unless a person is actually going out of his/her way to privatly harrass one person in a way that could cause them to fear for thier safety, I don't belive the government has a right to resrict one's right's. The Usenet is a public forum where free speech is fundamental, no matter how irritating or idiotic.
Stuff like this is a problem, but there are ways to deal with it. You can use spam filters and learn to ignore flames. If you still are unable to cope, take your conversation elsewhere. There are plenty of privately operated forums that moderate.
Personally, I think censorship is fine when used in private forums where the owner has the right to decide what can and cannot be said through his or her server, but the Usenet is not private. The govenment does not have the power to decide what can and cannot be siad in public communication mediums.
I belive I read in Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repaing PC's that the traditional 15 IRQ system is a legacy of the ISA bus. In current systems, the PCI bus has it's own interrupt controller that has to be mapped to the ISA system for backwards compatibility. The legacy IRQ system could be completely discarded in a PCI only system. The PCI bus has only 4 interrupts, but unlike ISA, they can almost always be shared becuse PCI associates an ID with the device that generated an interrupt when handling it. Now, imagine the headaches of trying to configure one of these new systems, having to set every PCI card to use interrupt A, what a nightmare.
Furthermore, you wouldn't have to set jumpers to avaoid serial, parellel, and even mouse ports; that's the beauty of USB.
But perhaps the biggest reason MS will fail is because MS doesn't have the balls to compete like video games companies do. You underestimate Microsoft, it is a serious threat. Ruthless competition is the one thing that Microsoft has mastered. I seriously doubt that Sony, Nintendo, and Sega are as confident as you. If you haven't noticed, Microsoft's products don't necessarily have to be better than the competition to beat it.