I am glad the issue of readability of the document format is addressed. But I worry about the fine distinction between transparent and opaque.
The line seems to be too arbitrarily drawn. Postscript is not transparent? That depends. I know quite a few Postscript hackers who can directly edit PS source without batting an eyelid. But PS generated by TeX itself, is really obscure largely becuase of all the font declarations.
Is there a more satisfactory way to address this issue?
Not true. If you typed the letter, yeah. But if you are like me, you write them. You would have fake my handwriting. And then you would have to figure that I have sweaty palms, and put traces of my dna, sweat and fingerprints on it. It's much harder, believe me!
Actually, that makes it all the more scary. I could fake email that you sent, or received and you could not, based on current legal precedent, deny it.
What would a defense of this look like? Maybe one could prove that the fileserver has been hacked, and thus, one cannot trus the authenticity of the messages stored on it?
Sure, to look for duplicate files and put them togther is a neat idea.
The thing is how many files are there that are redundant? In a typical harddisk, what are the chances that you have duplicate files all over the place? If a system is diligently admin'ed, there is very little chance of that at all!
Is the increase in code complexity and software bloat worth it?
This is just typical of MS. They invent a cool sounding feature and never investigate if it actually would benefit anyone. If anything, this is a convincing demostration of the failure of closed proprietry software. Vendors forcing customers to adopt features that they will rarely use. I don't think such a feature would not live long in the open-source environment. Anyone can plainly see that such a feature is pure cruft and will ignore it/not install it.
I am sure this is not an indication of the quality of research that Microsoft Research is putting out. But I could be wrong.
Well, Tim O'Reilly sells books by providing documentation for many open source software. I guess I have to file a patent for you to recognize it? I guess you won't know that the excellent JPEG compression was that good until it was patented huh?
I fail to see how Amazon was critical to the Linux OS. O'Reilly was not only selling on Amazon you know. The last time I check, the bricks and mortar Barnes and Noble just round the corner carried O'Reilly too.
First of all, not everyone here is a zealot. Please get some perspective.
Next, it is not wrong to use 1 click technology. It's fine, and that's one obvious use of browser cookies. It is wrong to claim ownership of such an thing, especially of the technology to make you do it is not invented by you.
Also, nobody is perfect. Amazon may have had a "successful" business (some would argue otherwise) but that should never excuse it from bad bahaviour.
Finally, your perceptions are so highly coloured. Why do you consider Jeff Bezos "a true business innovator" and not Tim O'Reilly? I don't think you could defend that piece of hypocrisy if you tried. I guess you believe the Bezos hype simply becuase Time magazine called him one right?
This is the reasoning of a crook. "I did not want to kick you, but hey - everyone else is doing it". If one does this, then you can stop judging people naive, because one already surrendered one's moral fibre to groupthink.
it is probably the only safe way to protect yourself.
I flat out don't believe that. You would think that a global company would have better resources and ability to hire lawyers to do the legwork to prove prior art, and hence invalidate the patent. Surely in this case, Amazon's patent is of this type. One very easy thing for you do this is to collect documentation, from newspaper reports or other public sources, of a business practice that one is emulating, and is already in wide use. Prior precendent should be sufficient as a defence against the sharks out there. The truth is not good enough for these big companies?
Of course, the US Patent Office is stupid to have granted that patent. This is a different problem. For companies who feel pressured by the need for defensive patents, perhaps they should gather together, and back the consumers. Help defend the public interest (and their own business interest). In this manner, they are spared the expensive and ligitious process. They gain our respect. And everything is more sane as a result. And stupid Amazon-wannabes would think twice about behaving in this bullying manner.
Seriously, Nanotech is such a young, immature field of science that we still do not know what knowledge is applicable. Get the basics right, then branch out into it when the field turns really hot. That is the chance to make your contribution.
But in th 60s space exploration was largely Goverment funded. This cannot last in the long-term as Goverments change, and their budgets get reviewed.
It is still going to be a while for corporations to fund space exploration. For one thing, Corporations are even less farsighted than Governments (not that they are that far sighted, mind you.) They need immediate returns and that is just so hard to come by.
Sorry, can't agree with that. Rich people are people too. If they are unfairly vilified, or have their name tarnished (however richly you might think they deserve it), they should have a right, under to law to redress that. Becuase they are rich, but that does not entitle them to ignore the law. You make it too onerous for them to seek legal redress, they will seek illegal means to do so. You will not want a rich man coming after you!
Which is why the loser paying the costs is a better system. The law then cannot be used as a weapon of harassment. And each side defending would put more effort in making a watertight case, rather than looking for settlements. Only then can Justice be served.
Another idea (one that may draw the ire of lawyers): Redefine the lawyers role. Don't allow them to "set up business". Make them "officers of the court". Make it illegal for them to accept money to fight cases. Instead, they draw a fixed income from the court, who assigns them to the clients. Then the parties in a suit pay the court its costs. You want a lawyer to write your contract? Go to court, pay them, and ask for one lawyer. The Court assigns one to you.
IMAO, COBOL is one heck of a stupid language. Instead of a = b + c, one writes add a to b giving c. But to get around DeCSS, I guess we could adopt it. *yikes*
That's true. If these people want linux (I don't understand why they would) then I am glad that Dell wants to give it to them. Nothing wrong with that.
But us nerds have spent a considerable time hacking and fooling around. We don't get big bucks or lots of recognition for it. At the very least, Dell could take a little off the purchase price of a _linux_ computer for the things we don't need!
The chances are good that if there are no hardware problems, they'll have my money and never have to support or see me again. Why don't they want this type of business?
What I do want to know is: At what level are the students entering school for a lego test to be appropriate?
If this is about ages 6-10, I guess, the test would be OK. Anything older than that: No way.
Next, there seems to be a really big gripe about taking standardized tests. The assertion is that interviews are better. Well I disagree.
First of all, I have sat on interview panels for bright kids before. It is not a simple task to rank the kids and say "Joan is better than Michelle." There will be lots of different opinions among interviewers. School boards are getting themselves into a mess if they ever take this route. It would be _easier_, not harder, for charges of racism, sexism, whatever-ism to stick. Standardized tests must be a component somewhere.
And the standardized tests are not really that difficult to ace. I would be deeply suspicious of students who can "talk the talk", but can't perform well on a simple straightforward test like the SAT.
I understand fully what you are saying. The problem is, I didn't do it that way.
The way I installed my Debian laptop box was - I got the base system up and running, plugged into an ethernet (I have lots of friends who won'd mind letting me plug it in for about 2-3 hours), and then d/l the packages I needed.
What I would like is choice. Now that I know that Dell's laptop is Linux-certified, could I forego that Linux CD/Windoze CD and let me do it myself? Choice is what I am asking for!
Isn't Linux considerably cheaper than Windows? Come on - it is GPLed! I can download the same thing for free. It can't possibly cost as much as that MS cr*p! Especially now that Dell does not toe the MS line wholly, one should expect the MS stuff to increase in price!
I am pretty ambivalent about this. One of the chief joys of Linux is getting it up slowly, piece by piece on the laptop. Watch it grow. Where's the pleasure in getting a pre-installed system?
OTOH, this means that the hardware works. I could ditch the distro and put Debian on it, without worrying about the hardware not being supported.
What do you mean what gives people a right to do it? Isn't curiosity enough?
In case you are wondering, it is routine for professors of Computer Science to sketch to students enough information about an algorithm so that they can write it up as code.
That is called getting an education! I know of no better way to learn algorithms, coding, Comp Sci, logic and discrete maths other than by _reverse engineering_ all the algorithms of old. I fondly remember my Prof giving me the task of implementing FFT, by pointing out the appropriate recurrence relation. And I worked the rest out myself.
There is no better sense of satisfaction than that. It's even better than sex!
You see, to have a low-power processor that can consume only 1-2W of power compared to low power versions like Intel which takes 20-30 W and desktop versions which take 100W, that is a tremendous improvement. It runs at a decent speed too.
And we haven't even gotten round to the x86 intruction set compatibility and code morphing technology yet.
All of these are interesting stuff for geeks. News for geeks. Stuff that matters. It's cool and from what we've seen, it might be affordable.
Linus? Yeah. But the only drawing attraction Linus has is the slashdot crowd. A lot of the perceived hype comes from one's own over-inflated expectations, really. Don't let it faze you, and in the end, it is still cool tech.
[PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT] YETI-AIBO
on
YETI@Home
·
· Score: 1
At a press-conference held in Tokyo, Sony, makers of the world-loved robot do Aibo, announced their new product, the Yeti-Aibo.
Scott Neanderthal, the press-manager describes the Yeti-Aibo as a one that "fetches the Yeti".
No longer will you have to place videocams all over your backyard to catch that elusive Yeti. The Yeti-Aibo is a custom tailored Aibo with the state-of-the-art motion-tracking and pheromone detectors. Downloaded with the lastest YETI@Home client, the robot dog actively scouts out and tracks down that elusive creature known as the Yeti.
"You can customize the Yeti-Aibo to range over only your backyard, or the whole forest. You can set your preference to find only male or female Yeti's or both. You can even get it to invite the Yeti home to dinner."
"Cool, now I will never need those Cams to track the Yeti again!" says Sasquatch enthusiast, Scott Lowbrow, one of the many hundreds of enthusiasts invited to the press-conference. "I can use it to spy on my pretty neighbor next door."
Sony anticipates selling one million units of the Yeti-Aibo within the next three months.
But cybersquatting for a good cause. No complaints, save from the envy of the shitloads of money he is getting.:) Maybe he should donate some of that money to FSF or EFF?
Who knows, maybe it is just pure random data that Mitnick has. Imagine: Mitnick vs. US Govt over 9G of crap. After all, what does Mitnick have to lose, now that he use computers? Could be Mitnick's way of giving the finger to those that sent him to jail?:-)
They write two pieces. One praising OSS and another bashing it. Then they wait to see how the winds change. A year ago, OSS was just a fad. Now, hey - we knew you'd make it all along. Let us be friends, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
The line seems to be too arbitrarily drawn. Postscript is not transparent? That depends. I know quite a few Postscript hackers who can directly edit PS source without batting an eyelid. But PS generated by TeX itself, is really obscure largely becuase of all the font declarations.
Is there a more satisfactory way to address this issue?
Not true. If you typed the letter, yeah. But if you are like me, you write them. You would have fake my handwriting. And then you would have to figure that I have sweaty palms, and put traces of my dna, sweat and fingerprints on it. It's much harder, believe me!
What would a defense of this look like? Maybe one could prove that the fileserver has been hacked, and thus, one cannot trus the authenticity of the messages stored on it?
Whatever it is, it all looks like a can of worms.
The thing is how many files are there that are redundant? In a typical harddisk, what are the chances that you have duplicate files all over the place? If a system is diligently admin'ed, there is very little chance of that at all!
Is the increase in code complexity and software bloat worth it?
This is just typical of MS. They invent a cool sounding feature and never investigate if it actually would benefit anyone. If anything, this is a convincing demostration of the failure of closed proprietry software. Vendors forcing customers to adopt features that they will rarely use. I don't think such a feature would not live long in the open-source environment. Anyone can plainly see that such a feature is pure cruft and will ignore it/not install it.
I am sure this is not an indication of the quality of research that Microsoft Research is putting out. But I could be wrong.
I fail to see how Amazon was critical to the Linux OS. O'Reilly was not only selling on Amazon you know. The last time I check, the bricks and mortar Barnes and Noble just round the corner carried O'Reilly too.
Next, it is not wrong to use 1 click technology. It's fine, and that's one obvious use of browser cookies. It is wrong to claim ownership of such an thing, especially of the technology to make you do it is not invented by you.
Also, nobody is perfect. Amazon may have had a "successful" business (some would argue otherwise) but that should never excuse it from bad bahaviour.
Finally, your perceptions are so highly coloured. Why do you consider Jeff Bezos "a true business innovator" and not Tim O'Reilly? I don't think you could defend that piece of hypocrisy if you tried. I guess you believe the Bezos hype simply becuase Time magazine called him one right?
it is probably the only safe way to protect yourself.
I flat out don't believe that. You would think that a global company would have better resources and ability to hire lawyers to do the legwork to prove prior art, and hence invalidate the patent. Surely in this case, Amazon's patent is of this type. One very easy thing for you do this is to collect documentation, from newspaper reports or other public sources, of a business practice that one is emulating, and is already in wide use. Prior precendent should be sufficient as a defence against the sharks out there. The truth is not good enough for these big companies?
Of course, the US Patent Office is stupid to have granted that patent. This is a different problem. For companies who feel pressured by the need for defensive patents, perhaps they should gather together, and back the consumers. Help defend the public interest (and their own business interest). In this manner, they are spared the expensive and ligitious process. They gain our respect. And everything is more sane as a result. And stupid Amazon-wannabes would think twice about behaving in this bullying manner.
Seriously, Nanotech is such a young, immature field of science that we still do not know what knowledge is applicable. Get the basics right, then branch out into it when the field turns really hot. That is the chance to make your contribution.
Checkout MiniJam. A Handspring add-on module.
bride: Too late sucker - you're my man now!
groom: Help! I am the victim of mistaken identity!
priest: Sorry, you should have check her PGP public keys. Can't help.
groom: Nooo!
bride: Yesss!
"Mark, you're the boss that gives us the equipment - ask away."
"What is this item that you have have requested ... er, Fur, fur ..."
"Oh that! Nothing, just a regular new model computer we need to evaluate."
"Oh good. Thank heavens! I'll approve it then."
"What's the problem?"
"Nah - silly me. For a moment I thought it was Furby. Have fun with it when it comes in the mail new week!"
It is still going to be a while for corporations to fund space exploration. For one thing, Corporations are even less farsighted than Governments (not that they are that far sighted, mind you.) They need immediate returns and that is just so hard to come by.
Network Solutions (or for that matter, any registrar) should demand PGP/GPG signed emails before they do anything.
Which is why the loser paying the costs is a better system. The law then cannot be used as a weapon of harassment. And each side defending would put more effort in making a watertight case, rather than looking for settlements. Only then can Justice be served.
Another idea (one that may draw the ire of lawyers): Redefine the lawyers role. Don't allow them to "set up business". Make them "officers of the court". Make it illegal for them to accept money to fight cases. Instead, they draw a fixed income from the court, who assigns them to the clients. Then the parties in a suit pay the court its costs. You want a lawyer to write your contract? Go to court, pay them, and ask for one lawyer. The Court assigns one to you.
IMAO, COBOL is one heck of a stupid language. Instead of a = b + c, one writes add a to b giving c. But to get around DeCSS, I guess we could adopt it. *yikes*
But us nerds have spent a considerable time hacking and fooling around. We don't get big bucks or lots of recognition for it. At the very least, Dell could take a little off the purchase price of a _linux_ computer for the things we don't need!
The chances are good that if there are no hardware problems, they'll have my money and never have to support or see me again. Why don't they want this type of business?
If this is about ages 6-10, I guess, the test would be OK. Anything older than that: No way.
Next, there seems to be a really big gripe about taking standardized tests. The assertion is that interviews are better. Well I disagree.
First of all, I have sat on interview panels for bright kids before. It is not a simple task to rank the kids and say "Joan is better than Michelle." There will be lots of different opinions among interviewers. School boards are getting themselves into a mess if they ever take this route. It would be _easier_, not harder, for charges of racism, sexism, whatever-ism to stick. Standardized tests must be a component somewhere.
And the standardized tests are not really that difficult to ace. I would be deeply suspicious of students who can "talk the talk", but can't perform well on a simple straightforward test like the SAT.
The way I installed my Debian laptop box was - I got the base system up and running, plugged into an ethernet (I have lots of friends who won'd mind letting me plug it in for about 2-3 hours), and then d/l the packages I needed.
What I would like is choice. Now that I know that Dell's laptop is Linux-certified, could I forego that Linux CD/Windoze CD and let me do it myself? Choice is what I am asking for!
I am pretty ambivalent about this. One of the chief joys of Linux is getting it up slowly, piece by piece on the laptop. Watch it grow. Where's the pleasure in getting a pre-installed system?
OTOH, this means that the hardware works. I could ditch the distro and put Debian on it, without worrying about the hardware not being supported.
In case you are wondering, it is routine for professors of Computer Science to sketch to students enough information about an algorithm so that they can write it up as code.
That is called getting an education! I know of no better way to learn algorithms, coding, Comp Sci, logic and discrete maths other than by _reverse engineering_ all the algorithms of old. I fondly remember my Prof giving me the task of implementing FFT, by pointing out the appropriate recurrence relation. And I worked the rest out myself.
There is no better sense of satisfaction than that. It's even better than sex!
And we haven't even gotten round to the x86 intruction set compatibility and code morphing technology yet.
All of these are interesting stuff for geeks. News for geeks. Stuff that matters. It's cool and from what we've seen, it might be affordable.
Linus? Yeah. But the only drawing attraction Linus has is the slashdot crowd. A lot of the perceived hype comes from one's own over-inflated expectations, really. Don't let it faze you, and in the end, it is still cool tech.
Scott Neanderthal, the press-manager describes the Yeti-Aibo as a one that "fetches the Yeti".
No longer will you have to place videocams all over your backyard to catch that elusive Yeti. The Yeti-Aibo is a custom tailored Aibo with the state-of-the-art motion-tracking and pheromone detectors. Downloaded with the lastest YETI@Home client, the robot dog actively scouts out and tracks down that elusive creature known as the Yeti.
"You can customize the Yeti-Aibo to range over only your backyard, or the whole forest. You can set your preference to find only male or female Yeti's or both. You can even get it to invite the Yeti home to dinner."
"Cool, now I will never need those Cams to track the Yeti again!" says Sasquatch enthusiast, Scott Lowbrow, one of the many hundreds of enthusiasts invited to the press-conference. "I can use it to spy on my pretty neighbor next door."
Sony anticipates selling one million units of the Yeti-Aibo within the next three months.
But cybersquatting for a good cause. No complaints, save from the envy of the shitloads of money he is getting. :) Maybe he should donate some of that money to FSF or EFF?
Who knows, maybe it is just pure random data that Mitnick has. Imagine: Mitnick vs. US Govt over 9G of crap. After all, what does Mitnick have to lose, now that he use computers? Could be Mitnick's way of giving the finger to those that sent him to jail? :-)
They write two pieces. One praising OSS and another bashing it. Then they wait to see how the winds change. A year ago, OSS was just a fad. Now, hey - we knew you'd make it all along. Let us be friends, eh?