The best "PS for the web" is XML with XSL. XML for content, and XSL (extensible Style Language) to format the document. XSL can be used to transform an XML document into HTML, but it can also specify hard formatting, ala PS. It doesn't need to use tables to control layout. Very cool technology.
The only problem is that this stuff is pretty new and no one's written editing software to take advantage of it yet. Stay tuned to the w3.org site and I highly recommend reading Tim Berners-Lee's Weaving The Web.
There is precedence for this: Michael Milken was banned by the SEC from ever trading or dealing securities again. He's still rich, and active with charities, an educational venture, and (I believe) some real estate business, but he can't work in the world of finance. What a fitting punishment for Gates, Ballmer, et al. That combined with a $1 fine would be simply poetic, since the damage the ban would have on the value of the stock would be much more devastating.
I've noticed that dramas tend to win over all other genres. There are many excellent movies made each year, but the ones that win the oscar tend to be:
laden with emotion
historically-based
sort of British
long
chick movies
not intellectually challenging
slow-paced
not too controversial
politically correct
For some reason SF, comedy, and action films are not considered "serious" or "real" enough to win Best Picture. Absolutely, Blade Runner should have won. Also, A Fish Called Wanda, and Empire Strikes Back. I guess the Academy is a bunch of snobs. It could also be that the academy members are NOT a cross-section of the public, and the actors, writers, and directors vastly outnumber the special effects and technical people.
It would be nice if the academy considered expanding into more categories, like the Golden Globes (best comedy, best drama, etc), so that a movie like Blade Runner isn't forced to compete directly with Chariots of Fire. Of course, then the broadcast would never end!
IANAL, but I believe you are correct that Judge Jackson will rule on the 28th, but that's only to say whether the behavior that was determined in the findings of fact actually broke anti-trust law. I think the vast consensus of legal pundits is that he will find that MS did break antitrust law.
But that ruling would be followed by arguments by both sides in court over what the remedy should be. It's kind of like the "sentencing hearing" after a guilty verdict in a typical criminal case.
The legal and political strategies are interesting. MS would be wise to settle, because that way they could find some terms that are mutually acceptable. If they argue their side and then let the judge decide, they are likely to fare worse. But if they can stretch it out to appeal, then they may find a new administration at the Justice Dept. On the Justice Dept side, they know if they get a break-up it will be appealed, and they could be out in a year. So they want to settle, too, but they have such an overwhelming case that they need to get some major concessions from MS in order to accept any settlement and present it to the American public as "justice served."
Michael Mann, I think I have the subject for your next movie.
You may actually want to watch commercials when they are targeted and "on-demand". When consumers are empowered by TiVo and similar devices to "turn-off" commercials, then advertisers will finally wise up and offer ads that people would actually choose to watch. If I'm in the market to buy a new car, I'd gladly avoid the dealerships and spent an hour watching various in-depth ads produced by the auto makers.
Some day big corporations will hop on the cluetrain and offer this kind of product information. So I think (I hope) commercials will live on, but only in a form that is useful to consumers.
Telecommuting out of state will kill your Drag Coefficient as an employee. To be more competitive, you should consider a combination desk/hideaway-bed. You won't miss the morning commute!;^)
Remember all those car companies like Renault, Sterling, and Alfa Romeo that used to sell cars in the US. They all pulled out because the overhead expense of having a US sales channel was more than the expected sales could support. The same is often true for these cutting-edge Japanese electronics.
The Japanese consumer electronics market is much more competitive, while the US market is more value-oriented. Take walkmans: in Japan they have expensive tiny high-tech walkmans, but in the US people want a cheap walkman for $30 or less. Also, Japanese companies are wise to test market their products so by the time they put up the money to market them in the US, they have already been successful in Japan. Thirdly, it takes a while for manufacturing volumes to ramp up, especially in Japan where they are concerned with ensuring the quality of their products before they sell them. It's natural that they would sell only in Japan until the factories can produce at full capacity.
It's simple economics and practical business strategy, not some conspiracy to deprive Americans of the best technology.
One of the interesting things Joy says is that he has only become pessimistic about the future because he is so optimistic that these technical advances will happen. I'm not sure if I can agree with that.
There has been much thought devoted over the years to proving whether AI can or cannot exist. I'm not an AI expert, but I have yet to see any credible evidence. Joy talks about Moore's law leading to computer chips with more raw processing power than the human brain, but what about existing chips with more raw processing power than an ant? No one's figured out how to make an artificial version of even the simplest life forms yet, so why should we believe they'll have an intelligence greater than our own once the chips are fast enough? Furthermore, if the goal is to build an artificial brain neuron by neuron, then what about the non-brain-dead dead? Scientists already have access to fully-developed human brains in pristine condition. So if they duplicate the same thing in silicon, how will they "start it up" and create a new consciousness if they can't "restart" a real one moments after death? I think there is room for skepticism.
Joy also repeats Moravec's warning that species rarely survive encounters with superior species. I would say this is true of competing species. There are plenty of examples of superior and inferior species living in harmony, like those fish that attach themselves to sharks, or those little birds that clean the mouths of hippos. Unless Joy is arguing that future AI robots will eat us, or like in "The Matrix" use our body heat for energy (the weakest idea in an otherwise interesting movie) I don't see how we will be competing. Moore's law isn't just about faster chips, it's about higher transistor densities, and therefore lower power consumption.
I don't see any reason to believe that AI robots will want or need any of the things that humans value. Even if they have consciousness, which I doubt to be possible, what would they want? More information, perhaps, but not sports cars and filet mignon.
As for the dangers inherent with genetic and nano technology, I think Joy makes valid--and disturbing points.
The problem with mass-media becoming obsolete has to do with choice, not interactivity. No one wants to interact with a book. No one reads "choose your own adventure" books anymore because they were stupid. We don't want alternative endings or any other dynamic features in books because they detract from the whole point of reading books, which is to enter the mind of the author and see the world from their perspective; to share experiences and ideas in-depth.
Katz would be correct to criticize television, but not books. TV has created a culture of the lowest common denominator. If people had the choice to watch whatever they want, whenever they want, they wouldn't be watching ANY of the stuff that occupies most of the current broadcasting bandwidth. The Internet will eventually create a new culture of first-choice viewership. Luckily, that culture has existed for thousands of years among literate people who have sufficient attention span to read books. Books are the ultimate interactive media. You can find a book an practically any subject that interests you. You can choose to read it cover to cover, or just skim the sections that interest you.
Whether read on paper or electronically, the fundamental nature and purpose of books will not change. Katz: Books are fine as they are.
From a strategic viewpoint, we are politically disadvantaged in most of our "core issues" because they go against the mainstream... except privacy.
Internet privacy (or the lack-therof) seems to strike fear into the hearts of many. The public is fed up with SPAM, annoying pop-up ads, junk mail, phone solicitations, and they're scared to death of "identity thefts." Any politician who can solve these problems will have a groundswell of support, and if we geeks get vocal on this issue, it could greatly increase our political clout. As for the other issues, it doesn't look too good:
UCITA: We're opposed by big companies like M$ and AOL, who have big money, powerful connections, and (this is the most important) they create jobs. Politicians love that. Our only allies are the companies that purchase lots of software, who are just starting to catch on to the dangers of UCITA. Unfortunately, they are much less organized than the proponents of UCITA, and they probably figure they won't get screwed because they are important customers for the software vendors.
Cryptography: Here, we are up against the most powerful agencies of government and most of mainstream society. Most people buy the "national security" or "law enforcement" arguments against strong cryptography for public use. The more we argue for the freedom to encrypt, the more we sound we're doing things that are illegal.
Censorship: We are opposed by the ultra-religious, as well as the liberal "child advocates", forming a pincer move against us. Luckily we have some of the press on our side, and 1st Amendment groups like the ACLU. There have been some victories here, like CDA, but still the common public sentiment is that there's too much smut on the internet and someone needs to do something about it.
DVD/DeCSS: Absolutely no one is with us on this one. The issue has been framed by the media as "movie stars" vs. "pirates". No one gives a damn if a few Linux users can't use their DVD's. They don't understand what free software means, and they'll buy into anything that Hollywood has to say on this. Most of all, they don't understand how pirates can copy DVDs without DeCSS because the media (a bit more techno-savvy than the public) doesn't even get it.
Free Software: One word: FUD. Oh, and most of the richest geeks are against us, and they're the ones that get interviewed by the media, not RMS and ESR. Let's just be glad that we don't need politicians to let us have Linux and free software.
Geeks will never unionize because unions only form out of necessity. Unions only form when workers are willing to give up individual bargaining power in exchange for collective bargaining. That only happens when the supply of workers exceeds the demand and the skillset has become standardized. Cutting-edge technology is by definition dynamic, so the geek skillset will never standardize. And we all know that the demand for geeks FAR exceeds the supply.
Besides, only inferior geeks would want to join a collective system of compensation. The best minds can always do better independently.
The solution the shortage of able sysadmins, of course, is to make the kids the sysadmins. George Gilder wrote this article about a school that did just that. It seems to work, and it gives some kids a chance to excel at something where they may have really hated school otherwise(sound familiar?).
Back to the Future was directed by Robert Zemeckis of more recent "Forrest Gump" fame.
I have to credit Spielberg for creating the "summer blockbuster" genre with Jaws. (I especially love Robert Shaw's portrayal of the swarthy sea-captain). Spielberg at his best is quite good, but he doesn't have the high standards of Kubrick, who was a perfectionist. Let's just hope that Spielberg takes his time and gives it his best. The last thing we want is for Stanley's vision to get churned out like "Batteries not included" or "The Lost World".
As much as we complain about the silliness of software patents, the patenting of genes is even scarier! I've read about several companies that are "gene-prospecting," applying for patents on every gene they can map. Are they working on cures? No. Are they providing helpful guidance to medical researchers who are? No. They'll just come out of the woodwork with a patent infringement suit demanding half of the profits after someone else has done all of the work to find a genetic treatment for disease.
It's scary... think of the projects that will be abandoned or postponed due to profit considerations resulting from having to use a gene that someone else has patented. We could see the resources of genetic research focused on genes that are selected based on who owns them, rather than purely going after the most promising and beneficial treatments.
I run Slackware 7.0 and I love it, but I wonder if businesses think the name sounds unprofessional. Too much like "slacker". This could be why Slackware has lost popularity to other distros. The ironic thing is that among distros, it's probably one of the best for serious business use.
I think they need a slogan, to add a business edge to their image, while still remaining true to the spirit and character we all love. How about
"network demand driving you insane? We'll give you some Slack"
"NT stretching your (servers|budget|network) out of shape? We'll cut you some Slack."
some reference to the software being pretty slick... "not slick... Slack."
You missed my point. The vast majority of MS users save their files in the default formats (.doc,.xls,.ppt,.mdb) and these formats are closed. XML 'support' won't fix the problem, just like ascii or rich-text-format support haven't solved the problems I listed. With mere 'support' for open formats, compatibility can only flow one way. Sure, I can send you a document in.rtf or.xml and you can read it. But if you send me a file in.doc format with a macro or complex formatting, or a.xls spreadsheet file with an unusual function or something, then I still HAVE to use MS Office.
I'm arguing against the Linux zealots who want Linux to take over. I'm saying if only we all used common open formats, then we could all decide for ourselves what software WE prefer to use. If for you that's MS Office, then I respect your choice.
Microsoft doesn't HAVE to make their formats closed. They intentionally choose to do it this way because it FORCES everyone to use the LATEST version of THEIR software. I wouldn't complain if everyone in the world chose MS Office over the alternatives because they thought it was better software. What I protest is that I don't have the freedom to choose differently without giving up some part of my ability to share information with other people. Until the default formats are open, the problem will persist.
Forgive me, I know this is way off-topic, but I've been thinking alot about what the USPS could do to modernize.
I think they should start a new service where citizens can register a coded numerical address for a small fee. Then you wouldn't need to give ANYONE your home address. You could just give them the number and the post office would be able to figure out how to deliver to your home. The great thing about this is that you could have more than one number, so you could give one to your friends and another to companies. When you start getting junk mail, you just cancel the number. This would be the biggest increase to personal privacy I can imagine, and I can't think of any reason why it couldn't be done today. USPS--are you listening?!
We don't need MS Office for Linux, we need to get MS (IOW all the non-Linux users) to use open file formats. If MS started using XML or some kind of markup language, as they did with the earliest versions of MS Word, then we could read and write MS Office files using StarOffice, Applix, Abi, or even vi or emacs.
Of course MS will never do this, since it is the main reason that:
MS Office reached a tipping point, gaining mindshare dominance
MS Office users fork over $400+ every 2-3 years for the latest version.
Despite remarkable efforts at reverse-engineering, non-MS programs cannot fully read/write MS Office files with complete functionality, therefore forcing many of use to keep buying MS crap just to be compatible.
Things will only get worse if UCITA passes, because then it may be illegal for any company to reverse-engineer the MS Office file formats. Then we'll see the true power of mindshare.
An example:
A co-worker of mine who writes a newsletter in MS Publisher asked for my help in distributing the newsletter online. I suggested exporting to html, but discovered that was not possible. Finally I suggested just stripping out the text and sending it as just a simple email. Too difficult. She's now trying to get volunteers to hand out paper copies!
What if large groups of us just went ahead and used a "one-click-purchase" method for selling things. There must be some way of violating the patent without actually having to create an expensive ecommerce website, say, selling "words of encouragement" for $0.00.
IANAL, but wouldn't Amazon lose the right to enforce their patent if they choose not to sue a significant number of offenders for infringment? If enough people did it, it could pose a problem for Amazon's legal team.
AFAIK, the one-click is a convenience feature that is only available to registered users who have already given Amazon their credit card number and preferred shipping address. So it requires many clicks and keypunches to set up, but after that, thanks to the "magic" of cookies, the customer can buy a book with one click.
I know this is off-topic, but I've toyed with this idea ever since watching the time-travelling show "Voyagers" on TV as a kid. What would you do if you were suddenly transplanted to an earlier civilization (or I guess you could consider the destruction of our own civ) and everything you know about science and technology will be lost if you don't A) write it down and/or B) teach it to someone. Do you know enough about electricity or metalurgy or math to pass it on, or would it be lost for hundred of years, like the Dark Ages.
Just food for thought. It always made me want to reach a deeper understanding of how things work.
I think the author has a severe misunderstanding of Linux. If his primary experience with Linux is from browsing distros in the aisles of COMPUSA, then fine, but he doesn't seem to understand what makes Linux fundamentally different from Windows, MacOS, BeOS, or even commercial Unixes. I think in order to fully understand the difference you have to go to the GPL. The beauty of Linux is not that it's more stable than Windows, because commercial Unixes have that property. It's not just that it's free (as in beer), because most computers come with an OS, and even Linux users often end up paying the MS tax. The difference is that it's free (open source).
If Corel wants to sell a Linux with a Win98 or MacOS GUI, that's fine: I don't have to buy it. If Red Hat or Caldera want to sell "LinuxNT" with an NT-like interface, that's fine: again, I won't buy it. It would be great if everyone would use Linux, but it would also be great if everyone could code. In the end, I won't lose any sleep if millions of people choose Windows2000 over Linux as long as Linux is still around for me to use (and it will be).
This guy needs to realize the difference between Linux and a particular Linux distro, and he needs to realize that most Linux users like it the way it is because they get to control it. If I wanted an easy to use interface where I have limited choices, I'd buy a Mac. I installed Linux because I wanted to know how my OS worked and I wanted to be able to control the CLI and GUI manually.
With enough time and effort, I'm sure someone will make a Linux that does everything for you and is super easy to use. Then I'm sure this guy will complain because there will be five different super-easy distros and each has a slightly different GUI, and he'd rather have just one so people would know which one to buy and learn. He just doesn't get it.
Linux has the potential to be all things to all users, but not at the same time.
Could be old news to most, but EInk is developing a high resolution display that promises to be closer to the look of paper, use less power, and be cheaper to manufacture than LCDs. It seems a bit pie-in-the-sky compared to evolutionary improvements to LCD technology, but I hope they can get it to work. It would be interesting to see the two (actually three) technologies side by side some day. I want both: LCD for movies and games, EInk for reading, writing, browsing, etc. Then again I can't imagine what it would look like to watch a movie on a display that looks like printed paper. It might look really cool.
IANAL, but it apparently worked for the guy that blew the whistle on the tobacco companies. (see film: The Insider)
Could Jon go into court and submit the source code to DeCSS in his own defense and therefore make it public record? What if some enterprising congressman could make it part of the congressional record, so that it would be publicly available and uncensorable?
Again, IANAL, and I'm especially ignorant of Norwegian law, but I would imagine Jon would have an even stronger legal position than the tobacco guy because HE authored the code himself, independently. It's not like he stole secrets from a company, he came up with this on his own.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem is that this stuff is pretty new and no one's written editing software to take advantage of it yet. Stay tuned to the w3.org site and I highly recommend reading Tim Berners-Lee's Weaving The Web.
There is precedence for this: Michael Milken was banned by the SEC from ever trading or dealing securities again. He's still rich, and active with charities, an educational venture, and (I believe) some real estate business, but he can't work in the world of finance. What a fitting punishment for Gates, Ballmer, et al. That combined with a $1 fine would be simply poetic, since the damage the ban would have on the value of the stock would be much more devastating.
- laden with emotion
- historically-based
- sort of British
- long
- chick movies
- not intellectually challenging
- slow-paced
- not too controversial
- politically correct
For some reason SF, comedy, and action films are not considered "serious" or "real" enough to win Best Picture. Absolutely, Blade Runner should have won. Also, A Fish Called Wanda, and Empire Strikes Back. I guess the Academy is a bunch of snobs. It could also be that the academy members are NOT a cross-section of the public, and the actors, writers, and directors vastly outnumber the special effects and technical people.It would be nice if the academy considered expanding into more categories, like the Golden Globes (best comedy, best drama, etc), so that a movie like Blade Runner isn't forced to compete directly with Chariots of Fire. Of course, then the broadcast would never end!
But that ruling would be followed by arguments by both sides in court over what the remedy should be. It's kind of like the "sentencing hearing" after a guilty verdict in a typical criminal case.
The legal and political strategies are interesting. MS would be wise to settle, because that way they could find some terms that are mutually acceptable. If they argue their side and then let the judge decide, they are likely to fare worse. But if they can stretch it out to appeal, then they may find a new administration at the Justice Dept. On the Justice Dept side, they know if they get a break-up it will be appealed, and they could be out in a year. So they want to settle, too, but they have such an overwhelming case that they need to get some major concessions from MS in order to accept any settlement and present it to the American public as "justice served."
Michael Mann, I think I have the subject for your next movie.
Some day big corporations will hop on the cluetrain and offer this kind of product information. So I think (I hope) commercials will live on, but only in a form that is useful to consumers.
Telecommuting out of state will kill your Drag Coefficient as an employee. To be more competitive, you should consider a combination desk/hideaway-bed. You won't miss the morning commute! ;^)
Come on, IBM! We want to know how fast this thing is in BogoMIPS.
The Japanese consumer electronics market is much more competitive, while the US market is more value-oriented. Take walkmans: in Japan they have expensive tiny high-tech walkmans, but in the US people want a cheap walkman for $30 or less. Also, Japanese companies are wise to test market their products so by the time they put up the money to market them in the US, they have already been successful in Japan. Thirdly, it takes a while for manufacturing volumes to ramp up, especially in Japan where they are concerned with ensuring the quality of their products before they sell them. It's natural that they would sell only in Japan until the factories can produce at full capacity.
It's simple economics and practical business strategy, not some conspiracy to deprive Americans of the best technology.
There has been much thought devoted over the years to proving whether AI can or cannot exist. I'm not an AI expert, but I have yet to see any credible evidence. Joy talks about Moore's law leading to computer chips with more raw processing power than the human brain, but what about existing chips with more raw processing power than an ant? No one's figured out how to make an artificial version of even the simplest life forms yet, so why should we believe they'll have an intelligence greater than our own once the chips are fast enough? Furthermore, if the goal is to build an artificial brain neuron by neuron, then what about the non-brain-dead dead? Scientists already have access to fully-developed human brains in pristine condition. So if they duplicate the same thing in silicon, how will they "start it up" and create a new consciousness if they can't "restart" a real one moments after death? I think there is room for skepticism.
Joy also repeats Moravec's warning that species rarely survive encounters with superior species. I would say this is true of competing species. There are plenty of examples of superior and inferior species living in harmony, like those fish that attach themselves to sharks, or those little birds that clean the mouths of hippos. Unless Joy is arguing that future AI robots will eat us, or like in "The Matrix" use our body heat for energy (the weakest idea in an otherwise interesting movie) I don't see how we will be competing. Moore's law isn't just about faster chips, it's about higher transistor densities, and therefore lower power consumption.
I don't see any reason to believe that AI robots will want or need any of the things that humans value. Even if they have consciousness, which I doubt to be possible, what would they want? More information, perhaps, but not sports cars and filet mignon.
As for the dangers inherent with genetic and nano technology, I think Joy makes valid--and disturbing points.
Katz would be correct to criticize television, but not books. TV has created a culture of the lowest common denominator. If people had the choice to watch whatever they want, whenever they want, they wouldn't be watching ANY of the stuff that occupies most of the current broadcasting bandwidth. The Internet will eventually create a new culture of first-choice viewership. Luckily, that culture has existed for thousands of years among literate people who have sufficient attention span to read books. Books are the ultimate interactive media. You can find a book an practically any subject that interests you. You can choose to read it cover to cover, or just skim the sections that interest you.
Whether read on paper or electronically, the fundamental nature and purpose of books will not change. Katz: Books are fine as they are.
Internet privacy (or the lack-therof) seems to strike fear into the hearts of many. The public is fed up with SPAM, annoying pop-up ads, junk mail, phone solicitations, and they're scared to death of "identity thefts." Any politician who can solve these problems will have a groundswell of support, and if we geeks get vocal on this issue, it could greatly increase our political clout. As for the other issues, it doesn't look too good:
UCITA: We're opposed by big companies like M$ and AOL, who have big money, powerful connections, and (this is the most important) they create jobs. Politicians love that. Our only allies are the companies that purchase lots of software, who are just starting to catch on to the dangers of UCITA. Unfortunately, they are much less organized than the proponents of UCITA, and they probably figure they won't get screwed because they are important customers for the software vendors.
Cryptography: Here, we are up against the most powerful agencies of government and most of mainstream society. Most people buy the "national security" or "law enforcement" arguments against strong cryptography for public use. The more we argue for the freedom to encrypt, the more we sound we're doing things that are illegal.
Censorship: We are opposed by the ultra-religious, as well as the liberal "child advocates", forming a pincer move against us. Luckily we have some of the press on our side, and 1st Amendment groups like the ACLU. There have been some victories here, like CDA, but still the common public sentiment is that there's too much smut on the internet and someone needs to do something about it.
DVD/DeCSS: Absolutely no one is with us on this one. The issue has been framed by the media as "movie stars" vs. "pirates". No one gives a damn if a few Linux users can't use their DVD's. They don't understand what free software means, and they'll buy into anything that Hollywood has to say on this. Most of all, they don't understand how pirates can copy DVDs without DeCSS because the media (a bit more techno-savvy than the public) doesn't even get it.
Free Software: One word: FUD. Oh, and most of the richest geeks are against us, and they're the ones that get interviewed by the media, not RMS and ESR. Let's just be glad that we don't need politicians to let us have Linux and free software.
Besides, only inferior geeks would want to join a collective system of compensation. The best minds can always do better independently.
That's not to say we can't form a PAC, though.
The solution the shortage of able sysadmins, of course, is to make the kids the sysadmins. George Gilder wrote this article about a school that did just that. It seems to work, and it gives some kids a chance to excel at something where they may have really hated school otherwise(sound familiar?).
I have to credit Spielberg for creating the "summer blockbuster" genre with Jaws. (I especially love Robert Shaw's portrayal of the swarthy sea-captain). Spielberg at his best is quite good, but he doesn't have the high standards of Kubrick, who was a perfectionist. Let's just hope that Spielberg takes his time and gives it his best. The last thing we want is for Stanley's vision to get churned out like "Batteries not included" or "The Lost World".
It's scary... think of the projects that will be abandoned or postponed due to profit considerations resulting from having to use a gene that someone else has patented. We could see the resources of genetic research focused on genes that are selected based on who owns them, rather than purely going after the most promising and beneficial treatments.
I think they need a slogan, to add a business edge to their image, while still remaining true to the spirit and character we all love. How about
Any others?
I'm arguing against the Linux zealots who want Linux to take over. I'm saying if only we all used common open formats, then we could all decide for ourselves what software WE prefer to use. If for you that's MS Office, then I respect your choice.
Microsoft doesn't HAVE to make their formats closed. They intentionally choose to do it this way because it FORCES everyone to use the LATEST version of THEIR software. I wouldn't complain if everyone in the world chose MS Office over the alternatives because they thought it was better software. What I protest is that I don't have the freedom to choose differently without giving up some part of my ability to share information with other people. Until the default formats are open, the problem will persist.
I think they should start a new service where citizens can register a coded numerical address for a small fee. Then you wouldn't need to give ANYONE your home address. You could just give them the number and the post office would be able to figure out how to deliver to your home. The great thing about this is that you could have more than one number, so you could give one to your friends and another to companies. When you start getting junk mail, you just cancel the number. This would be the biggest increase to personal privacy I can imagine, and I can't think of any reason why it couldn't be done today. USPS--are you listening?!
Of course MS will never do this, since it is the main reason that:
Things will only get worse if UCITA passes, because then it may be illegal for any company to reverse-engineer the MS Office file formats. Then we'll see the true power of mindshare.
An example:
IANAL, but wouldn't Amazon lose the right to enforce their patent if they choose not to sue a significant number of offenders for infringment? If enough people did it, it could pose a problem for Amazon's legal team.
AFAIK, the one-click is a convenience feature that is only available to registered users who have already given Amazon their credit card number and preferred shipping address. So it requires many clicks and keypunches to set up, but after that, thanks to the "magic" of cookies, the customer can buy a book with one click.
Just food for thought. It always made me want to reach a deeper understanding of how things work.
If Corel wants to sell a Linux with a Win98 or MacOS GUI, that's fine: I don't have to buy it. If Red Hat or Caldera want to sell "LinuxNT" with an NT-like interface, that's fine: again, I won't buy it. It would be great if everyone would use Linux, but it would also be great if everyone could code. In the end, I won't lose any sleep if millions of people choose Windows2000 over Linux as long as Linux is still around for me to use (and it will be).
This guy needs to realize the difference between Linux and a particular Linux distro, and he needs to realize that most Linux users like it the way it is because they get to control it. If I wanted an easy to use interface where I have limited choices, I'd buy a Mac. I installed Linux because I wanted to know how my OS worked and I wanted to be able to control the CLI and GUI manually.
With enough time and effort, I'm sure someone will make a Linux that does everything for you and is super easy to use. Then I'm sure this guy will complain because there will be five different super-easy distros and each has a slightly different GUI, and he'd rather have just one so people would know which one to buy and learn. He just doesn't get it.
Linux has the potential to be all things to all users, but not at the same time.
Could be old news to most, but EInk is developing a high resolution display that promises to be closer to the look of paper, use less power, and be cheaper to manufacture than LCDs. It seems a bit pie-in-the-sky compared to evolutionary improvements to LCD technology, but I hope they can get it to work. It would be interesting to see the two (actually three) technologies side by side some day. I want both: LCD for movies and games, EInk for reading, writing, browsing, etc. Then again I can't imagine what it would look like to watch a movie on a display that looks like printed paper. It might look really cool.
Could Jon go into court and submit the source code to DeCSS in his own defense and therefore make it public record? What if some enterprising congressman could make it part of the congressional record, so that it would be publicly available and uncensorable?
Again, IANAL, and I'm especially ignorant of Norwegian law, but I would imagine Jon would have an even stronger legal position than the tobacco guy because HE authored the code himself, independently. It's not like he stole secrets from a company, he came up with this on his own.