...the only reason it was chosen over grain alcohol was that tetraethyl lead could be patented and marketed, whereas grain alcohol could not...
The ONLY reason?
I'm not certain that I completely agree with this assertion...yes, a gasoline/alcohol mix has a higher octane rating than the straight gasoline stream, but at a cost. Let's get through the easy stuff first, just to get it out of the way. It takes quite a bit of energy to remove all the unwanted water from engine alcohol...some have argued that it can take more energy to produce an amount of grain alcohol than you will recover by burning it (grin). Even as an antiknock additive in by-weight proportions of under 10%, this adds significantly to the price of gasoline (while, it must be said, reducing the amount of energy that this gasoline will produce). Ok...the easy stuff's over. Now on to the "real" issues.
Not that there are any other good "straight-run" alternatives. Examples: Benzene (freezes at a higher temperature than water). Toluene (ech!). Xylene (likewise!). Petroleum olefins and paraffins (gummed jets, anyone?). Petroleum ethers (limited shelf life). Callulose-based ether alcohols (also toxic, and has the same problems as grain alcohols). Iron carbonyl (cakes sparkplugs. May also eat engine oil).
A little background: During The Great War, we had airplanes that basically didn't have enough power. Two ways to increase power: Boost displacement (motor keeps getting bigger & heavier), or increase efficiency (most notably, by reconfiguring combustion chambers to avoid hotspots, and increasing compression). Only trouble was, we could only boost compression so far before predetonation (knock) became a factor. We're talking about compression ratios of under 5.5 to 1, here...pretty ugly.
The best alternative was to run -- you guessed it -- alcohol in the engines...but when your plane's takeoff weight is already 20-30% fuel, and you just increased your fuel requirements (or decreased your range) by 30%, that's not always the best route to take.
After the war, the search for a way to increase efficiency and power continued, as the engines of the day were so inefficient that the country was literally worried about running out of petroleum in the next 40-50 years. Yes...that was in the 1920s, when we had one car to (what? 50? 100?) people...and we had very poor refining technology, and couldn't use most of what we pumped as gasoline. But it scared the businessmen, scientists and politicians anyway. So, what was needed was something that would decrease knock, would be economically viable, and would allow us to burn pretty much whatever we wanted and still call it "gasoline".
What we really needed was some sort of inexpensive "magic liquid" that could be added to plain old, nasty, paraffin-based gasolines that had long shelf life and had been cracked down far enough that they didn't gum (much). Something that wouldn't eat engines. Something that would cushion the valves (which is another subject in itself). TEL fits that bill a whole lot better than any form of alcohol mixture would.
Also, as an aside, at the time that TEL was being researched, there was a stupid little social experiment going on called "prohibition" that was destined to screw up society for the next umpteen years. Think that what happened to Dmitri under the DCMA was ugly? Try making the claim "it's only fuel additive" to the nice government inspector.
So, really, the only commercially-achievable alternative to TEL-enhanced paraffin-based gasoline (in the 20s, anyway), was a cellulose-driven alcohol mixed with benzene. This stuff cost 10-20 cents per gallon to produce, as compared to the 1/20th of 1 cent per gallon increase on the "sludge gas" (produced at under 5 cents per gallon) that TEL added--profits mattered. So, the only countries that would mess about with alcohol would 1) Not be US, and 2) Not have much in the way of local oil production. There were several, including Germany, France, England, etc., that did just that. We didn't exactly fit into that mold...so the rest, as they say, is history.
By the end of the 40s, though, we had learned to mix streams of aromatics into gasoline, raising octane ratings higher than TEL was able to by itself, and by the end of the 80s were able to get higer octane ratings without TEL than we were getting with TEL as recently as the 60s (TEL giving something like a 9-point "octane boost").
The worst part of all of this? That when we *did* find out about the effects of TEL (and we got all of that unfortunate WWII stuff out of the way), that we still went ahead and produced cars that used the darned stuff up until the mid- to late-70s, and kept it around until the 80s.
Perhaps it was a great business innovation, but a lousy scientific innovation.
Now THAT I can agree with.
If you want to see more background on TEL, Google for "Kettering". You'll see a story of a man who was initially excited with his discovery, and later began to do everything he could to kill it (think "Synthol").
Why yes! I *have* spent some time in a refinery laboratory. Thank you for asking:-)
"The Rat" owns it. If "The Rat" doesn't want you to see it, tough. If your create something, and choose not to distribute it, or choose to stop distributing it that's you're right too. If I create a work and decide to not distribute it, and then decide to destroy all my copies of it, I can.
Good point. Disney has the right to do this, as long as they retain the copyright to the work. However, I believe that the point the author was asserting was that works *do* exist that at one time were available, and will (theoretically) be released into the public domain at some future date--but instead of actively profiting from the work in the meantime, or at the least making the works available through a third party intermediary, the copyright holder has decided to sit on or destroy the work. Which isn't what copyright was intended to promote. The works discussed weren't closely held works...at one time, you *could* see SOTS in the theatre. you *could* purchase KLF albums at the local record store. These *were* part of our (shudder) culture at one time. Now, they're not. That isn't what copyright was meant to promote.
As far as your own right to create a work and not to distribute it...well...if a work has never been released, then it has never needed "formal" copyright protection. If you want to create a paper, a film, a song, or whatever, and you don't release it, then you don't have to worry about someone else taking "your" profits away from you. But more on this in the next section.
Really? How about giving everybody on/. a copy of your diary and personal email correspondance and other crap you choose to not distribute?
If "wowbagger" published a work, sought copyright protection to keep others from using that correspondence without his consent, etc., then somehow recovered and destroyed all of those works before the copyright expired, then you'd be right to call him on it. But until he releases works that are specifically designated to be viewed by others, and are covered by some form of copyright, there is no conflict in his statement, and no basis for yours.
Also, let's not confuse public copyright with privacy. Personal effects are covered under a more restrictive set of protections than a "public copyright" asserts. For example, a work in progress that has not been finalized and placed under formal copyright is still protected. Think "Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee" on that one...didn't they just win a something-like $1.4 Million judgement against an online pr0n distributor? Ouch! But that work was never copyrighed nor intended for public viewing, so they don't have to defend it as such...they merely have to show that others are profiting from their work, and collect whatever proceeds they can as a punitive measure. But if they did copyright the work, in 90+ years it'd be fair game.
This reminded me of a retort I used to use when someone would ask me about my opinion of helmet/leather/chaps/safety gear/whatever:
"Tell me what kind of crash you're going to have, and I'll tell you how to dress for it."
Safety gear is only useful if it happens to be properly deployed during deceleration. Having a leather jacket and full-faced helmet tied to the back of the bike (which happens a lot around here in 90 degree + weather) isn't very helpful if you tip over. But then again, heat exhaustion could lead to problems, too. Make your choice.
If this device is a net positive (e.g. IF it enhances crash protection without causing offsetting problems), great. That has yet to be proven, however. Right now, it's just an expensive oddity that may enhance survivability in some instances, and may cause problems in others.
(As for me, I'll stick to leathers in cool weather, and a ventilated jacket when the mercury rises. And I'll wear a lid and gloves, even when it's not "cool", in either the temperature or social sense, to do so. And I'll keep my bike in good working order. And I won't ride after drinking. You get the idea. Yep, I don't fit the stereotypical bad-ass Harley Rider mold...but, then again, I log more miles in a month than many of the "real-biker" bar-hoppers do in a year--now working toward 300,000 miles on two (and more recently, three) wheels. And yep, I've been down. Funny how that'll give you a big serving of Reality Chex...)
So we have the opportunity to pick up "news" that is placed in front of us by people who are unaccountable for the veracity of the facts they present, who are driven by their own agendas, who are shamelessly self-promoting, who in some cases are not experienced nor educated in the subjects on which they report, and who are unlikely to hesitate before reporting information that is confidential, damaging, endangering, or even (legally) secret.
On the other hand, we could get our news from "Web of Trust"...
1) Don't enable services and features you don't need (or in MS sysadmin speak--DISABLE all of the services and features you don't need that have "helpfully" been activated in the base install); and
2) Keep up to date on your patch levels.
You don't have to be bleeding-edge on patches, but when a security vulnerability with malicious code in the wild has been detected, it's time to *DO* something about it!
Really, I wonder how many of these infected websites were actually USING SSL, as opposed to having that port hot but unused...
Spun around to my Windows box...brought up IE, did a FIND for a string on my page, hit F3...
Nothing. Nada. Zilch. No response whatsoever.
Oh...focus is on the FIND dialogue box. No problem (shift focus away from FIND dialog). F3...
Super. Brought up "ie.search.msn.com" in a sidebar. Grrr. Close sidebar. Lessee...FIND Next button has "F" underlined, so I'll try ALT-F...
Great. Just popped up the entries under FILE on the menu bar. Guess the Find dialog needs focus. Click away from the menu, focus back on the Find dialog...now hit ALT-F...
OK, the licensing hasn't changed...that's all well and good, as far as that goes. Too bad that it's been "clarified" in such a manner, but that's life.
It doesn't surprise me that the mp3 format's patent-holders were initially supportive of allowing their decoding algorithm to be widely distributed in a royalty-unencumbered fashion...especially given that most users at the time didn't seem to believe that there was anything other than.wav available. You need to get mindshare and start moving product before you can generate enough traffic to make a decent profit. Still, the "clarification" that seems to no longer omit the license fee for non-commerical software created for personal use is alarming.
Let's turn this around, however, and suppose that, instead of merely patenting their algorithms, they also created a reference library for those algorighms, licensed under the LGPL. Anyone building a free (as in beer) application could use/adapt/modify their code...just follow the rules of the copyright, and you'll be OK. *Instant* mind-share! Any commercial firms who did NOT wish to distribute source code could talk to the patent-holders about royalties. Which, as I understand it, is pretty much what happened in mp3's case, anyway.
Seems like a win:win:win (patent holders get mind share, companies get a proven product with a large user base, and end-users can't ever get screwed by delayed patent enforcement).
What am I missing here?
And...isn't this sort of what Ogg is trying to do?
Yes, you are cheaper, faster, and do the same job...but maybe your solution wasn't really "right".
Perhaps you *needed* to install Win2000, SQL server, and IIS--your technology was "wrong." Or perhaps you needed to have an office address, an answering service, or a listing in the Business Journal--your business status was "wrong". Or perhaps you aren't related to the company president's golf buddy--your social status was "wrong". In any of those situations, you wouldn't be given the job if you paid THEM for the privilege of doing it.
Of course, there might be the notion of perceived value at work here as well. Because you came in SO cheap, you obviously can't bring the same "level of expertise" as the "big guys". Maybe your system would "work"...but it obviously won't be a "quality solution." Maybe they're looking for someone that they can (and this is my favorite term) "partner with"
(Reminds me of the story of the street artist who was selling "bare" watercolors for $10, and starving with only 5-10 sales per week. Some kind person set him up with a small stipend to purchase frames. The story goes that he then began selling 20-50 framed prints per for $50-$100. Same art, cheap-o frames, and 10x the perceived value and appeal.)
Or, perhaps the people involved aren't spending *their own* money, and they're trying to build a little buffer against blame. If a company charging $15,000 for a $5,000 job fails, then obviously the contractor failed to deliver. If an individual charging $5,000 fails to deliver, then obviously the people that chose that individual over a higher-priced but "more capable" company are lacking in business sense.
At any rate, it doesn't matter. You're out of the running, and chances are, due to those "unstated requirements", you never would have been granted the contract. Suck it up, try again, and work on building your reputation as someone worth "partnering with". Then perhaps you'll be on the *right* side of the equation.
Perhaps it would be possible to download the codec to the receiver, to take advantage of new developments...
Roughly 20 minutes into the future: A conversation with technical support:
"OK. First, we need to know if your set is marked as 'Palladium-enabled'. It should be on the front. Yes, I know it's a Sony. Yes, I know it's a Trinitron. We're looking for the word 'Palladium'. P-A-L-L...Ok, you found it--good, that means it's upgradeable. Next, we need the Serial Number. Usually on the back. It may be heavy, but in order to update the...yes, I'll hold. Thanks. Checking the database...oops! Looks like you aren't current on your license fee. No, not for your cable provider...for your television's Operating System. If you had kept current, it would only be a few dollars, but since you aren't, you'll have to pay for the entire cost. Sorry, that's the rules. $399..."
(click!)
"Hang up on me, willya?"
(typety-typety-click)
(pause while digital data winds its way around the globe)
...and, eventually, far away, in a small room, in a small house, in a small town...a screen stops displaying a rerun of "Cheers", and instead displays these 12 words:
"This Product Has Been Disabled. Please Contact Your Service Provider For Instructions"
Instead of a random pirate attack, antitrust lawyers will invade, reducing the settler's "freedom to innovate". At that point, collusion becomes illegal.
Instead of the MuLEs randomly going rogue, large chunks of the environment will inexplicably stop producing resources, requiring a visit from an expensive Multiphasic Seismic Cascade Emitter before production will begin again.
Small, flightless seabirds known as "xunil" will appear after a predetermined number of turns. This will greatly increase production (especially of food and energy), but will drastically reduce the ability of any one race to amass ore. This threat can only be controlled or eliminated vi a single player constructing and controlling a "NET", and somehow persuading all other players to agree to participate in the "NET's" useage. However, if those players do so, they will find that their productivity will decrease markedly, while the player controlling the "NET" will go on to rule the world.
Of couse, there will be random, persistant and frequent instances of viral outbreaks, worm attacks, etc...
The game will end at after a random number of turns, upon which the planet will explode for no adequately explored reason, forcing a reboot.
*That* should be good enough to protect them agains any possible lawsuit...
Simple. One way: Connect to Real Video stream through a proxy. (Have to set Real Player to connect only via http). Tell proxy to cache large http files. Watch stream. Take files from proxy's cache, burn to CD...
There are also tools to grab files from Real streams...I just don't have experience with them.
This method means that you end up with a set of discrete files. It's pretty simple to write a shell script to spin thru all of them in sequence...
All right...Let's see...It's 1968. What cool features do we want on our new computer?
Broadband network connection
Multitasking operating environment
Clickable/graphical user interface, with sound cues linked to events
Multi-head display
"Video Out" for use for large, low-scan-rate displays
Support for a programmamble "left-hand controller" for executing frequently-used commands
Effortless video conferencing
Built-in support for cutting-edge mouse design
"A browser that *is* part of the operating system
OK, it's now 1998. What cool features do we want on our new computer?...ummm...
Disclaimer: I'm one of the "crusty old pharts" you read about...still make a living programming in, among other languages, COBOL. Last year, I burned a copy of this presentation on a CD, and now use it frequently to educate any "pimply-faced youth" that for whatever reason seem to believe that Microsoft *invented* computing. Try it sometime...
The moral of this story: It ain't innovation if you're copying what has already been done!
Until a compiler compiles itself it is usally considered a "toy" language. There are 100's of them out there. They may be interesting academiclly, but they get no respect.
...kind of like the COBOL compiler that's been putting food on my table for the past decade-and-a-half...Although I'm not certain I would call it "interesting"...and the academic applications are questionable...I certainly agree that I get no respect!
(grin)
Seriously, though...IMO, the best indication of the importance of a complier is in how many lines of code/how many executables the compiler has been used to...compile..., and not necessarily any artifical metric.
That being said, I'll consider Mono's C# implementation a success if and only if it will allow a sizable chunk of C# sourcecode to be *used* on non-Microsoft platforms. Anything less, and it becomes at best "just another Java", only not as portable.
Miguel has now produced a "real compiler"...but I still think the jury's out on it becoming a "real success." I'm rooting for them, though!
For what it's worth, I've basically come to the conclusion that Users don't give a hoot about Exchange/OpenMail/Notes/whatever. What the USERS want is "the Outlook experience".
People point to "usability studies" and "feature reviews" that support their assertions of the superiority of <$Platform_A> over <$Other_Platforms>. When you get down to the bottom of the matter, it usually boils down to "I use message collaboration, so I like Outlook" versus "I use work collaboration, so I like Notes".
If your employer is bound and determined to run Outlook (mine is), one option for a Notes/Domino shop is to install the iNotes product along side of Domino...it allows for (basically) 100% Outlook usability, so your users are getting what they want...the aforementioned "experience"...while you get to avoid installing new servers/painful migration/Microsoft Tax/whatever. See Lotus iNotes for a quick run-down on iNotes. To sweeten the pot, the next version of Domino called (imaginitively) "Rnext" should have most of this functionality included. See notes.net/rnext" if you're interested (including beta server downloads for Linux/AIX/Solaris/Sparc/WinNT/Win2K).
With the client delt with, your only remaining problem is now to deal with the relatively few "server" bigots in the equation. While they (I?) am just as prejudiced in their views as the next guy, never underestimate the power of *accountability* to influence the actions of knowledgable people.
Believe it or not, I'm working for a (medical) company that recently installed a new practice management system running on MUMPS. I now find myself in the not-so-enviable position of being a newly-trained (although not very accomplished) "M" programmer...Wow, now my resume' is complete, eh?
As for MUMPS on Linux...yes, you can. Aside from as-yet incomplete projects like Generic Universal MUMPS (gump) that are actually somewhat useful, but not yet ready for "prime-time" development, you could take a look at Cache from Intersystems (the folks that currently own DSM). It's a "full-featured" commercial MUMPS that runs like stink on Linux. There's a trial version (no fees required), and a single-user license (which enables full networking) won't break the bank. I've been playing with it for a while now, and can report that yes, it is MUMPS...for whatever that's worth. It's also supposed to really rock for database-driven web serving, but I haven't as yet been able to substantiate those claims, as at work we're still stuck in the 60s (using none of the newer APIs).
As for being more powerful than BASIC...well...maybe the case could be made that the pattern matching and string handling routines are better ('cause they are!), but as an all-around language, it stinks. MUMPS' claim to fame was based in its integrated database--not in its flexibility. For example, some versions limit individual strings to a max length of 256 bytes...ugh.
Regardless, it is possible to make money in MUMPS.
Hmmm...speaking of my resume, looks like I've programmed professionally in FORTRAN77, COBOL, SYNON (an AS/400-based 4GL), and MUMPS. Man, I feel like a dinosaur!
1) How is the above reference to "lazy" related in any way to the subject of "family time", movie watching, or censorship?
Unless you are of the opinion that as parents, we are required to either:
a) prevent our children from watching any movies or television shows AT ALL, regardless of our own desires
b) consent to spend all of our family movie time watching made-for-children entertainment (welcome to the 15th showing of Pokemon 2000. GAAK!).
c) let our children set alone in front of the tube until their brain rots
I'm not certain that I grasp the reference. Can you let me know where I'm falling down? Maybe I'm odd, but I like spending time with my kid.
...but I do believe that it would help sell more DVDs to parents with young children.
...Which we all agree is exactly what is needed to save the world...
2) I included that blerb because the biggest obstacle to providing additional optional features on a DVD release will be related directly to the costs required to develop and deliver those features. Therefore, it seems likely that the only justification for including such features in a release would be if it could be shown to relate to the potential for greater sales. So yes...I do think that the possibility of increased desirability is an important element in this endeavor. In reference to your 2nd point: The DVD distributors aren't out to "save the world" either. All I'm saying is--"Give me a chance to vote with my money for something like this, and I will. The DVD producers might make a buck or two at the same time." What's wrong with that?
Remember: I'm not advocating producing DVDs that have been bastardized...leave the good stuff in there! What the hell--include more of it! BUT, I'd like see entertainment channels that give me the choice to view what I deem appropriate for the situation. And although I'm probably misguided, I do believe that the producers and studios would have a better chance of doing a decent job of re-cutting their own work (since they can INCLUDE additional or alternate dialog and video) versus some third-party product that is a cumbersome kludge hacked on to the outside of the datastream that can only EXCLUDE data.
Whatever. The point is moot, anyway, as this just isn't going to happen--too much inertia, too little impetus.
Wow...I guess I'm just not nearly as cool today as I was before procreation occurred. Hmmm...and now I'm lazy, too. Go figure.
As a parent of a 7-year-old, I find myself wishing for "expurgated" versions of some of the old standby movies... Example: I'd shared the original "Star Wars" trilogy with my daughter (who absolutely loved it)...then, we watched Mel Brook's "Spaceballs". I found that I wasn't nearly as quick on the "mute" button as I needed to be...same thing with "Blazing Saddles", by the way.
What I would like to see are multiple datapaths through the DVD of varying "appropriateness" levels that would make more "family-rated" entertainment available. Multiple datapaths are the DVD spec now, and should be supported by every player...all it would take is for the producers of the DVD to include the "mangled for TV" video datapath, dubbed audi and an appropriate menu selection, and we could have family movie night without need for parental preview and fast-forward. Plus, the original theatrical release could be included along with the director's cut, as well as the now-common commentary audio track.
Aside: I do not know if the DVD rating system supports different ratings for different datapaths...anyone have an idea? That may still limit the use of DVDs that those who lock down the rating ceiling on our DVD players. I don't really have any experience, as the version of (Xine) that I run doesn't do ratings. At any rate, I'm still a believer in participating in my child's activities, so that won't slow me down any--but it would be more convenient as a whole. Your kid want to watch "Top Gun?" at his slumber party? Fine...it's just 5 minutes shorter, and the story is just as compelling.
The only obstacles to this, AFAIK, are the additional work requirements of adding the extra dubs, and (perhaps) the objections of the directors/producers/artists involved. It might not be of monumental import...but I do believe that it would help sell more DVDs to parents with young children.
Slashdot Mirror
...the only reason it was chosen over grain alcohol was that tetraethyl lead could be patented and marketed, whereas grain alcohol could not...
:-)
The ONLY reason?
I'm not certain that I completely agree with this assertion...yes, a gasoline/alcohol mix has a higher octane rating than the straight gasoline stream, but at a cost. Let's get through the easy stuff first, just to get it out of the way. It takes quite a bit of energy to remove all the unwanted water from engine alcohol...some have argued that it can take more energy to produce an amount of grain alcohol than you will recover by burning it (grin). Even as an antiknock additive in by-weight proportions of under 10%, this adds significantly to the price of gasoline (while, it must be said, reducing the amount of energy that this gasoline will produce). Ok...the easy stuff's over. Now on to the "real" issues.
Not that there are any other good "straight-run" alternatives. Examples: Benzene (freezes at a higher temperature than water). Toluene (ech!). Xylene (likewise!). Petroleum olefins and paraffins (gummed jets, anyone?). Petroleum ethers (limited shelf life). Callulose-based ether alcohols (also toxic, and has the same problems as grain alcohols). Iron carbonyl (cakes sparkplugs. May also eat engine oil).
A little background: During The Great War, we had airplanes that basically didn't have enough power. Two ways to increase power: Boost displacement (motor keeps getting bigger & heavier), or increase efficiency (most notably, by reconfiguring combustion chambers to avoid hotspots, and increasing compression). Only trouble was, we could only boost compression so far before predetonation (knock) became a factor. We're talking about compression ratios of under 5.5 to 1, here...pretty ugly.
The best alternative was to run -- you guessed it -- alcohol in the engines...but when your plane's takeoff weight is already 20-30% fuel, and you just increased your fuel requirements (or decreased your range) by 30%, that's not always the best route to take.
After the war, the search for a way to increase efficiency and power continued, as the engines of the day were so inefficient that the country was literally worried about running out of petroleum in the next 40-50 years. Yes...that was in the 1920s, when we had one car to (what? 50? 100?) people...and we had very poor refining technology, and couldn't use most of what we pumped as gasoline. But it scared the businessmen, scientists and politicians anyway. So, what was needed was something that would decrease knock, would be economically viable, and would allow us to burn pretty much whatever we wanted and still call it "gasoline".
What we really needed was some sort of inexpensive "magic liquid" that could be added to plain old, nasty, paraffin-based gasolines that had long shelf life and had been cracked down far enough that they didn't gum (much). Something that wouldn't eat engines. Something that would cushion the valves (which is another subject in itself). TEL fits that bill a whole lot better than any form of alcohol mixture would.
Also, as an aside, at the time that TEL was being researched, there was a stupid little social experiment going on called "prohibition" that was destined to screw up society for the next umpteen years. Think that what happened to Dmitri under the DCMA was ugly? Try making the claim "it's only fuel additive" to the nice government inspector.
So, really, the only commercially-achievable alternative to TEL-enhanced paraffin-based gasoline (in the 20s, anyway), was a cellulose-driven alcohol mixed with benzene. This stuff cost 10-20 cents per gallon to produce, as compared to the 1/20th of 1 cent per gallon increase on the "sludge gas" (produced at under 5 cents per gallon) that TEL added--profits mattered. So, the only countries that would mess about with alcohol would 1) Not be US, and 2) Not have much in the way of local oil production. There were several, including Germany, France, England, etc., that did just that. We didn't exactly fit into that mold...so the rest, as they say, is history.
By the end of the 40s, though, we had learned to mix streams of aromatics into gasoline, raising octane ratings higher than TEL was able to by itself, and by the end of the 80s were able to get higer octane ratings without TEL than we were getting with TEL as recently as the 60s (TEL giving something like a 9-point "octane boost").
The worst part of all of this? That when we *did* find out about the effects of TEL (and we got all of that unfortunate WWII stuff out of the way), that we still went ahead and produced cars that used the darned stuff up until the mid- to late-70s, and kept it around until the 80s.
Perhaps it was a great business innovation, but a lousy scientific innovation.
Now THAT I can agree with.
If you want to see more background on TEL, Google for "Kettering". You'll see a story of a man who was initially excited with his discovery, and later began to do everything he could to kill it (think "Synthol").
Why yes! I *have* spent some time in a refinery laboratory. Thank you for asking
"The Rat" owns it. If "The Rat" doesn't want you to see it, tough. If your create something, and choose not to distribute it, or choose to stop distributing it that's you're right too. If I create a work and decide to not distribute it, and then decide to destroy all my copies of it, I can.
Good point. Disney has the right to do this, as long as they retain the copyright to the work. However, I believe that the point the author was asserting was that works *do* exist that at one time were available, and will (theoretically) be released into the public domain at some future date--but instead of actively profiting from the work in the meantime, or at the least making the works available through a third party intermediary, the copyright holder has decided to sit on or destroy the work. Which isn't what copyright was intended to promote. The works discussed weren't closely held works...at one time, you *could* see SOTS in the theatre. you *could* purchase KLF albums at the local record store. These *were* part of our (shudder) culture at one time. Now, they're not. That isn't what copyright was meant to promote.
As far as your own right to create a work and not to distribute it...well...if a work has never been released, then it has never needed "formal" copyright protection. If you want to create a paper, a film, a song, or whatever, and you don't release it, then you don't have to worry about someone else taking "your" profits away from you. But more on this in the next section.
Really? How about giving everybody on /. a copy of your diary and personal email correspondance and other crap you choose to not distribute?
If "wowbagger" published a work, sought copyright protection to keep others from using that correspondence without his consent, etc., then somehow recovered and destroyed all of those works before the copyright expired, then you'd be right to call him on it. But until he releases works that are specifically designated to be viewed by others, and are covered by some form of copyright, there is no conflict in his statement, and no basis for yours.
Also, let's not confuse public copyright with privacy. Personal effects are covered under a more restrictive set of protections than a "public copyright" asserts. For example, a work in progress that has not been finalized and placed under formal copyright is still protected. Think "Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee" on that one...didn't they just win a something-like $1.4 Million judgement against an online pr0n distributor? Ouch! But that work was never copyrighed nor intended for public viewing, so they don't have to defend it as such...they merely have to show that others are profiting from their work, and collect whatever proceeds they can as a punitive measure. But if they did copyright the work, in 90+ years it'd be fair game.
This reminded me of a retort I used to use when someone would ask me about my opinion of helmet/leather/chaps/safety gear/whatever:
"Tell me what kind of crash you're going to have, and I'll tell you how to dress for it."
Safety gear is only useful if it happens to be properly deployed during deceleration. Having a leather jacket and full-faced helmet tied to the back of the bike (which happens a lot around here in 90 degree + weather) isn't very helpful if you tip over. But then again, heat exhaustion could lead to problems, too. Make your choice.
If this device is a net positive (e.g. IF it enhances crash protection without causing offsetting problems), great. That has yet to be proven, however. Right now, it's just an expensive oddity that may enhance survivability in some instances, and may cause problems in others.
(As for me, I'll stick to leathers in cool weather, and a ventilated jacket when the mercury rises. And I'll wear a lid and gloves, even when it's not "cool", in either the temperature or social sense, to do so. And I'll keep my bike in good working order. And I won't ride after drinking. You get the idea. Yep, I don't fit the stereotypical bad-ass Harley Rider mold...but, then again, I log more miles in a month than many of the "real-biker" bar-hoppers do in a year--now working toward 300,000 miles on two (and more recently, three) wheels. And yep, I've been down. Funny how that'll give you a big serving of Reality Chex...)
I mean, think of it this way...
So we have the opportunity to pick up "news" that is placed in front of us by people who are unaccountable for the veracity of the facts they present, who are driven by their own agendas, who are shamelessly self-promoting, who in some cases are not experienced nor educated in the subjects on which they report, and who are unlikely to hesitate before reporting information that is confidential, damaging, endangering, or even (legally) secret.
On the other hand, we could get our news from "Web of Trust"...
(grin)
1) Don't enable services and features you don't need (or in MS sysadmin speak--DISABLE all of the services and features you don't need that have "helpfully" been activated in the base install); and
2) Keep up to date on your patch levels.
You don't have to be bleeding-edge on patches, but when a security vulnerability with malicious code in the wild has been detected, it's time to *DO* something about it!
Really, I wonder how many of these infected websites were actually USING SSL, as opposed to having that port hot but unused...
Spun around to my Windows box...brought up IE, did a FIND for a string on my page, hit F3...
Nothing. Nada. Zilch. No response whatsoever.
Oh...focus is on the FIND dialogue box. No problem (shift focus away from FIND dialog). F3...
Super. Brought up "ie.search.msn.com" in a sidebar. Grrr. Close sidebar. Lessee...FIND Next button has "F" underlined, so I'll try ALT-F...
Great. Just popped up the entries under FILE on the menu bar. Guess the Find dialog needs focus. Click away from the menu, focus back on the Find dialog...now hit ALT-F...
And it found next.
See...*Perfectly* intuitive!
OK, the licensing hasn't changed...that's all well and good, as far as that goes. Too bad that it's been "clarified" in such a manner, but that's life.
.wav available. You need to get mindshare and start moving product before you can generate enough traffic to make a decent profit. Still, the "clarification" that seems to no longer omit the license fee for non-commerical software created for personal use is alarming.
/adapt/modify their code...just follow the rules of the copyright, and you'll be OK. *Instant* mind-share! Any commercial firms who did NOT wish to distribute source code could talk to the patent-holders about royalties. Which, as I understand it, is pretty much what happened in mp3's case, anyway.
It doesn't surprise me that the mp3 format's patent-holders were initially supportive of allowing their decoding algorithm to be widely distributed in a royalty-unencumbered fashion...especially given that most users at the time didn't seem to believe that there was anything other than
Let's turn this around, however, and suppose that, instead of merely patenting their algorithms, they also created a reference library for those algorighms, licensed under the LGPL. Anyone building a free (as in beer) application could use
Seems like a win:win:win (patent holders get mind share, companies get a proven product with a large user base, and end-users can't ever get screwed by delayed patent enforcement).
What am I missing here?
And...isn't this sort of what Ogg is trying to do?
Yes, you are cheaper, faster, and do the same job...but maybe your solution wasn't really "right".
Perhaps you *needed* to install Win2000, SQL server, and IIS--your technology was "wrong." Or perhaps you needed to have an office address, an answering service, or a listing in the Business Journal--your business status was "wrong". Or perhaps you aren't related to the company president's golf buddy--your social status was "wrong". In any of those situations, you wouldn't be given the job if you paid THEM for the privilege of doing it.
Of course, there might be the notion of perceived value at work here as well. Because you came in SO cheap, you obviously can't bring the same "level of expertise" as the "big guys". Maybe your system would "work"...but it obviously won't be a "quality solution." Maybe they're looking for someone that they can (and this is my favorite term) "partner with"
(Reminds me of the story of the street artist who was selling "bare" watercolors for $10, and starving with only 5-10 sales per week. Some kind person set him up with a small stipend to purchase frames. The story goes that he then began selling 20-50 framed prints per for $50-$100. Same art, cheap-o frames, and 10x the perceived value and appeal.)
Or, perhaps the people involved aren't spending *their own* money, and they're trying to build a little buffer against blame. If a company charging $15,000 for a $5,000 job fails, then obviously the contractor failed to deliver. If an individual charging $5,000 fails to deliver, then obviously the people that chose that individual over a higher-priced but "more capable" company are lacking in business sense.
At any rate, it doesn't matter. You're out of the running, and chances are, due to those "unstated requirements", you never would have been granted the contract. Suck it up, try again, and work on building your reputation as someone worth "partnering with". Then perhaps you'll be on the *right* side of the equation.
and guess what they sell...?
Roughly 20 minutes into the future: A conversation with technical support:
"OK. First, we need to know if your set is marked as 'Palladium-enabled'. It should be on the front. Yes, I know it's a Sony. Yes, I know it's a Trinitron. We're looking for the word 'Palladium'. P-A-L-L...Ok, you found it--good, that means it's upgradeable. Next, we need the Serial Number. Usually on the back. It may be heavy, but in order to update the...yes, I'll hold. Thanks. Checking the database...oops! Looks like you aren't current on your license fee. No, not for your cable provider...for your television's Operating System. If you had kept current, it would only be a few dollars, but since you aren't, you'll have to pay for the entire cost. Sorry, that's the rules. $399..."
(click!)
"Hang up on me, willya?"
(typety-typety-click)
(pause while digital data winds its way around the globe)
"This Product Has Been Disabled. Please Contact Your Service Provider For Instructions"
Proposed changes to deflect criticism:
Name the planet "swodniw".
Instead of a random pirate attack, antitrust lawyers will invade, reducing the settler's "freedom to innovate". At that point, collusion becomes illegal.
Instead of the MuLEs randomly going rogue, large chunks of the environment will inexplicably stop producing resources, requiring a visit from an expensive Multiphasic Seismic Cascade Emitter before production will begin again.
Small, flightless seabirds known as "xunil" will appear after a predetermined number of turns. This will greatly increase production (especially of food and energy), but will drastically reduce the ability of any one race to amass ore. This threat can only be controlled or eliminated vi a single player constructing and controlling a "NET", and somehow persuading all other players to agree to participate in the "NET's" useage. However, if those players do so, they will find that their productivity will decrease markedly, while the player controlling the "NET" will go on to rule the world.
Of couse, there will be random, persistant and frequent instances of viral outbreaks, worm attacks, etc...
The game will end at after a random number of turns, upon which the planet will explode for no adequately explored reason, forcing a reboot.
*That* should be good enough to protect them agains any possible lawsuit...
Simple. One way: Connect to Real Video stream through a proxy. (Have to set Real Player to connect only via http). Tell proxy to cache large http files. Watch stream. Take files from proxy's cache, burn to CD...
There are also tools to grab files from Real streams...I just don't have experience with them.
This method means that you end up with a set of discrete files. It's pretty simple to write a shell script to spin thru all of them in sequence...
OK, it's now 1998. What cool features do we want on our new computer?...ummm...
Disclaimer: I'm one of the "crusty old pharts" you read about...still make a living programming in, among other languages, COBOL. Last year, I burned a copy of this presentation on a CD, and now use it frequently to educate any "pimply-faced youth" that for whatever reason seem to believe that Microsoft *invented* computing. Try it sometime...
The moral of this story: It ain't innovation if you're copying what has already been done!
Until a compiler compiles itself it is usally considered a "toy" language. There are 100's of them out there. They may be interesting academiclly, but they get no respect.
...kind of like the COBOL compiler that's been putting food on my table for the past decade-and-a-half...Although I'm not certain I would call it "interesting"...and the academic applications are questionable...I certainly agree that I get no respect!
(grin)
Seriously, though...IMO, the best indication of the importance of a complier is in how many lines of code/how many executables the compiler has been used to...compile..., and not necessarily any artifical metric.
That being said, I'll consider Mono's C# implementation a success if and only if it will allow a sizable chunk of C# sourcecode to be *used* on non-Microsoft platforms. Anything less, and it becomes at best "just another Java", only not as portable.
Miguel has now produced a "real compiler"...but I still think the jury's out on it becoming a "real success." I'm rooting for them, though!
For what it's worth, I've basically come to the conclusion that Users don't give a hoot about Exchange/OpenMail/Notes/whatever. What the USERS want is "the Outlook experience".
People point to "usability studies" and "feature reviews" that support their assertions of the superiority of <$Platform_A> over <$Other_Platforms>. When you get down to the bottom of the matter, it usually boils down to "I use message collaboration, so I like Outlook" versus "I use work collaboration, so I like Notes".
If your employer is bound and determined to run Outlook (mine is), one option for a Notes/Domino shop is to install the iNotes product along side of Domino...it allows for (basically) 100% Outlook usability, so your users are getting what they want...the aforementioned "experience"...while you get to avoid installing new servers/painful migration/Microsoft Tax/whatever. See Lotus iNotes for a quick run-down on iNotes. To sweeten the pot, the next version of Domino called (imaginitively) "Rnext" should have most of this functionality included. See notes.net/rnext" if you're interested (including beta server downloads for Linux/AIX/Solaris/Sparc/WinNT/Win2K).
With the client delt with, your only remaining problem is now to deal with the relatively few "server" bigots in the equation. While they (I?) am just as prejudiced in their views as the next guy, never underestimate the power of *accountability* to influence the actions of knowledgable people.
don't overestimate it, either!
As for MUMPS on Linux...yes, you can. Aside from as-yet incomplete projects like Generic Universal MUMPS (gump) that are actually somewhat useful, but not yet ready for "prime-time" development, you could take a look at Cache from Intersystems (the folks that currently own DSM). It's a "full-featured" commercial MUMPS that runs like stink on Linux. There's a trial version (no fees required), and a single-user license (which enables full networking) won't break the bank. I've been playing with it for a while now, and can report that yes, it is MUMPS...for whatever that's worth. It's also supposed to really rock for database-driven web serving, but I haven't as yet been able to substantiate those claims, as at work we're still stuck in the 60s (using none of the newer APIs).
As for being more powerful than BASIC...well...maybe the case could be made that the pattern matching and string handling routines are better ('cause they are!), but as an all-around language, it stinks. MUMPS' claim to fame was based in its integrated database--not in its flexibility. For example, some versions limit individual strings to a max length of 256 bytes...ugh.
Regardless, it is possible to make money in MUMPS.
Hmmm...speaking of my resume, looks like I've programmed professionally in FORTRAN77, COBOL, SYNON (an AS/400-based 4GL), and MUMPS. Man, I feel like a dinosaur!
You mean "As a lazy parent of a 7-year old..."
1) How is the above reference to "lazy" related in any way to the subject of "family time", movie watching, or censorship?
I'm not certain that I grasp the reference. Can you let me know where I'm falling down? Maybe I'm odd, but I like spending time with my kid.
...but I do believe that it would help sell more DVDs to parents with young children.
...Which we all agree is exactly what is needed to save the world...
2) I included that blerb because the biggest obstacle to providing additional optional features on a DVD release will be related directly to the costs required to develop and deliver those features. Therefore, it seems likely that the only justification for including such features in a release would be if it could be shown to relate to the potential for greater sales. So yes...I do think that the possibility of increased desirability is an important element in this endeavor. In reference to your 2nd point: The DVD distributors aren't out to "save the world" either. All I'm saying is--"Give me a chance to vote with my money for something like this, and I will. The DVD producers might make a buck or two at the same time." What's wrong with that?
Remember: I'm not advocating producing DVDs that have been bastardized...leave the good stuff in there! What the hell--include more of it! BUT, I'd like see entertainment channels that give me the choice to view what I deem appropriate for the situation. And although I'm probably misguided, I do believe that the producers and studios would have a better chance of doing a decent job of re-cutting their own work (since they can INCLUDE additional or alternate dialog and video) versus some third-party product that is a cumbersome kludge hacked on to the outside of the datastream that can only EXCLUDE data.
Whatever. The point is moot, anyway, as this just isn't going to happen--too much inertia, too little impetus.
Wow...I guess I'm just not nearly as cool today as I was before procreation occurred. Hmmm...and now I'm lazy, too. Go figure.
What I would like to see are multiple datapaths through the DVD of varying "appropriateness" levels that would make more "family-rated" entertainment available. Multiple datapaths are the DVD spec now, and should be supported by every player...all it would take is for the producers of the DVD to include the "mangled for TV" video datapath, dubbed audi and an appropriate menu selection, and we could have family movie night without need for parental preview and fast-forward. Plus, the original theatrical release could be included along with the director's cut, as well as the now-common commentary audio track.
Aside: I do not know if the DVD rating system supports different ratings for different datapaths...anyone have an idea? That may still limit the use of DVDs that those who lock down the rating ceiling on our DVD players. I don't really have any experience, as the version of (Xine) that I run doesn't do ratings. At any rate, I'm still a believer in participating in my child's activities, so that won't slow me down any--but it would be more convenient as a whole. Your kid want to watch "Top Gun?" at his slumber party? Fine...it's just 5 minutes shorter, and the story is just as compelling.
The only obstacles to this, AFAIK, are the additional work requirements of adding the extra dubs, and (perhaps) the objections of the directors/producers/artists involved. It might not be of monumental import...but I do believe that it would help sell more DVDs to parents with young children.