Why don't we all just pack it up, cut our lines, and restrict the use of our web pages to ourselves. Copyright infringement, indeed. The absurdity of this is that a bank, as a powerhouse with billions of dollars and a team of lawyers larger than many sizeable companies, can frighten the average citizen into shutting down, when properly represented in a court of law, he would likely be awarded a counterclaim for frivolous lawsuit. Next thing you know, the President will be suing Leno & Letterman for doing impersonations. Streisand will be suing Matt Stone & Trey Parker for using her image in their Halloween 'Spookyvision', and Microsoft will shut down Slash for the use of the Borg Gates image. Let's just declare fair use dead, wipe it from the books. Large powerful corporations now own the copyright to everything. You can no longer express your own ideas, because someone else has already thought of them. You must first get permission from the Company. Permission denied.
1) AI to scan images you load & compare to previous ones, keeping only one copy of identical images with different filenames in your cache.
2) Instead of centralized search engines, develop personal spiders that seek out topics of interest.
3) Agents to fill out useless marketing questionnaires with amusing input.
4) A personalized page full of personal slashboxes, dynamically generated from the sites you visit most frequently, self-correcting based on a neural net which tracks whether you use the slashbox.
5) A neural-net visual recognition of satellite images which can warn you if bad weather is approaching.
6) A voice-controlled browser which allows you to 'click' by reading aloud the link you wish to select and responds to simple commands like 'scrollup' 'scrolldown', 'back', etc.
I am apalled that NSI would make this major a change without notifying the customers. The idea that a domain name is 'just like a phone number' is ludicrous! The court demonstrates a real deficit of knowledge about how the domain system works by finding that the name is a product of contract for services. Just the very OPPOSITE is true. The domain name itself can be registered with any registrar, and the services are contracted to support the use of that name. Under this new policy, you'd better hope you haven't already renewed. Here's a scenario:
1) Domain owner of extremely popular domain name X decides to switch to a different registrar and informs NSI 2) NSI pulls the domain name X from the owner, but maintaining it within their database, since it now belongs to NSI 3) Domain owner must choose a different name when switching registrars, because NSI wants to sell domain name X to the highest bidder.
I don't doubt they're miffed by a) losing their monopoly, b) the fact that other registrars, like the owner of the.tv domain are auctioning domains for $1000 a pop. I will absolutely move to another registrar BEFORE I renew at NSI, lest I, too, tacitly agree to give away my company's property, which my company owned well BEFORE NSI took over the registry business. It's bad enough we have to change IP's when we change ISP's, but now we have to change domain names along with our registrars? Can they possibly get away with this for long?
HTML copyrightable? Roman alphabet copyrightable?
on
Is HTML Copyrightable?
·
· Score: 1
I would have to ask whether this is a question of the HTML code itself being the issue of the copyright, or simply the visible page. If I write a book, the words are copyright, not the language itself, not the letters in which it's written. Whether I transfer that from a paper medium to electronic media, as with audio content on cd's vs mp3's, the copyright is on the 'work'. SOMEONE owns the copyright to the work on this website. It almost sounds like it will be up to a judge to decide, but I seem to remember somewhere that in matters of work for hire, unless otherwise stated, the copyright belongs to whoever produced the work. If, however, copyrighted material belonging to your ad agency were used in that work, then that material surely could not fall within their claim. Also, what were your terms with the ad agency? Did you sell them the website, or did you sell them your time/services in finishing the website? On the one hand, you might have sold them a work which contained copyrighted material you don't own. On the other, you might have simply been performing contract work for them, in which case, I believe they would be responsible for copyright issues.
Well, as I think about it, we see class-action suits all the time these days. Might this be the first case of a reverse-class-action suit? I can't say I agree about the invasion of privacy, however, since this is publicly published information. Yes, some of these people are children. Their parents are responsible. If they are using Napster to download music, their parents have the duty to make sure they do so responsibly, and must take responsibility for its misuse by their children. Napster has certain responsibilities about PROVIDING information when it comes to children. I feel Metallica's lawyers have simply accessed information that the children and their parents didn't block, and that Napster served up freely.
That said, the USE of this information is a much greater concern of mine. I don't mind data being collected, and in this society, there's little we will likely ever be able to do about it. Unfortunately, I *DO* mind that data being used to abuse, harrass (as in spam, targeted marketing, etc.), or prosecute me. I wonder though, how much of this is Metallica, the band, and how much is Metallica, the managers, agents, lawyers, whatever. I'm looking forward to the upcoming interview.
Years after reading of the adventures of Dirk Gently, I happened to learn a bit about quantum physics. I was struck by the similarities between quantum theory and the 'fundamental interconnectedness' of all things. Were you thinking of quantum physics when you wrote this, or was it more of a nod to chaos theory (butterflies in New York, monsoons in Tokyo type stuff)?
Oh, and just wanted to let you know that thanks to you, I still look for instructions on each box of toothpicks I find, just to reassure myself that I am, indeed, still sane.
Does it have a flat-panel touch-screen? Does it have a completely audio interface? (ie. respond using speech synthesis) Would be wicked-cool if you had a nice big LCD to take the place of the radio controls in the center console, running a nifty spectrum analyzer that talked back to you. I'd be the first to stick one in my Firebird. I've wanted a K.I.T.T. since I was a kid. Now if I can just get William Daniels to record some voice responses for me, I'll be all set!
Kinda makes export restrictions a moot point, no? This doesn't seem to explain if it will be breakable, just that snoopers would be detectable, if I understand it correctly. Still can't think the NSA would go for it. Of course, since this is developed out of the US, I don't suppose they can stop it.
It's bad enough I have to use their constantly-updating plugins to view/listen to content, but now I'm going to be forced to use their browser? Once upon a time, companies looked to modularity. Plugins were the rage. Consumers had a choice (OK, not MUCH of a choice, but a choice) in browsers. I could see adding functionality to web pages as a good thing. How 'bout a streaming-media slashbox for MP3s, vids, etc? But the first website I hit that REQUIRES the RealPlayer to view the site... I'll post it here to be slashdotted, maybe teach them a lesson. Puke.
They haven't yet decided which films, but this is a cool step in the right direction for film distribution. Now if they can just work out some of those broadband issues *sigh*.
Am I wrong? This sounds to me like DIVX without the DVD, and requiring butt-loads of bandwidth. We cheer when DIVX dies, but we applaud THIS??? I've recently noted PPV prices on cable go up dramatically (from 3.95 to 6.95). Can we expect this to be any cheaper? How can we justify the bandwidth usage? I think I'm going to puke.
Think for a minute about how this would be bad. You have to grow a computer right? Well then you would most likely have to do all sorts of very precise measurements and set up conditions. These are going to require a massive lab to get to work properly. Also there is a high degree of failure possible. If people are having a hard time getting organs created via cloning and the like how likely is it that a computer is going to be created?
The point you're missing is the self-organization of these systems. The goal is NOT to have to spend months in a lab just to set up conditions to create one unit. These systems will grow, perhaps very quickly into the desired functionality, like a seed grows into a tree. I recall a story last fall about researchers growing LCD in an organic process that didn't require the high temperatures currently used in the manufacturing process. These high temperatures force the requirement of something like glass, which can withstand them without melting or burning. Using the organic process, LCDs can be 'grown' on thin plastic film, creating FLEXIBLE lcd displays, electronic paper, etc. We're only BEGINNING to tap the potential of organic technology.
Also AI for the most part is still a plaything and something that one really can't easily study or actually get a job in. Sure you might learn something but getting money is top priority for survival.
What could EVER lead you to say this? Sorry to go off-topic for a bit, but do you have any idea how ignorant that sounds? AI itself is an extremely quickly expanding field. Shall I give examples? AI is responsible for PDAs being able to perform hand-writing recognition. Via-Voice and other recognition technologies use AI. GIS systems use AI to generate routes. Played any video games lately? AI now produces better, faster, tougher monsters. AI is being used to detect insurance fraud, see Infoglide for example. Search engines use AI to produce better results. I could go on and on, but I'll finish with Slash, which uses a kind of AI in the form of moderation. Please moderate me up! ha-ha Anyway, go do some real research before spouting off like that. AI is not just about the Turing test.
Biological computing has the potential to revolutionize the way we do things. Using DNA, computers can be *grown* rather than manufactured. They would no longer require power, but rather nutrients. They could accomplish computations in a one-step process that takes billions of CPU cycles. I think its certainly an interesting field to watch. However, DNA is not just being used at the hardware level. There is a growing field of artificial intelligence research concentrating on neuro-evolution, using DNA to encode neurons of a neural network, selecting the best-performing set of neurons, and recombining the DNA in a form of 'breeding' to hopefully get better neurons. Check http://www.cs. utexas.edu/users/nn/pages/research/neuroevolution. html for some interesting links. Look for the section on Eugenic Evolution.
As a student at UT Austin in the early 90's, I participated as staff on SPC93 and NPC94. By that time, Dave was at Id, but he would still show up for the days of the actual contest. There's no comparison between ACM and IEEE as far as excitement and competition go. The programs at IEEE are judged based on their performance against the other programs. No judges with human emotions of pride or prejudice come into the picture. Teams could actually help each other out if need be. There was open communication of all problems between the staff and contestants. It was a two-day contest, so teams had plenty of time to code a rather massive work. I never heard from a single team, winner or loser, who was disappointed with the outcome of the contest, the organization, or the communication channel with the staff. I'm just sorry to say that after NPC94, there was not enough student interest or outside funding to keep the project going. NPC is greatly missed.
The words "Ivory Tower" have been used in other posts, and I can't think of any that better describe the ACM contest. My experience has been that in the realm of Computer Science, there are those who care only about the abstract, theoretical, and don't care so much about whether it works as HOW it works. Those are computer scientists. Then you have the people who have the attitude of "Get the job done... THEN get it done better." Those are engineers. *sigh* I recall being amazed to hear in '95 that Dr. Djykstra owned no PC of his own, and in fact had not actually USED one in two to three years. I've always been very hands-on, and I feel if you don't continue to use something, you forget it. If as a computer scientist, you don't USE a computer, IMO, you're really just a specialized mathematician.
I'm not saying the ACM contest isn't worthwhile. In fact, it's great fun. I definitely wouldn't hold it up as a model of 'real-world' software development, well, maybe software development at Microsoft;)
Am I the only one bothered by this...
on
Sega Dreamcast: $0
·
· Score: 2
But I can recall the days when you couldn't buy a telephone. You rented it from the phone company. Now, you own the Dreamcast, Netpliance, whatever, but you pay outrageous fees for the service. Maybe in the future we can get rid of credit cards for purchases. You'll get everything for free, as long as you agree to subscribe to ISP service for two or three years to get it to work. Want a new fridge? No problem, as long as you purchase our service to let your fridge dial up, send us an inventory, so we can ship you replacement eggs & milk and charge your account. Free tv? Sure, as long as you pay $100/month for digital cable & ISP service. You can't install a new toilet unless you first buy the service so it can send vital data to your physician. While we're at it, your toilet-paper roller will sense when you're low & order a new shipment... for a monthly fee, of course. Cars will be free and drive themselves, as long as you pay the monthly fee so it can track your movements, and they can beam advertisements in to force you to watch during the ride. PepsiCo will finally figure out how to burn their logo onto the face of the moon (they actually considered it at one point), and Bill Gates will somehow, in the end, be the guy left holding the bag at the end of every pyramid scheme ever created, thus allowing everyone else to get rich quick, while he descends in the ranks to become just a normal guy. *whew* But I digress, the point of this is that this whole scheme of give away the box, sell the service has got to (hopefully) fail in the end. $22/month doesn't seem like much, but it adds up QUICKLY. Suppose you also want to play Nintendo, Sony, or other games. Then there's the whole issue of people who live in rural areas, where a long-distance call is required to access the service. IMO, this is just another way of taking money from stupid people.
Re:And if you have a soundcard it swears at you!
on
Your CPU Will Explode
·
· Score: 1
Yes, 'FIRST' got e-mailed to you. I presume, like my mother, she still mails it to you once or twice every month?
If you eliminate that, all you have is a drive with a longer MTBF.... you'd only be protected from one failure.
Well, yes, that's true. But if I'm using 75G of drive, as has already been pointed out here, I'll be pretty miffed if I somehow lose it. You could operate after the failure long enough to obtain a replacement unit, copy your data, and then ship the bad unit back to the manufacturer for refurbishment. If the unit were modular enough, you coul open it, pull the bad drive (yes, this is work for the miniaturization magicians), and replace with a good one. I'm not talking hot-swap. Cold-swap is more than adequate for a home or small-office system. Demanding users will continue to gladly pay for higher-cost full RAID with hot-swap solutions. What I'd like to see is an extra degree of reliability/safety in low-end systems. Of course, I suppose that's what IDE RAIDS are for. I just cringe at giving up so many bays for that reliability.
go ahead and create a single-unit RAID? Seems it would be easy to stick a RAID controller, 3 to 5 smaller disks in the same space as a 3.5" double-height drive, (or a 5.25" single), give it two power-inputs for redundancy, and you're good to go. Ofc, you wouldn't be able to swap disks, but you'd be protected in case of failure, and at a low-enough price, you could replace it as easily as you do a blown drive but without losing any data.
By Congressional fiat, both USSS and FBI formally share jurisdiction over federal computer crimebusting activities.
I'm quite sure the FBI has their own files on these gentlemen. Perhaps even you & I fall under their scrutiny. To their credit, they knew better than to participate in such a raid. At the risk of being redundant, let me quote from The Top Ten Media Errors About the SJ Games Raid
7. We were raided by the FBI. No we weren't. We were raided by the US Secret Service. The FBI had nothing to do with it. (In fact, when Bill Cook, the assistant US attorney named in our suit, was doing his "research," he talked to the FBI. They told him he didn't have a case. We have this from FBI sources!)
My point was merely that these files (such as can actually be opened) don't seem to be opened until the principals are deceased. They don't contain any useful information, no revelations, nothing really that can't already be found in history books. Fun things to read there, but nothing enlightening, certainly nothing about the people we know they consider to be truly threatening.
Neither is Albert Einstein subject to exclusion by reason of his frequently revised theory of "relativity" which, even if true, is of no more practical importance than the answer to the old academic riddle, "how many angels can stand on the point of a needle if angels do not occupy space." .... But while Einstein religious and "relativity" theories have no more bearing upon his admissability to the United States than they have upon any practical science, it should not be overlooked that this alien, more extensively and more potently than any other revolutionist on earth, promotes "confusion and disorder," doubt and disbelief, and advises, advocates or teaches individual "resistance" to all authorities except Einstein, whether it be a quotation of peace or war, government or religion, mathematics or anthropology! Therefore, the "relativity" of this arch-anarch's "shattering" influence and activities that tend to promote confusion and disregard of all authorities except Einstein in matters of "science" and "religion" is well worth noting in connection with his affiliations with Anarchist and Communist groups, and his admittedly illegal efforts to arouse individual "resistance" on the part of all "peoples" against the most essential laws and principles of all organized government.
I hope whoever wrote this wasn't taken seriously. I wonder if all the files have language like this. Wonder what they have to say about Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Tim O'Reilly, etc. (listed in no particular order, of course)
Looking down the list, I noted the absence of both Steve Jackson and Loyd Blankenship. Although these documents are indeed interesting, I find them more interesting for who's omitted, rather than who's listed.
Illegal is indeed illegal, as you say. However, that doesn't mean that legal is *right* and illegal is *wrong*. Why do you suppose Adobe is such a common target? Your average student-artist doesn't have the cash to fork over $300 for a 'student' licensed or upgrade copy of their software. A professional who relies on this product to make a living IMHO is responsible for properly paying the asking price of the software. If a poor student, on the other hand, who would not otherwise purchase the product, uses an 'illegal' copy, for their own personal, perhaps recreational use, I think it's fair to say they aren't really cutting into anyone's profits (what profit do you have if I don't buy something?). However, if these students, etc, one day grow up, become responsible professionals, and purchase the software they have come to know & love, Adobe HAS made a profit. I know this is probably not often enough the case, and shame on the person who can afford to buy software/music/etc who instead chooses to pirate. I'm just saying there can be a better way of doing things that benefits everyone. Perhaps software publishers could release older copies of their software for free or low-cost and then provide a low-cost upgrade path. A perfect example: a couple of years ago, I bought a rendering program, Ray Dream Designer for $99. It was a less-fully featured version of their professional product, Ray Dream Studio. I registered it, had fun with it, and a couple of years later, was offerred a low-cost upgrade to the new version of the fully-featured RD Studio for another $99. I took it, ordered online, and had the software within a couple of days. I like the software, and as long as I can get low-cost upgrades that provide useful features, I'll continue to pay $99 every once in a while to get a new copy. I can afford that. I'm happy to do that. Offer me a bloated product that may have more inane functionality than I need and a difficult interface for a cost of $500, and I'll laugh at you, or call you Microsoft. Their tactic is to FORCE you to pay in blood for upgrades for the mere purpose of maintaining compatibility with everyone else who's using their product. Again, IMHO, this is *uncool*. Do you want to talk music/CD's??? I'm sure you've heard these arguments before, but let me repeat them... When CD's were introduced as a format, they were expensive. They were rare, for serious techie-geek audiophiles who wanted to be at the bleeding edge of stereophonics. Due to their quality and ease of use, they've become the media of choice for music distribution. Why do they still cost up to twice the price of the same content on cassette? Cassettes are now much more expensive to produce than CD's. They are less widely used. AFAIK, the artists get identical royalties, regardless of media. Every time a new media becomes popular, we must fight this battle. Tape was too easy to copy. The battle was fought. Every DAT now carries with it a tax paid to the recording industry. CD's are becoming easy to copy, and now we have MP3. They probably couldn't push through a tax on CD recordables, and there's no feasible way to tax an MP3, so they use the DMCA to terrify ISPs into becoming their anti-piracy police. YES, bandwidth can be an issue. It is your right to throttle your connection in any way you wish in order to promote the legitimate use of your network. HOWEVER, my objection, and I feel it is valid, is that you should not, nor should anyone, be cowed, bullied, or in any other way terrorized into blocking traffic of any sort of content on your network. There are ways to make a profit while being fair to everyone, without flexing your muscle & alienating people. Yes, warez sites continue to proliferate. Yes, people abuse these things without hesitation. However, the industries involved are no less guilty of wrongdoing. They simply have the money & clout to get the law on their side. If I buy a piece of software, I may have only the marketing crap on the outside of the box to tell me it's easy to use, efficient, etc. When I open the box, I often find that I was tricked into believing blatant lies, that the software doesn't work to my satisfaction, that it requires the download of numerous further patches to work (which first requires turning over personal information to 'register' & gets me on a mailing list), and because I've broken the shrink-wrap seal, I am not allowed to return it. I've paid some number of dollars for a useless piece of software that I can't return. I see that as theft. As I said, these are all standard arguments, but they are PERFECTLY valid.
I know this is not exactly the right place to slam quake, but seriously, that could only hold my attention just so long... I couldn't ever really get into Quake after so many years of Wolfenstein & Doom had burned me out on FPS's. Anyway, good answer, regardless. I'm just wondering if there are any others, especially networked, that will work together (ie, Mac against Linux against PC).
Those are beautiful screenshots. Looking forward to the real thing. Does anyone else know of any good cross-platform games? Best one I can think of is Abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't we all just pack it up, cut our lines, and restrict the use of our web pages to ourselves. Copyright infringement, indeed. The absurdity of this is that a bank, as a powerhouse with billions of dollars and a team of lawyers larger than many sizeable companies, can frighten the average citizen into shutting down, when properly represented in a court of law, he would likely be awarded a counterclaim for frivolous lawsuit. Next thing you know, the President will be suing Leno & Letterman for doing impersonations. Streisand will be suing Matt Stone & Trey Parker for using her image in their Halloween 'Spookyvision', and Microsoft will shut down Slash for the use of the Borg Gates image. Let's just declare fair use dead, wipe it from the books. Large powerful corporations now own the copyright to everything. You can no longer express your own ideas, because someone else has already thought of them. You must first get permission from the Company. Permission denied.
1) AI to scan images you load & compare to previous ones, keeping only one copy of identical images with different filenames in your cache.
2) Instead of centralized search engines, develop personal spiders that seek out topics of interest.
3) Agents to fill out useless marketing questionnaires with amusing input.
4) A personalized page full of personal slashboxes, dynamically generated from the sites you visit most frequently, self-correcting based on a neural net which tracks whether you use the slashbox.
5) A neural-net visual recognition of satellite images which can warn you if bad weather is approaching.
6) A voice-controlled browser which allows you to 'click' by reading aloud the link you wish to select and responds to simple commands like 'scrollup' 'scrolldown', 'back', etc.
Just throwing some out there.
I am apalled that NSI would make this major a change without notifying the customers. The idea that a domain name is 'just like a phone number' is ludicrous! The court demonstrates a real deficit of knowledge about how the domain system works by finding that the name is a product of contract for services. Just the very OPPOSITE is true. The domain name itself can be registered with any registrar, and the services are contracted to support the use of that name. Under this new policy, you'd better hope you haven't already renewed. Here's a scenario:
.tv domain are auctioning domains for $1000 a pop. I will absolutely move to another registrar BEFORE I renew at NSI, lest I, too, tacitly agree to give away my company's property, which my company owned well BEFORE NSI took over the registry business. It's bad enough we have to change IP's when we change ISP's, but now we have to change domain names along with our registrars? Can they possibly get away with this for long?
1) Domain owner of extremely popular domain name X decides to switch to a different registrar and informs NSI
2) NSI pulls the domain name X from the owner, but maintaining it within their database, since it now belongs to NSI
3) Domain owner must choose a different name when switching registrars, because NSI wants to sell domain name X to the highest bidder.
I don't doubt they're miffed by a) losing their monopoly, b) the fact that other registrars, like the owner of the
I would have to ask whether this is a question of the HTML code itself being the issue of the copyright, or simply the visible page. If I write a book, the words are copyright, not the language itself, not the letters in which it's written. Whether I transfer that from a paper medium to electronic media, as with audio content on cd's vs mp3's, the copyright is on the 'work'. SOMEONE owns the copyright to the work on this website. It almost sounds like it will be up to a judge to decide, but I seem to remember somewhere that in matters of work for hire, unless otherwise stated, the copyright belongs to whoever produced the work. If, however, copyrighted material belonging to your ad agency were used in that work, then that material surely could not fall within their claim. Also, what were your terms with the ad agency? Did you sell them the website, or did you sell them your time/services in finishing the website? On the one hand, you might have sold them a work which contained copyrighted material you don't own. On the other, you might have simply been performing contract work for them, in which case, I believe they would be responsible for copyright issues.
Well, as I think about it, we see class-action suits all the time these days. Might this be the first case of a reverse-class-action suit? I can't say I agree about the invasion of privacy, however, since this is publicly published information. Yes, some of these people are children. Their parents are responsible. If they are using Napster to download music, their parents have the duty to make sure they do so responsibly, and must take responsibility for its misuse by their children. Napster has certain responsibilities about PROVIDING information when it comes to children. I feel Metallica's lawyers have simply accessed information that the children and their parents didn't block, and that Napster served up freely.
That said, the USE of this information is a much greater concern of mine. I don't mind data being collected, and in this society, there's little we will likely ever be able to do about it. Unfortunately, I *DO* mind that data being used to abuse, harrass (as in spam, targeted marketing, etc.), or prosecute me. I wonder though, how much of this is Metallica, the band, and how much is Metallica, the managers, agents, lawyers, whatever. I'm looking forward to the upcoming interview.
Years after reading of the adventures of Dirk Gently, I happened to learn a bit about quantum physics. I was struck by the similarities between quantum theory and the 'fundamental interconnectedness' of all things. Were you thinking of quantum physics when you wrote this, or was it more of a nod to chaos theory (butterflies in New York, monsoons in Tokyo type stuff)?
Oh, and just wanted to let you know that thanks to you, I still look for instructions on each box of toothpicks I find, just to reassure myself that I am, indeed, still sane.
Does it have a flat-panel touch-screen? Does it have a completely audio interface? (ie. respond using speech synthesis) Would be wicked-cool if you had a nice big LCD to take the place of the radio controls in the center console, running a nifty spectrum analyzer that talked back to you. I'd be the first to stick one in my Firebird. I've wanted a K.I.T.T. since I was a kid. Now if I can just get William Daniels to record some voice responses for me, I'll be all set!
Kinda makes export restrictions a moot point, no? This doesn't seem to explain if it will be breakable, just that snoopers would be detectable, if I understand it correctly. Still can't think the NSA would go for it. Of course, since this is developed out of the US, I don't suppose they can stop it.
Gross, gross, GROSS!
It's bad enough I have to use their constantly-updating plugins to view/listen to content, but now I'm going to be forced to use their browser? Once upon a time, companies looked to modularity. Plugins were the rage. Consumers had a choice (OK, not MUCH of a choice, but a choice) in browsers. I could see adding functionality to web pages as a good thing. How 'bout a streaming-media slashbox for MP3s, vids, etc? But the first website I hit that REQUIRES the RealPlayer to view the site... I'll post it here to be slashdotted, maybe teach them a lesson.
Puke.
The point you're missing is the self-organization of these systems. The goal is NOT to have to spend months in a lab just to set up conditions to create one unit. These systems will grow, perhaps very quickly into the desired functionality, like a seed grows into a tree. I recall a story last fall about researchers growing LCD in an organic process that didn't require the high temperatures currently used in the manufacturing process. These high temperatures force the requirement of something like glass, which can withstand them without melting or burning. Using the organic process, LCDs can be 'grown' on thin plastic film, creating FLEXIBLE lcd displays, electronic paper, etc. We're only BEGINNING to tap the potential of organic technology.
What could EVER lead you to say this? Sorry to go off-topic for a bit, but do you have any idea how ignorant that sounds? AI itself is an extremely quickly expanding field. Shall I give examples? AI is responsible for PDAs being able to perform hand-writing recognition. Via-Voice and other recognition technologies use AI. GIS systems use AI to generate routes. Played any video games lately? AI now produces better, faster, tougher monsters. AI is being used to detect insurance fraud, see Infoglide for example. Search engines use AI to produce better results. I could go on and on, but I'll finish with Slash, which uses a kind of AI in the form of moderation. Please moderate me up! ha-ha Anyway, go do some real research before spouting off like that. AI is not just about the Turing test.
Biological computing has the potential to revolutionize the way we do things. Using DNA, computers can be *grown* rather than manufactured. They would no longer require power, but rather nutrients. They could accomplish computations in a one-step process that takes billions of CPU cycles. I think its certainly an interesting field to watch. However, DNA is not just being used at the hardware level. There is a growing field of artificial intelligence research concentrating on neuro-evolution, using DNA to encode neurons of a neural network, selecting the best-performing set of neurons, and recombining the DNA in a form of 'breeding' to hopefully get better neurons. Check http://www.cs. utexas.edu/users/nn/pages/research/neuroevolution. html for some interesting links. Look for the section on Eugenic Evolution.
Thank you!!!!
;)
As a student at UT Austin in the early 90's, I participated as staff on SPC93 and NPC94. By that time, Dave was at Id, but he would still show up for the days of the actual contest. There's no comparison between ACM and IEEE as far as excitement and competition go. The programs at IEEE are judged based on their performance against the other programs. No judges with human emotions of pride or prejudice come into the picture. Teams could actually help each other out if need be. There was open communication of all problems between the staff and contestants. It was a two-day contest, so teams had plenty of time to code a rather massive work. I never heard from a single team, winner or loser, who was disappointed with the outcome of the contest, the organization, or the communication channel with the staff. I'm just sorry to say that after NPC94, there was not enough student interest or outside funding to keep the project going. NPC is greatly missed.
The words "Ivory Tower" have been used in other posts, and I can't think of any that better describe the ACM contest. My experience has been that in the realm of Computer Science, there are those who care only about the abstract, theoretical, and don't care so much about whether it works as HOW it works. Those are computer scientists. Then you have the people who have the attitude of "Get the job done... THEN get it done better." Those are engineers. *sigh* I recall being amazed to hear in '95 that Dr. Djykstra owned no PC of his own, and in fact had not actually USED one in two to three years. I've always been very hands-on, and I feel if you don't continue to use something, you forget it. If as a computer scientist, you don't USE a computer, IMO, you're really just a specialized mathematician.
I'm not saying the ACM contest isn't worthwhile. In fact, it's great fun. I definitely wouldn't hold it up as a model of 'real-world' software development, well, maybe software development at Microsoft
But I can recall the days when you couldn't buy a telephone. You rented it from the phone company. Now, you own the Dreamcast, Netpliance, whatever, but you pay outrageous fees for the service. Maybe in the future we can get rid of credit cards for purchases. You'll get everything for free, as long as you agree to subscribe to ISP service for two or three years to get it to work. Want a new fridge? No problem, as long as you purchase our service to let your fridge dial up, send us an inventory, so we can ship you replacement eggs & milk and charge your account. Free tv? Sure, as long as you pay $100/month for digital cable & ISP service. You can't install a new toilet unless you first buy the service so it can send vital data to your physician. While we're at it, your toilet-paper roller will sense when you're low & order a new shipment... for a monthly fee, of course. Cars will be free and drive themselves, as long as you pay the monthly fee so it can track your movements, and they can beam advertisements in to force you to watch during the ride. PepsiCo will finally figure out how to burn their logo onto the face of the moon (they actually considered it at one point), and Bill Gates will somehow, in the end, be the guy left holding the bag at the end of every pyramid scheme ever created, thus allowing everyone else to get rich quick, while he descends in the ranks to become just a normal guy. *whew* But I digress, the point of this is that this whole scheme of give away the box, sell the service has got to (hopefully) fail in the end. $22/month doesn't seem like much, but it adds up QUICKLY. Suppose you also want to play Nintendo, Sony, or other games. Then there's the whole issue of people who live in rural areas, where a long-distance call is required to access the service. IMO, this is just another way of taking money from stupid people.
Yes, 'FIRST' got e-mailed to you. I presume, like my mother, she still mails it to you once or twice every month?
If you eliminate that, all you have is a drive with a longer MTBF. ... you'd only be protected from one failure.
Well, yes, that's true. But if I'm using 75G of drive, as has already been pointed out here, I'll be pretty miffed if I somehow lose it. You could operate after the failure long enough to obtain a replacement unit, copy your data, and then ship the bad unit back to the manufacturer for refurbishment. If the unit were modular enough, you coul open it, pull the bad drive (yes, this is work for the miniaturization magicians), and replace with a good one. I'm not talking hot-swap. Cold-swap is more than adequate for a home or small-office system. Demanding users will continue to gladly pay for higher-cost full RAID with hot-swap solutions. What I'd like to see is an extra degree of reliability/safety in low-end systems. Of course, I suppose that's what IDE RAIDS are for. I just cringe at giving up so many bays for that reliability.
go ahead and create a single-unit RAID? Seems it would be easy to stick a RAID controller, 3 to 5 smaller disks in the same space as a 3.5" double-height drive, (or a 5.25" single), give it two power-inputs for redundancy, and you're good to go. Ofc, you wouldn't be able to swap disks, but you'd be protected in case of failure, and at a low-enough price, you could replace it as easily as you do a blown drive but without losing any data.
I'm quite sure the FBI has their own files on these gentlemen. Perhaps even you & I fall under their scrutiny. To their credit, they knew better than to participate in such a raid. At the risk of being redundant, let me quote from The Top Ten Media Errors About the SJ Games Raid
My point was merely that these files (such as can actually be opened) don't seem to be opened until the principals are deceased. They don't contain any useful information, no revelations, nothing really that can't already be found in history books. Fun things to read there, but nothing enlightening, certainly nothing about the people we know they consider to be truly threatening.
It's from Part 1a of the Einstein files, I'd tell you what page, but I didn't save the file, and now I can't get the damned thing to load.
I hope whoever wrote this wasn't taken seriously. I wonder if all the files have language like this. Wonder what they have to say about Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Tim O'Reilly, etc. (listed in no particular order, of course)
Looking down the list, I noted the absence of both Steve Jackson and Loyd Blankenship. Although these documents are indeed interesting, I find them more interesting for who's omitted, rather than who's listed.
This is awesome news. I just wish a specific release date were set. Did I somehow miss the
beta announcement? When are they gonna do this?
Illegal is indeed illegal, as you say. However, that doesn't mean that legal is *right* and illegal is *wrong*. Why do you suppose Adobe is such a common target? Your average student-artist doesn't have the cash to fork over $300 for a 'student' licensed or upgrade copy of their software. A professional who relies on this product to make a living IMHO is responsible for properly paying the asking price of the software. If a poor student, on the other hand, who would not otherwise purchase the product, uses an 'illegal' copy, for their own personal, perhaps recreational use, I think it's fair to say they aren't really cutting into anyone's profits (what profit do you have if I don't buy something?). However, if these students, etc, one day grow up, become responsible professionals, and purchase the software they have come to know & love, Adobe HAS made a profit. I know this is probably not often enough the case, and shame on the person who can afford to buy software/music/etc who instead chooses to pirate. I'm just saying there can be a better way of doing things that benefits everyone. Perhaps software publishers could release older copies of their software for free or low-cost and then provide a low-cost upgrade path. A perfect example: a couple of years ago, I bought a rendering program, Ray Dream Designer for $99. It was a less-fully featured version of their professional product, Ray Dream Studio. I registered it, had fun with it, and a couple of years later, was offerred a low-cost upgrade to the new version of the fully-featured RD Studio for another $99. I took it, ordered online, and had the software within a couple of days. I like the software, and as long as I can get low-cost upgrades that provide useful features, I'll continue to pay $99 every once in a while to get a new copy. I can afford that. I'm happy to do that. Offer me a bloated product that may have more inane functionality than I need and a difficult interface for a cost of $500, and I'll laugh at you, or call you Microsoft. Their tactic is to FORCE you to pay in blood for upgrades for the mere purpose of maintaining compatibility with everyone else who's using their product. Again, IMHO, this is *uncool*. Do you want to talk music/CD's??? I'm sure you've heard these arguments before, but let me repeat them... When CD's were introduced as a format, they were expensive. They were rare, for serious techie-geek audiophiles who wanted to be at the bleeding edge of stereophonics. Due to their quality and ease of use, they've become the media of choice for music distribution. Why do they still cost up to twice the price of the same content on cassette? Cassettes are now much more expensive to produce than CD's. They are less widely used. AFAIK, the artists get identical royalties, regardless of media. Every time a new media becomes popular, we must fight this battle. Tape was too easy to copy. The battle was fought. Every DAT now carries with it a tax paid to the recording industry. CD's are becoming easy to copy, and now we have MP3. They probably couldn't push through a tax on CD recordables, and there's no feasible way to tax an MP3, so they use the DMCA to terrify ISPs into becoming their anti-piracy police. YES, bandwidth can be an issue. It is your right to throttle your connection in any way you wish in order to promote the legitimate use of your network. HOWEVER, my objection, and I feel it is valid, is that you should not, nor should anyone, be cowed, bullied, or in any other way terrorized into blocking traffic of any sort of content on your network. There are ways to make a profit while being fair to everyone, without flexing your muscle & alienating people. Yes, warez sites continue to proliferate. Yes, people abuse these things without hesitation. However, the industries involved are no less guilty of wrongdoing. They simply have the money & clout to get the law on their side. If I buy a piece of software, I may have only the marketing crap on the outside of the box to tell me it's easy to use, efficient, etc. When I open the box, I often find that I was tricked into believing blatant lies, that the software doesn't work to my satisfaction, that it requires the download of numerous further patches to work (which first requires turning over personal information to 'register' & gets me on a mailing list), and because I've broken the shrink-wrap seal, I am not allowed to return it. I've paid some number of dollars for a useless piece of software that I can't return. I see that as theft. As I said, these are all standard arguments, but they are PERFECTLY valid.
Humbug!
I know this is not exactly the right place to slam quake, but seriously, that could only hold my attention just so long... I couldn't ever really get into Quake after so many years of Wolfenstein & Doom had burned me out on FPS's. Anyway, good answer, regardless. I'm just wondering if there are any others, especially networked, that will work together (ie, Mac against Linux against PC).
Those are beautiful screenshots. Looking forward to the real thing. Does anyone else know of any good cross-platform games? Best one I can think of is Abuse.