You're trying to be funny, but consider...
on
eSuds
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
cell phone batteries.
Some cell phone makers are unhappy about third-party batteries. So they encrypted the status information that the phone reads from the battery. If the phone detects an off-brand battery, it drains it - quickly. They then claim protection under the DMCA for the encrypted battery status readout, to prevent third-party reverse engineering.
So though I know your juxtposition of DMCA and laundry is meant to be funny, it may not be too far from the truth. Imagine for a moment "detergent cartridges" so that the washer can meter and monitor detergent. Then encrypt that link and claim DMCA protection. Now assume strategic alliances between washer and detergent makers. When you buy your washer, you've just chosen what detergent you're going to use - until alliances shift, and then you get to change brands.
The situation might be similar to inkjet cartridges, including home refills, except in that case the horses got out of the barn before they got the door shut. If such a washer/detergent alliance were to get into this mode, no doubt they'd look at both cell phone batteries and inkjet cartridges to plot their course. I really wish they'd look to their customers, instead. But in these days of the DMCA and criminalizing your customers...
Isn't a more correct answer to keep the restrictions? Perhaps what you really need is an internal support site that outlines the causes of problems with web browsing. Mention that ActiveX is not really standard, and that it's filtered because it's a security exposure. Add the fact that they can usually give feedback to webmaster@wherever, especially for the needless and trivial uses of ActiveX and other non-portable features.
Of course this depends on your feelings about the continuing degeneration of the Web into a captive Microsoft experience. You question was about "safely" accomodating this trend inside your company.
Not personally involved, but close to a year ago I seem to remember reading that good speech recognition with the fastest Pentia (Don't remember if it was PIII or P4.) and K7 was still "slightly slower than realtime."
Seems to me that that situation may have changed, that we may now have faster-than-realtime speech recognition. Maybe now the system can figure out what I said, and then have time to do it, too.
While one may argue that a web composed of Apache servers is more secure than a web composed of IIS, it's better yet to have a plurality of servers. I know we're not down to one or even two servers, yet. But we should keep in mind that "World Domination" by a web server (or even OS) is not a particularly good outcome.
It's unfortunate that the computing industry has this completely stupid "One Leader" mindset. First it was IBM, then Microsoft, and even if Linux is a more benign "One Leader" than the other two, it's the "One" in there that's flawed.
We need to re-orient our heads a bit, and IMHO the Linux camp is almost as guilty as the Windows camp. Mitigating factor, at least the Linux camp begrudges *BSD the right to exist, but is it any better than the Windows/Mac relationship?
Won't disagree, perhaps only suggest that one level of indirection be removed, and chase Mac directly rather than through Windows. Besides, I was an old OS/2 WPS fan, and know that there are/were better things than the Windows desktop.
was called "The 801 Minicomputer" named after building 801 at Watson Research, where George Radin & co (Don't mean to neglect any names here, sorry.) designed and built it.
The legal system runs on precedents, and the more you have on your side, the better.
Is the gated community a precedent for an ISP? A gated community can restrict access of outsiders to the interior of the community, but does not restrict members' access to the outside. Sounds kind of like what an ISP is doing in this case. I presume gated communities have provisions for police and firemen to obtain access, as well as desired visitors.
Are there precedents for salesmen or bill collectors (without an accompying policeman) gaining access to a gated community? I can see a better case for religious types, claiming Constitutional protection. But last I knew, the RIAA didn't qualify as a religion.
I would presume that if nVidia is that worried about their GPUs, then they're patented as well as closed source. Hardware can be reverse-engineered, but it can be a pain in the neck crawling around SEMs and trying to turn it back into a schematic, and then trying to turn that back into functional blocks so you can walk up the hierarchy and comprehend the whole. I know, I've done it. Supplying Open Source-style documentation would make it easier to reverse-engineer the hardware.
On The Other Hand...
IMHO a big part of the reason for closed source drivers is that it can take a lot of work to release proper documentation. Closed source drivers can be done by poor documentation plus the fact that the programmers may well sit down the aisle from the hardware guys. They talk daily, and that fills the gaps in the documents. Painful for both, but frequently cheaper and less painful than doing a good job of documentation.
On The Gripping Hand...
One of the harder aspects of patenting something can be detection of violation. If nVidia were to release their documentation and let this stuff work its way into the Open Source community, then they could watch the software concepts flow, and know where to start looking for hardware infringement. Presumably the nVidia driver model is most useful for nVidia hardware. If the nVidia driver model began being used against upstart JoeVideo cards, then they'd have good reason to take an SEM to JoeVideo chips, the the Open Source drivers would have pointed the way for them.
Whether Open Source wants to be in a position of assisting with patent prosecution is a different question.
Most people don't change the OS on their PC, they just use what was preloaded. It's not a matter of cost, merit, or any of that stuff. Most people just don't change or load the OS. When the machine starts getting too flakey, they do one of three things:
1: Buy a new PC, because the old one is *obviously* obsolete and broken.
2: Reload from the recovery CD, which isn't really the same as installing from generic media.
3: Use the computer less, until/if they get around to buying a new one.
We curse the preloads, because they're behind Microsoft's market lock. But the same inertia denies Microsoft the upgrade revenue they'd like, as well. I suspect that PC makers actually like the flakiness of Windows, because it helps drive new PC sales.
You may want to look for cards that advertise 'NLX' compatibility. The NLX I/O shield is half as high and twice a wide as conventional card IO shields. (also known as ATX, perhaps overloading the motherboard acronym) A few years back I installed a G400 in a system at work to replace the planar video, and it came with an NLX shield in the box. A few moments to change shields, and it was in and running.
I would have guessed that sterilization was the reason he mentioned going in through an airlock to get to the probe. I would further guess that sterilization is done piecemeal, and that final assembly is all done after the airlock. I would not expect hard radiation in space to do a thorough job of killing bugs. Anything on the surface yes, but bugs buried inside may well survive.
Ashes yes, but subject to no special handling, not to mention Flintstones-contamination. The epoxy probably helped. Of far more concern would be precautions taken when handling the metal cube, itself.
This was only meant to be an orbital probe, so presumably it shouldn't matter. But orbits decay, and accidents happen.
The big issue with keeping Earthly contamination away from Mars is so that we can *know* what we truly find there is native, if we find something.
First, if the CD made it into any sort of hardware build and package cycle, it's probably obsolete well before it hits the customer's office.
Second, as someone else mentions, distribution wars.
Third, why the heck didn't they partition the system the way *I* think is best? (Every organization will tend to have their own pet partitioning, too.)
(I can't take credit for this, since I read it, but can't remember where, so I can't attribute, either.)
The problem comes when government at any level distributes information in any electronic form. At that point, the issue isn't really Open Source as much as it is Open Formats and Interchange. For a large part, and IMHO Microsoft is one of the greatest offenders, proprietary software tends to entrench itself with proprietary formats.
As I view government information available in electronic form, I want the freedom to choose what software to us. If the government publishes in proprietary formats, they have abridged my freedom of choice. In fact, in doing this they meddle in the market, granting certain companies competitive advantages over others, based on their software choice.
Sticking with Open Formats and Interchange is the only way that the government can avoid forcing choices on citizens. It's the only way they can avoid reducing competition in the marketplace.
If Microsoft (and other similar software makers) could avoid their desire for proprietary formats, this wouldn't be an issue.
An Open Source law for government misses the issue, completely. Even so, it may well accomplish the correct end. Still, it would be better to be on target.
Re:Good idea for nuclear waste?
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 1
Think a little harder, flame a little less. Most of the ridicule toward this basically states, "The Sun is soooooooo big, we're soooooooo small, we can't possibly have any effect." I simply argue against that process, because I believe we've disproven it here on Earth. As mentioned elsewhere, check out the recent studies of contrail influence on weather around Sept 11.
As for the Sun, it's got more heavy nuclei down in the core than we can ever think of throwing at it. But there are two things to think about. First, it's down in the core, not up in the photosphere or chromosphere. Second, anything that hits the Sun does so in a small space, not spread throughout the total volume. Local concentrations would be higher. Probably no problem, but could it catalyze a flare? Maybe.
I don't predict doom or flares. I dislike a mindset that says, "We don't have to ever be careful about disposing of junk this way."
Re:Good idea for nuclear waste?
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 1
In the long run, *everything* we've ever done is reversible. In the short term, (next century) we're going to be making it darned uncomfortable for ourselves and co-inhabitants. In the medium run, we're destroying a lot of genetic diversity, which is nature's toolbox. The bigger problem with our "getting away with stuff" isn't the unsightly or smelly pollution, it's what it does to natural habitats. Kind of like the dead lakes in the Adirondaks. Or how about those little furry proto-mammals at the end of the Cretaceous.
As for fragile, I agree that the Earth's environment can take anything we can dish out. However, I disagree that we can keep dishing things out and remain comfortable. The environment flexes, perhaps not more than our species does, but clearly more than our societies.
I agree that Earth's natural forces can overwhelm anything we do, but I disagree in that I believe we can nudge the natural order around. Witness the recent research into contrails around Sept 11 causing a noticable effect on the weather, though ramifications are not yet understood. (Maybe nothing at all, maybe not.)
Re:Good idea for nuclear waste?
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 1
At first blush, I would definitely agree with you. The mass difference is just *too* great.
But mankind has a *terrible* track record at thinking it can get away with stuff. So far it seems that every time we try to cut a corner it comes back to bite us, eventually.
Other than the energy cost, tossing waste into the Sun just seems too simple and too final to really be simple and final. The other good argument other than energy cost is that someday this stuff might be a valuable resource. We should just be finding a good method of safe, indefinite storage with eventual accessability. The Moon is a good idea, as long as Martin Landau and Barbara Bain don't blow it up and kick the Moon out of orbit. (second obligatory Space 1999 reference on this subthread)
Re:Good idea for nuclear waste?
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 2
I have this inherent belief that unchecked, we can pollute ANYTHING, and that includes the Sun. Even if it were feasible to send nuclear waste to the Sun, and there has been plenty of more-than-adequate refutation, I would worry about sending uncontrolled quantities of heavy metals.
It's only small amounts, compared to planetary or solar mass, but what if it acts as a catalyst, not being used up, but continuing to cause mayhem? (I read Asimov's "The Currents of Space" as a kid.) I wouldn't anticipate anything like a Nova, but what about increasing the number or severity of flares, and the effects on communications?
You miss the point. They're TRYING to force upgrades, and don't want easy compatibility. How else can they keep their revenue growing faster than any of their customers'?
someone playing wine glasses. Somewhere around 20 years ago, my wife and I were at Harvard Square in Boston, and saw a man on the street playing wine glasses. He kept a pitcher of water and a basting syringe on hand to keep the glasses in tune.
The sound was wonderful, though I guess you'd have to call it a 'niche product'.
I'd also heard the armonica called a 'glass harp'. There used to be a Cleveland-area band called Glass Harp, with lead guitarist Phil Kaeggy. (sp?)
For some, college may be the first time you're out making your own rules. Most of the people in my hall I started Freshman year with flunked out. They couldn't figure out how to stop partying.
Partying is ok, but at some point, it's time to stop, and start studying.
Slashdot Mirror
cell phone batteries.
Some cell phone makers are unhappy about third-party batteries. So they encrypted the status information that the phone reads from the battery. If the phone detects an off-brand battery, it drains it - quickly. They then claim protection under the DMCA for the encrypted battery status readout, to prevent third-party reverse engineering.
So though I know your juxtposition of DMCA and laundry is meant to be funny, it may not be too far from the truth. Imagine for a moment "detergent cartridges" so that the washer can meter and monitor detergent. Then encrypt that link and claim DMCA protection. Now assume strategic alliances between washer and detergent makers. When you buy your washer, you've just chosen what detergent you're going to use - until alliances shift, and then you get to change brands.
The situation might be similar to inkjet cartridges, including home refills, except in that case the horses got out of the barn before they got the door shut. If such a washer/detergent alliance were to get into this mode, no doubt they'd look at both cell phone batteries and inkjet cartridges to plot their course. I really wish they'd look to their customers, instead. But in these days of the DMCA and criminalizing your customers...
Isn't a more correct answer to keep the restrictions? Perhaps what you really need is an internal support site that outlines the causes of problems with web browsing. Mention that ActiveX is not really standard, and that it's filtered because it's a security exposure. Add the fact that they can usually give feedback to webmaster@wherever, especially for the needless and trivial uses of ActiveX and other non-portable features.
Of course this depends on your feelings about the continuing degeneration of the Web into a captive Microsoft experience. You question was about "safely" accomodating this trend inside your company.
Speech recognition?
Not personally involved, but close to a year ago I seem to remember reading that good speech recognition with the fastest Pentia (Don't remember if it was PIII or P4.) and K7 was still "slightly slower than realtime."
Seems to me that that situation may have changed, that we may now have faster-than-realtime speech recognition. Maybe now the system can figure out what I said, and then have time to do it, too.
While one may argue that a web composed of Apache servers is more secure than a web composed of IIS, it's better yet to have a plurality of servers. I know we're not down to one or even two servers, yet. But we should keep in mind that "World Domination" by a web server (or even OS) is not a particularly good outcome.
It's unfortunate that the computing industry has this completely stupid "One Leader" mindset. First it was IBM, then Microsoft, and even if Linux is a more benign "One Leader" than the other two, it's the "One" in there that's flawed.
We need to re-orient our heads a bit, and IMHO the Linux camp is almost as guilty as the Windows camp. Mitigating factor, at least the Linux camp begrudges *BSD the right to exist, but is it any better than the Windows/Mac relationship?
My brother's (Mac fan) argument, too.
Won't disagree, perhaps only suggest that one level of indirection be removed, and chase Mac directly rather than through Windows. Besides, I was an old OS/2 WPS fan, and know that there are/were better things than the Windows desktop.
It seems that KDE and GNOME just keep chasing Windows, especially Miguel (Windows done right (Is that even possible?)) Icaza.
Maybe the wrong target is being chased. Maybe the sights are set too low. Maybe Be or Mac would be a better desktop target.
was called "The 801 Minicomputer" named after building 801 at Watson Research, where George Radin & co (Don't mean to neglect any names here, sorry.) designed and built it.
First IANAL, don't even play one on TV...
The legal system runs on precedents, and the more you have on your side, the better.
Is the gated community a precedent for an ISP? A gated community can restrict access of outsiders to the interior of the community, but does not restrict members' access to the outside. Sounds kind of like what an ISP is doing in this case. I presume gated communities have provisions for police and firemen to obtain access, as well as desired visitors.
Are there precedents for salesmen or bill collectors (without an accompying policeman) gaining access to a gated community? I can see a better case for religious types, claiming Constitutional protection. But last I knew, the RIAA didn't qualify as a religion.
Doesn't wash.
I would presume that if nVidia is that worried about their GPUs, then they're patented as well as closed source. Hardware can be reverse-engineered, but it can be a pain in the neck crawling around SEMs and trying to turn it back into a schematic, and then trying to turn that back into functional blocks so you can walk up the hierarchy and comprehend the whole. I know, I've done it. Supplying Open Source-style documentation would make it easier to reverse-engineer the hardware.
On The Other Hand...
IMHO a big part of the reason for closed source drivers is that it can take a lot of work to release proper documentation. Closed source drivers can be done by poor documentation plus the fact that the programmers may well sit down the aisle from the hardware guys. They talk daily, and that fills the gaps in the documents. Painful for both, but frequently cheaper and less painful than doing a good job of documentation.
On The Gripping Hand...
One of the harder aspects of patenting something can be detection of violation. If nVidia were to release their documentation and let this stuff work its way into the Open Source community, then they could watch the software concepts flow, and know where to start looking for hardware infringement. Presumably the nVidia driver model is most useful for nVidia hardware. If the nVidia driver model began being used against upstart JoeVideo cards, then they'd have good reason to take an SEM to JoeVideo chips, the the Open Source drivers would have pointed the way for them.
Whether Open Source wants to be in a position of assisting with patent prosecution is a different question.
Most people don't change the OS on their PC, they just use what was preloaded. It's not a matter of cost, merit, or any of that stuff. Most people just don't change or load the OS. When the machine starts getting too flakey, they do one of three things:
1: Buy a new PC, because the old one is *obviously* obsolete and broken.
2: Reload from the recovery CD, which isn't really the same as installing from generic media.
3: Use the computer less, until/if they get around to buying a new one.
We curse the preloads, because they're behind Microsoft's market lock. But the same inertia denies Microsoft the upgrade revenue they'd like, as well. I suspect that PC makers actually like the flakiness of Windows, because it helps drive new PC sales.
I believe I may have run into this, before.
You may want to look for cards that advertise 'NLX' compatibility. The NLX I/O shield is half as high and twice a wide as conventional card IO shields. (also known as ATX, perhaps overloading the motherboard acronym) A few years back I installed a G400 in a system at work to replace the planar video, and it came with an NLX shield in the box. A few moments to change shields, and it was in and running.
I would have guessed that sterilization was the reason he mentioned going in through an airlock to get to the probe. I would further guess that sterilization is done piecemeal, and that final assembly is all done after the airlock. I would not expect hard radiation in space to do a thorough job of killing bugs. Anything on the surface yes, but bugs buried inside may well survive.
I wonder how many copies of this book will sell at the University of Waterloo, in Canda?
5 5&mode=nested&tid=146
See "Microsoft Invests in the University of Waterloo": http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/14/20292
Ashes yes, but subject to no special handling, not to mention Flintstones-contamination. The epoxy probably helped. Of far more concern would be precautions taken when handling the metal cube, itself.
This was only meant to be an orbital probe, so presumably it shouldn't matter. But orbits decay, and accidents happen.
The big issue with keeping Earthly contamination away from Mars is so that we can *know* what we truly find there is native, if we find something.
Three points:
First, if the CD made it into any sort of hardware build and package cycle, it's probably obsolete well before it hits the customer's office.
Second, as someone else mentions, distribution wars.
Third, why the heck didn't they partition the system the way *I* think is best? (Every organization will tend to have their own pet partitioning, too.)
Let's see...
1981
Would that have been Opel or Akers?
Or at that time, in that 'maverick-PC' environment, was the real decision down at the level of Don Estridge?
(I can't take credit for this, since I read it, but can't remember where, so I can't attribute, either.)
The problem comes when government at any level distributes information in any electronic form. At that point, the issue isn't really Open Source as much as it is Open Formats and Interchange. For a large part, and IMHO Microsoft is one of the greatest offenders, proprietary software tends to entrench itself with proprietary formats.
As I view government information available in electronic form, I want the freedom to choose what software to us. If the government publishes in proprietary formats, they have abridged my freedom of choice. In fact, in doing this they meddle in the market, granting certain companies competitive advantages over others, based on their software choice.
Sticking with Open Formats and Interchange is the only way that the government can avoid forcing choices on citizens. It's the only way they can avoid reducing competition in the marketplace.
If Microsoft (and other similar software makers) could avoid their desire for proprietary formats, this wouldn't be an issue.
An Open Source law for government misses the issue, completely. Even so, it may well accomplish the correct end. Still, it would be better to be on target.
Think a little harder, flame a little less. Most of the ridicule toward this basically states, "The Sun is soooooooo big, we're soooooooo small, we can't possibly have any effect." I simply argue against that process, because I believe we've disproven it here on Earth. As mentioned elsewhere, check out the recent studies of contrail influence on weather around Sept 11.
As for the Sun, it's got more heavy nuclei down in the core than we can ever think of throwing at it. But there are two things to think about. First, it's down in the core, not up in the photosphere or chromosphere. Second, anything that hits the Sun does so in a small space, not spread throughout the total volume. Local concentrations would be higher. Probably no problem, but could it catalyze a flare? Maybe.
I don't predict doom or flares. I dislike a mindset that says, "We don't have to ever be careful about disposing of junk this way."
In the long run, *everything* we've ever done is reversible. In the short term, (next century) we're going to be making it darned uncomfortable for ourselves and co-inhabitants. In the medium run, we're destroying a lot of genetic diversity, which is nature's toolbox. The bigger problem with our "getting away with stuff" isn't the unsightly or smelly pollution, it's what it does to natural habitats. Kind of like the dead lakes in the Adirondaks. Or how about those little furry proto-mammals at the end of the Cretaceous.
As for fragile, I agree that the Earth's environment can take anything we can dish out. However, I disagree that we can keep dishing things out and remain comfortable. The environment flexes, perhaps not more than our species does, but clearly more than our societies.
I agree that Earth's natural forces can overwhelm anything we do, but I disagree in that I believe we can nudge the natural order around. Witness the recent research into contrails around Sept 11 causing a noticable effect on the weather, though ramifications are not yet understood. (Maybe nothing at all, maybe not.)
At first blush, I would definitely agree with you. The mass difference is just *too* great.
But mankind has a *terrible* track record at thinking it can get away with stuff. So far it seems that every time we try to cut a corner it comes back to bite us, eventually.
Other than the energy cost, tossing waste into the Sun just seems too simple and too final to really be simple and final. The other good argument other than energy cost is that someday this stuff might be a valuable resource. We should just be finding a good method of safe, indefinite storage with eventual accessability. The Moon is a good idea, as long as Martin Landau and Barbara Bain don't blow it up and kick the Moon out of orbit. (second obligatory Space 1999 reference on this subthread)
I have this inherent belief that unchecked, we can pollute ANYTHING, and that includes the Sun. Even if it were feasible to send nuclear waste to the Sun, and there has been plenty of more-than-adequate refutation, I would worry about sending uncontrolled quantities of heavy metals.
It's only small amounts, compared to planetary or solar mass, but what if it acts as a catalyst, not being used up, but continuing to cause mayhem? (I read Asimov's "The Currents of Space" as a kid.) I wouldn't anticipate anything like a Nova, but what about increasing the number or severity of flares, and the effects on communications?
for diseases to jump the species barrier?
You miss the point. They're TRYING to force upgrades, and don't want easy compatibility. How else can they keep their revenue growing faster than any of their customers'?
someone playing wine glasses. Somewhere around 20 years ago, my wife and I were at Harvard Square in Boston, and saw a man on the street playing wine glasses. He kept a pitcher of water and a basting syringe on hand to keep the glasses in tune.
The sound was wonderful, though I guess you'd have to call it a 'niche product'.
I'd also heard the armonica called a 'glass harp'. There used to be a Cleveland-area band called Glass Harp, with lead guitarist Phil Kaeggy. (sp?)
For some, college may be the first time you're out making your own rules. Most of the people in my hall I started Freshman year with flunked out. They couldn't figure out how to stop partying.
Partying is ok, but at some point, it's time to stop, and start studying.