Yeah, yeah.. Who needs all this fancy engine computer stuff.. Ever since I painted my Civic bright yellow (everyone knows yellow is fast), cut off the exhaust pipe, and added a 3 foot high spoiler (have to keep the wheels on the ground), it goes like twice as fast. You can clearly hear that my car has TEH POWER when I rev the engine at red lights. I am so fast you cannot even read my decals.
This is simply untrue. Arithmetic compression for example is not at all obvious..
Maybe non-obvious to you, but the vast majority of compression algorithms are pretty obvious to mathematicians and computer scientists. The rest, typically the lossy ones, are based on finding patterns in nature that can be simplified. But it's still just mathematics and/or scientific discovery and should not be patentable for that very reason.
That aside, another clear case against the patenting of any data compression or communication protocol is the promotion of standards. For example, where would the Internet be today if there were no patent-free compressed image formats?
What many people don't realize is that there are literally tens of thousands of bogus patents out there relating to all aspects of software, interface designs, methods of data communication, etc. The ugly reality is that the USPTO pretty much rubber stamps everything that comes their way without much review. If you look hard enough, pretty close to every substantial piece of code in existance, Open Source or proprietary, likely violates somebody's nonsense patent. While these bogus patents are rarely enforced, the SCO situation is proof that the danger exists, even at an 'unfounded threat' level. But as proprietary software empires fall to Free alternatives, we will quite likely see more of this nonsense.
The long and short of it: our basic freedoms, especially speech, are being squelched by overzealous patenting. You cannot write software today without worrying about accidentally "re-inventing" or bumping into somebody's supposedly patented idea The modern patent system has decayed precisely into what Thomas Jefferson envisioned when he wrote: "..For to embarrass society with monopolies for every utensil existing, and in all the details of life, would be more injurious to them than had the supposed inventors never existed; because the natural understanding of its members would have suggested the same things or others as good." AND.. "the abuse of frivolous patents is likely to cause more inconvenience than is countervail by those really useful"
Software patents must be eliminated. All of them. They are a threat to free speech and expression. They are a threat to innovation. They are a threat to the Open Source movement. Software patents are by very nature trivial--something the USPTO is not supposed to allow.
With that in mind, here are some links to get you started on some anti-software-patent activism:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html http ://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html http://antipatents.8m.com/software-patents.html http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf h ttp://www.freepatents.org/ http://petition.euroli nux.org/index_html?LANG=en
Mr Schwartz may seem to want to have it both ways. But he is trying to capitalise on an important trend. Some software users have started to realise that even Linux is not as free as it appears: for instance, it has to be maintained and upgraded. "Linux is like a puppy--in the beginning it's great, but you also have to take care of it," says Mr Schwartz. He hopes that firms will opt for Solaris, because it requires less care.
That's pretty laughable to anyone who has ever maintained Linux boxes.. well, most *nixes for that matter. I wonder whether Mr. Schwartz has used any Linux distros since oh.. Slackware 3? Hmm... "apt-get dist-upgrade" Wow! The sweat is really flying from my forehead now! (:
Sun needs to realize that it simply does not make sense to compete with Free Software when their own proprietary stuff offers little or no benefit. It's a waste of their resources to keep maintaining Solaris. In short, Sun is a company that must innovate or die.
Most of these guys manage to make a decent living and have careers that span decades. So it possible to make a living from touring. Personally I don't want to see a light show unless it's a concert at a big venue where the intimacy of the small concert is lost.
That's right on what I was trying to get at. Getting back to music for the sake of music itself! Forget the mega lightshow, pyro, ear-destroying SPL's, gargantuan mixing / digital re-processing booth, and smelly chewing-gum infested amphitheaters! (:
Regarding size, I have also been to some pretty large concerts without the above nonsense. And I'd wager a bet that those ones are some pretty nice money-makers.
Good example of featuritis is the GIMP and their script-fu menus. Who else but a geek would write a library framework for plugins that often crash and take the program out with them.
First, if you're seeing crashes, something is wrong with your installation or you're using a really old version. Second, script-fu, while ultimately not necessary, is very useful for automating certain image processing tasks, and is actually one of Gimp's strengths.
I suspect that they will have to compromise on quality, lest they end up with some bloated software product.
I'd much rather have separate best-of-breed software packages, than an integrated one that does everything OK, but not great.
I disagree with the myth that addition of features necessarily compromises quality or causes bloat. If you're talking about a highly monolithic application, then yes, that *can* be an issue. However, proper modular design entirely dispenses of the drawbacks of feature 'bloat'. Furthermore, memory is a non-issue with modern hardware, so that argument falls flat. What's left is something along the lines of: "will adding this feature compromise the integrity of other features?" If the answer is no and the feature will add to the program's usefulness, there is no reason not to add it. Granted, if someone tried to integrate a word processor into Blender, *that* would be useless bloat. But trying to be the ultimate integrated 3D modeling / NLE package is a worthy goal. There are a lot of advantages to combining the two tasks, such as being able to do all rendering and compositing in one pass and without having to constantly switch back and forth between applications, doing renders / re-importing results back and forth, etc.
The theater owners and the distributors have agreed to charge X amount of dollars in each area.
Exactly: collusion.
That's nonsense. The Matrix: Reloaded cost something like $120 million. Even independent films are expensive to make. For example, the indie film Greasewood Flat cost around $700 thousand
Movies like Reloaded are the exception, not the norm. And the quoted $700 thousand had it not been independent, would likely have been more like $5mil. Still a huge difference. And regardless, people see movies for their story more than the special effects. Unless you're talking Star Wars.
When it comes to "worthless" movies, all I can say is that movies are hard to make. There are countless numbers of things that can go wrong and ruin what would have otherwise been a good film.
That's a cop-out answer. The fact is lousy movies begin with lousy scripts.. usually written by people who have no literary skill whatsoever.
Not everyone wants to sit at their computer all day. For most filmmakers, most of the enjoyment comes from actually being on the set.
Some who cling to the nostalgia will always do things that way.
And you seem to forget that as computing power increases, so do the demands for greater detail and realism.
There is a breaking point where CG and reality are entirely indistiguishable. And it's not far off. Once it is reached, more computing power just means faster than real-time.
As far as AI goes, that's too ridiculous for me to comment on. Not in 10-15 years, but perhaps 30-40. I'm talking about being able to describe scenes in natural language and have them appear before your eyes. It will happen at the current rate of technological growth. I can't but guess when.
Re:Wrong solution to the wrong problem
on
Open Source Music
·
· Score: 1
Payment for their songs is the only way they have to pay off those loans.
You seem to have forgotten live performances. Granted, people will only pay to hear you live if you're a decent musician, but if you're not, you shouldn't be trying to make a living off music to begin with. And therein lies the problem: many 'independent' artists truly suck and do nothing original. So they get stuck playing at bars where nobody really listens, dreaming of getting their "big break". And the handful of decent musicians have no entrepreneurial skills so they just sell out the the labels, screwing themselves and their audience, but holding that glimmer of hope that they'll be the one in a hundred that make it big enough to actually see decent profit from their contract.
It comes down to this: good music succeeds whether you are 'signed' or independent. And the best way for an independent artist/band with good music to become well enough known nation/world-wide is to sell concert tickets is to share their music freely online and do their own public relations. It may take a year or more, but it will happen if the quality is there. Yet nobody to my knowledge has fully tried this approach. I wish they would.. because that's the kinda artist I and many others would gladly support.
But on the other hand you're right that P2P'ing existing content is not the proper solution to the problem.
All of these new DRM-enabled online music services are gatekeeper enablers! Think about it, folks. If this stuff becomes popular, it will become even *harder* for independent musicians to survive because the (now online) gatekeepers will get to pick and choose what music to put on their services. It's all a return to status quo--the artists and consumers getting screwed.
This *should* have been the point all along: to eliminate the middlemen and connect artists directly to their fans; to drastically weaken corporate control of our culture. But that point somehow got entirely lost in the fervor of the P2P scene. So now the RIAA folks have finally woken up and are on the brink of controlling the new media that could have set the market free.
The music world desperately needs a grassroots movement similar to Open Source. Just as warez kiddies were no solution to proprietary software monopolies, P2P will never overthrow the corrupt culture gatekeepers. Independent, consumer / community friendly music is the only viable long-term solution.
And the MPAA isn't a monopoly. It doesn't make movies, it doesn't distribute them, and it doesn't advertise them, therefor it can't be a monopoly.
True, but the MPAA is a tool of monopoly--or oligopoly, perhaps. And it is a significant political force in weaseling bad laws through on behalf of its monopoly-minded members.
What's more, the member studios compete against each other, and none of them are monopolies.
So why are all movies the same price at the theater? Surely this is not a free market solution. And
But how would this hurt the moviegoing public? Simple: far fewer films will get made (if any), they will be much shorter, and of far lower quality.
That's nonsense. All it would mean is that studios would actually have to be budget conscious for once. It doesn't take anywhere near $100mil today to produce a good movie--even one loaded with special effects. For example, there is absolutely no reason why any celebrity actor/actress should be paid megabucks to shoot one flick. Nor does all the glitz and glamour (and sleeze) surrounding the industry need to exist. And then you take into account how many absolutely worthless movies are produced. There is plenty of money in an efficient and free market version of Hollywood.
Fortunately, in a direct parallel to the changing music industry, technology will, in the relatively near future, make Hollywood entirely obsolete anyhow. If the studios can do photo-real human characters and sets today (ex. Matrix Reloaded), it'll only be 10-15 years at most before the same capability is available to every home PC user, likely even near real-time. At the same time, advances in user interfaces and perhaps even an element of AI will replace the need for hundreds of animation artists. So much for production costs!
It should be obvious to any cretin that there is a definite qualitative difference between human and chimp, indeed between human and all of (observable) nature. And that supposedly insignificant quality makes all the difference. The fact that we cannot (yet) measure its true magnitude in scientific terms does not make it any less ridiculously obvious.
Or.. as the saying goes: "There is no gene for the human spirit"
Of course, if anybody could leak the memo from inside Microsoft where this deal was discussed, that would help even more... any volunteers?
See "Halloween document #7" http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween 7.php
"Linux patent violations/risk of being sued" struck a chord with US and Swedish respondents. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans and 82% of Swedes stated that the risk of being sued over Linux patent violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux. This was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience.
and..
"The discussion of IP rights needs to be tied to concrete actions."
This is pretty solid evidence that M$ is interested in being involved in a legal FUD campaign. Now, indeed, if only the specific internal memos for this particular case could be leaked!
What this has really done is lend some legitamacy to the SCO licensing gambit, raising the probability that the major Linux players will have to shell out as well. Basically, MS just dropped a major FUD bomb on the Linux-in-the-enterprise crowd.
Not to mention this so-called 'necessary' SCO license is a way for M$ to funnel some money into SCO to help support their bogus lawsuit.
There's this 'architech' guy who really runs the whole show.
For all we know, the matrix is really just a video game. At the end of Revolutions we might see some kid pop a disk out of his computer and say "I'm bored of this game." That'd be funny.
OK, now imagine yourself some silly CG fight scenes. Oooohh.. Ahhhh.. OK, now save your $8.50 and donate it to the EFF instead of the MPAA. Isn't our *real world* technological freedom more important than some silly hollywood movie? Don't be hypocrites, folks. Don't support these guys.
Individual cases like this will do little or nothing to get the "anti-circumvention" parts of the DMCA overturned, short of a claim of unconstitutionality.
A better (faster) solution is to pass a law that codifies fair-use and directly amends the DMCA. Such a law is in the works: it's called DMCRA (Digital Media Consumer Rights Act). If you haven't written your congresspersons to voice your support yet, you need to do so immediately. The easiest way to do so is to fill out and submit the form on the page listed below. A personal letter is nice if you have the time, but this will at least get a tally point on our side.
OK, so there are no "patent-pool" licensing fees, but are there any patent issues with VP6? Suppose someone writes an Open Source implementation of this new codec? Will there be issues for those who live in less-free countries that allow software patents? The world really needs a completely free video codec.
This "guru" support model simply does not scale. This is why management wants 24x7 support: so that no matter what happens to their gurus, they always have a toll-free 800 number to call to get someone that knows what they're doing on the problem. If that person can't solve it, a good maintenance contract might even involve getting the vendor to fly an engineer out there to fix the problem.
It doesn't take a genius to administer SSH or VNC or any other stable Open Source software. Perhaps what paranoid companies should do is have a call-list of local consultants who can fit the bill if the gurus are 'offline' (: Actually, I know of some companies that already do this because I was called once myself. And it's probably cheaper than having a bunch of extra IT staff lying around.
You're right to say that an old P-166 will do poorly as a Linux desktop and it's true that KDE3/Gnome2 and other recent software takes quite a bit of hardware to run well. However, that P-166 you mention wouldn't even be able to run WinXP. So what we're comparing here is Win98 vs. Linux as a lightweight OS for an old computer. Well, guess what? You don't have to use KDE3/Gnome2! If you want the equivalent lightweight interface of Win95/98, try FVWM instead.
Myth 2.) Linux is lightweight
Once, yes, but now it couldn't be further from the truth. Linux has quickly snowballed into a gargantuan assortment of apps and bloated libraries that have been stitched together by the slaves of Tux. No amount of RAM will satisfy Linux, it will eat it all until there is nothing left to do but start swapping.
Now that is nothing more than a troll. Anyone who has used Linux on any reasonably modern hardware knows that that is patently untrue. Or maybe YOU are one of the clueless newbies who thought Linux would magically turn your crappy old hardware into a dream machine.
My computer, an Athlon 1600+ w/ 256 mb RAM running Windows XP, takes merely seconds to start, the whole system taking about as much time to load as KDE by itself takes to start up in Linux. Even on my old 166 Mhz IBM Aptiva Windows 98 SE runs very well, is quite snappy, and is just as featureful as KDE, even considering that Windows 98 is a four-year-old OS.
Win98 is nowhere near as 'featureful' as KDE. And yes, KDE does take longer to load than XP. You know why? Because it's far more feature-rich than XP as well!
I had far more stability/mysterious problems on RedHat 7.2 and KDE than I've ever had in Windows 9x
That part does not surprise me. RedHat sucks.. at least older versions like 6 and 7 did. I've heard good things about 9.0, but being a Debian fan, I don't bother.
Linux locked up every 5 minutes after starting GNOME, which I found out the problem was due to a four-year-old bug in the Linux kernel (so much for open source fixing bugs quickly)
You really enjoy espousing BS don't you? Or maybe perhaps you refer to a bug in NVidia's crappy proprietary video drivers? Don't confuse the two.
All of the core windows apps such as the file manager, web browser, and office applications start up nearly instantly on even a marginally fast computer. After waiting and waiting for konqueror to load (even when I just loaded it) or going to the bathroom while staroffice does its thing, I was amazed at how blazingly fast comparible programs like outlook, word, internet explorer, etc were by comparison.
You know why they load "instantly"? Because they get half-loaded into memory when your system boots. There are hacks for OpenOffice and KDE that do the same thing for people who want to feel like they're getting more speed for free. But it's always a tradeoff. Additionally some windows apps don't load completely when they start. They graft on additional functionality as needed--which is generally speaking a smart thing to do. But it doesn't mean that KDE is bloated.
First off, this law is not about mandating OSS, it's about mandating procurement offices to consider OSS as an option. In other words, since taxpayer dollars are on the line, the government should do its best to reduce costs. If cost-benefit analysis shows that OSS can achieve this goal, it should always be used instead of proprietary software.
I propose to take this a step further. If a government IT group can develop or extend OSS cheaper than it can obtain proprietary software to meet the same need, it should be required to take this route as well. Geeks listen up: this is yet another way to be paid to write free software. Offer software consulting and development services to your local government. Bid against the crufty proprietary folks!
Until all music is distributed freely by artists or by artist-owned "labels", we're going to keep seeing this nonsense. And no, Apple's joke of a music service won't cut it. There is simply no room for distribution middlemen in a digital society.
Until then, boycott all RIAA music--including concerts. Artists need to learn that it is in their best interests to never sign a label contract. Support only artists who go the independent route. It's best for the artist. It's best for the consumer.
That's the best summary of American propaganda I've seen yet. Do you have any statistics to present showing this majority? What constitutes a terrorist attack and what is 'legitimate' guerrilla warfare? Depending who you ask that question, Africa and South America must witness countless terrorist actions each day. Most of them likely unrelated to Islam, and almost certainly none of them related to middle-eastern oil.
I see your point. My wording was certainly imprecise and depends largely on how you define terrorism. Since the US is the topic here (ours being the choice to reduce oil imports via alternative energy sources), I should have specified the terrorism to which I refer as politically-motivated organized violence against US civilians and allies. So no, I am not including guerrilla warfare / civil wars in Africa, South America, etc.
So, perhaps a more directed argument: There are numerous middle-east nations to which we supply enormous wealth in exchange for their oil. Several of these nations take part in state-funded terrorism against us. Because of this, we should not give them the resources to do so through trade of oil. I do not agree that desperation is the driving force of state-funded forms of terrorism, but rather ideology. Part of that ideology may be religious and part of it secular state-interests. However, those who carry out the actual acts have tended to be of the religious bent--and perhaps manipulated/brainwashed to carry out their orders with hopes of eternal rewards. This would also seem to explain the high incident of suicide attacks. But those who commission these people to their fate are certainly not the ones in desperation--take Saddam and his palaces for example. If corrupt regimes fall due to economic collapse, will terrorist organizations under them be able to operate effectively? I can't say for sure, but it doesn't as seem likely.
Alright, I agreed up untill this last part scared me. Labelling terrorism as a by-product of the middle east falls too close to racism for my liking. Have you forgotten about Oklahoma City, or even Waco? I sincerely hope this was meant as a joke that I'm simply missing the humor in.
This is not an issue of racism and I do not harbor hatred for anybody or any race. I am, however, highlighting the reality that the majority of terrorism worldwide is spawned by radical Islamic fundamentalists sponsored (and perhaps brainwashed, if you will) by theocratic middle-east rouge nations. And those states' governments are funded mostly by state-run oil programs. So if we shut off their primary revenue stream, we can cause collapse and reform *without* use of military force.
BTW: If you don't believe that Islam has roots of intolerance and violence, I suggest you get your head out of the liberal media and try actually reading the Quran. Try Sura 9 for starters. This is not to say that all Muslims are violent or terrorists! But it does illustrate where those who are get their ideals and belief system.
Some much-needed clarification
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
Linus and others' points are quite simple:
1.) You can sign a binary produced from GPL'ed code
2.) You can modify GPL'ed code as long as you release the changes.
3.) You cannot include secret keys in the binary unless they are also in the GPL'ed code. This of course makes them non-secret.
So, does this or does this not enable the kind of evil DRM that the riaa/mpaa drools over? Yes, it does! Now, let me explain why.
All that is needed for DRM, whether for good or evil purposes, is that the operating system lock out certain system level functions to prevent snooping on memory. Once the user (even root) cannot snoop on memory, key exchanges can take place safely between authenticated hardware and software or between software components. To prevent memory snooping, you must 'neuter' the operating system's kernel and perhaps also certain system libraries, depending on the OS's design. And example of this is LIDS, a patch to the Linux kernel which puts restrictions on what the root user can do. (In this case, the idea is to prevent a root-compromised machine from being damaged further.) For security purposes, DRM is a good thing. I can, for example, tell my BIOS to only execute the LIDS-enabled kernels that I have signed.
In the case of DRM for evil purposes, you have, for example, a custom hard-coded BIOS which ONLY allows the manufacturer's signed kernels--kernels that have been neutered that is. You may reasonably ask 'what about all the other software'. Well, some of that software may be signed and some may not. So possibly, your "hello world" program will still run. But the hardware will only allow the signed software to do the key exchanges for access to protected content. And since even your own code running as root will not be able to snoop into other processes memory space, the evil use of DRM will have been successfully achieved. Of course, some hardware may be even more restrictive and not allow any unsigned (user-provided) code to run. Examples might include set-top media boxes and video game consoles.
So, specialized hardware is one thing, but what does this all mean to those using standard PCs? Short of DRM-requiring legislation, we will continue to see TCPA hardware that allows the user to decide what signatures are acceptable. And, as I've explained, this is a good thing for security purposes. The danger will be if BIOS hardware, by law or by industry agreement, starts including a hard-coded "hollywood master key" that will allow the system to be booted into evil-DRM mode using a matching signed kernel. Now, unless this is the only booting mode allowed, you'll still be able to boot a standard kernel and do everything like normal--you just won't be able to access certain encrypted blocks on your hard drive until you reboot with the neutered and signed kernel and use signed, proprietary media players capable of the necessary key exchange.
Of course there is potential for a worse situation, however. Some hardware, such as sound or video cards, may refuse to talk unless their transports have been authenticated by the BIOS's "hollywood master key". So there is the possibility of interoperability problems.
But we do have a huge thing in our favor at this time: installed base of "non-compliant" hardware. Most people will not rush out and buy new computers just to access new protected and highly restrictive content or to use some new DRM-enabled MS Palladium version of Windows and Office. So we have the DivX (pay-per-view DVD) scenario all over again and the market will get a chance to decide. Frankly, I'm not too worried, but in the meantime, boycott any companies that support this rubbish!
If these increasing numbers of studies disproving man-influenced climate change turn out to be true, we can all thank Bush for not plunging our economy further down the toilet by signing the Kyoto treaty.
That being said, I am entirely in favor of *real* environmental protection laws and the promotion of cleaner technologies. By 'real' I mean factors that actually affect people--water and air quality, landfills, etc. And I also think we should switch to a hydrogen economy ASAP, not out of worry about so-called greenhouse gasses, but as the single most effective way to fight terrorism--shut off the money flow to the middle east!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, yeah.. Who needs all this fancy engine computer stuff.. Ever since I painted my Civic bright yellow (everyone knows yellow is fast), cut off the exhaust pipe, and added a 3 foot high spoiler (have to keep the wheels on the ground), it goes like twice as fast. You can clearly hear that my car has TEH POWER when I rev the engine at red lights. I am so fast you cannot even read my decals.
This is simply untrue. Arithmetic compression for example is not at all obvious..
Maybe non-obvious to you, but the vast majority of compression algorithms are pretty obvious to mathematicians and computer scientists. The rest, typically the lossy ones, are based on finding patterns in nature that can be simplified. But it's still just mathematics and/or scientific discovery and should not be patentable for that very reason.
That aside, another clear case against the patenting of any data compression or communication protocol is the promotion of standards. For example, where would the Internet be today if there were no patent-free compressed image formats?
What many people don't realize is that there are literally tens of thousands of bogus patents out there relating to all aspects of software, interface designs, methods of data communication, etc. The ugly reality is that the USPTO pretty much rubber stamps everything that comes their way without much review. If you look hard enough, pretty close to every substantial piece of code in existance, Open Source or proprietary, likely violates somebody's nonsense patent. While these bogus patents are rarely enforced, the SCO situation is proof that the danger exists, even at an 'unfounded threat' level. But as proprietary software empires fall to Free alternatives, we will quite likely see more of this nonsense.
p ://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html
h ttp://www.freepatents.org/i nux.org/index_html?LANG=en
The long and short of it: our basic freedoms, especially speech, are being squelched by overzealous patenting. You cannot write software today without worrying about accidentally "re-inventing" or bumping into somebody's supposedly patented idea The modern patent system has decayed precisely into what Thomas Jefferson envisioned when he wrote: "..For to embarrass society with monopolies for every utensil existing, and in all the details of life, would be more injurious to them than had the supposed inventors never existed; because the natural understanding of its members would have suggested the same things or others as good." AND.. "the abuse of frivolous patents is likely to cause more inconvenience than is countervail by those really useful"
Software patents must be eliminated. All of them. They are a threat to free speech and expression. They are a threat to innovation. They are a threat to the Open Source movement. Software patents are by very nature trivial--something the USPTO is not supposed to allow.
With that in mind, here are some links to get you started on some anti-software-patent activism:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html
htt
http://antipatents.8m.com/software-patents.html
http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf
http://petition.eurol
Mr Schwartz may seem to want to have it both ways. But he is trying to capitalise on an important trend. Some software users have started to realise that even Linux is not as free as it appears: for instance, it has to be maintained and upgraded. "Linux is like a puppy--in the beginning it's great, but you also have to take care of it," says Mr Schwartz. He hopes that firms will opt for Solaris, because it requires less care.
That's pretty laughable to anyone who has ever maintained Linux boxes.. well, most *nixes for that matter. I wonder whether Mr. Schwartz has used any Linux distros since oh.. Slackware 3?
Hmm... "apt-get dist-upgrade" Wow! The sweat is really flying from my forehead now! (:
Sun needs to realize that it simply does not make sense to compete with Free Software when their own proprietary stuff offers little or no benefit. It's a waste of their resources to keep maintaining Solaris. In short, Sun is a company that must innovate or die.
Most of these guys manage to make a decent living and have careers that span decades. So it possible to make a living from touring. Personally I don't want to see a light show unless it's a concert at a big venue where the intimacy of the small concert is lost.
That's right on what I was trying to get at. Getting back to music for the sake of music itself! Forget the mega lightshow, pyro, ear-destroying SPL's, gargantuan mixing / digital re-processing booth, and smelly chewing-gum infested amphitheaters! (:
Regarding size, I have also been to some pretty large concerts without the above nonsense. And I'd wager a bet that those ones are some pretty nice money-makers.
Good example of featuritis is the GIMP and their script-fu menus. Who else but a geek would write a library framework for plugins that often crash and take the program out with them.
First, if you're seeing crashes, something is wrong with your installation or you're using a really old version. Second, script-fu, while ultimately not necessary, is very useful for automating certain image processing tasks, and is actually one of Gimp's strengths.
I suspect that they will have to compromise on quality, lest they end up with some bloated software product.
I'd much rather have separate best-of-breed software packages, than an integrated one that does everything OK, but not great.
I disagree with the myth that addition of features necessarily compromises quality or causes bloat. If you're talking about a highly monolithic application, then yes, that *can* be an issue. However, proper modular design entirely dispenses of the drawbacks of feature 'bloat'. Furthermore, memory is a non-issue with modern hardware, so that argument falls flat. What's left is something along the lines of: "will adding this feature compromise the integrity of other features?" If the answer is no and the feature will add to the program's usefulness, there is no reason not to add it. Granted, if someone tried to integrate a word processor into Blender, *that* would be useless bloat. But trying to be the ultimate integrated 3D modeling / NLE package is a worthy goal. There are a lot of advantages to combining the two tasks, such as being able to do all rendering and compositing in one pass and without having to constantly switch back and forth between applications, doing renders / re-importing results back and forth, etc.
The theater owners and the distributors have agreed to charge X amount of dollars in each area.
Exactly: collusion.
That's nonsense. The Matrix: Reloaded cost something like $120 million. Even independent films are expensive to make. For example, the indie film Greasewood Flat cost around $700 thousand
Movies like Reloaded are the exception, not the norm. And the quoted $700 thousand had it not been independent, would likely have been more like $5mil. Still a huge difference. And regardless, people see movies for their story more than the special effects. Unless you're talking Star Wars.
When it comes to "worthless" movies, all I can say is that movies are hard to make. There are countless numbers of things that can go wrong and ruin what would have otherwise been a good film.
That's a cop-out answer. The fact is lousy movies begin with lousy scripts.. usually written by people who have no literary skill whatsoever.
Not everyone wants to sit at their computer all day. For most filmmakers, most of the enjoyment comes from actually being on the set.
Some who cling to the nostalgia will always do things that way.
And you seem to forget that as computing power increases, so do the demands for greater detail and realism.
There is a breaking point where CG and reality are entirely indistiguishable. And it's not far off. Once it is reached, more computing power just means faster than real-time.
As far as AI goes, that's too ridiculous for me to comment on.
Not in 10-15 years, but perhaps 30-40. I'm talking about being able to describe scenes in natural language and have them appear before your eyes. It will happen at the current rate of technological growth. I can't but guess when.
Payment for their songs is the only way they have to pay off those loans.
You seem to have forgotten live performances. Granted, people will only pay to hear you live if you're a decent musician, but if you're not, you shouldn't be trying to make a living off music to begin with. And therein lies the problem: many 'independent' artists truly suck and do nothing original. So they get stuck playing at bars where nobody really listens, dreaming of getting their "big break". And the handful of decent musicians have no entrepreneurial skills so they just sell out the the labels, screwing themselves and their audience, but holding that glimmer of hope that they'll be the one in a hundred that make it big enough to actually see decent profit from their contract.
It comes down to this: good music succeeds whether you are 'signed' or independent. And the best way for an independent artist/band with good music to become well enough known nation/world-wide is to sell concert tickets is to share their music freely online and do their own public relations. It may take a year or more, but it will happen if the quality is there. Yet nobody to my knowledge has fully tried this approach. I wish they would.. because that's the kinda artist I and many others would gladly support.
But on the other hand you're right that P2P'ing existing content is not the proper solution to the problem.
All of these new DRM-enabled online music services are gatekeeper enablers! Think about it, folks. If this stuff becomes popular, it will become even *harder* for independent musicians to survive because the (now online) gatekeepers will get to pick and choose what music to put on their services. It's all a return to status quo--the artists and consumers getting screwed.
This *should* have been the point all along: to eliminate the middlemen and connect artists directly to their fans; to drastically weaken corporate control of our culture. But that point somehow got entirely lost in the fervor of the P2P scene. So now the RIAA folks have finally woken up and are on the brink of controlling the new media that could have set the market free.
The music world desperately needs a grassroots movement similar to Open Source. Just as warez kiddies were no solution to proprietary software monopolies, P2P will never overthrow the corrupt culture gatekeepers. Independent, consumer / community friendly music is the only viable long-term solution.
And the MPAA isn't a monopoly. It doesn't make movies, it doesn't distribute them, and it doesn't advertise them, therefor it can't be a monopoly.
True, but the MPAA is a tool of monopoly--or oligopoly, perhaps. And it is a significant political force in weaseling bad laws through on behalf of its monopoly-minded members.
What's more, the member studios compete against each other, and none of them are monopolies.
So why are all movies the same price at the theater? Surely this is not a free market solution. And
But how would this hurt the moviegoing public? Simple: far fewer films will get made (if any), they will be much shorter, and of far lower quality.
That's nonsense. All it would mean is that studios would actually have to be budget conscious for once. It doesn't take anywhere near $100mil today to produce a good movie--even one loaded with special effects. For example, there is absolutely no reason why any celebrity actor/actress should be paid megabucks to shoot one flick. Nor does all the glitz and glamour (and sleeze) surrounding the industry need to exist. And then you take into account how many absolutely worthless movies are produced. There is plenty of money in an efficient and free market version of Hollywood.
Fortunately, in a direct parallel to the changing music industry, technology will, in the relatively near future, make Hollywood entirely obsolete anyhow. If the studios can do photo-real human characters and sets today (ex. Matrix Reloaded), it'll only be 10-15 years at most before the same capability is available to every home PC user, likely even near real-time. At the same time, advances in user interfaces and perhaps even an element of AI will replace the need for hundreds of animation artists. So much for production costs!
It should be obvious to any cretin that there is a definite qualitative difference between human and chimp, indeed between human and all of (observable) nature. And that supposedly insignificant quality makes all the difference. The fact that we cannot (yet) measure its true magnitude in scientific terms does not make it any less ridiculously obvious.
Or.. as the saying goes: "There is no gene for the human spirit"
Of course, if anybody could leak the memo from inside Microsoft where this deal was discussed, that would help even more... any volunteers?
n 7.php
See "Halloween document #7"
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/hallowee
"Linux patent violations/risk of being sued" struck a chord with US and Swedish respondents. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans and 82% of Swedes stated that the risk of being sued over Linux patent violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux. This was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience.
and..
"The discussion of IP rights needs to be tied to concrete actions."
This is pretty solid evidence that M$ is interested in being involved in a legal FUD campaign. Now, indeed, if only the specific internal memos for this particular case could be leaked!
What this has really done is lend some legitamacy to the SCO licensing gambit, raising the probability that the major Linux players will have to shell out as well. Basically, MS just dropped a major FUD bomb on the Linux-in-the-enterprise crowd.
Not to mention this so-called 'necessary' SCO license is a way for M$ to funnel some money into SCO to help support their bogus lawsuit.
Everything from the first movie is a lie.
Neo is a program, not human.
Nobody ever left the matrix.
We no longer know what the matrix really is.
There's this 'architech' guy who really runs the whole show.
For all we know, the matrix is really just a video game. At the end of Revolutions we might see some kid pop a disk out of his computer and say "I'm bored of this game." That'd be funny.
OK, now imagine yourself some silly CG fight scenes. Oooohh.. Ahhhh.. OK, now save your $8.50 and donate it to the EFF instead of the MPAA. Isn't our *real world* technological freedom more important than some silly hollywood movie? Don't be hypocrites, folks. Don't support these guys.
And no, I didn't personally go see Reloaded.
Individual cases like this will do little or nothing to get the "anti-circumvention" parts of the DMCA overturned, short of a claim of unconstitutionality.
A better (faster) solution is to pass a law that codifies fair-use and directly amends the DMCA. Such a law is in the works: it's called DMCRA (Digital Media Consumer Rights Act). If you haven't written your congresspersons to voice your support yet, you need to do so immediately. The easiest way to do so is to fill out and submit the form on the page listed below. A personal letter is nice if you have the time, but this will at least get a tally point on our side.
Electronic Frontier Foundation's Action Center form for support of DMCRA
OK, so there are no "patent-pool" licensing fees, but are there any patent issues with VP6? Suppose someone writes an Open Source implementation of this new codec? Will there be issues for those who live in less-free countries that allow software patents? The world really needs a completely free video codec.
This "guru" support model simply does not scale. This is why management wants 24x7 support: so that no matter what happens to their gurus, they always have a toll-free 800 number to call to get someone that knows what they're doing on the problem. If that person can't solve it, a good maintenance contract might even involve getting the vendor to fly an engineer out there to fix the problem.
It doesn't take a genius to administer SSH or VNC or any other stable Open Source software. Perhaps what paranoid companies should do is have a call-list of local consultants who can fit the bill if the gurus are 'offline' (: Actually, I know of some companies that already do this because I was called once myself. And it's probably cheaper than having a bunch of extra IT staff lying around.
Myth 1.) Linux is good for old computers.
You're right to say that an old P-166 will do poorly as a Linux desktop and it's true that KDE3/Gnome2 and other recent software takes quite a bit of hardware to run well. However, that P-166 you mention wouldn't even be able to run WinXP. So what we're comparing here is Win98 vs. Linux as a lightweight OS for an old computer. Well, guess what? You don't have to use KDE3/Gnome2! If you want the equivalent lightweight interface of Win95/98, try FVWM instead.
Myth 2.) Linux is lightweight
Once, yes, but now it couldn't be further from the truth. Linux has quickly snowballed into a gargantuan assortment of apps and bloated libraries that have been stitched together by the slaves of Tux. No amount of RAM will satisfy Linux, it will eat it all until there is nothing left to do but start swapping.
Now that is nothing more than a troll. Anyone who has used Linux on any reasonably modern hardware knows that that is patently untrue. Or maybe YOU are one of the clueless newbies who thought Linux would magically turn your crappy old hardware into a dream machine.
My computer, an Athlon 1600+ w/ 256 mb RAM running Windows XP, takes merely seconds to start, the whole system taking about as much time to load as KDE by itself takes to start up in Linux. Even on my old 166 Mhz IBM Aptiva Windows 98 SE runs very well, is quite snappy, and is just as featureful as KDE, even considering that Windows 98 is a four-year-old OS.
Win98 is nowhere near as 'featureful' as KDE. And yes, KDE does take longer to load than XP. You know why? Because it's far more feature-rich than XP as well!
I had far more stability/mysterious problems on RedHat 7.2 and KDE than I've ever had in Windows 9x
That part does not surprise me. RedHat sucks.. at least older versions like 6 and 7 did. I've heard good things about 9.0, but being a Debian fan, I don't bother.
Linux locked up every 5 minutes after starting GNOME, which I found out the problem was due to a four-year-old bug in the Linux kernel (so much for open source fixing bugs quickly)
You really enjoy espousing BS don't you? Or maybe perhaps you refer to a bug in NVidia's crappy proprietary video drivers? Don't confuse the two.
All of the core windows apps such as the file manager, web browser, and office applications start up nearly instantly on even a marginally fast computer. After waiting and waiting for konqueror to load (even when I just loaded it) or going to the bathroom while staroffice does its thing, I was amazed at how blazingly fast comparible programs like outlook, word, internet explorer, etc were by comparison.
You know why they load "instantly"? Because they get half-loaded into memory when your system boots. There are hacks for OpenOffice and KDE that do the same thing for people who want to feel like they're getting more speed for free. But it's always a tradeoff. Additionally some windows apps don't load completely when they start. They graft on additional functionality as needed--which is generally speaking a smart thing to do. But it doesn't mean that KDE is bloated.
First off, this law is not about mandating OSS, it's about mandating procurement offices to consider OSS as an option. In other words, since taxpayer dollars are on the line, the government should do its best to reduce costs. If cost-benefit analysis shows that OSS can achieve this goal, it should always be used instead of proprietary software.
I propose to take this a step further. If a government IT group can develop or extend OSS cheaper than it can obtain proprietary software to meet the same need, it should be required to take this route as well. Geeks listen up: this is yet another way to be paid to write free software. Offer software consulting and development services to your local government. Bid against the crufty proprietary folks!
Until all music is distributed freely by artists or by artist-owned "labels", we're going to keep seeing this nonsense. And no, Apple's joke of a music service won't cut it. There is simply no room for distribution middlemen in a digital society.
Until then, boycott all RIAA music--including concerts. Artists need to learn that it is in their best interests to never sign a label contract. Support only artists who go the independent route. It's best for the artist. It's best for the consumer.
That's the best summary of American propaganda I've seen yet. Do you have any statistics to present showing this majority? What constitutes a terrorist attack and what is 'legitimate' guerrilla warfare? Depending who you ask that question, Africa and South America must witness countless terrorist actions each day. Most of them likely unrelated to Islam, and almost certainly none of them related to middle-eastern oil.
I see your point. My wording was certainly imprecise and depends largely on how you define terrorism. Since the US is the topic here (ours being the choice to reduce oil imports via alternative energy sources), I should have specified the terrorism to which I refer as politically-motivated organized violence against US civilians and allies. So no, I am not including guerrilla warfare / civil wars in Africa, South America, etc.
So, perhaps a more directed argument: There are numerous middle-east nations to which we supply enormous wealth in exchange for their oil. Several of these nations take part in state-funded terrorism against us. Because of this, we should not give them the resources to do so through trade of oil. I do not agree that desperation is the driving force of state-funded forms of terrorism, but rather ideology. Part of that ideology may be religious and part of it secular state-interests. However, those who carry out the actual acts have tended to be of the religious bent--and perhaps manipulated/brainwashed to carry out their orders with hopes of eternal rewards. This would also seem to explain the high incident of suicide attacks. But those who commission these people to their fate are certainly not the ones in desperation--take Saddam and his palaces for example. If corrupt regimes fall due to economic collapse, will terrorist organizations under them be able to operate effectively? I can't say for sure, but it doesn't as seem likely.
Alright, I agreed up untill this last part scared me. Labelling terrorism as a by-product of the middle east falls too close to racism for my liking. Have you forgotten about Oklahoma City, or even Waco? I sincerely hope this was meant as a joke that I'm simply missing the humor in.
This is not an issue of racism and I do not harbor hatred for anybody or any race. I am, however, highlighting the reality that the majority of terrorism worldwide is spawned by radical Islamic fundamentalists sponsored (and perhaps brainwashed, if you will) by theocratic middle-east rouge nations. And those states' governments are funded mostly by state-run oil programs. So if we shut off their primary revenue stream, we can cause collapse and reform *without* use of military force.
BTW: If you don't believe that Islam has roots of intolerance and violence, I suggest you get your head out of the liberal media and try actually reading the Quran. Try Sura 9 for starters. This is not to say that all Muslims are violent or terrorists! But it does illustrate where those who are get their ideals and belief system.
Linus and others' points are quite simple:
1.) You can sign a binary produced from GPL'ed code
2.) You can modify GPL'ed code as long as you release the changes.
3.) You cannot include secret keys in the binary unless they are also in the GPL'ed code. This of course makes them non-secret.
So, does this or does this not enable the kind of evil DRM that the riaa/mpaa drools over? Yes, it does! Now, let me explain why.
All that is needed for DRM, whether for good or evil purposes, is that the operating system lock out certain system level functions to prevent snooping on memory. Once the user (even root) cannot snoop on memory, key exchanges can take place safely between authenticated hardware and software or between software components. To prevent memory snooping, you must 'neuter' the operating system's kernel and perhaps also certain system libraries, depending on the OS's design. And example of this is LIDS, a patch to the Linux kernel which puts restrictions on what the root user can do. (In this case, the idea is to prevent a root-compromised machine from being damaged further.) For security purposes, DRM is a good thing. I can, for example, tell my BIOS to only execute the LIDS-enabled kernels that I have signed.
In the case of DRM for evil purposes, you have, for example, a custom hard-coded BIOS which ONLY allows the manufacturer's signed kernels--kernels that have been neutered that is. You may reasonably ask 'what about all the other software'. Well, some of that software may be signed and some may not. So possibly, your "hello world" program will still run. But the hardware will only allow the signed software to do the key exchanges for access to protected content. And since even your own code running as root will not be able to snoop into other processes memory space, the evil use of DRM will have been successfully achieved. Of course, some hardware may be even more restrictive and not allow any unsigned (user-provided) code to run. Examples might include set-top media boxes and video game consoles.
So, specialized hardware is one thing, but what does this all mean to those using standard PCs? Short of DRM-requiring legislation, we will continue to see TCPA hardware that allows the user to decide what signatures are acceptable. And, as I've explained, this is a good thing for security purposes. The danger will be if BIOS hardware, by law or by industry agreement, starts including a hard-coded "hollywood master key" that will allow the system to be booted into evil-DRM mode using a matching signed kernel. Now, unless this is the only booting mode allowed, you'll still be able to boot a standard kernel and do everything like normal--you just won't be able to access certain encrypted blocks on your hard drive until you reboot with the neutered and signed kernel and use signed, proprietary media players capable of the necessary key exchange.
Of course there is potential for a worse situation, however. Some hardware, such as sound or video cards, may refuse to talk unless their transports have been authenticated by the BIOS's "hollywood master key". So there is the possibility of interoperability problems.
But we do have a huge thing in our favor at this time: installed base of "non-compliant" hardware. Most people will not rush out and buy new computers just to access new protected and highly restrictive content or to use some new DRM-enabled MS Palladium version of Windows and Office. So we have the DivX (pay-per-view DVD) scenario all over again and the market will get a chance to decide. Frankly, I'm not too worried, but in the meantime, boycott any companies that support this rubbish!
If these increasing numbers of studies disproving man-influenced climate change turn out to be true, we can all thank Bush for not plunging our economy further down the toilet by signing the Kyoto treaty.
That being said, I am entirely in favor of *real* environmental protection laws and the promotion of cleaner technologies. By 'real' I mean factors that actually affect people--water and air quality, landfills, etc. And I also think we should switch to a hydrogen economy ASAP, not out of worry about so-called greenhouse gasses, but as the single most effective way to fight terrorism--shut off the money flow to the middle east!