Java may not be in the shipping version (beta)
of Windows XP. But it is one of the first
choices of things to install for IE from
Windows Update.
Also, as I understand, if IE detects a page that
has Java, and has not already installed support,
it can prompt the user to install it at that time.
Just like support for flash, shockwave, and other
plugin technologies works. So I don't see this
breaking Java functionality for the Web.
Where this might have an impact is for Java
applications that are written in-house, or
to be run without the browser. In which case
the user is probably better off trying to install
the latest compliant Java engine anyway.
Get a copy of Office 97, Office 2000, or Office XP. Or get a copy of WindowsXP when it comes out.
The application MS BOB may have failed to take
its percieved market by storm, but the technology
behind it is alive and well in almost all the
MS products coming out now.
Those energy signatures specific to the lifeforms found could act
in a complementary fashion to counteract the effect of the Phantoms
(who appeared to be beings composed of energy). The effect was
supposed to be similar to injecting an antibiotic as protection from
infection to an injury.
2. The Zeus cannon was a larger scale device to the "bio-etheric" laser
used earlier in the film. The humans had developed weapons that could
affect the Phantoms on the specific frequency they existed on; with the
added condition that "Gaia" might exist on the same frequency, and thereby
also be subject to the effects of the laser.
3. The General was driven insane by the death of his family caused by
the alien invasion. His sole motive for living was to get revenge against
the beings he thought of as the ultimate enemy. Anyone who proposed the
ideal that the aliens were less than totally malevolent were viewed by
him as the same kind of enemy. Its a lot like the way some slashdotters
react to the actions of some corporate entities.
4. Dr. Sid (and other scientists) discovered, or were already developing
technologies based on utilizing the bio-electric energy of living cells
before the meteor hit. It was only a minor plot step to say that the technology
could be modified to repell the specific energy signatures of the creatures.
All these things were explained, in whole or in part, during the course of the
film.
As I understand it, the FF games don't really related to each other all that
much either.
When I got back from seeing the pre-screening
of this movie, I sumbitted a full (but fair) review; knowing that it would get rejected in favor of a perspective by Hemos or Taco - who
would talk not only about the movie, but try to
evaluate some of the hype that has surrounded it
over the past few months.
Instead I got a jealous Katzbot.
All I can say is for me, the movie lived up to
its potential far better than I understand
Tomb Raider and Pearl Harbor did.
It is unfair of Katz (who is unfamiliar with the FF series)
to automatically assume that parts of the movie that do not
make sense to him are due to the studio only making it for
FF fans.
I think Occam's Razor points to a simpler solution:
Katz was not paying attention to the movie.
I have never played any Final Fantasy, and my familiarity with
the series is limited to exposure to commercials, but I got
every plot point and story detail that TSW offered; because
I actually watched the movie to understand what the story
was about instead of expecting to be spoon-fed the plot.
The reasons it might seem confusing had little to do with
it being a FF property, and more to do with the storytelling
style and culture that the script was based in. Katz refused
to acknowledge a foreign (in comparsion to standard summer films)
influence on the way this movie what thought out and thought thru.
That's like complaining "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was
confusing because it wasn't set in L.A. traffic.
Stephen King films can seem confusing until you get used to the
rhythm and structure of his stories. After that, many of them
start to seem predictable in their outcomes. The same can
be said for this.
"pretty supportive" != "all on Microsoft's side now"
The NM AG is being pragmatic about their position,
(lawyers can do that on occasion). That is not the
same as implying that she will now be part of the
legal defense countering the other states in their
legal proceedings against MS.
I may not be an Oscar winning script, but it
is undoubtedly better than the standard summer
flick fare.
This movie is worthy of film school analysis just
to note the great pains taken by its creators to
cover what would otherwise have been seen as
plot holes later in the movie.
The story borrows a great deal from the standard
Final Fantasy plot ideas, and its rhythm is
based more on the Japanese storytelling styles.
You might have a point, the legal resrictions
on sharing bug reports and objective code
examination in UCITA might also confound attempts
at class actions suits as well.
OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than
Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking
this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could
spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed
more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.
OSX still wins here, but its racing on its own track.
Round 2: Interface
OSX takes the lead for now in the cool GUI department, but those who
accuse MS of stealing ideas from Aqua are overlooking a key point in
the embrace and extend philosophy. Like Win95, 98, and ME before it;
Windows XP will not only adopt new interface ideas, but those ideas
will actually be tested for usuability and integration with existing
user practices.
Apple seems to design on "Make it look cool, and they will come"
MS seems to design on "Make it look cool, and work with the stuff that
didn't look as cool in the last rev, and they will upgrade"
Round 3: Software compatibility
Windows 2000 is the better example of what both companies needed to do
to insure future growth and legacy compatiblity. It wins the match, but
the real winner overall is GNU/ the Open Source Movement.
I'm not saying that to be a Slashdot shill, because it is not the "free"
aspect I'm looking at. It's that OSS is for the most part designed with
portability in mind that it has held to the best ideas for software compatibility,
despite the forks in the roads of OSS history.
Round 4: Hardware compatibility
Same point as in Round 1, OSX deals with its hardware better, but it
has a much more limited range of configurations that it has to deal with.
Round 5: Internet support
OSX is more compatible with the existing Internet infrastucture; because
it is based on much of the same ideas/technology.
Microsoft's flaws were in targeting Windows 2000 more for the Intranet and
plain vanilla business use, than for the space beyond the corporate proxy.
But sometimes your articles do read like the same clueless
sensationalist trash
that John C. Dvorak puts out to generate page hits.
In this regard I guess I'd have to at least credit you as a real
journalist.
There really are a few Gems in this article:
"Bill Gates, exposed just a year ago as a ruthless and
less-than-candid corporate predator"
Excuse me, where have you been for the last 20 years of computing
history? Not
to mention the greater part of the Industrial Revolution?
We've known that about Bill Gates for well over a decade now;
just as we've known
that about every other corporate CEO in the same timeframe.
What people get pissed about is not that Microsoft wants to take
over the
world (lots of companies want that), but that Microsoft keeps
coming up
with workable plans to take over the world (something that a lot
fewer companies
manage to successfully do).
Having a goal is not illegal, what might be illegal is the means
one might use
to accomplish that goal. The courts might be able to penalize MS
for the methods
they use to achieve their goals, but can do nothing to MS for
having that goal
in mind. Nothing in their practices will change until and unless
they are
made to revise those goals; because (like any good hacker)
anything else done to the company will only cause them to rethink
the
means they use to get where they want to be.
Whenever I hear quotes from Scott McNealy, it sounds like he's
more mad at MS
for thinking up these schemes first. And the reaction from the
ABMS crowd is
such that you either think that Steve Ballmer cannot cross the
street without
evil intent; or you accept that the company is capable of some
valid business
practices and that not everything they do is part of some grand
conspiracy.
"Microsoft has transcended the economic realities of our
time"
"We saw this company humbled and carved up with our own
eyes, and celebrated it's being brought down to size. Boy, were
we dumb"
Yes we were, those of us who did not pay attention to the Linux
Advocacy FAQ.
The rest have kept themselves too busy trying to improve on open
source projects and
positive advocacy for privacy, p2p sharing or ideas and code, and
freedom of choice.
"2. XP, according to rumor, is time-limited, so the user has to pretty much re-purchase it every so often, or their box quits running XP."
Incorrect: The Beta version is time-limited (as are most MS betas), and the
release will be time-locked until registered. Nobody is going to buy into that
"re-purchase every so often" line.
"6. Starting with Win2k/ME, Microsoft has been working to isolate the functions of the operating system from the user, the most obvious of these attempts being the removal of the option to boot to a DOS prompt and the loss of a DOS window in the OS as shipped."
Partially Correct: In ME it was not done so much to isolate the OS from the user,
as to remove all the legacy DOS cruft that was a large source of driver problems
for Windows 9x systems. All versions so far have had a DOS Window in the OS as
shipped, even ME. I suspect XP will be the same, since many of the admin functions
were still accessible thru a command prompt.
"7. Another rumor has it that once XP is installed on a machine and registered to it, if the user upgrades either the HD or the CPU they have to buy another copy of XP, because theirs won't work and can't be reinstalled. (Yes, I did say this was a rumor. Put the torches away.)"
Thank you for stating it as a rumor (puts flame-thrower down), but the conclusion
inferred from the rumor is completely incorrect. You might have to contact MS to
reregister the existing license, (which some will consider bad enough), but you
will not have to purchase a new copy. This is illogical anyway, how would the
new copy (from CD) know any better than the old copy (from CD) whether or not
you are "allowed" to reinstall?
If you are going to blast at MS for FUDding, then it is a good idea that you take
care not to FUD yourself in the points you try to make, please.
Aside from the hype and the obligatory Iomega bashing, this drive actually doesn't look that
bad from an usability standpoint.
It is really a three part device:
A hard drive :
(The disk cartridge is a sealed design with the
read/write heads included in the cart)
A drive bay :
(The cart slides into a bay which I assume
provides the power and data connection for
the cartridge)
A connection bus cradle :
(The drive bay attaches to a cradle that has
the connection type - firewire - USB - SCSI,
that connects to the users system)
The nice thing about this idea is that it frees Iomega
from the trouble of building the interface into the
drive itself. Allowing them (hopefully) to concentrate
more quality control on the individual components, and
allowing for easy adapting to changing intefaces on
multiple machines.
One potential downside I see, is that the cartridge and bay
are designed to stand up in the cradle, taking an awkward
amount more of vertical space than previous Iomega drives.
And the true performance of the drive in this configuration
has yet to be benchmarked.
The biggest problem Iomega faces are people like me, who
stopped using my Jaz drive last year, because the Castlewood
Orb drive is easier to lug back and forth to work, and
CD-R/CDRW is a better medium for long term data archival.
Look at it this way... You're a programmer writing code for a particular
piece of hardware. One day you notice something about the interface or
nature of the hardware that might let you create an exploit that no-one
else had forseen the system being capable of. Do you:
A. Ignore this discovery, and go back to writing the code you were supposed
to be working on.
B. Explore this discovery, in the interest that figuring out how that
exploit works might lead to other valuable discoveries about the
potential of the hardware/software you are working with.
The mistake the programmer made was not in writing the code, it was in
letting someone from the marketing department know it existed.
I don't know whether I buy this or not, but
I'd like to note that Pioneer != Panasonic
(Matsushita).
So while Pioneer has the superdrives that are
coming out in the G4 Mac and Compaqs, this
comment was referring to another company.
I don't see why this would be a problem for
company execs, as the smart ones would just
market it in the same price range as the Pioneer
model, and hence reap even greater profit.
The problem with arguing that code is elegant and expressive is irrelevant.
The court is tasked with a First Amendment arguement that protects the basic
use of all speech, whether it is Insightful or Inciteful.
The task for 2600 et al,is to show that code stands on the same grounds as
"basic" speech, not as something more or less special than other forms
of speech.
How and Why a computer program is speech.
Computer programs are instructions and information used to perform
a given task.
A simple task can be stated in simple terms:
"Go to the sink and bring back a glass of water". But to accomplish
that task within a computer (virtually) or thru an automated process
(bringing the virtual representation back out to the physical world),
requires breaking the task down into smaller, and more exact steps.
Just as different people can explain those steps in different ways, so
to can programs that perform the same tasks be written in different ways.
Computer programs can be written in many languages.
This, accepted as fact, shows again the ability to present common
tasks and concepts in different ways. Comparing a single program
written in C, Perl, Lisp, and COBOL; will not only show significant
differences in the manner that the code is written, but can actually
show elements that are recognized as linguistically different and
distinct between each program. Further reinforcing the idea that
code is a form of speech. This is without even venturing into the
areas of psuedo-code (using standard speech to express computer
terms, or the development of many higher level languages (that
attempt to use code more closely related to standard spoken
and written language as the basis of computer instruction).
Computer programs are abstract representations.
Just as we use language to explain the relationships of
person-to-person or person-to-object; so too does a programmer
use language to explain the interaction of person-to-computer,
computer-to-computer, and computer-to-object.
We give definition to the outside world thru shared terminology,
just as we give definition to the virtual space of computing
thru shared code.
Computer programs represent thoughts and ideas
As it is based on abstractions, computer code can be interpretive
in meaning, and dependent on context and usage for both the
effect and effectiveness of the task, or presentation of ideas, that
it is written to accomplish. We recognize the distinctive nature
of poetry, prose, documentary, technical and legal writings;
one could argue that similar distinctions can exist in the writing
of code. That there are distintive coding styles taught in
schools, and contests both for efficient and expressive methods
of writing the code for the same programs, furthers evidence of
the same.
If one accepts that computer programs can represent thoughts, then
one must also accept that:
Just as spoken and written words are used to express thoughts,
so then must computer code be recognized as a form of speech.
Thoughts themselves are not recognized as dangerous in a free
society, and as such should not be legislated against.
It is the abusive and illegal actions taken upon those thoughts
that are constrained by law, and the courts have long recognized
the distinction between the two.
No government that expects to represent a free society can be
relied upon to control thought. For it is the thoughts and
speech of the members of an enlightened society that establishes
the very foundations of democratic government.
On the question:
"does fair use require access to a work in its original form?"
Yes, if there is any requirement of accuracy in the fair use of
the work.
When I read a piece in the NYT where a reporter is
quoting a speech made by the President, I do so with the understanding
that the reporter was actually hearing the President speak, and not
that the reporter was getting the quotes second-hand from someone
who claimed to be at the event where the speech was made.
Let's say I witness a crime (a bank robbery) and I just happen to
have a (high-quality) digital video camera that I use to film the
incident. Right after the robbers make a fast getaway, a crew from
the local news shows up, and being Jonny-on-the-spot, get me to sign an
exclusive waiver giving them full broadcast rights for the footage
I just took. Then the police arrive... They also want access to the
footage for evidentiary purposes, but the news team has no means to
make a copy for the police to take back to HQ. But they do have the
means to replay my footage by hooking my camera up to a TV monitor,
so they suggest pointing their analog camera equipment at the screen
to make a copy of the footage for the police. Sounds like a
"fair use" of the footage right?
Not if you take into account the requirement that a proper forensic
anaylsis of the footage needs as accurate a copy of the video I had
taken as possible.
Can't the police just take the camera and saved video away as evidence?
Perhaps, but that opens up a different can of worms over possible violations
of the civil rights of me and the news company I just signed the exclusive
agreement (copyright) with.
Okay, there's my explanations... Now who do I send them to?
Rambus claims that Infineon was infringing
on thier patent claims for ten years before
the claims were actually made.
So either Infineon was unwillingly infringing
on a patent that could itself get thrown out
for showing prior art existed, or Infineon has
to give up the plans for the time machine they
used to get a decade jump on the competition.
1. Game designers tend to be very protective of their
creative control. Allowing advertisers in on placement
and form of objects in the game also opens the door to
them being able to influence creative control. I could
also limit a popular aspect of games in which they parody
or mock real life products or services.
2. There is already a precendent set in console games
and Anime, where the creators replace the name of commonly
known products with a parody name or idea to create
filler or maintain the "commonness" of retail items.
So "Sony" TVs become "Soby" TVs or somesuch; and games
like the preview of "Sonic Adventure 2" are littered
with ads for other games from that design group, or plays
on popular characters and concepts from past games.
(Side note: I noticed the ads in Sonic2 because I was
watching my roomate playing thru the preview;
He didn't notice any of the ads because he was too
busy playing the game)
Some RPGs or games set in modern environments might
benefit a little by being able to create more realistic
settings by tying them to items familiar to the users.
But anything beyond simple background application would
prove to be a distraction from the main purpose of the
game, which is to take your mind somewhere away from the
completely mundane realism of everyday life.
And yes, movies have been doing this for years;
If you want to see a near perfect example of how to get
away with overactive product placement,
rent "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle".
If the TiVo can track the usage of a given machine with regard
to
commercial viewing; that in itself would be of great value for
advertisers. IF the TiVo service can link the commercials
segments
that you (and other viewers) don't skip, with
the actual commercials
that were shown at that time.
I can imagine them going to the ad agencies:
The commercial of the giant Penquin crushing the Redmond
campus was
not very well recieved. But, people liked watching the cute
little Penquin hangliding,
rockclimbing, and drinking freebeer, almost as much as the shows
they originally
captured for viewing.
But the running joke was that a group of scientists decided that since
all human thought was produced in the brain, then all science must perforce
become related to a Neurological-function... Hence all science is actually
Neuro-Science. And if you were actually working with/on the brian, it
would of course become Neuro-Neuro-Science. Run that Neuro-joke
ad infinitum, and you get the general Neuro-idea of how silly that Neuro-propostion
turns out to be.
AMD put themselves in a good postion last year by (more or less)
consistently delivering on product. It also helped that 2000
seemed to be a year when it was Intel that was the one who could
not seem to keep their overall quality going from Fab to retail space.
Slashdot Mirror
Java may not be in the shipping version (beta)
of Windows XP. But it is one of the first
choices of things to install for IE from
Windows Update.
Also, as I understand, if IE detects a page that
has Java, and has not already installed support,
it can prompt the user to install it at that time.
Just like support for flash, shockwave, and other
plugin technologies works. So I don't see this
breaking Java functionality for the Web.
Where this might have an impact is for Java
applications that are written in-house, or
to be run without the browser. In which case
the user is probably better off trying to install
the latest compliant Java engine anyway.
Get a copy of Office 97, Office 2000, or Office XP. Or get a copy of WindowsXP when it comes out.
The application MS BOB may have failed to take
its percieved market by storm, but the technology
behind it is alive and well in almost all the
MS products coming out now.
I'd be inclined to agree with you, but most Yanks
haven't heard of Red Dwarf, so more's the pity.
Fortunately perhaps, that bloke has been replaced
by some other bloke in the new season.
http://www.rdfmedia.com/about/cathyrogers.htm
http://www.llew.co.uk/scrapheap/cathys-corner.h
Marine Research (The band she's in)
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~queenb/index.
1. A loose interpretation of Gaia theory:
Those energy signatures specific to the lifeforms found could act
in a complementary fashion to counteract the effect of the Phantoms
(who appeared to be beings composed of energy). The effect was
supposed to be similar to injecting an antibiotic as protection from
infection to an injury.
2. The Zeus cannon was a larger scale device to the "bio-etheric" laser
used earlier in the film. The humans had developed weapons that could
affect the Phantoms on the specific frequency they existed on; with the
added condition that "Gaia" might exist on the same frequency, and thereby
also be subject to the effects of the laser.
3. The General was driven insane by the death of his family caused by
the alien invasion. His sole motive for living was to get revenge against
the beings he thought of as the ultimate enemy. Anyone who proposed the
ideal that the aliens were less than totally malevolent were viewed by
him as the same kind of enemy. Its a lot like the way some slashdotters
react to the actions of some corporate entities.
4. Dr. Sid (and other scientists) discovered, or were already developing
technologies based on utilizing the bio-electric energy of living cells
before the meteor hit. It was only a minor plot step to say that the technology
could be modified to repell the specific energy signatures of the creatures.
All these things were explained, in whole or in part, during the course of the
film.
As I understand it, the FF games don't really related to each other all that
much either.
When I got back from seeing the pre-screening
of this movie, I sumbitted a full (but fair) review; knowing that it would get rejected in favor of a perspective by Hemos or Taco - who
would talk not only about the movie, but try to
evaluate some of the hype that has surrounded it
over the past few months.
Instead I got a jealous Katzbot.
All I can say is for me, the movie lived up to
its potential far better than I understand
Tomb Raider and Pearl Harbor did.
It is unfair of Katz (who is unfamiliar with the FF series)
to automatically assume that parts of the movie that do not
make sense to him are due to the studio only making it for
FF fans.
I think Occam's Razor points to a simpler solution:
Katz was not paying attention to the movie.
I have never played any Final Fantasy, and my familiarity with
the series is limited to exposure to commercials, but I got
every plot point and story detail that TSW offered; because
I actually watched the movie to understand what the story
was about instead of expecting to be spoon-fed the plot.
The reasons it might seem confusing had little to do with
it being a FF property, and more to do with the storytelling
style and culture that the script was based in. Katz refused
to acknowledge a foreign (in comparsion to standard summer films)
influence on the way this movie what thought out and thought thru.
That's like complaining "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was
confusing because it wasn't set in L.A. traffic.
Stephen King films can seem confusing until you get used to the
rhythm and structure of his stories. After that, many of them
start to seem predictable in their outcomes. The same can
be said for this.
"pretty supportive" != "all on Microsoft's side now"
The NM AG is being pragmatic about their position,
(lawyers can do that on occasion). That is not the
same as implying that she will now be part of the
legal defense countering the other states in their
legal proceedings against MS.
But it does have a good story.
I may not be an Oscar winning script, but it
is undoubtedly better than the standard summer
flick fare.
This movie is worthy of film school analysis just
to note the great pains taken by its creators to
cover what would otherwise have been seen as
plot holes later in the movie.
The story borrows a great deal from the standard
Final Fantasy plot ideas, and its rhythm is
based more on the Japanese storytelling styles.
You might have a point, the legal resrictions
on sharing bug reports and objective code
examination in UCITA might also confound attempts
at class actions suits as well.
Round 1: Installation
OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than
Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking
this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could
spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed
more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.
OSX still wins here, but its racing on its own track.
Round 2: Interface
OSX takes the lead for now in the cool GUI department, but those who
accuse MS of stealing ideas from Aqua are overlooking a key point in
the embrace and extend philosophy. Like Win95, 98, and ME before it;
Windows XP will not only adopt new interface ideas, but those ideas
will actually be tested for usuability and integration with existing
user practices.
Apple seems to design on "Make it look cool, and they will come"
MS seems to design on "Make it look cool, and work with the stuff that
didn't look as cool in the last rev, and they will upgrade"
Round 3: Software compatibility
Windows 2000 is the better example of what both companies needed to do
to insure future growth and legacy compatiblity. It wins the match, but
the real winner overall is GNU/ the Open Source Movement.
I'm not saying that to be a Slashdot shill, because it is not the "free"
aspect I'm looking at. It's that OSS is for the most part designed with
portability in mind that it has held to the best ideas for software compatibility,
despite the forks in the roads of OSS history.
Round 4: Hardware compatibility
Same point as in Round 1, OSX deals with its hardware better, but it
has a much more limited range of configurations that it has to deal with.
Round 5: Internet support
OSX is more compatible with the existing Internet infrastucture; because
it is based on much of the same ideas/technology.
Microsoft's flaws were in targeting Windows 2000 more for the Intranet and
plain vanilla business use, than for the space beyond the corporate proxy.
Nor is it Microsoft Cheerleading...
But sometimes your articles do read like the same clueless sensationalist trash
that John C. Dvorak puts out to generate page hits.
In this regard I guess I'd have to at least credit you as a real journalist.
There really are a few Gems in this article:
"Bill Gates, exposed just a year ago as a ruthless and less-than-candid corporate predator"
Excuse me, where have you been for the last 20 years of computing history? Not
to mention the greater part of the Industrial Revolution?
We've known that about Bill Gates for well over a decade now; just as we've known
that about every other corporate CEO in the same timeframe.
What people get pissed about is not that Microsoft wants to take over the
world (lots of companies want that), but that Microsoft keeps coming up
with workable plans to take over the world (something that a lot fewer companies
manage to successfully do).
Having a goal is not illegal, what might be illegal is the means one might use
to accomplish that goal. The courts might be able to penalize MS for the methods
they use to achieve their goals, but can do nothing to MS for having that goal
in mind. Nothing in their practices will change until and unless they are
made to revise those goals; because (like any good hacker)
anything else done to the company will only cause them to rethink the
means they use to get where they want to be.
Whenever I hear quotes from Scott McNealy, it sounds like he's more mad at MS
for thinking up these schemes first. And the reaction from the ABMS crowd is
such that you either think that Steve Ballmer cannot cross the street without
evil intent; or you accept that the company is capable of some valid business
practices and that not everything they do is part of some grand conspiracy.
"Microsoft has transcended the economic realities of our time"
"We saw this company humbled and carved up with our own eyes, and celebrated it's being brought down to size. Boy, were we dumb"
Yes we were, those of us who did not pay attention to the Linux Advocacy FAQ.
The rest have kept themselves too busy trying to improve on open source projects and
positive advocacy for privacy, p2p sharing or ideas and code, and freedom of choice.
And what company do you think was providing MS
with CD Burning software to bundle in Windows XP?
"2. XP, according to rumor, is time-limited, so the user has to pretty much re-purchase it every so often, or their box quits running XP."
Incorrect: The Beta version is time-limited (as are most MS betas), and the
release will be time-locked until registered. Nobody is going to buy into that
"re-purchase every so often" line.
"6. Starting with Win2k/ME, Microsoft has been working to isolate the functions of the operating system from the user, the most obvious of these attempts being the removal of the option to boot to a DOS prompt and the loss of a DOS window in the OS as shipped."
Partially Correct: In ME it was not done so much to isolate the OS from the user,
as to remove all the legacy DOS cruft that was a large source of driver problems
for Windows 9x systems. All versions so far have had a DOS Window in the OS as
shipped, even ME. I suspect XP will be the same, since many of the admin functions
were still accessible thru a command prompt.
"7. Another rumor has it that once XP is installed on a machine and registered to it, if the user upgrades either the HD or the CPU they have to buy another copy of XP, because theirs won't work and can't be reinstalled. (Yes, I did say this was a rumor. Put the torches away.)"
Thank you for stating it as a rumor (puts flame-thrower down), but the conclusion
inferred from the rumor is completely incorrect. You might have to contact MS to
reregister the existing license, (which some will consider bad enough), but you
will not have to purchase a new copy. This is illogical anyway, how would the
new copy (from CD) know any better than the old copy (from CD) whether or not
you are "allowed" to reinstall?
If you are going to blast at MS for FUDding, then it is a good idea that you take
care not to FUD yourself in the points you try to make, please.
Aside from the hype and the obligatory Iomega bashing, this drive actually doesn't look that
bad from an usability standpoint.
It is really a three part device:
A hard drive :
(The disk cartridge is a sealed design with the
read/write heads included in the cart)
A drive bay :
(The cart slides into a bay which I assume
provides the power and data connection for
the cartridge)
A connection bus cradle :
(The drive bay attaches to a cradle that has
the connection type - firewire - USB - SCSI,
that connects to the users system)
The nice thing about this idea is that it frees Iomega
from the trouble of building the interface into the
drive itself. Allowing them (hopefully) to concentrate
more quality control on the individual components, and
allowing for easy adapting to changing intefaces on
multiple machines.
One potential downside I see, is that the cartridge and bay
are designed to stand up in the cradle, taking an awkward
amount more of vertical space than previous Iomega drives.
And the true performance of the drive in this configuration
has yet to be benchmarked.
The biggest problem Iomega faces are people like me, who
stopped using my Jaz drive last year, because the Castlewood
Orb drive is easier to lug back and forth to work, and
CD-R/CDRW is a better medium for long term data archival.
Naah, It'll be okay...
Every time they make a move to open-source
something, just mention Natalie Portman or
Hot Grits...
That usually throws them off the scent.
"Why was it even developed?"
Becuase it could be.
Look at it this way... You're a programmer writing code for a particular
piece of hardware. One day you notice something about the interface or
nature of the hardware that might let you create an exploit that no-one
else had forseen the system being capable of. Do you:
A. Ignore this discovery, and go back to writing the code you were supposed
to be working on.
B. Explore this discovery, in the interest that figuring out how that
exploit works might lead to other valuable discoveries about the
potential of the hardware/software you are working with.
The mistake the programmer made was not in writing the code, it was in
letting someone from the marketing department know it existed.
I don't know whether I buy this or not, but
I'd like to note that Pioneer != Panasonic
(Matsushita).
So while Pioneer has the superdrives that are
coming out in the G4 Mac and Compaqs, this
comment was referring to another company.
I don't see why this would be a problem for
company execs, as the smart ones would just
market it in the same price range as the Pioneer
model, and hence reap even greater profit.
The problem with arguing that code is elegant and expressive is irrelevant.
The court is tasked with a First Amendment arguement that protects the basic
use of all speech, whether it is Insightful or Inciteful.
The task for 2600 et al,is to show that code stands on the same grounds as
"basic" speech, not as something more or less special than other forms
of speech.
How and Why a computer program is speech.
Computer programs are instructions and information used to perform
a given task.
A simple task can be stated in simple terms:
"Go to the sink and bring back a glass of water". But to accomplish
that task within a computer (virtually) or thru an automated process
(bringing the virtual representation back out to the physical world),
requires breaking the task down into smaller, and more exact steps.
Just as different people can explain those steps in different ways, so
to can programs that perform the same tasks be written in different ways.
Computer programs can be written in many languages.
This, accepted as fact, shows again the ability to present common
tasks and concepts in different ways. Comparing a single program
written in C, Perl, Lisp, and COBOL; will not only show significant
differences in the manner that the code is written, but can actually
show elements that are recognized as linguistically different and
distinct between each program. Further reinforcing the idea that
code is a form of speech. This is without even venturing into the
areas of psuedo-code (using standard speech to express computer
terms, or the development of many higher level languages (that
attempt to use code more closely related to standard spoken
and written language as the basis of computer instruction).
Computer programs are abstract representations.
Just as we use language to explain the relationships of
person-to-person or person-to-object; so too does a programmer
use language to explain the interaction of person-to-computer,
computer-to-computer, and computer-to-object.
We give definition to the outside world thru shared terminology,
just as we give definition to the virtual space of computing
thru shared code.
Computer programs represent thoughts and ideas
As it is based on abstractions, computer code can be interpretive
in meaning, and dependent on context and usage for both the
effect and effectiveness of the task, or presentation of ideas, that
it is written to accomplish. We recognize the distinctive nature
of poetry, prose, documentary, technical and legal writings;
one could argue that similar distinctions can exist in the writing
of code. That there are distintive coding styles taught in
schools, and contests both for efficient and expressive methods
of writing the code for the same programs, furthers evidence of
the same.
If one accepts that computer programs can represent thoughts, then
one must also accept that:
Just as spoken and written words are used to express thoughts,
so then must computer code be recognized as a form of speech.
Thoughts themselves are not recognized as dangerous in a free
society, and as such should not be legislated against.
It is the abusive and illegal actions taken upon those thoughts
that are constrained by law, and the courts have long recognized
the distinction between the two.
No government that expects to represent a free society can be
relied upon to control thought. For it is the thoughts and
speech of the members of an enlightened society that establishes
the very foundations of democratic government.
On the question:
"does fair use require access to a work in its original form?"
Yes, if there is any requirement of accuracy in the fair use of
the work.
When I read a piece in the NYT where a reporter is
quoting a speech made by the President, I do so with the understanding
that the reporter was actually hearing the President speak, and not
that the reporter was getting the quotes second-hand from someone
who claimed to be at the event where the speech was made.
Let's say I witness a crime (a bank robbery) and I just happen to
have a (high-quality) digital video camera that I use to film the
incident. Right after the robbers make a fast getaway, a crew from
the local news shows up, and being Jonny-on-the-spot, get me to sign an
exclusive waiver giving them full broadcast rights for the footage
I just took. Then the police arrive... They also want access to the
footage for evidentiary purposes, but the news team has no means to
make a copy for the police to take back to HQ. But they do have the
means to replay my footage by hooking my camera up to a TV monitor,
so they suggest pointing their analog camera equipment at the screen
to make a copy of the footage for the police. Sounds like a
"fair use" of the footage right?
Not if you take into account the requirement that a proper forensic
anaylsis of the footage needs as accurate a copy of the video I had
taken as possible.
Can't the police just take the camera and saved video away as evidence?
Perhaps, but that opens up a different can of worms over possible violations
of the civil rights of me and the news company I just signed the exclusive
agreement (copyright) with.
Okay, there's my explanations... Now who do I send them to?
Rambus claims that Infineon was infringing
on thier patent claims for ten years before
the claims were actually made.
So either Infineon was unwillingly infringing
on a patent that could itself get thrown out
for showing prior art existed, or Infineon has
to give up the plans for the time machine they
used to get a decade jump on the competition.
I get no sites up when I typed
http://www.schadenfreude.com into my browser.
Twoud have been appropriately ironic if someone
jumping on the downside bandwagon had registered
it.
1. Game designers tend to be very protective of their
creative control. Allowing advertisers in on placement
and form of objects in the game also opens the door to
them being able to influence creative control. I could
also limit a popular aspect of games in which they parody
or mock real life products or services.
2. There is already a precendent set in console games
and Anime, where the creators replace the name of commonly
known products with a parody name or idea to create
filler or maintain the "commonness" of retail items.
So "Sony" TVs become "Soby" TVs or somesuch; and games
like the preview of "Sonic Adventure 2" are littered
with ads for other games from that design group, or plays
on popular characters and concepts from past games.
(Side note: I noticed the ads in Sonic2 because I was
watching my roomate playing thru the preview;
He didn't notice any of the ads because he was too
busy playing the game)
Some RPGs or games set in modern environments might
benefit a little by being able to create more realistic
settings by tying them to items familiar to the users.
But anything beyond simple background application would
prove to be a distraction from the main purpose of the
game, which is to take your mind somewhere away from the
completely mundane realism of everyday life.
And yes, movies have been doing this for years;
If you want to see a near perfect example of how to get
away with overactive product placement,
rent "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle".
If the TiVo can track the usage of a given machine with regard to
commercial viewing; that in itself would be of great value for
advertisers. IF the TiVo service can link the commercials segments
that you (and other viewers) don't skip, with the actual commercials
that were shown at that time.
I can imagine them going to the ad agencies:
The commercial of the giant Penquin crushing the Redmond campus was
not very well recieved. But, people liked watching the cute little Penquin hangliding,
rockclimbing, and drinking freebeer, almost as much as the shows they originally
captured for viewing.
I forget what Science Fiction I read that in...
But the running joke was that a group of scientists decided that since
all human thought was produced in the brain, then all science must perforce
become related to a Neurological-function... Hence all science is actually
Neuro-Science. And if you were actually working with/on the brian, it
would of course become Neuro-Neuro-Science. Run that Neuro-joke
ad infinitum, and you get the general Neuro-idea of how silly that Neuro-propostion
turns out to be.
AMD put themselves in a good postion last year by (more or less)
consistently delivering on product. It also helped that 2000
seemed to be a year when it was Intel that was the one who could
not seem to keep their overall quality going from Fab to retail space.