It never ceases to amaze me that these so-called "foreign" governments seem ever willing to follow any rule the US makes, or even implies.
Why does I.P. litigation survive? Seems to me the first nation to simply ignore these stifling rules would gain the advantage that could lead to industrial superiority. While "we" are busy suing each other in a ceaseless effort to keep ideas from flourishing into productive new venues, someone else could certainly be ignoring all that as so much bullshit that happens in RightPondia, and getting on with business.
As someone who lives in one of the smaller countries (New Zealand), I can tell you why - because the US is so dominant in world trade and other areas that they can put pressure on smaller countries to tow the line, whether it be threats of restricting trade, or holding out the promise of some sort of favorable trade deal (which never actually eventuates) in return for policies that the US government likes.
I'd be inclined to call their bluff, but the government are often a cautious lot, and the electoral risk of some bad consequence of annoying the US is not seen as being worth it.
An interesting point is that part of what led the to the current power of the US is that when industry was getting off the ground there, part of what drove it is that they ignored many of the restrictive IP laws of European countries (just what you are suggesting). Of course, in those days they didn't have things like the Berne Convention and the WTO to keep countries in line.
As far as I recall, most bicycles have a bend in the front forks, so that the line of the rotation of the front wheel/handlebar assembly (can't remember the name) doesn't intersect the axle of the front wheel, but goes about halfway between the axle and the ground. This is to make the bicycle a lot more stable in the steering.
I wonder how this is handled on a bamboo bicycle, where you can't put bends in the material? The photo doesn't make it very clear.
I haven't seen this relevant quote in the comments yet (perhaps I missed it):
"The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" - A. Tanenbaum
The issue of many standards for the same thing would seem to me to arise out of standards being set prematurely, possibly because of what is discussed in the article.
> Then again, the 'strange' computers would have to record all keystrokes in order to keep the keyboard layout optimal.. I see some privacy complaints though
I don't quite see this - you wouldn't want your personal keyboard layout to evolve (unless there was a particular problem that needed addressing), because there is a bit investment in learning to type on a partiular layout. You'd train it once with your best guess as to usage, and only retrain if the version you were using was unsuitable enough to make it worth going through the learning curve again.
Simple. Just use the unix 'alias' command to remap the most common commands to sequences of letters that are more comfortable.
Givem the large number of unix commands, the trick would be picking a new sequence that is not already used (and still nice to remember).
Although remembering the new words is possibly not such a big deal - I used to use a password that I could not actually remember the letters for, but I could remember the sequence of keys on a QWERTY keyboard. Imagine me trying to use that on another layout!
Different people would have different text samples that are representative, and possibly slightly different rules for evaluating the costs (although this would be very hard to quantify)...
Just imagine all the slashdotters optimizing their own keyboard layout to their own individual circumstances... no two keyboard layouts alike.
> This is the equivalent of Apple making computers without sound cards or high-end video, and Jobs saying that they think it's more "professional" that way (but ignoring the majority of Mac users who do audio/video work!)
I'm a Mac user who'd be more than happy not to have sound card or high-end video - as long as this was reflected in the cost of the machine. The Mac 'community' (and the Linux 'community' for that matter to bring this a little back on topic) are more diverse than some people realise.
I'm guessing a bit here, but I've got some idea why your suggestion would be impractical:
A lot of the stuff that is mined is found in what are naturally quite inaccessible forms such as ores in rocks, which is unlikely to get into the rest of the environment on its own. Concentrations exist because they are trapped where they are relatively stable, otherwise they would have already been scattered.
We come along and extract the stuff by crushing the rocks and refining the ore (quite often doing a considerable amount of damage such as open cast mining in the process).
Having done this, there is no way of 'putting it back' as we can't go and embed it back where it was found. We don't seem to be able to create containment that doesn't leak (or perhaps we just don't want to afford to).
You can't break down the heavy metals such as mercury and lead - I don't think that thare are any harmless compounds involving them.
It is potentially possible to extract and reuse them however, although doing this probably involves taking recycling (and preferably the cost of recycling) into account when designing the computer.
I think those are POWER chips, not PowerPC. They are similar architectures that have subtle differences, so are not directly comparable and certainly not quite compatible (unless the architectures have converged without anyone telling me). PowerPC was originally based on POWER.
The chips Apple uses are currently only 32-bit (even if there are possibly 64-bit chips out there), but the _architecture_ has compatible 32 and 64 bit versions (and yes, I mean address bus and register size) - therefore a really easy migration path (do a web search for something called "Book E").
And PPC smoking Pentiums? Unless you are talking about Altivec or Photoshop, what are you smoking? I mean, they are really nice chips, but sadly they just haven't kept up with x86 for speed (although I still plan to keep using Macintoshes for the forseeable future).
> Well, after a bit of thought, I decided that it made sense. The 64 bit chips present a whole new ball game, and one can expect "great and frightening changes".
The Macintosh uses the PowerPC chip which has a 32-bit and 64-bit version on the architecture (although currently only the 32-bit versions are currently made), so when Apple wants to transition to 64-bit, it will have an easier time than everyone else (assuming that by then Motorola or IBM make 64-bit chips) because it can just keep using PowerPC.
I'm hoping 64-bit makes it into the G5. It was supposed to into the G4.
I see a lot of argument about whether global warming is a problem, whether humans have any effect, and should we do anything about it.
Lets look at the best and worse cases:
* Best case is that global warming is either not happening, or part of a self-limiting natural process and not any sort of problem. In this case, if we keep doing what we are doing (keep increasing emissions), we are fine, and if we attempt to reduce our emissions, we go through some temporary hardship as we can't do all the things we are currently doing, but in the long run we are quite good at working around constraints.
* Worst case is that global warming is going to be a catastrophe, and we are playing a large part in causing it. In this case, keeping with our current course is a disaster, and we need to do what we can to try and reduce the level of the problem, or at least delay it to try and find some more options.
Looking at these, continuing our present course is a very large gamble with the whole ecosystem at stake, and attempting to reduce our impact on the problem might cause some real short-term hardship (particularly economic), but might also save us in the long term.
Given this, it seems clear to me that while we seek more knowledge and understanding about what is going on, we should play it safe, and try to clean up our act until it becomes clear whether what we are doing is a problem.
One version of the Precautionary Principle (http://www.biotech-info.net/rachels_586.html) states:
1. People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. ("If you have a reasonable suspicion that something bad might be going to happen, you have an obligation to try to stop it.")
2. The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general public.
3. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine "a full range of alternatives" including the alternative of doing nothing.
4. Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be "open, informed, and democratic" and "must include affected parties."
I think this (particularly parts 1 and 4) applies to our situation - we have a reasoable suspicion (even if no proof yet) that what we are doing may be harmful.
Of course hardly anyone will read this because I've posted it so late in the discussion:-(.
> why would anybody want to use multiple languages for the same project anyway?
Possibly because different languages have different strengths. At my work, most of the system for the project we are working on is written in Java, but I am writing one module in Mercury because that particular module does a lot of symbol manipuation and has a large 'logical' component, so a logical language is far more suitable than Java, but only for that component.
However, in these cases, it is good to have to go through some middleware (I'm using CORBA) or API to keep the modules apart. rather than sharing of structures pushing everything down to a lowest common denominator. So in that way, I agree with you....NET is a solution looking for a problem.
I've never seen a style that completely eliminates this without also destroying the power of the language, although I do use a style that prevents many of the problems.
One thing that C++ has that Java doesn't (yet) is the 'assert' function. This on many occasions can make C++ easier to debug than the equivalent Java.
> same code written in Java would also somehow be flawed.
Yes, the same code written in Java would also be flawed, but the flaw is usually much easier to find, and sometimes even turns up at 'compile' time.
Better (IMO) than either C++ or Java are some higher level languages that are likely not to even compile if there are flaws.
> awful templates mean you used them for something that they shouldn't have been use for
No, I mean that C++ has got the worst template system that I've seen anywhere - they look like they have been hacked on top of the C++ spec.
I prefer to code (where possible) in really high level languages like Mercury ( http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/mercury/index.html ) where the equivalent of templates (although they don't call them that) is handled beautifully and fit with the rest of the language.
It is possible to use the C++ templates nicely (and sometimes I do), but it doesn't stop them being ugly.
I've used both C++ and Java extensively (although I haven't used garbage collected C++).
For ease of coding, I find that Java simply outshines C++ because it doesn't leave me dealing with low level stuff, like pointers.
An occasional big time-killer with C++ is trying to debug something that corrupts memory.This doesn't happen with Java (although you can muck up the synchronization with threading and get unpredictable results which is just about as bad).
On the other hand, if I want performance (such as writing image processing software), I'll go with C++ (or assembler), as there is no way that Java can compete on speed for low level stuff.
And even the awful C++ templates are better than no templates at all.
The problem with an unenforced bad law is that it can be applied selectively (e.g. "we think this person is doing something wrong (or we don't like), but don't have proof... oh, wait a minute, we can get him for this other thing"). There's then no comeback, becuase after all, the law was being broken. However, the bad law gets to stay on the books because there isn't a public outcry.
Also, it's surely not good for the integrity of the whole system of laws to have some that aren't "meant". Much better to have a clear set of laws and a justice system where the laws are enforced, and lawbreaking dealt with fairly (OK, there's a lot of things in this sentence that don't happen).
The best way to get rid of a really bad law is to rigorously enforce it.
* weather,
* safety - it can be quite dangerous to ride a bike in cycle-unfriendly traffic, particularly in the busy part of town, and most cities don't have much in the way of cycle paths.
* disability (and I don't mean lack of fitness - cycling is a great way to build fitness).
I don't use a bicycle much for the second reason (amoung other reasons, I have to cycle through a dangerous intersection to get anywhere), but cycling is an excellent mode of transport where possible.
I consider myself lucky that I live within easy walking distance of work - my second favorite form of transport.
Slashdot Mirror
It never ceases to amaze me that these so-called "foreign" governments seem ever willing to follow any rule the US makes, or even implies.
Why does I.P. litigation survive? Seems to me the first nation to simply ignore these stifling rules would gain the advantage that could lead to industrial superiority. While "we" are busy suing each other in a ceaseless effort to keep ideas from flourishing into productive new venues, someone else could certainly be ignoring all that as so much bullshit that happens in RightPondia, and getting on with business.
As someone who lives in one of the smaller countries (New Zealand), I can tell you why - because the US is so dominant in world trade and other areas that they can put pressure on smaller countries to tow the line, whether it be threats of restricting trade, or holding out the promise of some sort of favorable trade deal (which never actually eventuates) in return for policies that the US government likes.
I'd be inclined to call their bluff, but the government are often a cautious lot, and the electoral risk of some bad consequence of annoying the US is not seen as being worth it.
An interesting point is that part of what led the to the current power of the US is that when industry was getting off the ground there, part of what drove it is that they ignored many of the restrictive IP laws of European countries (just what you are suggesting). Of course, in those days they didn't have things like the Berne Convention and the WTO to keep countries in line.
MSN Search: Linux -- More Useful Everyday
:)
so they got something right
As far as I recall, most bicycles have a bend in the front forks, so that the line of the rotation of the front wheel/handlebar assembly (can't remember the name) doesn't intersect the axle of the front wheel, but goes about halfway between the axle and the ground. This is to make the bicycle a lot more stable in the steering.
I wonder how this is handled on a bamboo bicycle, where you can't put bends in the material? The photo doesn't make it very clear.
The website indicates that they will land on opposite sides of the planet ... presumably, this is to prevent the first traffic accident on Mars.
> I'd consider being aboveland instead of inland..... Buy an airplane, dude, that's the only way to save your ass 500 years from now;oP....
... and maybe not so many options for places to land.
There'd be an awful lot of air turbulence as a result of this unless you were up really high
I haven't seen this relevant quote in the comments yet (perhaps I missed it):
"The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" - A. Tanenbaum
The issue of many standards for the same thing would seem to me to arise out of standards being set prematurely, possibly because of what is discussed in the article.
> ok, a few things. first, any company that GE's food products does one thing first of all. make them sterile!!
Wrong. There was a move to do this - called "terminator" technology, but it was abandonned some time ago.
Currently, GE seeds are viable.
> Then again, the 'strange' computers would have to record all keystrokes in order to keep the keyboard layout optimal.. I see some privacy complaints though
I don't quite see this - you wouldn't want your personal keyboard layout to evolve (unless there was a particular problem that needed addressing), because there is a bit investment in learning to type on a partiular layout. You'd train it once with your best guess as to usage, and only retrain if the version you were using was unsuitable enough to make it worth going through the learning curve again.
Simple. Just use the unix 'alias' command to remap the most common commands to sequences of letters that are more comfortable.
Givem the large number of unix commands, the trick would be picking a new sequence that is not already used (and still nice to remember).
Although remembering the new words is possibly not such a big deal - I used to use a password that I could not actually remember the letters for, but I could remember the sequence of keys on a QWERTY keyboard. Imagine me trying to use that on another layout!
Different people would have different text samples that are representative, and possibly slightly different rules for evaluating the costs (although this would be very hard to quantify) ...
... no two keyboard layouts alike.
Just imagine all the slashdotters optimizing their own keyboard layout to their own individual circumstances
> This is the equivalent of Apple making computers without sound cards or high-end video, and Jobs saying that they think it's more "professional" that way (but ignoring the majority of Mac users who do audio/video work!)
I'm a Mac user who'd be more than happy not to have sound card or high-end video - as long as this was reflected in the cost of the machine. The Mac 'community' (and the Linux 'community' for that matter to bring this a little back on topic) are more diverse than some people realise.
I got this when trying to look at the press release on RIAA's web site:
>HTTP Error 403
>
>403.9 Access Forbidden: Too many users are connected
Sums up their whole approach really.
I'm guessing a bit here, but I've got some idea why your suggestion would be impractical:
A lot of the stuff that is mined is found in what are naturally quite inaccessible forms such as ores in rocks, which is unlikely to get into the rest of the environment on its own. Concentrations exist because they are trapped where they are relatively stable, otherwise they would have already been scattered.
We come along and extract the stuff by crushing the rocks and refining the ore (quite often doing a considerable amount of damage such as open cast mining in the process).
Having done this, there is no way of 'putting it back' as we can't go and embed it back where it was found. We don't seem to be able to create containment that doesn't leak (or perhaps we just don't want to afford to).
You can't break down the heavy metals such as mercury and lead - I don't think that thare are any harmless compounds involving them.
It is potentially possible to extract and reuse them however, although doing this probably involves taking recycling (and preferably the cost of recycling) into account when designing the computer.
> In today's world of computers and Britney Spears, anyone can publish. Therefore, the rules need to change.
If Britney Spears can't publish with changed rules, how am I going to find out about semiconductor physics?
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm
I think those are POWER chips, not PowerPC. They are similar architectures that have subtle differences, so are not directly comparable and certainly not quite compatible (unless the architectures have converged without anyone telling me). PowerPC was originally based on POWER.
The chips Apple uses are currently only 32-bit (even if there are possibly 64-bit chips out there), but the _architecture_ has compatible 32 and 64 bit versions (and yes, I mean address bus and register size) - therefore a really easy migration path (do a web search for something called "Book E").
And PPC smoking Pentiums? Unless you are talking about Altivec or Photoshop, what are you smoking? I mean, they are really nice chips, but sadly they just haven't kept up with x86 for speed (although I still plan to keep using Macintoshes for the forseeable future).
> Well, after a bit of thought, I decided that it made sense. The 64 bit chips present a whole new ball game, and one can expect "great and frightening changes".
The Macintosh uses the PowerPC chip which has a 32-bit and 64-bit version on the architecture (although currently only the 32-bit versions are currently made), so when Apple wants to transition to 64-bit, it will have an easier time than everyone else (assuming that by then Motorola or IBM make 64-bit chips) because it can just keep using PowerPC.
I'm hoping 64-bit makes it into the G5. It was supposed to into the G4.
I see a lot of argument about whether global warming is a problem, whether humans have any effect, and should we do anything about it.
:-(.
Lets look at the best and worse cases:
* Best case is that global warming is either not happening, or part of a self-limiting natural process and not any sort of problem. In this case, if we keep doing what we are doing (keep increasing emissions), we are fine, and if we attempt to reduce our emissions, we go through some temporary hardship as we can't do all the things we are currently doing, but in the long run we are quite good at working around constraints.
* Worst case is that global warming is going to be a catastrophe, and we are playing a large part in causing it. In this case, keeping with our current course is a disaster, and we need to do what we can to try and reduce the level of the problem, or at least delay it to try and find some more options.
Looking at these, continuing our present course is a very large gamble with the whole ecosystem at stake, and attempting to reduce our impact on the problem might cause some real short-term hardship (particularly economic), but might also save us in the long term.
Given this, it seems clear to me that while we seek more knowledge and understanding about what is going on, we should play it safe, and try to clean up our act until it becomes clear whether what we are doing is a problem.
One version of the Precautionary Principle (http://www.biotech-info.net/rachels_586.html) states:
1. People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. ("If you have a reasonable suspicion that something bad might be going to happen, you have an obligation to try to stop it.")
2. The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general public.
3. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine "a full range of alternatives" including the alternative of doing nothing.
4. Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be "open, informed, and democratic" and "must include affected parties."
I think this (particularly parts 1 and 4) applies to our situation - we have a reasoable suspicion (even if no proof yet) that what we are doing may be harmful.
Of course hardly anyone will read this because I've posted it so late in the discussion
> why would anybody want to use multiple languages for the same project anyway?
... .NET is a solution looking for a problem.
Possibly because different languages have different strengths. At my work, most of the system for the project we are working on is written in Java, but I am writing one module in Mercury because that particular module does a lot of symbol manipuation and has a large 'logical' component, so a logical language is far more suitable than Java, but only for that component.
However, in these cases, it is good to have to go through some middleware (I'm using CORBA) or API to keep the modules apart. rather than sharing of structures pushing everything down to a lowest common denominator. So in that way, I agree with you
> enforce a style and it won't happen
I've never seen a style that completely eliminates this without also destroying the power of the language, although I do use a style that prevents many of the problems.
One thing that C++ has that Java doesn't (yet) is the 'assert' function. This on many occasions can make C++ easier to debug than the equivalent Java.
> same code written in Java would also somehow be flawed.
Yes, the same code written in Java would also be flawed, but the flaw is usually much easier to find, and sometimes even turns up at 'compile' time.
Better (IMO) than either C++ or Java are some higher level languages that are likely not to even compile if there are flaws.
> awful templates mean you used them for something that they shouldn't have been use for
l ) where the equivalent of templates (although they don't call them that) is handled beautifully and fit with the rest of the language.
No, I mean that C++ has got the worst template system that I've seen anywhere - they look like they have been hacked on top of the C++ spec.
I prefer to code (where possible) in really high level languages like Mercury ( http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/mercury/index.htm
It is possible to use the C++ templates nicely (and sometimes I do), but it doesn't stop them being ugly.
I've used both C++ and Java extensively (although I haven't used garbage collected C++).
For ease of coding, I find that Java simply outshines C++ because it doesn't leave me dealing with low level stuff, like pointers.
An occasional big time-killer with C++ is trying to debug something that corrupts memory.This doesn't happen with Java (although you can muck up the synchronization with threading and get unpredictable results which is just about as bad).
On the other hand, if I want performance (such as writing image processing software), I'll go with C++ (or assembler), as there is no way that Java can compete on speed for low level stuff.
And even the awful C++ templates are better than no templates at all.
The problem with an unenforced bad law is that it can be applied selectively (e.g. "we think this person is doing something wrong (or we don't like), but don't have proof ... oh, wait a minute, we can get him for this other thing"). There's then no comeback, becuase after all, the law was being broken. However, the bad law gets to stay on the books because there isn't a public outcry.
Also, it's surely not good for the integrity of the whole system of laws to have some that aren't "meant". Much better to have a clear set of laws and a justice system where the laws are enforced, and lawbreaking dealt with fairly (OK, there's a lot of things in this sentence that don't happen).
The best way to get rid of a really bad law is to rigorously enforce it.
I can think of several reasons:
* weather,
* safety - it can be quite dangerous to ride a bike in cycle-unfriendly traffic, particularly in the busy part of town, and most cities don't have much in the way of cycle paths.
* disability (and I don't mean lack of fitness - cycling is a great way to build fitness).
I don't use a bicycle much for the second reason (amoung other reasons, I have to cycle through a dangerous intersection to get anywhere), but cycling is an excellent mode of transport where possible.
I consider myself lucky that I live within easy walking distance of work - my second favorite form of transport.