I think Quake tries to do this in part by keeping all the physics on the server. However, there's just not enough bandwidth or latency (I think) to keep everything server side. So some things get stuffed clientside, and available for hacks.
Another example -- starcraft transmits the positions of all units to your machine, regardless of whether you can see them or not. Maybe it was less efficient to query over the network each time a unit moved (and thus saw more stuff). In fact this makes sense for SC -- you can have tons of units, but people only move a certain amount at a time. Transmitting only the order changes might take much less bandwidth.
I think game developers do think about how to make cheat proof architectures. I just think that the realities of network infrastructure (and deadlines) put an upper limit on how much can be kept on the server without slowing the action down.
"also, how do you figure that Macs are any less "desinged for this" than x86 boxes"
Macs are first and foremost designed to present the most intuitive and consistent interface to the user sitting at the desktop. x86 boxes are a hodgepodge of different components that people pick and choose from depending on the purpose of the computer.
That said, the dual processor Dell boxes benched here are a world away from G-4's and Athlon desktops. We use a Dell file server here in the office, and they are simply an amazing piece of machinery. Everything -- the motherboard, the case, is engineered for optimum server performance. (There is a even a drag-racer style fan duct just to cool the processors!). The G-4 is a beautiful piece of engineering, but it's made for digital video, not as server.
Copyright literally is the right to reproduce -- to make copies. If HTML is intended for distribution over the web, then you've granted everyone the ability to copy it when you download the code.
Sure, it's different to download said files and modify them. But that would be even less prone to copywrite, since it is no longer the original copywriten work in the first place.
Maybe if you give someone the right to copy something, then you've given them the right to copy pieces of it (in your modified code).
just an extremist view. Not in the intent of the law, but interesting nonetheless.
In reality, things are not so nice, and they involve some very ugly things like the dark corners of SQL. BUT you should never have to go in and try to figure out how to do stuff like row-locking.
I'd like to add to this...
When designing a commercial database system for a mission critical project, you want create code that can be extended later. If you use a database that will insure data integrity, then there is no need for you to mix in what will become a bunch of cumbersome legacy code.
Otherwise, by mixing your data management code with your applications, you run the risk of some numbnut screwing your data integrity while implementing some dumbass feature.
I agree that time spent implementing what the database could and should provide is time wasted. For 9 out of 10 programmers, I'm sure they understand their client better than the folks at Oracle, and I'm sure Oracle understands database issues much better than they do. Focus on your strength. Those hours coding new database features can spent working on the actual application -- tweaking the interface, optimizing queries, anything to help the client.
There are still alot of programmers that think that they can and should write everything. Wake up. The computing world is rapidly becoming more and more complicated; you will be doing your self and your clients a favor by reusing as much code as possible
um... E-toys pushed for the injunction in a case it would likely lose right before Christmas, then drops the case graciously afterwards?
Though I'm sure etoy is happy to have their domain back, I'm not so sure they appreciate being hassled so much just to clear up the holiday roadmap.
And I doubt if etoys is really backing down in the face of opposition -- it's a winwin situation for them. If they got away with it, no more nasty anti-corporate site one letter away. And even if not, they still got a clear christmas.
Re:[not a] A Vertical Monopoly
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
Time Warner owns a wide horizontal swath of media properties in almost every concievable area.
AOL's purchase of Time Warner gives them the ability to coordinate an ad / media campaign across nearly every cultural media that you come in contact with every day.
If you think you can avoid being AOL'ed, or that this will result only in Bugs Bunny appearing everywhere, check out the list below. (I'm sure its longer by now).
Or think about it this way-- AOL now owns the news source for politicians around the world (CNN).
Sleep better?
Circa 1996, when the Nation did a story on media monopolies, Time Warner owned:
Warner Brothers Stores
Music: Warner/Chappell Publishing The Atlantic Group Time Warner Audio Books Electra Entertainment Group Warner Brothers Records Warner Music Int'l SubPop (40% ownership) Columbia House (50% ownership)
Time Warner Entertainment Six Flags Cable franchises (11.7 million subscribers)
Motion Pictures: Warner Brothers Warner Brothers Animated
cable: Sega Channel (33% ownership) Court TV (33% ownership) E! (49% with others) HBO Cinemax Comedy Central (50% with viacom)
Home Video: Time-Life Video HBO Home Video Warner Home Video
TV Programming: Warner Brothers Television (ER, Murphy Brown) Witt Thomas Productions
Book Publishing: Oxmoor House Sunset Books Little, Brown & Co. Time-Life Books Warner Books Book-of-the-Month Club
Magazines: Time Fortune Life Sports Illustrated Vibe People Money In Style Sports Illustrated for Kids Parenting Baby Talk Martha Stewart Living Sunset Health Hippocrates Asia Week President Dancyu Who Entertainment Weekly Cooking Light Southern Living DC Comics (50%) American Lawyer (83.25%)
It also owns Turner Broadcasting:
Sports: Atlanta Braves Atlanta Hawks Goodwill Games
Retail: Turner Retail Group (Hanna-Barbara store at Universal Studios Florida, The Turner Store, Braves Clubhouse, and the Medialist) Turner Home Entertainment Licensing and Merchandising
Programming/Production: World Championship Wrestling Hanna-Barbara Cartoons New Line Cinema Castle Rock Entertainment Turner Entertainment (MGM, RJO, and pre 1950 Warner Bros. Films) Turner Original Productions Turner Pictures
Home Entertainment: Turner Home Entertainment Domestic Home Video Turner Home Satellite
Book Publishing: Turner Publishing
Multimedia: CNN Interactive (web site) Turner New Media (CD-ROMS)
Cable: TBS Superstation Turner Classic Movies TNT Cartoon Network
As long as we sit and hope that napster wins, they will lose.
This is not just an indictment of apathetic/. readers; napster is doing very little to organize any kind of community support. At their website they have little more than a list of web articles about their lawsuit.
Visit their site; ask for ways of helping. If anyone can think of a similar situation (a large company suing a challenging internet startup) where the smaller company won, please reply to this thread and suggest possible tactics.
Xfree86 has full support for Wacom input devices, because Wacom is one of the sponsors of the XFree86 project.
With the foundation in place, XInput support for the Gimp is in progress -- for more info, check out this and this. One thing to remember-- if the tablet has control over the core pointer in X, you can still use it to draw without the pressure sensitivity. Which is still a thousand times better than drawing with a mouse.
I have been using a Wacom ArtPad (supported quite nicely in XFree86) for over a year now. The best thing about a pen tablet is that it is not a mouse -- you can jump to any point on the screen in the time it takes to shift your hand. Though it took a while to get used to the buttons on the pen (and they still kinda annoy me), it has made working at the computer much more comfortable (not to mention, it has increased my Starcraft dexterity exponentially -- i can repair 12 bunched wraithes with no missed clicks. Though it kinda blows for quake...)
To me, this new pen combines all the disadvantages of a mouse and a pen into one. The worst thing about mice is the mouse ball by far -- it always gets dirty, it requires you to use the same amount of force constantly. Like all pens, it has those annoying buttons.
If you use a Wacom tablet, the serial port connects to the tablet -- not the pen. All that fancy radio hardwire, besides sounding like a frustration in the wings (interference = no mouse!), really doesn't offer you anything that different from what already exists.
Drivers exist because Wacom has done the sensible thing by sponsoring the XFree86 Project. Plus, WACOM is a respected manufacturer that is more or less the standard for graphic designers worldwide.
I doubt the cable from the tablet to the serial port will really bother you that much. Of course, if it does, check out the graphire. And if you want something to really make you drool, check out this.
I asked the same question. The layout engine for Mozilla is set to have alpha channel blending -- meaning that it has the potential to properly support alpha channel transparency in png's.
> The person who owns PNG in Mozilla is > newt@pobox.com, who was one of the > creators of PNG. I suggest you contact him. > There is currently no 8-bit alpha support, > but he's working on that.
This is a response I got on one of the mozilla usenet forums about the png issue. There's the man to ask.
They broke up a peaceful student demonstration by rolling in tanks
And I'm sure Kent State didn't serve as an example of what could happen to demonstrations in the US?
You do have a point though -- the United States government has realized that is not in it's best interests to openly persecute its own citizens. Instead, it lobs cruise missiles at the sudan/yugoslavia/whoever to distract everyone from such domestic issues as "campaign reform" or "health care" or "bill's penis".
Dude, I said this else where, but minimum wage in the US is below the poverty line. I don't think those people making $6-10/hour with a family will be able to afford a computer either
Did you know that the minimum wage in the United States is lower than the poverty line? Don't be so cavaliar about other countries problems, the United States has plenty of dirty laundry. And it's not just about our companies being just too damn competitive (that durn Microsoft).
I respond this way because I have close friends from China. It's a lot like the US. There are alot of good people, and a suspicious government.
Did you know that the New York Police Department had been cited by Amnesty International for Human Rights Violations? Did you ever hear of the US engineering the military coup of a democratically elected socialist in Chile? Or how about Mai Lai? Incidently, name the only nation to use a nuclear weapon on civilians? Yep that's right, good old clean faced US of A.
Get over the nationalist crap spoonfed into you -- if you don't trust the media to tell you a straight story regarding computer OS's, what makes you think that you'll get a clear picture of more politically sensitive stories.
Quoting Mark Twain (via Utah Phillips): "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
Writing is 'open source', because writing is distributed in a form understandable to human readers. Also there are many applications considered "free use" which are permited under copywrite law, so the writing isn't totally locked away from public use.
There's nothing menacing about Katz putting his ideas up for criticism. He'll be getting the same type of input as if slashdot just linked to an article of his somewhere; this time, he asked slashdot specifically for comments. And if you think our ideas are so worthwhile, remember that he's the one doing all the research to turn those ideas into something more than an "insightful comment." The research (and the "pretty adverbs," a bit of a harsh dismissal of what most writers would call "skill" or "craft") is what he's getting paid for anyways.
"First - PNG's can't technically actually replace GIF's because PNG's can't do what GIF's can do, like animation and simple transparency support. Without a solid, _single_, replacement file format, it's going to go the way of all newer technology - slowly being picked up by the early adopters that don't mind all the problems and then five to eight years later by the mainstream."
Ummmmm...
Do you know what alpha channel transparency is? There are 256 levels of transparency, as opposed to the single level of transparenct in gif files. This means that you can easily have anti-aliased text on top of a textured background, or drop shadows, or whatever. Of course, if you really wanted to, you could simulate the simple transparency of gif by only using the lowest and highest levels of alpha transparency.
Plus, PNG can replace JPEGS (compressed 24bit color) while giving you the option transparency in a true color image. (you can't do that now.)
And finally, there's the related MNG format, which is intended to supply animation functionality.
PNG is a single, solid replacement file format. It is currently not supported by browsers, but the file format itself is very flexible.
"Second - we can't expect everyone to convert to a new format if we haven't actually supplied folks with a decent toolset, which includes easy to use tools to create animated [P|M]NGs. Even if people could convert their GIFs to animated PNGs they'll want to keep using their time-tested tools and not go through another conversion."
The MNG format is in development, so I may of jumped the gun a bit...
But for PNG:
there is a simple utility gif2png which automatically converts gifs to png.
"No one -- not a single person -- doing serious commercial Internet work would consider it for a moment. Why? Clients today (and busdev, marketing types when stuff is developed internally) still hold the 3.0+ rule as ironclad, and that rules out PNG."
So all the hype about XML is hot air too, since it's only to be supported in the 5.0 browsers. Samething goes for style sheets, etc. In fact, we might as well stop developing new features/formats/etc. because everyone will still be using 3.0 browsers.
"For the tens of millions of "nothing" sites out there that together represent a tiny percentage of Internet traffic have that as their option, of course, since they have little traffic anyway. Losing a few percent to people with old browsers isn't going to hurt them."
This is snobbery. Didn't slashdot start out as Rob Malda's little nothing programming homepage? Those nothing sites are a major part of the draw of net access. Say 20 people looked at my homepage. 10 of them were potential employers checking my resume at their convenience. The other 10 were geographicaly seperated friends just checking to see what's up. I may not be an Amazon or a Yahoo, but that nothing web page is one of (if not the) major reason I pay an ISP. If I just wanted to visit corporate high traffic sites, then I'd get cable television.
"PNG support is too spotty in the modern browsers to seriously do it anyway. They all seem to handle things like transparency differently, and things like that."
PNG transparency support is spotty b/c it is too advanced for today's browsers. In order to implement true alpha channel blending for the.png format, alpha blending must be built into the layout engine -- a nontrivial task. However, Mozilla will be feature alpha blending in the layout engine.
"On the low-end of the internet bell curve, wanna-be designers are way to infatuated with their animated GIFS -- the late 90's version of the blink tag. They're certainly not going to switch and give up their beloved animated icons collection."
Burn all gifs day is a publicity stunt much like the microsoft refund day. But the PNG image format has a _lot_ going for it. Alpha blending alone is enough to make PNG the favorite of designers. But it also supports variable bit depths from 2-24 bit color with loss-less compression, making PNG a complete solution (as opposed to the gif/jpeg situation we are in right now.) for most web graphic needs. Finally, since it would be built into the layout engine we might see a w3c style sheet for alpha blending on more elements than just png images -- another major feature.
"Thin client" is a marketing term. It doesn't have anything to do with the 'fatness' of the computer itself. Check out this link to Sun.
The key is in the blurb:
"Are you looking for centralized administration and a rich user experience? Look no further. The "plug-and-work" enterprise appliance requires no client administration or upgrades while at the same time putting the power of the server on your desktop."
Thin clients aren't about dumb terminals; they're about terminals which remove the need for users to do any kind of administration. Notice that this has nothing to do with X windows, XML, Java. Nor does it have anything to do with CPU, etc. It doesn't matter what the box is running, as long as all the user has to do plug it into a jack and turn it on.
The OS gets tossed because it is confusing, not b/c it eats too many resources. The CPU, file system, and memory are all trivial costs. It's the service calls that are expensive.
Therefor, it isn't appropriate to discuss thin clients in terms of these non-factors (OS, windowing technology, etc.). You want a thin-client solution, pick X/Java/whatever and build something your users never have to think about.
I've been trying to figure out just what is meant by a thin client. Is the case thin? Just what do people really mean?
Processing power is so _cheap_ that there isn't really any point in skimping on that. The same is true of all components of a modern pc -- if you can get a servicable PC for $200-300, then what's the value of a handicapped terminal?
The closest thing we have to a successful thin client is the Apple iMac. It's designed explicitly for networking, lacking any external storage options in its basic configuration. But it can do video editing, so it isn't really "thin".
Then it hit me -- the thin client isn't the computer, it's the person using the computer. The main attractivness of having networked applications is not to do the computing over the network, but to do the installation/configuration/etc. over the network. It's to create a firewall between difficult techie issues and uninterested users.
So the ideal thin client architecture is one in which all administration can be done remotely. One in which all the user has to do to install an ap is open a network folder and browse.
btw, if one can code Java, then you can figure out the awt. Also, is HTML/XML really thin? Browsers are pretty sophisticated apps, just ask any would be Mozilla developer
I am an artist who is now making his living by slicing up psd's and producing web pages. So let me begin by saying that I use photoshop in my NT office everyday, multiple times, over and over again.
One day, I sat at home and began working with the gimp. If I could not code (yet), I could come up with a reasonable wishlist-- features that would make the gimp more attractive to those of us who do graphics production work all day. I could find nothing. The only complaint I could muster is that you have to declare all your keyboard shortcuts, instead of having a set of shortcuts to work from. Furthermore, I checked out the feature list and noticed that the gimp will be supporting some powerful features like the image hose from Fractal Design Painter. And on top of that, the gimp is certainly a zillion times more scriptable that photoshop. (yeah yeah, actions and paths, but have you ever heard of using photoshop to dynamically generate web graphics?)
Basically, INHO the gimp is as good as photoshop, with 10 times the potential. Just look at photoshop 5.5's hacked together mesh of image ready + photoshop, and you can tell that Adobe is having trouble with Photoshop's architecture.
So don't be dissing the gimp-- it's better than you think. Of course, it could use prettier file widgets...
Also, re: photogenics: It may have some powerful layer channel operations, it seems (an alpha channel per channel, though that gets to be a mouthful..) I'd have to use it to sort out the real features from the screenfilling PR (a BLUR function! ooooo!)
But I still think development on the open source gimp can move at a much faster rate than any proprietary software. It's not just the plugin architecture, its the architecture + the GPL which is responsible for the growth of the GIMP
while yer at it mr taco, couldn't you set the bgcolor to "#000000" and the text to "#00ff00"?
Seriously though, you can't underestimate the creativity it takes to look at a cga monitor and imagine world domination. (domination=hercules graphics adapter, baby!).
Ahem... what is Caldera's selling point? The installer and COAS? and what is open sourced? The installer and COAS? They're doing what any Linux distribution should do: innovate in an area, and release the source.
Caldera may not be playing the media darling, but they're not withholding from the community, either.
You know, its a great thing that open source projects are gaining greater visibility. But just as a side note, who cares about everybody else? Mozilla will live, regardless of whether it beats MS, whether it gets dumped by AOL. The point is to create an alternative for those who demand extensibility.
Sure, mozilla hasn't put anything major out on the table. This is the slow time. This is the time when a dedicated group of organizers and programmers toil to make something the right way-- for the benefit of everybody following.
When Mozilla is released in a finished state, we will begin to see the exponential advances that we expect from open software.
Come one everybody, look at the graph of x squared. Down before 1.0, everything sure looks slow. But later...
Copywrite creates a contradiction between the creative and economic activities of an artist. Furthermore, copywrite favors the rich artists who can afford the lawyers. And finally, in general artists don't make money from copywrite: galleries, museums, record companies, film studios, etc. make money from copywrite.
Most people think artists create something. Being an artist, I think it is more accurate to say that artists combine things in unusual ways. They take this experience and that, and then get you to see both experiences. This combination is a new experience in many senses of "new", but it is always composed of a number of "borrowed" elements, along with maybe a few truely "new" ideas. All creative individuals must build upon other peoples contributions -- thus the "fair use" clause in copywrite law, which states that certain types of quotations are legal (parody, etc.)
However, "fair use" is a legal term. Let us use Disney as a main example. If I made a painting using the image of Mickey Mouse in a comprimising situation, Disney would do everything they could to bury me under a stack of lawsuits. Doesn't matter if it is "fair use", because I've got to got to court. And that fact means that Disney has already won -- I'm not making any art, I'm writing legal documents and going into debt.
Finally, let's do a rundown on a few different kinds of artists, and see if they really make money from intellectual property:
Musicians: they have the greatest potential to make money off of IP. They make the software that runs our walkman, stereos, etc. But the record companies eat most of that income -- most smashingly successful musicians make 1-2 dollars off of each each cd they sell (i think). The solid income seems to be touring -- playing clubs, doing shows, traveling around. No digital media will replace the live show (and if it does, yer either smart like kraftwork or formulaic like NKOTB / Backstreet Boys).
Gallery Artists (Painters, Sculpters, etc.): They don't make a cent off of IP. They make their money selling products, physical works of art. IP only serves to hinder them, as in the Disney example above.
Internet/Digital Media Artists: Well, since a copy is made everytime you download the piece, I don't see how copywrite would apply... But seriously, most successful internet projects (Slashdot) are ongoing projects which provide a service to their readers. Doesn't matter if I copy slashdot's stories, cause its the threaded comments that make the difference.
There are many other unmentioned types of artists, but I'm sure there is a way for them to make their bread without depending on IP. Also, I know any commercial artist would be very protective of his/her IP, but I would expect the same from any software company. They would have to change their business plans, just like a software company would.
Basically, I don't think any form of IP rewards the creater. It always seems like a way of indenturing the creater to some capitalist who happens to have money.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Quake tries to do this in part by keeping all the physics on the server. However, there's just not enough bandwidth or latency (I think) to keep everything server side. So some things get stuffed clientside, and available for hacks.
Another example -- starcraft transmits the positions of all units to your machine, regardless of whether you can see them or not. Maybe it was less efficient to query over the network each time a unit moved (and thus saw more stuff). In fact this makes sense for SC -- you can have tons of units, but people only move a certain amount at a time. Transmitting only the order changes might take much less bandwidth.
I think game developers do think about how to make cheat proof architectures. I just think that the realities of network infrastructure (and deadlines) put an upper limit on how much can be kept on the server without slowing the action down.
"also, how do you figure that Macs are any less "desinged for this" than x86 boxes"
Macs are first and foremost designed to present the most intuitive and consistent interface to the user sitting at the desktop. x86 boxes are a hodgepodge of different components that people pick and choose from depending on the purpose of the computer.
That said, the dual processor Dell boxes benched here are a world away from G-4's and Athlon desktops. We use a Dell file server here in the office, and they are simply an amazing piece of machinery. Everything -- the motherboard, the case, is engineered for optimum server performance. (There is a even a drag-racer style fan duct just to cool the processors!). The G-4 is a beautiful piece of engineering, but it's made for digital video, not as server.
Don't know if this has been mentioned, but:
Copyright literally is the right to reproduce -- to make copies. If HTML is intended for distribution over the web, then you've granted everyone the ability to copy it when you download the code.
Sure, it's different to download said files and modify them. But that would be even less prone to copywrite, since it is no longer the original copywriten work in the first place.
Maybe if you give someone the right to copy something, then you've given them the right to copy pieces of it (in your modified code).
just an extremist view. Not in the intent of the law, but interesting nonetheless.
I'd like to add to this...
When designing a commercial database system for a mission critical project, you want create code that can be extended later. If you use a database that will insure data integrity, then there is no need for you to mix in what will become a bunch of cumbersome legacy code.
Otherwise, by mixing your data management code with your applications, you run the risk of some numbnut screwing your data integrity while implementing some dumbass feature.
I agree that time spent implementing what the database could and should provide is time wasted. For 9 out of 10 programmers, I'm sure they understand their client better than the folks at Oracle, and I'm sure Oracle understands database issues much better than they do. Focus on your strength. Those hours coding new database features can spent working on the actual application -- tweaking the interface, optimizing queries, anything to help the client.
There are still alot of programmers that think that they can and should write everything. Wake up. The computing world is rapidly becoming more and more complicated; you will be doing your self and your clients a favor by reusing as much code as possible
um... E-toys pushed for the injunction in a case it would likely lose right before Christmas, then drops the case graciously afterwards?
Though I'm sure etoy is happy to have their domain back, I'm not so sure they appreciate being hassled so much just to clear up the holiday roadmap.
And I doubt if etoys is really backing down in the face of opposition -- it's a winwin situation for them. If they got away with it, no more nasty anti-corporate site one letter away. And even if not, they still got a clear christmas.
Time Warner owns a wide horizontal swath of media properties in almost every concievable area.
AOL's purchase of Time Warner gives them the ability to coordinate an ad / media campaign across nearly every cultural media that you come in contact with every day.
If you think you can avoid being AOL'ed, or that this will result only in Bugs Bunny appearing everywhere, check out the list below. (I'm sure its longer by now).
Or think about it this way-- AOL now owns the news source for politicians around the world (CNN).
Sleep better?
Circa 1996, when the Nation did a story on media monopolies, Time Warner owned:
Warner Brothers Stores
Music:
Warner/Chappell Publishing
The Atlantic Group
Time Warner Audio Books
Electra Entertainment Group
Warner Brothers Records
Warner Music Int'l
SubPop (40% ownership)
Columbia House (50% ownership)
Time Warner Entertainment
Six Flags
Cable franchises (11.7 million subscribers)
Motion Pictures:
Warner Brothers
Warner Brothers Animated
cable:
Sega Channel (33% ownership)
Court TV (33% ownership)
E! (49% with others)
HBO
Cinemax
Comedy Central (50% with viacom)
Home Video:
Time-Life Video
HBO Home Video
Warner Home Video
TV Programming:
Warner Brothers Television (ER, Murphy Brown)
Witt Thomas Productions
Book Publishing:
Oxmoor House
Sunset Books
Little, Brown & Co.
Time-Life Books
Warner Books
Book-of-the-Month Club
Magazines:
Time
Fortune
Life
Sports Illustrated
Vibe
People
Money
In Style
Sports Illustrated for Kids
Parenting
Baby Talk
Martha Stewart Living
Sunset
Health
Hippocrates
Asia Week
President
Dancyu
Who
Entertainment Weekly
Cooking Light
Southern Living
DC Comics (50%)
American Lawyer (83.25%)
It also owns Turner Broadcasting:
Sports:
Atlanta Braves
Atlanta Hawks
Goodwill Games
Retail:
Turner Retail Group (Hanna-Barbara store at Universal Studios Florida, The Turner Store, Braves Clubhouse, and the Medialist)
Turner Home Entertainment Licensing and Merchandising
Programming/Production:
World Championship Wrestling
Hanna-Barbara Cartoons
New Line Cinema
Castle Rock Entertainment
Turner Entertainment (MGM, RJO, and pre 1950 Warner Bros. Films)
Turner Original Productions
Turner Pictures
Home Entertainment:
Turner Home Entertainment
Domestic Home Video
Turner Home Satellite
Book Publishing:
Turner Publishing
Multimedia:
CNN Interactive (web site)
Turner New Media (CD-ROMS)
Cable:
TBS Superstation
Turner Classic Movies
TNT
Cartoon Network
CNN:
CNNfn (financial network)
CNNRadio
CNN
Headline News
SportsSouth (regional sports network)
CNN International
CNN Airport Network
As long as we sit and hope that napster wins, they will lose.
This is not just an indictment of apathetic /. readers; napster is doing very little to organize any kind of community support. At their website they have little more than a list of web articles about their lawsuit.
Visit their site; ask for ways of helping. If anyone can think of a similar situation (a large company suing a challenging internet startup) where the smaller company won, please reply to this thread and suggest possible tactics.
Xfree86 has full support for Wacom input devices, because Wacom is one of the sponsors of the XFree86 project.
With the foundation in place, XInput support for the Gimp is in progress -- for more info, check out this and this. One thing to remember-- if the tablet has control over the core pointer in X, you can still use it to draw without the pressure sensitivity. Which is still a thousand times better than drawing with a mouse.
I have been using a Wacom ArtPad (supported quite nicely in XFree86) for over a year now. The best thing about a pen tablet is that it is not a mouse -- you can jump to any point on the screen in the time it takes to shift your hand. Though it took a while to get used to the buttons on the pen (and they still kinda annoy me), it has made working at the computer much more comfortable (not to mention, it has increased my Starcraft dexterity exponentially -- i can repair 12 bunched wraithes with no missed clicks. Though it kinda blows for quake...)
To me, this new pen combines all the disadvantages of a mouse and a pen into one. The worst thing about mice is the mouse ball by far -- it always gets dirty, it requires you to use the same amount of force constantly. Like all pens, it has those annoying buttons.
If you use a Wacom tablet, the serial port connects to the tablet -- not the pen. All that fancy radio hardwire, besides sounding like a frustration in the wings (interference = no mouse!), really doesn't offer you anything that different from what already exists.
Drivers exist because Wacom has done the sensible thing by sponsoring the XFree86 Project. Plus, WACOM is a respected manufacturer that is more or less the standard for graphic designers worldwide.
I doubt the cable from the tablet to the serial port will really bother you that much. Of course, if it does, check out the graphire. And if you want something to really make you drool, check out this.
Not just an NT box, but an NT box publishing out of Access. I think Access was the limiting factor here, not IIS.
I asked the same question. The layout engine for Mozilla is set to have alpha channel blending -- meaning that it has the potential to properly support alpha channel transparency in png's.
> The person who owns PNG in Mozilla is
> newt@pobox.com, who was one of the
> creators of PNG. I suggest you contact him.
> There is currently no 8-bit alpha support,
> but he's working on that.
This is a response I got on one of the mozilla usenet forums about the png issue. There's the man to ask.
They broke up a peaceful student demonstration by rolling in tanks
And I'm sure Kent State didn't serve as an example of what could happen to demonstrations in the US?
You do have a point though -- the United States government has realized that is not in it's best interests to openly persecute its own citizens. Instead, it lobs cruise missiles at the sudan/yugoslavia/whoever to distract everyone from such domestic issues as "campaign reform" or "health care" or "bill's penis".
Dude, I said this else where, but minimum wage in the US is below the poverty line. I don't think those people making $6-10/hour with a family will be able to afford a computer either
Did you know that the minimum wage in the United States is lower than the poverty line? Don't be so cavaliar about other countries problems, the United States has plenty of dirty laundry. And it's not just about our companies being just too damn competitive (that durn Microsoft).
I respond this way because I have close friends from China. It's a lot like the US. There are alot of good people, and a suspicious government.
Did you know that the New York Police Department had been cited by Amnesty International for Human Rights Violations? Did you ever hear of the US engineering the military coup of a democratically elected socialist in Chile? Or how about Mai Lai? Incidently, name the only nation to use a nuclear weapon on civilians? Yep that's right, good old clean faced US of A.
Get over the nationalist crap spoonfed into you -- if you don't trust the media to tell you a straight story regarding computer OS's, what makes you think that you'll get a clear picture of more politically sensitive stories.
Quoting Mark Twain (via Utah Phillips): "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
Writing is 'open source', because writing is distributed in a form understandable to human readers. Also there are many applications considered "free use" which are permited under copywrite law, so the writing isn't totally locked away from public use.
There's nothing menacing about Katz putting his ideas up for criticism. He'll be getting the same type of input as if slashdot just linked to an article of his somewhere; this time, he asked slashdot specifically for comments. And if you think our ideas are so worthwhile, remember that he's the one doing all the research to turn those ideas into something more than an "insightful comment." The research (and the "pretty adverbs," a bit of a harsh dismissal of what most writers would call "skill" or "craft") is what he's getting paid for anyways.
umm, this may be repetitave, but...
"First - PNG's can't technically actually replace GIF's because PNG's can't do what GIF's can do, like animation and simple transparency support. Without a solid, _single_, replacement file format, it's going to go the way of all newer technology - slowly being picked up by the early adopters that don't mind all the problems and then five to eight years later by the mainstream."
Ummmmm...
Do you know what alpha channel transparency is? There are 256 levels of transparency, as opposed to the single level of transparenct in gif files. This means that you can easily have anti-aliased text on top of a textured background, or drop shadows, or whatever. Of course, if you really wanted to, you could simulate the simple transparency of gif by only using the lowest and highest levels of alpha transparency.
Plus, PNG can replace JPEGS (compressed 24bit color) while giving you the option transparency in a true color image. (you can't do that now.)
And finally, there's the related MNG format, which is intended to supply animation functionality.
PNG is a single, solid replacement file format. It is currently not supported by browsers, but the file format itself is very flexible.
"Second - we can't expect everyone to convert to a new format if we haven't actually supplied folks with a decent toolset, which includes easy to use tools to create animated [P|M]NGs. Even if people could convert their GIFs to animated PNGs they'll want to keep using their time-tested tools and not go through another conversion."
The MNG format is in development, so I may of jumped the gun a bit...
But for PNG:
First of all, a play by play critique:
"No one -- not a single person -- doing serious commercial Internet work would consider it for a moment. Why? Clients today (and busdev, marketing types when stuff is developed internally) still hold the 3.0+ rule as ironclad, and that rules out PNG."
So all the hype about XML is hot air too, since it's only to be supported in the 5.0 browsers. Samething goes for style sheets, etc. In fact, we might as well stop developing new features/formats/etc. because everyone will still be using 3.0 browsers.
"For the tens of millions of "nothing" sites out there that together represent a tiny percentage of Internet traffic have that as their option, of course, since they have little traffic anyway. Losing a few percent to people with old browsers isn't going to hurt them."
This is snobbery. Didn't slashdot start out as Rob Malda's little nothing programming homepage? Those nothing sites are a major part of the draw of net access. Say 20 people looked at my homepage. 10 of them were potential employers checking my resume at their convenience. The other 10 were geographicaly seperated friends just checking to see what's up. I may not be an Amazon or a Yahoo, but that nothing web page is one of (if not the) major reason I pay an ISP. If I just wanted to visit corporate high traffic sites, then I'd get cable television.
"PNG support is too spotty in the modern browsers to seriously do it anyway. They all seem to handle things like transparency differently, and things like that."
PNG transparency support is spotty b/c it is too advanced for today's browsers. In order to implement true alpha channel blending for the .png format, alpha blending must be built into the layout engine -- a nontrivial task. However, Mozilla will be feature alpha blending in the layout engine.
"On the low-end of the internet bell curve, wanna-be designers are way to infatuated with their animated GIFS -- the late 90's version of the blink tag. They're certainly not going to switch and give up their beloved animated icons collection."
MNG
anyway
Burn all gifs day is a publicity stunt much like the microsoft refund day. But the PNG image format has a _lot_ going for it. Alpha blending alone is enough to make PNG the favorite of designers. But it also supports variable bit depths from 2-24 bit color with loss-less compression, making PNG a complete solution (as opposed to the gif/jpeg situation we are in right now.) for most web graphic needs. Finally, since it would be built into the layout engine we might see a w3c style sheet for alpha blending on more elements than just png images -- another major feature.
A major point:
"Thin client" is a marketing term. It doesn't have anything to do with the 'fatness' of the computer itself. Check out this link to Sun.
The key is in the blurb:
"Are you looking for centralized administration and a rich user experience? Look no further. The "plug-and-work" enterprise appliance requires no client administration or upgrades while at the same time putting the power of the server on your desktop."
Thin clients aren't about dumb terminals; they're about terminals which remove the need for users to do any kind of administration. Notice that this has nothing to do with X windows, XML, Java. Nor does it have anything to do with CPU, etc. It doesn't matter what the box is running, as long as all the user has to do plug it into a jack and turn it on.
The OS gets tossed because it is confusing, not b/c it eats too many resources. The CPU, file system, and memory are all trivial costs. It's the service calls that are expensive.
Therefor, it isn't appropriate to discuss thin clients in terms of these non-factors (OS, windowing technology, etc.). You want a thin-client solution, pick X/Java/whatever and build something your users never have to think about.
I've been trying to figure out just what is meant by a thin client. Is the case thin? Just what do people really mean?
Processing power is so _cheap_ that there isn't really any point in skimping on that. The same is true of all components of a modern pc -- if you can get a servicable PC for $200-300, then what's the value of a handicapped terminal?
The closest thing we have to a successful thin client is the Apple iMac. It's designed explicitly for networking, lacking any external storage options in its basic configuration. But it can do video editing, so it isn't really "thin".
Then it hit me -- the thin client isn't the computer, it's the person using the computer. The main attractivness of having networked applications is not to do the computing over the network, but to do the installation/configuration/etc. over the network. It's to create a firewall between difficult techie issues and uninterested users.
So the ideal thin client architecture is one in which all administration can be done remotely. One in which all the user has to do to install an ap is open a network folder and browse.
btw, if one can code Java, then you can figure out the awt. Also, is HTML/XML really thin? Browsers are pretty sophisticated apps, just ask any would be Mozilla developer
I am an artist who is now making his living by slicing up psd's and producing web pages. So let me begin by saying that I use photoshop in my NT office everyday, multiple times, over and over again.
One day, I sat at home and began working with the gimp. If I could not code (yet), I could come up with a reasonable wishlist-- features that would make the gimp more attractive to those of us who do graphics production work all day. I could find nothing. The only complaint I could muster is that you have to declare all your keyboard shortcuts, instead of having a set of shortcuts to work from. Furthermore, I checked out the feature list and noticed that the gimp will be supporting some powerful features like the image hose from Fractal Design Painter. And on top of that, the gimp is certainly a zillion times more scriptable that photoshop. (yeah yeah, actions and paths, but have you ever heard of using photoshop to dynamically generate web graphics?)
Basically, INHO the gimp is as good as photoshop, with 10 times the potential. Just look at photoshop 5.5's hacked together mesh of image ready + photoshop, and you can tell that Adobe is having trouble with Photoshop's architecture.
So don't be dissing the gimp-- it's better than you think. Of course, it could use prettier file widgets...
Also, re: photogenics:
It may have some powerful layer channel operations, it seems (an alpha channel per channel, though that gets to be a mouthful..) I'd have to use it to sort out the real features from the screenfilling PR (a BLUR function! ooooo!)
But I still think development on the open source gimp can move at a much faster rate than any proprietary software. It's not just the plugin architecture, its the architecture + the GPL which is responsible for the growth of the GIMP
ahh the pleasures of courier...
while yer at it mr taco, couldn't you set the bgcolor to "#000000" and the text to "#00ff00"?
Seriously though, you can't underestimate the creativity it takes to look at a cga monitor and imagine world domination. (domination=hercules graphics adapter, baby!).
Ahem... what is Caldera's selling point? The installer and COAS? and what is open sourced? The installer and COAS? They're doing what any Linux distribution should do: innovate in an area, and release the source.
Caldera may not be playing the media darling, but they're not withholding from the community, either.
You know, its a great thing that open source projects are gaining greater visibility. But just as a side note, who cares about everybody else? Mozilla will live, regardless of whether it beats MS, whether it gets dumped by AOL. The point is to create an alternative for those who demand extensibility.
Sure, mozilla hasn't put anything major out on the table. This is the slow time. This is the time when a dedicated group of organizers and programmers toil to make something the right way-- for the benefit of everybody following.
When Mozilla is released in a finished state, we will begin to see the exponential advances that we expect from open software.
Come one everybody, look at the graph of x squared. Down before 1.0, everything sure looks slow. But later...
GPL would be great for art, and here's why:
Copywrite creates a contradiction between the creative and economic activities of an artist. Furthermore, copywrite favors the rich artists who can afford the lawyers. And finally, in general artists don't make money from copywrite: galleries, museums, record companies, film studios, etc. make money from copywrite.
Most people think artists create something. Being an artist, I think it is more accurate to say that artists combine things in unusual ways. They take this experience and that, and then get you to see both experiences. This combination is a new experience in many senses of "new", but it is always composed of a number of "borrowed" elements, along with maybe a few truely "new" ideas. All creative individuals must build upon other peoples contributions -- thus the "fair use" clause in copywrite law, which states that certain types of quotations are legal (parody, etc.)
However, "fair use" is a legal term. Let us use Disney as a main example. If I made a painting using the image of Mickey Mouse in a comprimising situation, Disney would do everything they could to bury me under a stack of lawsuits. Doesn't matter if it is "fair use", because I've got to got to court. And that fact means that Disney has already won -- I'm not making any art, I'm writing legal documents and going into debt.
Finally, let's do a rundown on a few different kinds of artists, and see if they really make money from intellectual property:
Musicians: they have the greatest potential to make money off of IP. They make the software that runs our walkman, stereos, etc. But the record companies eat most of that income -- most smashingly successful musicians make 1-2 dollars off of each each cd they sell (i think). The solid income seems to be touring -- playing clubs, doing shows, traveling around. No digital media will replace the live show (and if it does, yer either smart like kraftwork or formulaic like NKOTB / Backstreet Boys).
Gallery Artists (Painters, Sculpters, etc.): They don't make a cent off of IP. They make their money selling products, physical works of art. IP only serves to hinder them, as in the Disney example above.
Internet/Digital Media Artists: Well, since a copy is made everytime you download the piece, I don't see how copywrite would apply... But seriously, most successful internet projects (Slashdot) are ongoing projects which provide a service to their readers. Doesn't matter if I copy slashdot's stories, cause its the threaded comments that make the difference.
There are many other unmentioned types of artists, but I'm sure there is a way for them to make their bread without depending on IP. Also, I know any commercial artist would be very protective of his/her IP, but I would expect the same from any software company. They would have to change their business plans, just like a software company would.
Basically, I don't think any form of IP rewards the creater. It always seems like a way of indenturing the creater to some capitalist who happens to have money.
Well, they changed that one fast, didn't they?... cause here's my old cached Netcraft:
SSL Server Survey
Network Security
SSL Query
Most Requested Sites
Web Server Survey
Explore Sites
C lick here!
www.microsoft.com
www.microsoft.com is running
Microsoft-IIS/4.0
on
NT3 or Windows 95
Micr osoft-IIS is also being used by
Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National Football League.
NT3/Windows 95 users include Alaska Airlines, and Tandy.
What's that site running?
Hostname: Help
Example: What's www.netcraft.com:80 running?
The host you examine will be included in future surveys
Explore other sites | What's that SSL site running
Copyright © Netcraft 1995-1999