Hmm, do you actually read Google News? In my experience they're generally very good about identifying and tagging all links to op-ed or editorial pieces with a little (opinion) tag.
Err, wait, acutally, now that I look, I can't find any (opinion) tags anywhere on Google News today, even in searches for editorials. The (press release) tags still show up but not the (opinion)s. Hmm, maybe it's considered still in beta because they're still experimenting with changing features on a daily basis?
I don't think this specific judgement is binding yet? The full version of the Reuters article linked in the slashblurb contains the line:
In his ruling, Marrero prohibited the Department of Justice and the FBI from issuing the national security letters, but delayed enforcement of his judgment pending an expected appeal by the government. The Department of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling.
I'm honestly kind of pissed about the bug fixes thing. I bought the top-of-the-line version of Logic when 6 came out. Shortly afterward suddenly they redid the pricing structures so there's no longer a Platinum, just a Pro and an Express. A year later I find that they're issuing updates to Pro 6 that they aren't issuing to Platinum 6, even though on would expect these to be the same product. Meanwhile despite them being introduced not long after Logic 6 I still can't use Cocoa-view AudioUnits, a basic feature which you'd think Apple would support in their own software and a feature which I need. Now that 7 is out I can pretty much be guaranteed that Cocoa-view audiounits are not coming to Platinum 6, no?
So what would happen if an Open Source, non-Java(tm) fork were to make a desireable but incompatible improvement? Simply include it in the next revision of the official Java(tm) spec!
This is the entire point of the JSR process and it is how all changes to the Java spec-- including those that initiate within Sun itself-- make it into new versions of the spec. I'm not sure how easy it is to become a JCP member, but I'm sure Sun can be convinced there's room for the open source community on it if the open source community is willing to not just blow the JCP off.
Meanwhile I cannot fathom that Sun would not allow open source Java derivatives to implement incompatible extensions as long as those extensions do not activate without a -X flag (the -X flag is kind of java's equivalent of #pragma). One of the requirements for a JSR to be finalized is to create a reference implementation which implements the proposed extension. One of the biggest advantages of an open source sort of license for the JVM would be that it would make reference implementations for language extensions much easier; choosing a license which would prevent making experimental extensions entirely impossible would sabotage this, and be silly. I doubt Sun would do that.
So no, I don't think Sun wants "complete control over the spec" exactly, or they wouldn't have set up this standards body thing to, um, allow other people to partially control the spec. It would certainly be nice of Sun if all that happened upon violating the spec in an open source Java derivative was that your VM extension loses Java certification. However I don't think it would be the most unreasonable thing in the world if Sun demanded if you use their code (rather than, say, Kaffe's) your experimental functionality extensions don't activate unless specifically switched on by the user. It's all very well to say that such "experimental project" would "not gain widespread acceptance" but this is simply not the case-- after all, previously one such JVM with incompatible experimental extensions that were on by default shipped with a major operating system.
that maybe someone who's more familiar with Intel's recent chips could answer...
When Intel says they're "disabling" this, do they mean they're going to be physically leaving it out, or permanently disabling it, or just deactivating a jumper or something? By which I mean, could overclockers re-enable the feature on chips they possessed themselves if they really, really wanted to?
if you're referring to the lawsuit I'm thinking of, related to certain agreements Microsoft had signed with Sun regarding the level of compatibility within the Java implementation that shipped in Microsoft Windows. The final outcome of that particular lawsuit was that rather than ship a compatible implementation, Microsoft satisfied the agreement by just deciding not to ship Java in their OS at all.
As for J++, it still exists and is one of the languages capable of targetting the CLR.
SMB to Java is hardly fair. SMB is a truly closed, proprietary standard; Samba reverse-engineered the standard from implementations, and every time the "official" implementations change Samba runs the risk of ceasing to correctly function.
Java is a proprietary but relatively open standard whose specification is open and available to everyone, and whose specification is guided by a number of third parties, but which no one may be certified as being an implementation of unless they are 100% complaint with the specifications.
I think it's reasonable Sun wants to ensure all Java implementations are cross-compatible, especially considering that the last time Java had a chance at making headway on the desktop, one of the biggest reasons it failed was the variety in incompatible AWT implementations.
Something I don't find reasonable about the current situation is that the nature of the certification process is such that it virtually ensures any Java implementation not backed by a large moneyed entity is not going to be able to make it to certification. Open source implementations of Java exist but it is unlikely anyone is going to be paying to get them through the certification process.. well, ever.
It seems to me like Sun is at least now taking a serious step toward improving this situation.
Sun's problem is that they know that people want to produce non-conformant implementations. They feel they have to stop them doing that. This goal is, by its very nature, incompatible with an open source license. No amount of clever wording is going to change that.
Perhaps this is exactly why Sun has been so reluctant to even approach open source licenses with Java up until now?
The vast number of Star Wars parodies that exist show that parodies are protected. What isn't protected is charging people $10 to see the movie and then talking over the whole thing.
What about charging people $10 to see the movie with you talking over the whole thing and then talking over the whole thing?
Some of us have this wacky belief that it is possible for the federal government to in some way influence the economy, and since the president usually has some influence over the federal government-- and the Bush administration, who holds near-complete influence over the republican-dominated congress, definitely has influence over the federal government-- it is thus possible for the Bush administration to take policies which influence the economy.
Meanwhile the only economic action taken by the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated congress under his term that we can see has been cutting taxes to his campaign contributors under a policy formed when the economy was wholly different. It seems the Bush economic policy in response to a recession is to sit and wait for the recession to get better, then take credit for the recovery. Except there hasn't been a recovery yet, it's just that in the last six months or so the rate at which the underemployment rate has been growing has slowed. Somehow we're supposed to believe this vindicates Bush's economic policy.
So, here's what it comes down to. We've got a president who, if re-elected, has indicated his economic policy will be to do nothing other than cheerfully and constantly insist the economy has improved despite evidence to the contrary. Then we've got a presidential candidate who, if elected, has been talking a lot about how he wants to work to improve the economy and improve the situation of the middle class. This doesn't mean he'll succeed. But he might. At least he cares. And unless you buy into the republican idea that "lasseiz-faire economics" is the only valid economic policy and "lasseiz-faire economics" is defined by whatever the republican economic policy is at the moment, the mere fact that he cares seems rather promising.
In short, perhaps entirely blaming Bush for the current economic issues is not entirely reasonable. But blaming the underemployed makes even less sense. And I think we can at least reasonably expect Bush could have done more to improve the current economic issues.
And in the meantime, considering the economic issues are still continuing, I would say that when faced between a presidential candidate who will generally try, in whatever small extent to improve the economy, or a presidential candidate who will simply consistently deny problems with the economy exist, I would say the former is obviously preferable.
Back up my assumption? What do you mean? I was asked to spin this news into the argument against the Bush administration, and I did so. Now you're saying I have to actually justify my statements as well? Damn, this website is hard.:(
What worries me isn't the use of a proprietary Bluray-based storage format for the games of the Playstation 3 game console (which I personally plan to buy). What worries me is:
Sony will be soon leveraging the Playstation 3 game console to push a proprietary Bluray-based video format they will be attempting to introduce at about the same time.
Sony will be at about the same time attempting to leverage their upcoming PSP handheld game system to push another proprietary video format, this one based on Minidiscs, called UMD.
Something within this I'm not so comfortable with. We're about to get a bona fide Betamax vs VHS style format war between HD-DVD and BluRay. I don't think it's going to be pretty. I'm glad I don't have plans to buy an HDTV.
the argument against the Bush administration is that IT salaries would have risen SOONER and more dramatically if it were not for the poor economic policy of the Bush administration?
Should we judge Bush's economic record based on the four years he spent in office, or the last two months of his presidency before the election?
Charles Babbage, the man who is generally credited with having invented the general-purpose computer, upon finding that he was unable to find people interested in actually financially contributing to research into the construction of such a computer, wound up instead devoting the end of his life to developing a less-general-purpose computing machine specifically designed to pick winning horses in horseraces. The machine never worked and was a financial disaster for babbage.
150 years later, computer scientists finally get their revenge on the gambling industry.
The thing is though Nintendo's already released several of the single-screen G&W thingies as GB/GBC/GBA games as the Game and Watch Gallery series. So releasing the dual-screen G&W games for the DS would be a very natural thing to do...
Safari has a google search field right in the nav bar...
Firefox has a google search field right in the nav bar...
A significant number of IE users use GoogleBar...
Why even bother making a web browser? At the moment, if it isn't IE, it's effectively Google. And even if it is IE, it's possibly Google.
Moreover, how do we know that Google's actually hiring these people to make a new web browser? Maybe they're being hired to make a new and improved version of GoogleBar, or something neat and different we haven't even thought of.
And if it is a browser it's probably going to be a branded version of Firefox. I don't really think four people is enough to write an html rendering engine all by themselveses.
about the open source movement is its capacity to leverage human greed for a productive end. Yeah, IBM's going to look out for its own interests, not ours. But for the moment our interests coincide, so that's a good thing. And the positive things IBM does for us while it's in IBM's interests to do so won't go away once IBM's interests change-- the GPL means that once IBM splits with the OSS community the OSS community, unentangled, can just take its code and run.
Summary, Hard[OCP] is far from an impartial reporter in this, they finally get proof of a real phantom and dis it as much as they can for being exactly what Infinium have always said it was.
Actually if you were following this early on, they were pretty reasonable at first, seeming to take a "we're curious to see what this company has to offer, but it's hard to get information" sort of tack. They didn't really get bitter and spiteful and start smashing machines with sledgehammers or anything until they started getting vitriolic legal threats from Infinium and public attacks on the Phantom website just for having done their jobs as reporters. I kind of have to say, I can't find this totally unreasonable.
The "hatchet piece" on the CEO you mention was totally legitimate investigative reporting. Was it negative? Yes. But it was also accurate and supported by documentation.
1. Send massive amounts of spam 2. Profit 3. Frame someone else for having sent the massive amount of spam 4. Get them on the "most wanted spammers" list 5. Turn them in for $100,000 6. Profit more
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, do you actually read Google News? In my experience they're generally very good about identifying and tagging all links to op-ed or editorial pieces with a little (opinion) tag.
Err, wait, acutally, now that I look, I can't find any (opinion) tags anywhere on Google News today, even in searches for editorials. The (press release) tags still show up but not the (opinion)s. Hmm, maybe it's considered still in beta because they're still experimenting with changing features on a daily basis?
I don't think this specific judgement is binding yet? The full version of the Reuters article linked in the slashblurb contains the line:
In his ruling, Marrero prohibited the Department of Justice and the FBI from issuing the national security letters, but delayed enforcement of his judgment pending an expected appeal by the government. The Department of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling.
I'm honestly kind of pissed about the bug fixes thing. I bought the top-of-the-line version of Logic when 6 came out. Shortly afterward suddenly they redid the pricing structures so there's no longer a Platinum, just a Pro and an Express. A year later I find that they're issuing updates to Pro 6 that they aren't issuing to Platinum 6, even though on would expect these to be the same product. Meanwhile despite them being introduced not long after Logic 6 I still can't use Cocoa-view AudioUnits, a basic feature which you'd think Apple would support in their own software and a feature which I need. Now that 7 is out I can pretty much be guaranteed that Cocoa-view audiounits are not coming to Platinum 6, no?
So what would happen if an Open Source, non-Java(tm) fork were to make a desireable but incompatible improvement? Simply include it in the next revision of the official Java(tm) spec!
This is the entire point of the JSR process and it is how all changes to the Java spec-- including those that initiate within Sun itself-- make it into new versions of the spec. I'm not sure how easy it is to become a JCP member, but I'm sure Sun can be convinced there's room for the open source community on it if the open source community is willing to not just blow the JCP off.
Meanwhile I cannot fathom that Sun would not allow open source Java derivatives to implement incompatible extensions as long as those extensions do not activate without a -X flag (the -X flag is kind of java's equivalent of #pragma). One of the requirements for a JSR to be finalized is to create a reference implementation which implements the proposed extension. One of the biggest advantages of an open source sort of license for the JVM would be that it would make reference implementations for language extensions much easier; choosing a license which would prevent making experimental extensions entirely impossible would sabotage this, and be silly. I doubt Sun would do that.
So no, I don't think Sun wants "complete control over the spec" exactly, or they wouldn't have set up this standards body thing to, um, allow other people to partially control the spec. It would certainly be nice of Sun if all that happened upon violating the spec in an open source Java derivative was that your VM extension loses Java certification. However I don't think it would be the most unreasonable thing in the world if Sun demanded if you use their code (rather than, say, Kaffe's) your experimental functionality extensions don't activate unless specifically switched on by the user. It's all very well to say that such "experimental project" would "not gain widespread acceptance" but this is simply not the case-- after all, previously one such JVM with incompatible experimental extensions that were on by default shipped with a major operating system.
It probably means they're just deactivating it via some fuse settings.
Would that be reversible?
that maybe someone who's more familiar with Intel's recent chips could answer...
When Intel says they're "disabling" this, do they mean they're going to be physically leaving it out, or permanently disabling it, or just deactivating a jumper or something? By which I mean, could overclockers re-enable the feature on chips they possessed themselves if they really, really wanted to?
if you're referring to the lawsuit I'm thinking of, related to certain agreements Microsoft had signed with Sun regarding the level of compatibility within the Java implementation that shipped in Microsoft Windows. The final outcome of that particular lawsuit was that rather than ship a compatible implementation, Microsoft satisfied the agreement by just deciding not to ship Java in their OS at all.
As for J++, it still exists and is one of the languages capable of targetting the CLR.
SMB to Java is hardly fair. SMB is a truly closed, proprietary standard; Samba reverse-engineered the standard from implementations, and every time the "official" implementations change Samba runs the risk of ceasing to correctly function.
Java is a proprietary but relatively open standard whose specification is open and available to everyone, and whose specification is guided by a number of third parties, but which no one may be certified as being an implementation of unless they are 100% complaint with the specifications.
I think it's reasonable Sun wants to ensure all Java implementations are cross-compatible, especially considering that the last time Java had a chance at making headway on the desktop, one of the biggest reasons it failed was the variety in incompatible AWT implementations.
Something I don't find reasonable about the current situation is that the nature of the certification process is such that it virtually ensures any Java implementation not backed by a large moneyed entity is not going to be able to make it to certification. Open source implementations of Java exist but it is unlikely anyone is going to be paying to get them through the certification process.. well, ever.
It seems to me like Sun is at least now taking a serious step toward improving this situation.
Sun's problem is that they know that people want to produce non-conformant implementations. They feel they have to stop them doing that. This goal is, by its very nature, incompatible with an open source license. No amount of clever wording is going to change that.
Perhaps this is exactly why Sun has been so reluctant to even approach open source licenses with Java up until now?
They're here to audit and report.
The vast number of Star Wars parodies that exist show that parodies are protected. What isn't protected is charging people $10 to see the movie and then talking over the whole thing.
What about charging people $10 to see the movie with you talking over the whole thing and then talking over the whole thing?
Why isn't that protected?
Some of us have this wacky belief that it is possible for the federal government to in some way influence the economy, and since the president usually has some influence over the federal government-- and the Bush administration, who holds near-complete influence over the republican-dominated congress, definitely has influence over the federal government-- it is thus possible for the Bush administration to take policies which influence the economy.
Meanwhile the only economic action taken by the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated congress under his term that we can see has been cutting taxes to his campaign contributors under a policy formed when the economy was wholly different. It seems the Bush economic policy in response to a recession is to sit and wait for the recession to get better, then take credit for the recovery. Except there hasn't been a recovery yet, it's just that in the last six months or so the rate at which the underemployment rate has been growing has slowed. Somehow we're supposed to believe this vindicates Bush's economic policy.
So, here's what it comes down to. We've got a president who, if re-elected, has indicated his economic policy will be to do nothing other than cheerfully and constantly insist the economy has improved despite evidence to the contrary. Then we've got a presidential candidate who, if elected, has been talking a lot about how he wants to work to improve the economy and improve the situation of the middle class. This doesn't mean he'll succeed. But he might. At least he cares. And unless you buy into the republican idea that "lasseiz-faire economics" is the only valid economic policy and "lasseiz-faire economics" is defined by whatever the republican economic policy is at the moment, the mere fact that he cares seems rather promising.
In short, perhaps entirely blaming Bush for the current economic issues is not entirely reasonable. But blaming the underemployed makes even less sense. And I think we can at least reasonably expect Bush could have done more to improve the current economic issues.
And in the meantime, considering the economic issues are still continuing, I would say that when faced between a presidential candidate who will generally try, in whatever small extent to improve the economy, or a presidential candidate who will simply consistently deny problems with the economy exist, I would say the former is obviously preferable.
If saying so makes any difference...
Back up my assumption? What do you mean? I was asked to spin this news into the argument against the Bush administration, and I did so. Now you're saying I have to actually justify my statements as well? Damn, this website is hard. :(
- Sony will be soon leveraging the Playstation 3 game console to push a proprietary Bluray-based video format they will be attempting to introduce at about the same time.
- Sony will be at about the same time attempting to leverage their upcoming PSP handheld game system to push another proprietary video format, this one based on Minidiscs, called UMD.
Something within this I'm not so comfortable with. We're about to get a bona fide Betamax vs VHS style format war between HD-DVD and BluRay. I don't think it's going to be pretty. I'm glad I don't have plans to buy an HDTV.the argument against the Bush administration is that IT salaries would have risen SOONER and more dramatically if it were not for the poor economic policy of the Bush administration?
Should we judge Bush's economic record based on the four years he spent in office, or the last two months of his presidency before the election?
(I may have this story slightly wrong)
Charles Babbage, the man who is generally credited with having invented the general-purpose computer, upon finding that he was unable to find people interested in actually financially contributing to research into the construction of such a computer, wound up instead devoting the end of his life to developing a less-general-purpose computing machine specifically designed to pick winning horses in horseraces. The machine never worked and was a financial disaster for babbage.
150 years later, computer scientists finally get their revenge on the gambling industry.
That's a neat idea.
The thing is though Nintendo's already released several of the single-screen G&W thingies as GB/GBC/GBA games as the Game and Watch Gallery series. So releasing the dual-screen G&W games for the DS would be a very natural thing to do...
There were rumors to that effect, sort of.
Here's a page with some pictures of the DS, if you haven't seen it.
Safari has a google search field right in the nav bar...
Firefox has a google search field right in the nav bar...
A significant number of IE users use GoogleBar...
Why even bother making a web browser? At the moment, if it isn't IE, it's effectively Google. And even if it is IE, it's possibly Google.
Moreover, how do we know that Google's actually hiring these people to make a new web browser? Maybe they're being hired to make a new and improved version of GoogleBar, or something neat and different we haven't even thought of.
And if it is a browser it's probably going to be a branded version of Firefox. I don't really think four people is enough to write an html rendering engine all by themselveses.
about the open source movement is its capacity to leverage human greed for a productive end. Yeah, IBM's going to look out for its own interests, not ours. But for the moment our interests coincide, so that's a good thing. And the positive things IBM does for us while it's in IBM's interests to do so won't go away once IBM's interests change-- the GPL means that once IBM splits with the OSS community the OSS community, unentangled, can just take its code and run.
Why would anyone use Irrlicht instead of SDL? Or would it make sense to use both?
If you sell through the system, talent is optional.
If you sell outside the system, though, you have to succeed on your own merits.
Summary, Hard[OCP] is far from an impartial reporter in this, they finally get proof of a real phantom and dis it as much as they can for being exactly what Infinium have always said it was.
Actually if you were following this early on, they were pretty reasonable at first, seeming to take a "we're curious to see what this company has to offer, but it's hard to get information" sort of tack. They didn't really get bitter and spiteful and start smashing machines with sledgehammers or anything until they started getting vitriolic legal threats from Infinium and public attacks on the Phantom website just for having done their jobs as reporters. I kind of have to say, I can't find this totally unreasonable.
The "hatchet piece" on the CEO you mention was totally legitimate investigative reporting. Was it negative? Yes. But it was also accurate and supported by documentation.
1. Send massive amounts of spam
2. Profit
3. Frame someone else for having sent the massive amount of spam
4. Get them on the "most wanted spammers" list
5. Turn them in for $100,000
6. Profit more