The "arbitrary XML" part. You must have existing mappings set up to process the XML. New forms of XML thus require a great deal of work on the part of the DB developer
Um... I haven't read this article yet, but to respond to your comment.. um, no, not really. Here's a trivial possible setup to describe an arbitrary xml tree:
Table tagname: int tagname_id, varchar name Table attrname: int attrname_id, varchar name Table tag: int tag_id, tagname_id tagname, tag_id parent Table attr: attrname_id attrname, varchar value, tag_id parent
What's so hard about that? I mean, given, you'd have to do a little bit more work to describe non-tag data or attributes with types other than string. You'd need an "order" column on the tag table if order of xml elements is significant. And it would kind of suck to get too much data out of this with SQL, you'd need either a rather large join or a big flurry of small sql selects (I assume that's what the article has to do with). But the relational model holds up just fine here. I mean, really, XML is just tagged heirarchal data, nothing that special...
GPLed software gives you a complete product with source which you may do whatever you like with and asks only for your source in return.
This new MS shared source thing gives you 25% of Windows CE, tells you you can do whatever you like with the resulting binaries, and asks only for an eternal monetary tithing for every unit you sell containing these binaries.
It would be reasonable to say these are different kinds of restrictions. It would probably not be reasonable to call the MS thing less restrictive.
They've realized the product cycles of the software world are smaller than the amount of time it takes to run a court case. This basically means you can violate whatever laws you like, and no one will do anything, because they can't stop you until winning a court case; but by the time they manage to run the court case to completion, the company you were violating said law against is bankrupt, the product you were doing it with has been replaced, the violation is no longer relevant to what you're doing currently, and no one seems to care so much about punishment because what's happened is in the past...
If you agree with what he says you are unlikely to vote Bush regardless and Bush supporters will most likely view it as fabricated propaganda regardless of its accuracy or failings.
What I interpreted the movie's point as was trying not to convince Republicans to vote Democrat, but to convince Democrats to vote.
The Democrat party is currently grappling with stunning apathy among its voter base. This is probably because the voter base is horrified at the degree to which the Democrat party has taken them for granted. But, that said, in 2000 the Democrat's party wasn't having problems with support. Their problem was simply getting out the vote, among a voter base who solidly believed at the time Gore would be no better than Bush.
Bush just happened to have proved them wrong.
Bush wouldn't have won if all the left-wingers who'd voted Nader had voted Gore. If Moore can convince people not to vote third party this election because now isn't the best time, or convince people to go out and vote who might not have otherwise, that's a HUGE victory.
This said, I am totally unable to concieve, if this movie was "preaching to the choir", how one makes a movie about a political figure that isn't preaching to the choir. The "choir" is apparently 50% of america's voting public.
Oh God, that slate article is painful. It's so full of bile and straw men it makes Michael Moore look like.. um.. I'd put the name of a really good journalist here but I can't think of any.
The point at which I basically lost faith in anything that one article has to say is the bit where he's talking about Afghanistan. He has a list of six points from the film, and the sixth one is:
"6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)"
Wait, what? The film doesn't say Afghanistan was a waste at all, anywhere, in any way. The film says the opposite, that our response to Afghanistan was underpowered and late, and is pretty clear about this.
After this bullet point, the Slate article lambasts Moore for being contradictory in saying that our response to Afghanistan was simultaneously "a waste" and that we didn't send enough men... despite the fact that... ummm... Moore never calls Afghanistan a waste, only the "didn't send enough men" thing.
If you have to insert words into your enemy's mouth in order to argue against things they didn't say...
Moore claims that the president put those kids at risk because the president could have been a target in such a crisis, but he was a moving target and the hijackers only went after stationary ones.
When does he claim this?
The point of the segment as I interpreted it was pretty much just to show Bush's increasingly uncomfortable facial expression... but, whatever.
Bad example. The film says the Bush Administration got the Saudis out of the US after 9/13. Richard Clark was at the time a member of the Bush Administration.
Where do you get the idea that the woman with the son who died in Iraq was being interviewed before her son died..? The film doesn't say this, at all. The film interviews a woman with a son sent to Iraq, then comes back a few minutes later and tells us the son died. Did I miss something?
Who is to say MS can't change into a nice enough OS player?
The fact that this is not going to happen unless something makes it happen. A company like Microsoft isn't going to change its ways spontaneously.
IBM changed like this because they died. They got bitchslapped by their customers and by the U.S. DOJ and had to rebuild from nothing. Neither of these things are happening to MS right now or in the forseeable future-- and in fact, the DOJ and MS's customers seem to basically just be bending over as far as Microsoft wants and yelling "WINDOWS ME HARDER!!" If Microsoft's past behavior is an indication, they will take this as a flag to go ahead and behave much the same in the future.
Distribution rights for a copyrighted work such as a song are generally owned and sold on a per-country basis.
When they first set up the iTMS Apple bought distribution rights for all these songs, but when they did that, they only bought distribution rights in the United States. In other countries, meanwhile, Apple doesn't have rights to anything as a result of those U.S. rights, and the person with the right to sell those distribution rights might not even be the same person.
Well in that case, the three bangs must have come from the flux capacitor!
Tell me, I don't know what the positioning of the windows on his craft were, is there any way that from where he sat Melville would have been able to see a Delorean streaking past him...?
He's a smart fellow. What I'd be curious to see happen, though, is John Carmack attempt to write a web browser.
A modern web browser
is OS-like in complexity, but less silly hardware tying is necessary
poses interesting crossplatform targetting compatibility issues, such as those Carmack faces when writing his game engines
like a game, requires rendering of very large, complex, and dynamic graphic objects, and this must be done in an efficient and quick manner-- something current web browsers tend to be bad at, DHTML animations rarely look smooth
poses interesting optimization questions for these dynamic graphics, much like an Id game
like an Id game, must perform complex network operations efficiently
requires the efficient parsing and execution of text files, much like the maps and interpreted-c mods for Quake 3
like Id game engines, must expose an external development interface for plugins and embedding
Gecko, KHTML and MSIE are great browsers in many ways, but they pretty much all suffer from the fact that DHTML/flash/SVG or (God forbid) VRML all behave in rather inefficient, obnoxious, and (well) gimmicky manners. They don't feel like they're integrated with the web pages. They CERTAINLY don't feel like something you could do serious application development with (remember back when DHTML was first being proposed and people seemed to be under the impression complex and high-level applications would target web browsers?) I would like to see someone with a background in game development take a crack at these issues, as these issues seem very similar to the problem game engine designers must solve.
For the moment however it appears Mr. Carmack's spare time project is trying to build a spaceship, so maybe we'll have to wait.
They may not have been aware of the violation at the time they initially distributed the GPLed code. In that case they get to hide behind this "doctrine of mutual mistake" or whatever it's called.
However, they certainly were aware of the violation at the time they filed their lawsuit against IBM. And they knowingly and consciously continued to distribute Linux as a product for some time, and from their website for at least eight months, after this. Any protections they might have potentially had they simply threw away by doing this.
One thing that comes to mind here is that this technology, if used throughout a building, would do a neat job of defeating most bugs. Sure you can get inside to plant the bug, but the bug is not going to be able to transmit its signal to anything outside the building, or maybe even within it, so it isn't nearly as useful...
Man, what *did* people do before cell phones? Give out the public number to the theatre/opera/amusement park/restaurant/stadium's land line and have an employee come and get them if they got a call?
Well, if they were doctors, they used pagers. Doctors were among the first to adopt that technology.
If you're asking how on-call doctors functioned before pagers, I have no idea. I assume they just sat at home by the phone all day.
The rationale for regulating broadcast media is that the electromagnetic spectrum is a public but limited resource. No one person or entity can be logically said to "own" the electromagnetic spectrum for a given area, but if the spectrum is assumed to be owned equally by all parties it becomes useless, since there is no real technical limit to how much a single person with a power source and some metal can broadcast into the spectrum but there is a limit, technologically speaking, to the amount of broadcast that can be pumped into the spectrum before the communication channel becomes useless.
As such, it is not just logical, but natural and desirable that the government would assume a role of active regulation of electromagnetic spectrum resources in order to ensure that these resources are used in a manner that maximizes the efficiency of the resource and the public good.
No such rationale of any sort exists with the internet, the data on which, despite in certain ways seeming to be conceptually broadcast-like in nature, is transferred on consensual request in a point-to-point fashion over privately held communication lines with bandwidth rations for each individual party that are managed in a natural and orderly fashion.
Can you name one single country in the world, not counting I guess China, where the content of cable television is regulated? There aren't any, are there? I would say this is an even better analogy, and even cable is more reasonable as a target for regulation than the internet because cable television networks are often granted special privileges from the government (i.e. use of public property and imminent domain rights). The internet is private parties communicating by medium of signals transferred by way of other private parties. The government has no place in overseeing this communication.
I immediately thought of the N-Gage when I saw this story as well, but for maybe of a different reason. What I thought of was the reaction I saw in nearly every review I saw of the N-Gage when it came out.
That reaction being that practically everyone played the 3D games and reported that yes, while they found it impressive someone had gotten 3D in a cellphone, actually playing the 3D games made them nauseous. Apparently something about the whole handheld thing and the very small screen just caused 3D on the N-Gage to be seasickness-inducing.
I cannot help but wonder if these upcoming 3D-capable cellphones will suffer from similar problems.
Is the idea here basically just that this means that they'll be able to transmit information between qubits without the qubits having to be right next to each other?
Does this mean they might finally break that 7-qubit barrier that quantum computers up until this point had seemed to have been limited to?
I really don't get exactly what's going on. I ASSUME the news doesn't mean that they've find a way to transmit information instantaneously using QE.
Slashdot Mirror
___
The "arbitrary XML" part. You must have existing mappings set up to process the XML. New forms of XML thus require a great deal of work on the part of the DB developer
Um... I haven't read this article yet, but to respond to your comment.. um, no, not really. Here's a trivial possible setup to describe an arbitrary xml tree:
Table tagname: int tagname_id, varchar name
Table attrname: int attrname_id, varchar name
Table tag: int tag_id, tagname_id tagname, tag_id parent
Table attr: attrname_id attrname, varchar value, tag_id parent
What's so hard about that? I mean, given, you'd have to do a little bit more work to describe non-tag data or attributes with types other than string. You'd need an "order" column on the tag table if order of xml elements is significant. And it would kind of suck to get too much data out of this with SQL, you'd need either a rather large join or a big flurry of small sql selects (I assume that's what the article has to do with). But the relational model holds up just fine here. I mean, really, XML is just tagged heirarchal data, nothing that special...
So widgets are a direct ripoff of "Konfabulator".
How is "Konfabulator" anything other than a direct ripoff of the OS 9 Control Strip?
That's a serious question. I've never used Konfabulator.
GPLed software gives you a complete product with source which you may do whatever you like with and asks only for your source in return.
This new MS shared source thing gives you 25% of Windows CE, tells you you can do whatever you like with the resulting binaries, and asks only for an eternal monetary tithing for every unit you sell containing these binaries.
It would be reasonable to say these are different kinds of restrictions. It would probably not be reasonable to call the MS thing less restrictive.
...and allowing you to... embed it in things?
Okay, that makes a lot of sense from their perspective, but are we supposed to be impressed by this or something?
They've realized the product cycles of the software world are smaller than the amount of time it takes to run a court case. This basically means you can violate whatever laws you like, and no one will do anything, because they can't stop you until winning a court case; but by the time they manage to run the court case to completion, the company you were violating said law against is bankrupt, the product you were doing it with has been replaced, the violation is no longer relevant to what you're doing currently, and no one seems to care so much about punishment because what's happened is in the past...
If you agree with what he says you are unlikely to vote Bush regardless and Bush supporters will most likely view it as fabricated propaganda regardless of its accuracy or failings.
What I interpreted the movie's point as was trying not to convince Republicans to vote Democrat, but to convince Democrats to vote.
The Democrat party is currently grappling with stunning apathy among its voter base. This is probably because the voter base is horrified at the degree to which the Democrat party has taken them for granted. But, that said, in 2000 the Democrat's party wasn't having problems with support. Their problem was simply getting out the vote, among a voter base who solidly believed at the time Gore would be no better than Bush.
Bush just happened to have proved them wrong.
Bush wouldn't have won if all the left-wingers who'd voted Nader had voted Gore. If Moore can convince people not to vote third party this election because now isn't the best time, or convince people to go out and vote who might not have otherwise, that's a HUGE victory.
This said, I am totally unable to concieve, if this movie was "preaching to the choir", how one makes a movie about a political figure that isn't preaching to the choir. The "choir" is apparently 50% of america's voting public.
Oh God, that slate article is painful. It's so full of bile and straw men it makes Michael Moore look like.. um.. I'd put the name of a really good journalist here but I can't think of any.
The point at which I basically lost faith in anything that one article has to say is the bit where he's talking about Afghanistan. He has a list of six points from the film, and the sixth one is:
"6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)"
Wait, what? The film doesn't say Afghanistan was a waste at all, anywhere, in any way. The film says the opposite, that our response to Afghanistan was underpowered and late, and is pretty clear about this.
After this bullet point, the Slate article lambasts Moore for being contradictory in saying that our response to Afghanistan was simultaneously "a waste" and that we didn't send enough men... despite the fact that... ummm... Moore never calls Afghanistan a waste, only the "didn't send enough men" thing.
If you have to insert words into your enemy's mouth in order to argue against things they didn't say...
Moore claims that the president put those kids at risk because the president could have been a target in such a crisis, but he was a moving target and the hijackers only went after stationary ones.
When does he claim this?
The point of the segment as I interpreted it was pretty much just to show Bush's increasingly uncomfortable facial expression... but, whatever.
"Facts are useless! You can use facts to prove almost anything that's even remotely true. Facts schmacts."
Bad example. The film says the Bush Administration got the Saudis out of the US after 9/13. Richard Clark was at the time a member of the Bush Administration.
Huh?
Where do you get the idea that the woman with the son who died in Iraq was being interviewed before her son died..? The film doesn't say this, at all. The film interviews a woman with a son sent to Iraq, then comes back a few minutes later and tells us the son died. Did I miss something?
Who is to say MS can't change into a nice enough OS player?
The fact that this is not going to happen unless something makes it happen. A company like Microsoft isn't going to change its ways spontaneously.
IBM changed like this because they died. They got bitchslapped by their customers and by the U.S. DOJ and had to rebuild from nothing. Neither of these things are happening to MS right now or in the forseeable future-- and in fact, the DOJ and MS's customers seem to basically just be bending over as far as Microsoft wants and yelling "WINDOWS ME HARDER!!" If Microsoft's past behavior is an indication, they will take this as a flag to go ahead and behave much the same in the future.
Distribution rights for a copyrighted work such as a song are generally owned and sold on a per-country basis.
When they first set up the iTMS Apple bought distribution rights for all these songs, but when they did that, they only bought distribution rights in the United States. In other countries, meanwhile, Apple doesn't have rights to anything as a result of those U.S. rights, and the person with the right to sell those distribution rights might not even be the same person.
Well in that case, the three bangs must have come from the flux capacitor!
Tell me, I don't know what the positioning of the windows on his craft were, is there any way that from where he sat Melville would have been able to see a Delorean streaking past him...?
A modern web browser
- is OS-like in complexity, but less silly hardware tying is necessary
- poses interesting crossplatform targetting compatibility issues, such as those Carmack faces when writing his game engines
- like a game, requires rendering of very large, complex, and dynamic graphic objects, and this must be done in an efficient and quick manner-- something current web browsers tend to be bad at, DHTML animations rarely look smooth
- poses interesting optimization questions for these dynamic graphics, much like an Id game
- like an Id game, must perform complex network operations efficiently
- requires the efficient parsing and execution of text files, much like the maps and interpreted-c mods for Quake 3
- like Id game engines, must expose an external development interface for plugins and embedding
Gecko, KHTML and MSIE are great browsers in many ways, but they pretty much all suffer from the fact that DHTML/flash/SVG or (God forbid) VRML all behave in rather inefficient, obnoxious, and (well) gimmicky manners. They don't feel like they're integrated with the web pages. They CERTAINLY don't feel like something you could do serious application development with (remember back when DHTML was first being proposed and people seemed to be under the impression complex and high-level applications would target web browsers?) I would like to see someone with a background in game development take a crack at these issues, as these issues seem very similar to the problem game engine designers must solve.For the moment however it appears Mr. Carmack's spare time project is trying to build a spaceship, so maybe we'll have to wait.
They may not have been aware of the violation at the time they initially distributed the GPLed code. In that case they get to hide behind this "doctrine of mutual mistake" or whatever it's called.
However, they certainly were aware of the violation at the time they filed their lawsuit against IBM. And they knowingly and consciously continued to distribute Linux as a product for some time, and from their website for at least eight months, after this. Any protections they might have potentially had they simply threw away by doing this.
One thing that comes to mind here is that this technology, if used throughout a building, would do a neat job of defeating most bugs. Sure you can get inside to plant the bug, but the bug is not going to be able to transmit its signal to anything outside the building, or maybe even within it, so it isn't nearly as useful...
Man, what *did* people do before cell phones? Give out the public number to the theatre/opera/amusement park/restaurant/stadium's land line and have an employee come and get them if they got a call?
Well, if they were doctors, they used pagers. Doctors were among the first to adopt that technology.
If you're asking how on-call doctors functioned before pagers, I have no idea. I assume they just sat at home by the phone all day.
Perhaps not, but one would hope they have at least some ways of exerting some level of minor influence on the record labels.
I think they made a terribly wrong acquisition with Bungie. On mac, Bungie was great. Huge. Simply because there was no-one else.
Of course, you're neglecting that Bungie was a good acquisition, and this is why...
Not because it did good things for the XBox game library, but because it totally destroyed what was left of the Macintosh game library...
The rationale for regulating broadcast media is that the electromagnetic spectrum is a public but limited resource. No one person or entity can be logically said to "own" the electromagnetic spectrum for a given area, but if the spectrum is assumed to be owned equally by all parties it becomes useless, since there is no real technical limit to how much a single person with a power source and some metal can broadcast into the spectrum but there is a limit, technologically speaking, to the amount of broadcast that can be pumped into the spectrum before the communication channel becomes useless.
As such, it is not just logical, but natural and desirable that the government would assume a role of active regulation of electromagnetic spectrum resources in order to ensure that these resources are used in a manner that maximizes the efficiency of the resource and the public good.
No such rationale of any sort exists with the internet, the data on which, despite in certain ways seeming to be conceptually broadcast-like in nature, is transferred on consensual request in a point-to-point fashion over privately held communication lines with bandwidth rations for each individual party that are managed in a natural and orderly fashion.
Can you name one single country in the world, not counting I guess China, where the content of cable television is regulated? There aren't any, are there? I would say this is an even better analogy, and even cable is more reasonable as a target for regulation than the internet because cable television networks are often granted special privileges from the government (i.e. use of public property and imminent domain rights). The internet is private parties communicating by medium of signals transferred by way of other private parties. The government has no place in overseeing this communication.
I immediately thought of the N-Gage when I saw this story as well, but for maybe of a different reason. What I thought of was the reaction I saw in nearly every review I saw of the N-Gage when it came out.
That reaction being that practically everyone played the 3D games and reported that yes, while they found it impressive someone had gotten 3D in a cellphone, actually playing the 3D games made them nauseous. Apparently something about the whole handheld thing and the very small screen just caused 3D on the N-Gage to be seasickness-inducing.
I cannot help but wonder if these upcoming 3D-capable cellphones will suffer from similar problems.
Is the idea here basically just that this means that they'll be able to transmit information between qubits without the qubits having to be right next to each other?
Does this mean they might finally break that 7-qubit barrier that quantum computers up until this point had seemed to have been limited to?
I really don't get exactly what's going on. I ASSUME the news doesn't mean that they've find a way to transmit information instantaneously using QE.
Personally I call "intuitive" "I can figure out how it works on my own totally naturally".
However I find many people seem to define "intuitive" to mean "I already know how it works".