You can tell all the people with mod points are too young to know the song. They should be fined $50 dollars and have to pick up the garbage in the snow.:-)
Actually, I did look at the graph -- I just mentally transposed the GP's comparison.:-)
Either way, though, Randall's graph is very peculiar. Lots of lively discussion on that comic's thread. I believe it was the most popular thread on the forum, up to that point.
I was going to mod parent funny, but then i realized that a growing number of slashdot users weren't even born when the Pentium FDIV problem was announced.
I am not an old man (turning 30 next year,) but I'm definitely feeling like one now.
Obviously he hated other people, or he'd never have been a spammer. Killing those around him was part of the same mind-set.
I'm sorry, but what? You and the others on this thread who are trying to draw a connection between spamming and murder seriously need to put things into perspective.
I dislike spam as much as anyone, but it is mass-advertising. Yes, is a nuisance, it incurs costs to prevent and clean, and can be used to perpetrate other crimes like stock pumping. But good grief, the guy wasn't peddling child pornography or trying to incite hate crimes or something -- he was being an unethical advertiser. Pushing "items such as watches and perfume" and "promoting a penny stock". (FTFA)
I'm not trying to defend the guy -- far from it! But I don't think he was sending out spam because he hated other people; I think he was doing it to make an easy buck. To say that it is a logical progression from spamming to murdering makes me seriously question your judgement.
That being said, what Davidson did is as inexplicable as it is inexcusable. If he was too cowardly to face the consequences of his choices, so be it. But killing his wife and child is, as jcr said, beyond the pale. Yes, his wife needed to answer for helping him jailbreak (and perhaps assisting in his prior business ventures; I don't know.) But it was not his place to try her for those actions -- and certainly not with the death penalty. And killing his completely innocent 3 year old daughter? This was truly madness.
If I had to guess, I'd say the guy decided to take the shady route of bilking a little money from a lot of people, got caught, freaked out, and snapped. But I don't really care why he did what he did; I'm just sad for the loss of his wife and child. It is a tragedy.
After all, if you found a stone tablet in some ancient ruins, wouldn't it seem like a reasonable assumption that the writing on it was all the same language?
It is a reasonable assumption, but one that can be quickly validated or negated by examination of the tablet. Take the Rosetta Stone, for example. Even for non-linguists, it is easy to see that there are three different character sets being used. Even when the same (or a very similar) character set is being used, a message of sufficient length will often show indicators that a different language is being used. The fact that different languages are being used can also be indicated by layout.
As regards the question about warning labels, it makes sense to use an engraving or an inlay of some sort. This will allow the message to last for thousands of years, as well as indicate to future viewers that this message was intended for posterity. On said label, present several large symbols to indicate danger or death -- say, skull-and-crossbones (or a full skeleton image,) the Mr. Yuk icon, and Clippy. Then, in each language, write a brief "DANGER" message in a large font, followed by a more detailed warning in a smaller font. Follow the languages up with the same warning icons, to help reinforce the message. Something like:
Skeleton Icon . . . . . Mr. Yuk . . . . . Clippy
WARNING! this is a dangerous area. Do not dig here. Do not eat or drink from this area.
ACHTUNG! Dies ist eine gefährliche Gegend. Nicht graben hier. Arbeit nicht essen und trinken aus diesem Bereich.
ATTENTION! il s'agit d'une zone dangereuse. Ne pas creuser ici. Ne pas manger ou boire dans ce domaine.
(I would insert more languages here, but Slashdot's Unicode support is weak)
Skeleton Icon . . . . . Mr. Yuk . . . . . Clippy
Make the detailed warning about medium-sized paragraph or so, and use very simple sentence-structures. The corpus of the text would not likely be enough to allow a full translation, but with a dozen or so languages, there is a good chance that larger texts exist elsewhere in one or more of the languages that will provide the key words used in the warning message.
I'm not sure if you're missing it or trying to be funny. What he's saying is that no matter what base you use (assuming that the symbols you use for zero and one are 0 and 1,) the base number written in that system will be represented as 10. Examples will show this:
Ten in base ten is written "10": 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14...
Four in base four is written "10": 0, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,...
Two in base two is written "10": 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001,...
Seven in base seven is written "10": 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20,...
Sixteen in base sixteen is written "10": 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10, 11, 12,...
It's easy to make massive and obvious improvements, when there are massive and obvious improvements to make.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it is also easy to separate the "massive and obvious improvements" from the "absolutely terrible ideas" in hind-sight. Just saying.
I am concerned with the possibility of suffering through another 98 and ME before Microsoft realizes that they need to address fundamental issues with Vista.
Fundamental issues like what ?
That's a fair question. I would say that UAC needs serious re-evaluation. Relying on the user to make informed decisions about security is not secure at all. Even if the dialogs were both clear and simple -- and that is a major challenge for all security software developers, not just Microsoft -- it is often self-defeating because many users will not expend the effort to understand or even read the dialogs.
Most UAC pop-ups occur immediately after a user takes some sort of action, so the user says "Of course I want to do X, I just told you to." They neither know nor care why a cute email wants to install something to show them the smiley faces, or a game wants to enable the Remote Registry service. And that's assuming they even read the dialogue. Many people will click OK just to get it to go away, especially when the dialog interferes with an action they just tried to initiate. (Look at how few people read EULAs, for example.)
I'm not saying Microsoft is at fault for the end-user's ignorance, but inundating them with Continue/Cancel dialogs at every turn is a nearly guaranteed way to both upset them and defeat the security you are trying to implement.
Smaller security-rant, but potentially worse for those of us who have elevated privileges: it is both unnerving and extremely frustrating to accidentally "click" OK on a dialogue because you were typing when the focus was stolen. Or worse, perhaps you were typing your credentials when some window stole focus and grabbed your input. Good grief, that's been a problem for years and they still have not fixed it.
I wouldn't expect a public admission, and wouldn't trust one if I did hear it -- PR isn't generally worth the time it takes to listen. What I meant to say is that it seems their corporate management refuses to acknowledge that their current course is not a good one. I'd be happy if the senior directors tacitly agreed among themselves to drop Vista, change to more of a "quality first" mindset, and move on.
I know that such a change in approach would be initially expensive, but Microsoft has the capital to support such an approach for at least a few years, even without downsizing. If they wait until their market share significantly declines, it may be too late for them to correct themselves. History is littered with the carcasses of large corporations who were convinced they were too big to fall, right up to the end.
So MS should stop selling the Win95-based OSs like WinME, and sell only WinNT-based OSs like WinXP? I think MS got that message 5 years ago
Yes, but also no. The Win9x architecture was terrible, and dropping it was a critical thing done none too soon. But if MS got the message 5 years ago, then they've either forgotten or chosen to ignore it.
Windows 95 introduced many new features, which caused signifiant technical and usability issues. We're at at same milepost with Vista. But if anything, Windows 95 is less to blame than Vista, because many of its innovations were significant improvements over its predecessor. Vista has not accomplished one tenth of what 95 did, which is a ridiculous truth.
I am concerned with the possibility of suffering through another 98 and ME before Microsoft realizes that they need to address fundamental issues with Vista. All of us are affected by the course that Microsoft takes with Windows, even if we don't use it personally. So while it might be fun to laugh and point at the lipsticked-pig that is Vista, we really ought to consider that this pig lives to track its filth through all of our houses and workplaces. It should be put down quickly, rather than allowed to live and spawn future generations.
My apologies for the ridiculous analogy, but I believe my concerns are valid. I would much rather see Microsoft admit the failure of Vista than continue to force it on everyone. After all, admitting you have a problem is the first step. If they can do that, it might be easier for them to shift focus from profiteering to innovating.
Seriously, this is the root of many of Microsoft's problems. They need to stop bolting on poorly-designed "features" and work on reliability and functionality.
Honestly, if Microsoft made a solid, secure OS without all the "value-added enhancements" and profit-driven lock-in tactics, then public opinion of them would be much higher. I would be very happy to see them shift all OS business to their server-level products, because they really are significantly better than their consumer-level OSs. If they spun off their end-consumer products into another business, fine. Those people who like their bells and whistles can buy them, and those who just want a stable and secure platform would have it also.
Yes, I know, use and love Linux. But I also worked at Microsoft (Windows 2000 team,) and am proud of having worked on that OS. There are alot of good developers there, but they have no say in the management direction. While I was there, I saw ME in development, and couldn't believe that I was working at the same company. I was embarrassed for the team.
So, we'll see how Windows 7 turns out. MinWin is a great idea, and I hope (but don't at all believe) that the mentality behind it will influence the rest of Windows 7. But with Ballmer now completely unrestrained, I'm sure it will be trash. Things really went to crap there after he took the helm in 2000.
First you'd have to establish a decrease in the direct memories of those events 10 years ago. Second you'd have to show any increase in memories about what happened 10 years ago do not outweight the lost memories.
Well, he may just be 9 years old... in which case, the Slashdot crowd really is getting too young.
Thank you for the specifics. I'm not surprised that you're seeing such significant performance-enhancements. I'm just glad to see a simple, scalable alternative to the angle tax, and now that I'm back home I'm looking forward to exploring Protocol Buffers. Thanks again!
I agree, the "order of magnitude" note sounds more like a media-bite than anything, but here are a few points to consider.
1.) The example they give is for a small set of data, and percentages vary more dramatically as sample sizes decrease.
2.) If your usage generally involves many such small sets of data, the benefits of slight reductions in latency will multiply significantly.
3.) Even if the speed performance is identical to XML, the reduction in data size should not be ignored, especially in large-volume production environments.
4.) This is not a small internal tool Google is releasing -- this is a major component which they have heavily used. It has been real-world tested (albeit at just one company) and proven at ridiculous scales.
5.) They are giving this away. Source, documentation, examples -- the works. I know this isn't driven entirely by altruism, but neither is it is an embrace-extend-extinguish maneuver. They just made a tool that meets a specific need better than what was currently available, and then made it available.
I'm not certain I understand. The brief filed in the article is all about distributing copies. To quote the article:
106 of the Copyright Act confers upon copyright owners the exclusive right "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. 106(3).[reference not linked in PDF] 27
I'm pointing out that these right granted by the Copyright Act are limited with regard to reproduction and distribution by libraries, which the parent thread was discussing.
I'm also trying to get people to read and discuss the laws, rather than making using common sense (which never has applied in copyright law), spurious deductions, and/or anecdotal evidence. (Yes, I know this is Slashdot. And no, I'm not new here.)
That is correct; I was citing a part of the law which I found interesting. Perhaps more relevant to the article is this paragraph a, slightly earlier in the section than I quoted earlier:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if--
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
You'll note that a requirement of making this copy is that it be open to the public. Interesting, no?
They've been granted that right by the copyright holders. This is not entirely true. At least in the U.S., this is granted by the U.S. Government.
Some interesting reading, there. For example:
(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if-- (1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and (2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy. Provided one can get their collection classified as an archive in regard to this title, it should be fairly easy to make a case for fair-use (not that we should have to make a case to begin with, but these are litigious times.) I especially enjoy the note about finding replacements "at a fair price".
It's nice to hear someone else trying to reconcile their beliefs with their knowledge. I share your opinion, and cheers for sharing it.
The strong polarization in this subject is frustrating to me, as I share thoughts and beliefs with both sides of the argument.
It seems to me that perhaps part of the problem is due to the overcharging of the words "think" and "believe". We're used to using them synonymously, as in "I think she went to the store" and "I believe she went to the store." Whereas in this topic, your choice of words which you did not mean to be central to your point can label you as being an "evo" or "Godist"**, effectively invalidating your insights and opinions with one or another large portion of listeners.
* Not that I expect the parent will actually get many mod points, as being reconciliatory doesn't tend to earn many mod points around here, but it's worth a try.
** I'm torn on having labels such as "evo" and "Godist". On the one hand, they seem to enforce an artificial separation with no benefit toward further understanding. On the other hand, they don't do this any more than "evolutionists" and "creationists". Plus, they're easier to type and conserve space -- hooray for efficiency.:-)
This can work. After all, most spammers comply with the rest of the act and are legitimate, honest and upright business owners, right?
I mean, such good people would surely include a visible and operable unsubscribe mechanism, honored quickly and used only for compliance purposes.
And they would provide relevant subject lines, legitimate physical addresses, and adult-content labels on their "value-added, pre-solicited sales invitation messages."
And, of course, never falsify header information, use open relays, or send messages to a harvested email address. Right?
Seriously, what are they really hoping to accomplish with this act? Has it done any significant good?
It is easy to artificially polarize points during a discussion, whether it be in a tech forum or a policical campaign -- and doing so can only lead to misunderstandings and midguided opinions. To quote Charles Babbage:
On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. If you base your opinion on misinformation, then your opinion provides you with no value and just encourages trolls and flames. It is in the best interests of all to make sure the foundations of your opinion are not spurious.
Unfortunately, the larger problem is that most Americans vote nearly blindly in any case.
A voter is either voting for a particular candidate or against one or more candidates. There's nothing wrong with either approach; there are times when it is as important to keep a "bad" candidate from public office as it is to get a "good" candidate in. But how does the voter define good and bad, and determine at which point it is better to make a negative vote than a positive one?
And there's the rub. With the artificial polarization of the bipartisan system, the massive campaigning system and PR/media manipulation, there really is no way to define the candidates in such a way as to make a solidly informed vote. Candidates change their message to suit the target audience, and avoid giving concrete and unambiguous answers when they can. Promises are made which can't be backed up, mud is thrown in order to garner negative votes, and the media spins everything possible.
So in the end, how can a voter not vote blindly? I personally don't vote based on skin color, gender or age, but I can see why people do -- they are among the few facts which can't be changed as the political winds suit. And all of the candidates' personal attributes have the potential to affect decision-making. Whether or not they allow this to happen, and to what extent, is an important question.
Now, voting strictly along party lines? That's intentionally blinding yourself. And this applies equally to the candidates as to the voters.
When I want to watch HD content (or any TV content) I go to my computer. I'm already paying out the wazoo for Comcast broadband, so why should I give them more money for cable TV, when I can watch them online, on my schedule, at no added cost?
Slashdot Mirror
Is that you, employee #[1A]FC?
You can tell all the people with mod points are too young to know the song. They should be fined $50 dollars and have to pick up the garbage in the snow. :-)
Actually, I did look at the graph -- I just mentally transposed the GP's comparison. :-)
Either way, though, Randall's graph is very peculiar. Lots of lively discussion on that comic's thread. I believe it was the most popular thread on the forum, up to that point.
It's a well known fact that Apples taste better than Oranges.
Clearly you're mistaken.
I was going to mod parent funny, but then i realized that a growing number of slashdot users weren't even born when the Pentium FDIV problem was announced.
I am not an old man (turning 30 next year,) but I'm definitely feeling like one now.
Obviously he hated other people, or he'd never have been a spammer. Killing those around him was part of the same mind-set.
I'm sorry, but what? You and the others on this thread who are trying to draw a connection between spamming and murder seriously need to put things into perspective.
I dislike spam as much as anyone, but it is mass-advertising. Yes, is a nuisance, it incurs costs to prevent and clean, and can be used to perpetrate other crimes like stock pumping. But good grief, the guy wasn't peddling child pornography or trying to incite hate crimes or something -- he was being an unethical advertiser. Pushing "items such as watches and perfume" and "promoting a penny stock". (FTFA)
I'm not trying to defend the guy -- far from it! But I don't think he was sending out spam because he hated other people; I think he was doing it to make an easy buck. To say that it is a logical progression from spamming to murdering makes me seriously question your judgement.
That being said, what Davidson did is as inexplicable as it is inexcusable. If he was too cowardly to face the consequences of his choices, so be it. But killing his wife and child is, as jcr said, beyond the pale. Yes, his wife needed to answer for helping him jailbreak (and perhaps assisting in his prior business ventures; I don't know.) But it was not his place to try her for those actions -- and certainly not with the death penalty. And killing his completely innocent 3 year old daughter? This was truly madness.
If I had to guess, I'd say the guy decided to take the shady route of bilking a little money from a lot of people, got caught, freaked out, and snapped. But I don't really care why he did what he did; I'm just sad for the loss of his wife and child. It is a tragedy.
After all, if you found a stone tablet in some ancient ruins, wouldn't it seem like a reasonable assumption that the writing on it was all the same language?
It is a reasonable assumption, but one that can be quickly validated or negated by examination of the tablet. Take the Rosetta Stone, for example. Even for non-linguists, it is easy to see that there are three different character sets being used. Even when the same (or a very similar) character set is being used, a message of sufficient length will often show indicators that a different language is being used. The fact that different languages are being used can also be indicated by layout.
As regards the question about warning labels, it makes sense to use an engraving or an inlay of some sort. This will allow the message to last for thousands of years, as well as indicate to future viewers that this message was intended for posterity. On said label, present several large symbols to indicate danger or death -- say, skull-and-crossbones (or a full skeleton image,) the Mr. Yuk icon, and Clippy. Then, in each language, write a brief "DANGER" message in a large font, followed by a more detailed warning in a smaller font. Follow the languages up with the same warning icons, to help reinforce the message. Something like:
Skeleton Icon . . . . . Mr. Yuk . . . . . Clippy
WARNING! this is a dangerous area. Do not dig here. Do not eat or drink from this area.
ACHTUNG! Dies ist eine gefährliche Gegend. Nicht graben hier. Arbeit nicht essen und trinken aus diesem Bereich.
ATTENTION! il s'agit d'une zone dangereuse. Ne pas creuser ici. Ne pas manger ou boire dans ce domaine.
(I would insert more languages here, but Slashdot's Unicode support is weak)
Skeleton Icon . . . . . Mr. Yuk . . . . . Clippy
Make the detailed warning about medium-sized paragraph or so, and use very simple sentence-structures. The corpus of the text would not likely be enough to allow a full translation, but with a dozen or so languages, there is a good chance that larger texts exist elsewhere in one or more of the languages that will provide the key words used in the warning message.
I'm not sure if you're missing it or trying to be funny. What he's saying is that no matter what base you use (assuming that the symbols you use for zero and one are 0 and 1,) the base number written in that system will be represented as 10. Examples will show this:
Ten in base ten is written "10": ...
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Four in base four is written "10": ...
0, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
Two in base two is written "10": ...
0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001,
Seven in base seven is written "10": ...
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20,
Sixteen in base sixteen is written "10": ...
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10, 11, 12,
It's easy to make massive and obvious improvements, when there are massive and obvious improvements to make.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it is also easy to separate the "massive and obvious improvements" from the "absolutely terrible ideas" in hind-sight. Just saying.
I am concerned with the possibility of suffering through another 98 and ME before Microsoft realizes that they need to address fundamental issues with Vista.
Fundamental issues like what ?
That's a fair question. I would say that UAC needs serious re-evaluation. Relying on the user to make informed decisions about security is not secure at all. Even if the dialogs were both clear and simple -- and that is a major challenge for all security software developers, not just Microsoft -- it is often self-defeating because many users will not expend the effort to understand or even read the dialogs.
Most UAC pop-ups occur immediately after a user takes some sort of action, so the user says "Of course I want to do X, I just told you to." They neither know nor care why a cute email wants to install something to show them the smiley faces, or a game wants to enable the Remote Registry service. And that's assuming they even read the dialogue. Many people will click OK just to get it to go away, especially when the dialog interferes with an action they just tried to initiate. (Look at how few people read EULAs, for example.)
I'm not saying Microsoft is at fault for the end-user's ignorance, but inundating them with Continue/Cancel dialogs at every turn is a nearly guaranteed way to both upset them and defeat the security you are trying to implement.
Smaller security-rant, but potentially worse for those of us who have elevated privileges: it is both unnerving and extremely frustrating to accidentally "click" OK on a dialogue because you were typing when the focus was stolen. Or worse, perhaps you were typing your credentials when some window stole focus and grabbed your input. Good grief, that's been a problem for years and they still have not fixed it.
I wouldn't expect a public admission, and wouldn't trust one if I did hear it -- PR isn't generally worth the time it takes to listen. What I meant to say is that it seems their corporate management refuses to acknowledge that their current course is not a good one. I'd be happy if the senior directors tacitly agreed among themselves to drop Vista, change to more of a "quality first" mindset, and move on.
I know that such a change in approach would be initially expensive, but Microsoft has the capital to support such an approach for at least a few years, even without downsizing. If they wait until their market share significantly declines, it may be too late for them to correct themselves. History is littered with the carcasses of large corporations who were convinced they were too big to fall, right up to the end.
So MS should stop selling the Win95-based OSs like WinME, and sell only WinNT-based OSs like WinXP? I think MS got that message 5 years ago
Yes, but also no. The Win9x architecture was terrible, and dropping it was a critical thing done none too soon. But if MS got the message 5 years ago, then they've either forgotten or chosen to ignore it.
Windows 95 introduced many new features, which caused signifiant technical and usability issues. We're at at same milepost with Vista. But if anything, Windows 95 is less to blame than Vista, because many of its innovations were significant improvements over its predecessor. Vista has not accomplished one tenth of what 95 did, which is a ridiculous truth.
I am concerned with the possibility of suffering through another 98 and ME before Microsoft realizes that they need to address fundamental issues with Vista. All of us are affected by the course that Microsoft takes with Windows, even if we don't use it personally. So while it might be fun to laugh and point at the lipsticked-pig that is Vista, we really ought to consider that this pig lives to track its filth through all of our houses and workplaces. It should be put down quickly, rather than allowed to live and spawn future generations.
My apologies for the ridiculous analogy, but I believe my concerns are valid. I would much rather see Microsoft admit the failure of Vista than continue to force it on everyone. After all, admitting you have a problem is the first step. If they can do that, it might be easier for them to shift focus from profiteering to innovating.
Seriously, this is the root of many of Microsoft's problems. They need to stop bolting on poorly-designed "features" and work on reliability and functionality.
Honestly, if Microsoft made a solid, secure OS without all the "value-added enhancements" and profit-driven lock-in tactics, then public opinion of them would be much higher. I would be very happy to see them shift all OS business to their server-level products, because they really are significantly better than their consumer-level OSs. If they spun off their end-consumer products into another business, fine. Those people who like their bells and whistles can buy them, and those who just want a stable and secure platform would have it also.
Yes, I know, use and love Linux. But I also worked at Microsoft (Windows 2000 team,) and am proud of having worked on that OS. There are alot of good developers there, but they have no say in the management direction. While I was there, I saw ME in development, and couldn't believe that I was working at the same company. I was embarrassed for the team.
So, we'll see how Windows 7 turns out. MinWin is a great idea, and I hope (but don't at all believe) that the mentality behind it will influence the rest of Windows 7. But with Ballmer now completely unrestrained, I'm sure it will be trash. Things really went to crap there after he took the helm in 2000.
First you'd have to establish a decrease in the direct memories of those events 10 years ago. Second you'd have to show any increase in memories about what happened 10 years ago do not outweight the lost memories.
Well, he may just be 9 years old... in which case, the Slashdot crowd really is getting too young.
Meddling kids.
Thank you for the specifics. I'm not surprised that you're seeing such significant performance-enhancements. I'm just glad to see a simple, scalable alternative to the angle tax, and now that I'm back home I'm looking forward to exploring Protocol Buffers. Thanks again!
I agree, the "order of magnitude" note sounds more like a media-bite than anything, but here are a few points to consider.
1.) The example they give is for a small set of data, and percentages vary more dramatically as sample sizes decrease.
2.) If your usage generally involves many such small sets of data, the benefits of slight reductions in latency will multiply significantly.
3.) Even if the speed performance is identical to XML, the reduction in data size should not be ignored, especially in large-volume production environments.
4.) This is not a small internal tool Google is releasing -- this is a major component which they have heavily used. It has been real-world tested (albeit at just one company) and proven at ridiculous scales.
5.) They are giving this away. Source, documentation, examples -- the works. I know this isn't driven entirely by altruism, but neither is it is an embrace-extend-extinguish maneuver. They just made a tool that meets a specific need better than what was currently available, and then made it available.
I'm not certain I understand. The brief filed in the article is all about distributing copies. To quote the article:
106 of the Copyright Act confers upon copyright owners the exclusive right "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. 106(3). [reference not linked in PDF] 27I'm pointing out that these right granted by the Copyright Act are limited with regard to reproduction and distribution by libraries, which the parent thread was discussing.
I'm also trying to get people to read and discuss the laws, rather than making using common sense (which never has applied in copyright law), spurious deductions, and/or anecdotal evidence. (Yes, I know this is Slashdot. And no, I'm not new here.)
That is correct; I was citing a part of the law which I found interesting. Perhaps more relevant to the article is this paragraph a, slightly earlier in the section than I quoted earlier:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if--(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
You'll note that a requirement of making this copy is that it be open to the public. Interesting, no?(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
Some interesting reading, there. For example:
(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if--(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy. Provided one can get their collection classified as an archive in regard to this title, it should be fairly easy to make a case for fair-use (not that we should have to make a case to begin with, but these are litigious times.) I especially enjoy the note about finding replacements "at a fair price".
Well said. Mod parent up.*
:-)
It's nice to hear someone else trying to reconcile their beliefs with their knowledge. I share your opinion, and cheers for sharing it.
The strong polarization in this subject is frustrating to me, as I share thoughts and beliefs with both sides of the argument.
It seems to me that perhaps part of the problem is due to the overcharging of the words "think" and "believe". We're used to using them synonymously, as in "I think she went to the store" and "I believe she went to the store." Whereas in this topic, your choice of words which you did not mean to be central to your point can label you as being an "evo" or "Godist"**, effectively invalidating your insights and opinions with one or another large portion of listeners.
* Not that I expect the parent will actually get many mod points, as being reconciliatory doesn't tend to earn many mod points around here, but it's worth a try.
** I'm torn on having labels such as "evo" and "Godist". On the one hand, they seem to enforce an artificial separation with no benefit toward further understanding. On the other hand, they don't do this any more than "evolutionists" and "creationists". Plus, they're easier to type and conserve space -- hooray for efficiency.
This can work. After all, most spammers comply with the rest of the act and are legitimate, honest and upright business owners, right?
I mean, such good people would surely include a visible and operable unsubscribe mechanism, honored quickly and used only for compliance purposes.
And they would provide relevant subject lines, legitimate physical addresses, and adult-content labels on their "value-added, pre-solicited sales invitation messages."
And, of course, never falsify header information, use open relays, or send messages to a harvested email address. Right?
Seriously, what are they really hoping to accomplish with this act? Has it done any significant good?
And in related news, Will Wright is nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is easy to artificially polarize points during a discussion, whether it be in a tech forum or a policical campaign -- and doing so can only lead to misunderstandings and midguided opinions. To quote Charles Babbage: On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. If you base your opinion on misinformation, then your opinion provides you with no value and just encourages trolls and flames. It is in the best interests of all to make sure the foundations of your opinion are not spurious.
Just my opinion.
Unfortunately, the larger problem is that most Americans vote nearly blindly in any case.
A voter is either voting for a particular candidate or against one or more candidates. There's nothing wrong with either approach; there are times when it is as important to keep a "bad" candidate from public office as it is to get a "good" candidate in. But how does the voter define good and bad, and determine at which point it is better to make a negative vote than a positive one?
And there's the rub. With the artificial polarization of the bipartisan system, the massive campaigning system and PR/media manipulation, there really is no way to define the candidates in such a way as to make a solidly informed vote. Candidates change their message to suit the target audience, and avoid giving concrete and unambiguous answers when they can. Promises are made which can't be backed up, mud is thrown in order to garner negative votes, and the media spins everything possible.
So in the end, how can a voter not vote blindly? I personally don't vote based on skin color, gender or age, but I can see why people do -- they are among the few facts which can't be changed as the political winds suit. And all of the candidates' personal attributes have the potential to affect decision-making. Whether or not they allow this to happen, and to what extent, is an important question.
Now, voting strictly along party lines? That's intentionally blinding yourself. And this applies equally to the candidates as to the voters.
When I want to watch HD content (or any TV content) I go to my computer. I'm already paying out the wazoo for Comcast broadband, so why should I give them more money for cable TV, when I can watch them online, on my schedule, at no added cost?