Lately, I've felt that Microsoft is emphasizing greater trust in their control over your system as a means of increasing your security. This is suggested by the difficulty of obtaining individual or bulk security patches from their website as opposed to simply loading Internet Explorer and using their Windows Update service, the encouragement in Service Pack 2 of allowing Automatic Update to run in the background, and the introduction of Genuine Advantage requiring the user to authenticate his system before obtaining critical updates such as DirectX.
In addition, Digital Rights Management or other copy protection schemes are becoming increasingly demanding and insidious, whether by uniquely identifying and reporting on user activity, intentionally restricting functionality, and even introducing new security issues (the most recent flap involves copy protection software on Sony CDs that not only hides content from the user but permits viruses to take advantage of this feature.)
I would like to know how you feel about the shift of control over the personal computer from the person to the software manufacturers -- is it right, and do we gain more than we're losing in privacy and security?
Like most people, I find video games to be a worthwhile form of entertainment. Even portable games, which although they are used by many as a sort of digital mental cacoon to avoid participating in the world around them can be a great deal of fun.
However I am not the only one who feels that games should carry a positive message as well as offering the opportunity for education. And unfortunately this is not one of them. Although I quite enjoy racing games I noticed this particular title can actually create a bit of tension. It encourages poor sportsmanship by letting players use what are effectively glorified weapons to cheat their way to first place by knocking their competition off the road, and does not adequately represent the sort of technique and caution actual race car drivers use when operating their vehicles (Gran Turismo 3, while not a portable title, does much better in this regard.)
While you could certainly do worse when picking out a game for your child, you would do better to choose a title like Max Trax or Speed Math.
Most of the world is still using 2Ghz computers. Does this mean they simply won't be able to communicate as fast as 3G (i.e. only use ¾ of the pipe) or are they completely unable to sync?
That these acquisitions of modular lightweight technologies appear to be part of a larger dynamic approach to enterprise-class offerings. I can't imagine it stops with an RDBMS and network clients -- I wonder if there are any underappreciated server hardware platforms that they've got their eyes on.
It's important to the growth of industry to find new ways to responsibly bury pollutants, and as CO2 is one of the most prolific byproducts and a greenhouse gas I applaud the thinking behind developing this technique.
In addition to allowing CO2 to recombine with the system in a more natural way (next to the O2 in the water that makes up the C), this offers the side benefit of transforming ocean life dumb enough to swim through the layer to freezer-ready seafood.
However, it is important to note that fluidic injection of a medium density liquid between two light density liquids is neither the safest nor most effective method of obtaining a clearly-delineated stack. Anyone who has mixed a layered drink will tell you that you go from highest density to lowest density, pouring each layer of liquor against a spoon so as to prevent gravity from making an environmental disaster of your nightcap. Pumping liquid CO2 into the sea thus begs the question of what sort of sludge should go under it to replace the water (and where to find a spoon that large.)
At this point, the GPL is mostly irrelevant to the Open Source movement. Once hailed as a means to safeguard the communal creation, exchange, and improvement of software, it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.
By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits what was intended to be a reliable means of assuring access to code to effectively outsource a whole chunk of what used to be paying jobs -- thus stagnating the future creation of code.
So hopefully the new (GNU?) GPL will address some of these concerns as well as the issues software patents create for the individual developer.
Google believes it can help OpenOffice--perhaps working to pare down the software's memory requirements or its mammoth 80MB download size.
First off, kudos to anybody who steps in and gives the Open Source movement a monetary hand -- and I gotta figure they're one of the top contributors at this point.
This is absolutely the right move. Word processing software has probably the most unnecessary bulk of any class of software on your operating system (the e-mail client placing a close second.) There was a day these things could fit in 640K, and while there are certain advantageous features such as spell check we would all be benefited by a more modular approach to installation that asks you what you need and what you don't.
Really, this seems to be the tip of the iceburg. With the increasing price of oil, I can't help wondering what the face of computing is going to look like five or ten years down the line. The average computer uses as much as 140 jack-o-lanterns worth of coal to run on
any given day. Much of this is spent on wasteful peripherals we could do without, such as fancy 3D graphics cards or optical mice, but even more is being spent on processing power well beyond the needs of the average user.
Inefficiencies in microcomponent fabrication mean that a great deal of the electricity that goes into your computer is given off as heat. Techniques such as reversible or quantum computing hold much promise in the future for putting more energy into computation but today it is up to the consumer to safeguard the environment.
In a way, the argument is the same as with vehicles -- most people don't need a SUV or a top-of-the-line system but many choose to get them to compensate for inadequacies or because of marketing -- but with computers at least it is impossible to argue you are "safer" for having a faster system. Indeed, you are more likely to run viruses or worms without realizing it because you don't notice the hit in operating performance.
I've noticed that I've been holding on to computer equipment longer and longer these days. Oh sure, I have to fix a power supply here and a fan there, but besides slack engineering standards from software companies there is little reason to keep up with the hardware treadmill... and at least one compelling reason not to.
But much of the responsibility falls on the software developers to design for efficiency. That's not to say that they don't, but I think that as a priority in particular for software deployment to third-world nations operating efficiency will only rise as part of the software design philosophy.
Sometimes it even works, until the next game comes out. Then you might as well ask most of us to give up a limb.
At least as far as western culture goes, short term interest is the only consideration on the table. It takes a little dignity to stop buying from a company that offends you, but you'll find none here -- people would rather come to the point of arguing in favor of the EULA rather than recognizing their hypocracy... or heaven forbid going to the extreme of finding another game to buy from a company that didn't just attack an Open Source project.
The only two things that I can think of that might be of some consolation are that because this dealt with technology much of the research should be in electronic form and backed up and that many times you'll discover a more efficient way of doing things when you go back and design the same thing a second time (although one normally does not have the luxury/misfortune to do so).
I downloaded it with wget (don't use a web browser to download things that exploit web browser vulnerabilities) and used the filesize (109568) to search for it on Google. Came up with a page on Trend Micro saying it's WORM_AGOBOT.AIM.
And, really, this is a reminder that scientific study is not about pulling breakthroughs out of thin air, but deriving them via a process of interative improvement. I was just thinking about this today during my ruminescing about the crazy and sometimes haphazard ways in which the scientific process itself is refined. In it's own way, this is comparable to the battle against entrenched interests that new theories must undergo before
they become the accepted norm.
Take, for example, the struggle of Galileo against the church to permit society to recognize the fact that the world is round. Or perhaps the modern day battleground of evolution against the challenging new scientific theory of intelligent design, which suggests that certain biological features such as the flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore could not possibly have been developed by increments as evolutionists would have it. It's a bit like hazing, and while people on both sides of the issue become almost fanatical in defense of their sacred cow the end result is good science.
Unfortunately much is lost in the attack and defense of ideas. All we need is to reduce language to what it is really about -- conveying concepts -- and the world will be able to speak the same tongue. But the overhead of trying to generate acceptance of a scientific breakthrough is almost as difficult as making the breakthrough to start with! That's why it's probably better to foster an environment of tolerance for ideas than it is to rally around what's accepted and comfortable in spite of greater intellectual freedom.
Johnson claims that the complexity of problem solving and exploration involved in current video games help players learn critical thinking skills.
Six months ago I bought a computer game that has been broken in nearly every sense (fun, speed, function) for $50. A couple of patches have been offered for the game that barely touch the problems, and a patch is going to be offered "real soon now" for at least two months.
The reaction in the gaming forum I visit to see if the patch is finished is absolutely and totally depressing to me. Any suggestion that this is was a ripoff is immediately torn apart by forum members, a couple of which have actually bought brand new computers to try to get their computers to run this game.
So I'm going to go ahead and disagree that critical thinking skills are being enhanced by video games. Every indication I see is that as fun as they are they're like a digital form of huffing glue for "game enthusiasts".
I think that, as yesterday demonstrated, the future of computing should not rely entirely on access to online services. That alone may very well determine the winner in this struggle.
For decades we've had to face losing important work to power outages. But Internet outages are just as menacing -- and indeed, where one can get a battery to power their digital workhorses there is no such analog for Internet power. Not to mention the inherent threat of viruses spyware or hackers that comes from Internet connectivity, or frankly the less than cohesive user experience and unconsistent interface websites present.
Despite being oft (and many times unfairly) maligned by self-proclaimed computer experts Microsoft has irrevocably broken the yoke of the client-server relationship that has held computing back and is single-handedly responsible for the microcomputer revolution. The last twenty-five years would not have been impossible without them, and it's pure fantasy to suggest otherwise.
Consequently, I don't think it will be a question of whether or not we will be using Vista but merely how Microsoft will have managed to improve upon the mostly unimproveable experience of Windows XP. If they compete with anything, it will be their own success.
Lao Tzu teaches us that even a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. I believe his wisdom can lead to discovering that where you are is as or more important than where you want to be.
Which, while being an excellent foundation from which to seek enlightenment, can prove a bit of an obstacle when you're simply looking to get from point A to point B... satellites or no satellites.
Given that these things are about trying to figure out where you're going, we're close to the point where we don't need satellites for them anyway.
When enough people have them, it'll be just as helpful to have the devices communicate with each other and work out amongst themselves where you're trying to go. Especially when you figure in the possibility of triangulating with cell towers.
It's getting harder and harder to justify a cellphone upgrade with every 'iteration' of technology. Indeed, as with other electronics, it's to the point where the only truly practical reason to pick up a new device is because the old device is broken.
With the increasing price of oil, I can't help wondering what the face of computing is going to look like five or ten years down the line. The average computer uses as much as 37 Conestoga wagons worth of coal to run on any given day. Much of this is spent on wasteful peripherals we could do without, such as fancy 3D graphics cards or optical mice, but even more is being spent on processing power well beyond the needs of the average user.
Inefficiencies in microcomponent fabrication mean that a great deal of the electricity that goes into your computer is given off as heat. Techniques such as reversible or quantum computing hold much promise in the future for putting more energy into computation but today it is up to the consumer to safeguard the environment.
In a way, the argument is the same as with vehicles -- most people don't need a SUV or a top-of-the-line system but many choose to get them to compensate for inadequacies or because of marketing -- but with computers at least it is impossible to argue you are "safer" for having a faster system. Indeed, you are more likely to run viruses or worms without realizing it because you don't notice the hit in operating performance. If anything this argument is stronger with a cellphone that can be reprogrammed by malware to call phone numbers that cost you a lot of money or hassle.
I've noticed that I've been holding on to computer equipment longer and longer these days. Oh sure, I have to fix a power supply here and a fan there, but besides slack engineering standards from software companies there is little reason to keep up with the hardware treadmill... and at least one compelling reason not to.
Actually, this is exactly what I did. I was thinking about throwing together a MythTV setup for a room that needed something to play music and watch DVDs but I thought I'd give this a try first.
The divx/xvid thing is cute, but I've noticed that unfortunately content that is too large for the TV resolution is clipped rather than scaled -- not to mention that certain audio codecs won't be played back, so if you've got an xvid/ogg movie you hear nothing. So care must be taken in encoding/reencoding content to fit the set.
It is the best player I've owned, however. Unexpectedly, the CD/MP3 playback has been the best feature of the unit for me, letting me see the track number and time without requiring the TV set be on.
So, at least as far as my experiences go, it's been a valid alternative to building a media PC. Sure, I wouldn't mind playing games or recording TV on the thing, but this was like 1/5th of the cost and did all I needed. TV is awful enough that I'll come out ahead simply buying the DVD sets of what I want to watch.
Bringing advanced SQL queries into MySQL and moving advanced (My)SQL queries out of MySQL.
In both cases, you want to look before you leap. Do some trials to see how long porting will take before giving a time estimate, test the new system thoroughly (although that's recommended practice for switching RDBs anyway).
That's not to say MySQL is the only platform where you risk lock-in. Database triggers can be hooked to implementation-specific things, for example. Unfortunately as with programming there are trade-offs to be made between optimization and portability and if you're pushing lots of tuples you opt for the former.
The consumers dont matter from the ethics of copyright.
I humbly disagree. Presuming the more proper interpretation of consumer as anyone who uses the content rather than anyone who purchases the content (it's important to specify this as it's typical to conflate consumers with customers in the world of business) copyright's "ethics" or intent is all about ultimately benefiting those who consume.
As you say, it does so by offering an incentive to create -- those who release new content to the world are permitted "ownership" of their material for a limited time such that they may exploit their work commercially or permit others to do so, therefore allowing profit from new works to be realized and making it possible for careers like acting, writing, and software design to exist and flourish. And by having a fixed (and formerly short) term that ultimately lapses and permits the information to enter the public domain, recognizing the importance of benefiting those who consume by not allowing the indefinite monopoly over protected works.
But it's important to recognize that, in particular with the length of the modern copyright, we've got rights in the U.S. to excerpt copyrighted material (sadly, rights which must be determined on a case-by-case basis). Even if the rate at which works entered the public domain was returned to what you or I thought was a proper term, the fact remains that there is a significant benefit to everybody involved in permitting Google this particular use of copyrighted works. Assuming the "ethics" of copyright are as I laid out (i.e., maximize the shared benefit to creators and consumers in the short run, maximize the benefit to consumers in the long run), why should the authors/copyright holders be the sole arbiters of what is ethical and proper?
Google is attempting to provide an experience which enhances the ability to search within books -- thereby increasing one's ability to discover and purchase books. It is a subset of the functionality that you would get by purchasing or borrowing from a library the entire book (or even browsing one in a bookstore) because the service limits the number of pages you can fetch and intentionally leaves a number of pages out.
No doubt there are two problems with this: the first seems to be that authors (to the best of my knowledge) haven't been asked either piecemeal or via organizations like the Authors' Guild for permission. The second is that Google will no doubt be making money as a result of providing this service and everybody else wants a cut.
However, we have reached an unfortunate point with copyright and fair use where we'd rather halt innovation than admit that copyright holders' expectations have reached a point of making it cost- and time-prohibitive to meet their demands and are to the point of stagnating not only the public domain but technologies and services that deliver or even touch upon copyrighted content. In this sense, creating a scenario that is not unlike the movie industry's dire predictions about the VCR in the early 80s.
It would be best, of course, for Google to attempt to work out an amiable solution with authors without crippling their service to an unreasonable extent, but I feel that the intent of fair use (if not its prevailing interpretation) falls in their favor... as does the bottom-line for both Google and the membership of the Authors' Guild.
Our brains are influenced by much of what we do. Wandering away a bit from this "scientific study", I wonder if we are being permanently and negatively affected by increasing the pace at which we are being asked to task-switch due to technology.
The original article, despite its unfortunate lack of correctness, did give me pause to question whether permitting and accepting distraction with the sort of ease and frequency that is now present between cellphones and e-mail and fax and the Internet is actually causing long-term damage to our ability to think critically and plan the most efficient use of our time -- instead, the immediacy of a phone call or e-mail adds priority from proximity to matters that may be better left till tonight or tomorrow.
I've been noticing a sharp increase of people with brain-fry over the last decade, and it can't all be from drugs.
When I was growing up, astrology was becoming a keen area of study. Theoretical science became applied science as the weapons of war were turned to plowshares of exploration and propelled us into space, to the moon and back to Earth.
Then we stopped.
Some may say that it was a waste of time and money, but a great deal of practical good was done by the space program. Many space-age foods, polymers and foams were created and found to do as much for our planet as they did for those who orbited it. Besides the ocean, it is the last frontier available to us, and unarguably the one whose exploration will do the most for us.
I applaud the concept of bringing these ideas to a new generation who will, hopefully, not forsake them as ours has. I was just thinking about this today during my ruminescing about
the crazy and sometimes haphazard ways in which the scientific process is refined -- in it's own way, the question about continuing space exploration is tied in inexorable fashion to the battle against entrenched interests that new theories must undergo before they become the accepted norm.
Take, for example, the struggle of Galileo against the church to permit society to recognize the fact that the world is round. Or perhaps the modern day battleground of evolution against the challenging new scientific theory of intelligent design, which suggests that certain biological features such as the flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore could not possibly have been developed by increments as evolutionists would have it -- answers and proof to the contrary must be found out there, because like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant we find ourselves struggling with only our piece of the jigsaw puzzle to determine the complete picture.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition, Digital Rights Management or other copy protection schemes are becoming increasingly demanding and insidious, whether by uniquely identifying and reporting on user activity, intentionally restricting functionality, and even introducing new security issues (the most recent flap involves copy protection software on Sony CDs that not only hides content from the user but permits viruses to take advantage of this feature.)
I would like to know how you feel about the shift of control over the personal computer from the person to the software manufacturers -- is it right, and do we gain more than we're losing in privacy and security?
However I am not the only one who feels that games should carry a positive message as well as offering the opportunity for education. And unfortunately this is not one of them. Although I quite enjoy racing games I noticed this particular title can actually create a bit of tension. It encourages poor sportsmanship by letting players use what are effectively glorified weapons to cheat their way to first place by knocking their competition off the road, and does not adequately represent the sort of technique and caution actual race car drivers use when operating their vehicles (Gran Turismo 3, while not a portable title, does much better in this regard.)
While you could certainly do worse when picking out a game for your child, you would do better to choose a title like Max Trax or Speed Math.
Most of the world is still using 2Ghz computers. Does this mean they simply won't be able to communicate as fast as 3G (i.e. only use ¾ of the pipe) or are they completely unable to sync?
That these acquisitions of modular lightweight technologies appear to be part of a larger dynamic approach to enterprise-class offerings. I can't imagine it stops with an RDBMS and network clients -- I wonder if there are any underappreciated server hardware platforms that they've got their eyes on.
In addition to allowing CO2 to recombine with the system in a more natural way (next to the O2 in the water that makes up the C), this offers the side benefit of transforming ocean life dumb enough to swim through the layer to freezer-ready seafood.
However, it is important to note that fluidic injection of a medium density liquid between two light density liquids is neither the safest nor most effective method of obtaining a clearly-delineated stack. Anyone who has mixed a layered drink will tell you that you go from highest density to lowest density, pouring each layer of liquor against a spoon so as to prevent gravity from making an environmental disaster of your nightcap. Pumping liquid CO2 into the sea thus begs the question of what sort of sludge should go under it to replace the water (and where to find a spoon that large.)
Is it more time-effective to work on security patches for NetBSD or to upgrade the three or four affected machines to Gentoo?
By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits what was intended to be a reliable means of assuring access to code to effectively outsource a whole chunk of what used to be paying jobs -- thus stagnating the future creation of code.
So hopefully the new (GNU?) GPL will address some of these concerns as well as the issues software patents create for the individual developer.
First off, kudos to anybody who steps in and gives the Open Source movement a monetary hand -- and I gotta figure they're one of the top contributors at this point.
This is absolutely the right move. Word processing software has probably the most unnecessary bulk of any class of software on your operating system (the e-mail client placing a close second.) There was a day these things could fit in 640K, and while there are certain advantageous features such as spell check we would all be benefited by a more modular approach to installation that asks you what you need and what you don't.
Really, this seems to be the tip of the iceburg. With the increasing price of oil, I can't help wondering what the face of computing is going to look like five or ten years down the line. The average computer uses as much as 140 jack-o-lanterns worth of coal to run on any given day. Much of this is spent on wasteful peripherals we could do without, such as fancy 3D graphics cards or optical mice, but even more is being spent on processing power well beyond the needs of the average user.
Inefficiencies in microcomponent fabrication mean that a great deal of the electricity that goes into your computer is given off as heat. Techniques such as reversible or quantum computing hold much promise in the future for putting more energy into computation but today it is up to the consumer to safeguard the environment.
In a way, the argument is the same as with vehicles -- most people don't need a SUV or a top-of-the-line system but many choose to get them to compensate for inadequacies or because of marketing -- but with computers at least it is impossible to argue you are "safer" for having a faster system. Indeed, you are more likely to run viruses or worms without realizing it because you don't notice the hit in operating performance.
I've noticed that I've been holding on to computer equipment longer and longer these days. Oh sure, I have to fix a power supply here and a fan there, but besides slack engineering standards from software companies there is little reason to keep up with the hardware treadmill... and at least one compelling reason not to.
But much of the responsibility falls on the software developers to design for efficiency. That's not to say that they don't, but I think that as a priority in particular for software deployment to third-world nations operating efficiency will only rise as part of the software design philosophy.
Sometimes it even works, until the next game comes out. Then you might as well ask most of us to give up a limb.
At least as far as western culture goes, short term interest is the only consideration on the table. It takes a little dignity to stop buying from a company that offends you, but you'll find none here -- people would rather come to the point of arguing in favor of the EULA rather than recognizing their hypocracy... or heaven forbid going to the extreme of finding another game to buy from a company that didn't just attack an Open Source project.
The only two things that I can think of that might be of some consolation are that because this dealt with technology much of the research should be in electronic form and backed up and that many times you'll discover a more efficient way of doing things when you go back and design the same thing a second time (although one normally does not have the luxury/misfortune to do so).
I downloaded it with wget (don't use a web browser to download things that exploit web browser vulnerabilities) and used the filesize (109568) to search for it on Google. Came up with a page on Trend Micro saying it's WORM_AGOBOT.AIM.
Take, for example, the struggle of Galileo against the church to permit society to recognize the fact that the world is round. Or perhaps the modern day battleground of evolution against the challenging new scientific theory of intelligent design, which suggests that certain biological features such as the flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore could not possibly have been developed by increments as evolutionists would have it. It's a bit like hazing, and while people on both sides of the issue become almost fanatical in defense of their sacred cow the end result is good science.
Unfortunately much is lost in the attack and defense of ideas. All we need is to reduce language to what it is really about -- conveying concepts -- and the world will be able to speak the same tongue. But the overhead of trying to generate acceptance of a scientific breakthrough is almost as difficult as making the breakthrough to start with! That's why it's probably better to foster an environment of tolerance for ideas than it is to rally around what's accepted and comfortable in spite of greater intellectual freedom.
Six months ago I bought a computer game that has been broken in nearly every sense (fun, speed, function) for $50. A couple of patches have been offered for the game that barely touch the problems, and a patch is going to be offered "real soon now" for at least two months.
The reaction in the gaming forum I visit to see if the patch is finished is absolutely and totally depressing to me. Any suggestion that this is was a ripoff is immediately torn apart by forum members, a couple of which have actually bought brand new computers to try to get their computers to run this game.
So I'm going to go ahead and disagree that critical thinking skills are being enhanced by video games. Every indication I see is that as fun as they are they're like a digital form of huffing glue for "game enthusiasts".
For decades we've had to face losing important work to power outages. But Internet outages are just as menacing -- and indeed, where one can get a battery to power their digital workhorses there is no such analog for Internet power. Not to mention the inherent threat of viruses spyware or hackers that comes from Internet connectivity, or frankly the less than cohesive user experience and unconsistent interface websites present.
Despite being oft (and many times unfairly) maligned by self-proclaimed computer experts Microsoft has irrevocably broken the yoke of the client-server relationship that has held computing back and is single-handedly responsible for the microcomputer revolution. The last twenty-five years would not have been impossible without them, and it's pure fantasy to suggest otherwise.
Consequently, I don't think it will be a question of whether or not we will be using Vista but merely how Microsoft will have managed to improve upon the mostly unimproveable experience of Windows XP. If they compete with anything, it will be their own success.
Which, while being an excellent foundation from which to seek enlightenment, can prove a bit of an obstacle when you're simply looking to get from point A to point B... satellites or no satellites.
When enough people have them, it'll be just as helpful to have the devices communicate with each other and work out amongst themselves where you're trying to go. Especially when you figure in the possibility of triangulating with cell towers.
It's how the Internet works.
With the increasing price of oil, I can't help wondering what the face of computing is going to look like five or ten years down the line. The average computer uses as much as 37 Conestoga wagons worth of coal to run on any given day. Much of this is spent on wasteful peripherals we could do without, such as fancy 3D graphics cards or optical mice, but even more is being spent on processing power well beyond the needs of the average user.
Inefficiencies in microcomponent fabrication mean that a great deal of the electricity that goes into your computer is given off as heat. Techniques such as reversible or quantum computing hold much promise in the future for putting more energy into computation but today it is up to the consumer to safeguard the environment.
In a way, the argument is the same as with vehicles -- most people don't need a SUV or a top-of-the-line system but many choose to get them to compensate for inadequacies or because of marketing -- but with computers at least it is impossible to argue you are "safer" for having a faster system. Indeed, you are more likely to run viruses or worms without realizing it because you don't notice the hit in operating performance. If anything this argument is stronger with a cellphone that can be reprogrammed by malware to call phone numbers that cost you a lot of money or hassle.
I've noticed that I've been holding on to computer equipment longer and longer these days. Oh sure, I have to fix a power supply here and a fan there, but besides slack engineering standards from software companies there is little reason to keep up with the hardware treadmill... and at least one compelling reason not to.
The divx/xvid thing is cute, but I've noticed that unfortunately content that is too large for the TV resolution is clipped rather than scaled -- not to mention that certain audio codecs won't be played back, so if you've got an xvid/ogg movie you hear nothing. So care must be taken in encoding/reencoding content to fit the set.
It is the best player I've owned, however. Unexpectedly, the CD/MP3 playback has been the best feature of the unit for me, letting me see the track number and time without requiring the TV set be on.
So, at least as far as my experiences go, it's been a valid alternative to building a media PC. Sure, I wouldn't mind playing games or recording TV on the thing, but this was like 1/5th of the cost and did all I needed. TV is awful enough that I'll come out ahead simply buying the DVD sets of what I want to watch.
In both cases, you want to look before you leap. Do some trials to see how long porting will take before giving a time estimate, test the new system thoroughly (although that's recommended practice for switching RDBs anyway).
That's not to say MySQL is the only platform where you risk lock-in. Database triggers can be hooked to implementation-specific things, for example. Unfortunately as with programming there are trade-offs to be made between optimization and portability and if you're pushing lots of tuples you opt for the former.
I suppose that's no surprise -- if you're the largest forum on the net it's no surprise you're bound to push the development of Perl and MySQL.
I might have to check it out then -- thanks for the info.
I humbly disagree. Presuming the more proper interpretation of consumer as anyone who uses the content rather than anyone who purchases the content (it's important to specify this as it's typical to conflate consumers with customers in the world of business) copyright's "ethics" or intent is all about ultimately benefiting those who consume.
As you say, it does so by offering an incentive to create -- those who release new content to the world are permitted "ownership" of their material for a limited time such that they may exploit their work commercially or permit others to do so, therefore allowing profit from new works to be realized and making it possible for careers like acting, writing, and software design to exist and flourish. And by having a fixed (and formerly short) term that ultimately lapses and permits the information to enter the public domain, recognizing the importance of benefiting those who consume by not allowing the indefinite monopoly over protected works.
But it's important to recognize that, in particular with the length of the modern copyright, we've got rights in the U.S. to excerpt copyrighted material (sadly, rights which must be determined on a case-by-case basis). Even if the rate at which works entered the public domain was returned to what you or I thought was a proper term, the fact remains that there is a significant benefit to everybody involved in permitting Google this particular use of copyrighted works. Assuming the "ethics" of copyright are as I laid out (i.e., maximize the shared benefit to creators and consumers in the short run, maximize the benefit to consumers in the long run), why should the authors/copyright holders be the sole arbiters of what is ethical and proper?
No doubt there are two problems with this: the first seems to be that authors (to the best of my knowledge) haven't been asked either piecemeal or via organizations like the Authors' Guild for permission. The second is that Google will no doubt be making money as a result of providing this service and everybody else wants a cut.
However, we have reached an unfortunate point with copyright and fair use where we'd rather halt innovation than admit that copyright holders' expectations have reached a point of making it cost- and time-prohibitive to meet their demands and are to the point of stagnating not only the public domain but technologies and services that deliver or even touch upon copyrighted content. In this sense, creating a scenario that is not unlike the movie industry's dire predictions about the VCR in the early 80s.
It would be best, of course, for Google to attempt to work out an amiable solution with authors without crippling their service to an unreasonable extent, but I feel that the intent of fair use (if not its prevailing interpretation) falls in their favor... as does the bottom-line for both Google and the membership of the Authors' Guild.
The original article, despite its unfortunate lack of correctness, did give me pause to question whether permitting and accepting distraction with the sort of ease and frequency that is now present between cellphones and e-mail and fax and the Internet is actually causing long-term damage to our ability to think critically and plan the most efficient use of our time -- instead, the immediacy of a phone call or e-mail adds priority from proximity to matters that may be better left till tonight or tomorrow.
I've been noticing a sharp increase of people with brain-fry over the last decade, and it can't all be from drugs.
Then we stopped.
Some may say that it was a waste of time and money, but a great deal of practical good was done by the space program. Many space-age foods, polymers and foams were created and found to do as much for our planet as they did for those who orbited it. Besides the ocean, it is the last frontier available to us, and unarguably the one whose exploration will do the most for us.
I applaud the concept of bringing these ideas to a new generation who will, hopefully, not forsake them as ours has. I was just thinking about this today during my ruminescing about the crazy and sometimes haphazard ways in which the scientific process is refined -- in it's own way, the question about continuing space exploration is tied in inexorable fashion to the battle against entrenched interests that new theories must undergo before they become the accepted norm.
Take, for example, the struggle of Galileo against the church to permit society to recognize the fact that the world is round. Or perhaps the modern day battleground of evolution against the challenging new scientific theory of intelligent design, which suggests that certain biological features such as the flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore could not possibly have been developed by increments as evolutionists would have it -- answers and proof to the contrary must be found out there, because like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant we find ourselves struggling with only our piece of the jigsaw puzzle to determine the complete picture.