sorry. The original post implied that openAL was a dead project. I was responding to that.
Mostly I was expressing a bit of frustration that often I see projects use slashdot to announce themselves, get some attention and then fade away because of mismanagment. This can be worse than if they didn't exist in the first place.
OpenAL doesn't seem to be this type of project.
I think of indrema as an example of a project that didn't get very far and really seemed cool on paper (so to speak). If they had never existed then it is very likely that someone else would have gotten attention for doing something similar. I bet Indrema used up any venture capital that could have gone towards a real open source game system.
Anyway, I jumped a bit too fast at the OpenAL story. Doing exactly what I was accusing slashdot staff for doing.
Can slashdot not report on these types of projects until they start producing somethings besides vapor. It just causes people to think that something is already being done and people who otherwise would create their own projects move onto other things.
With that said I was/am part of a project which hasn't done anything for quite some time, but we don't bury our code in much marketing hype, so I think it is pretty clear to anyone who is interested to see what progress is or isn't being made.
"They" will trace this account and start spying on me.
Seriously though, I think we must not let any terrorists, dissuade us from expressing ourselves in this forum and others. That is our best defense against the enemies of freedom both foreign and domestic. We must refuse to be accomplices to the erosion of liberty.
This is exactly what happened to IBM in the 80s which made them behave better and led to greater innovation in the PC market. (and also gave rise to Microsoft's DOS)
A breakup would have been untenable and would have just made two monopolies instead of one. This way, at least they might find themselves under the eye of some court appointed watchdogs.
It isn't the monopoly that is the problem, it is the business practices that gave rise to that monoply and which continue today which hurt companies and consumers alike.
not to "get around copyright protections"
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The software doesn't "get around copyright protections." Copyright is a legal protection, the software merely allows you to get around copy protections. Does anyone else think the difference is important?
I think the point is that no cops are going to come bust down your door for what would amount to a contract violation.
So, it is legal in general to do this... ie not an FCC violation, but it may get you disconnected from your ISP and blacklisted as an Internet.Communist.
let's let them (companies with competing proprietary wireless networks) try to make this sound evil and try to regulate it.
You can't get anymore american than Neighbors communicating with eachother and donating equipment for community use.
If you have the means, then I see this as a civic responsibilty to make this happen.
recording devices are already taxed in the US
on
RIAA To Target CD-R
·
· Score: 1
I forget the name of the ACT, but devices that can record music are taxed in the US and that money goes into a fund that individuals or groups (the recording industry) can dip into. I believe the fund is administered by the Library of Congress.
I don't believe the law covers media though, but it could be expanded to cover multiple use technologies like computers. This would raise the price by a few bucks on all computers.
Yes, it does presume guilt and is very un American.
Well the author forgets that in order for there to be one Internet and many networks there has to be some connectivity between those varius networks. At some size, it starts to make economic sense to start not connecting to other networks, unless they pay you a lot of money (much more than the real value of the connectivity). So internet fracture is a real concern.
Government intervention should be very broad. Just say you have to provide connectivity to any network that asks at cost and in a reasonable time frame. At least connectivity to all users connected to your network, not transit across your network. For transit providers should be able to charge a premium.
This probably shouldn't be a government requirement, but rather a contractual agreement in order to get valid IP addresses.
My point was simply that peer review is usaully a gateway to acceptance to scientific journals, but to publish your results independently shouldn't be an automatic indication that the science is flawed. Just that the paper hasn't been formally peer reviewed to get to that point.
Often, I find that some of the peer reviewed stuff can be pretty clumsy itself. But these authors go into great detail as to how they conducted their experiment. I think it could be fairly simple to reproduce the experiment given some time, space and some cost for materials. That doesn't mean that what they are observing is what they think they are observing, but hopefully people can reproduce the effect and see for themselves.
As far as xxx goes, when I was a physics undergrad, I was tasked with downloading preprints from xxx.lanl.gov, so I know that these things get looked at by the physics community. Well, sometimes they do eventually.
So, Peer Review, as defined by the publishing process should be considered seperately from an open scientific process. Which goes both to the quality of the paper itself and what other information the authors make available to other experimentors.
As long as the effect is repeatable then we can have a scientific debate as to what is the cause. If this is like cold fusion, then we are going to have years of squabling.
I hope this doesn't hit the main stream press before we have independent labs trying to reproduce the effect and observing it.
I can just see the headlines "Man makes antigravity boots a real possibility" or "Overweight americans have hope now that gravity is a thing of the past".
linking should be the same legally is telling someone where to find some information. That should never be illegal.
If it is, then we need to lobby the governemnts to make it explicitly protected as free speech.
don't use the net for broadcast
on
HDTV Over IP
·
· Score: 1
Let's just stay away from using IP for Broadcast. Call it multicast or whatever you want to call it, but it isn't an ideal way to transmit a signal to a bunch of people and it just eats up bandwidth for people who are using the internet for two way communication.
It may be cool to get everything over IP but it doesn't make sense. Let's get video conferencing working on some sort of standard first.
The author is basically suggesting that we stop talking about existing laws and begin the debate in terms of why we need Intelectual property laws in the first place.
So...For instance, The difference between alchemy and chemistry can be considered the open sharing of information. Repeatable results. It could be that some alchemist, five hundred years ago, figured out to turn lead into gold, but then he took that information, made some gold and then retired to his country estate. Ultimately such inventions and knowledge die with the originator and don't benefit humanity.
So, open sharing of information needs to be encouraged by our IP laws. It seems to me that our modern technological society would not be possible unless people feel that they can share information without losing the value of that information. In fact under our IP laws the very act of sharing information protects it. Or at least it should be the case.
But now we seem to have laws that go against the very nature of Intelectual property laws. It seems to me that in order to hold a copyright, that information must be able to be copied in the first place. So why throw people in jail when they merely tell people how to copy information? There needs to be a threshold of profit that should be the basis for our laws and money needs to be the way disputes are settled, not jail.
But these are the things we must debate as a free people.
I think the main thing would be to use existing email addresses for routing which is half the battle with IM. username@domain is about the simplest you can get without having some monolithic messging system like AOL.
As for there being too much overhead with SMTP itself, then why not just have the clients make direct connections once the initial messages are sent back and forth whcih could contain direct address information. Then the switch could be made to a lighter persistent protocol.
Why is everyone trying to use AOL's IM? It is just email with a different interface. So.....just create a different interface for emails that are flagged as "IM_AN_INSTANT_MESSAGE", so the messages aren't saved and the text is just displayed in a window.
If you want a free world, then use mozilla not netscape. The only company worse than Microsoft is AOL.
My only concern is why nobody is using mozilla to brand their own browsers? It seems that if mozilla were using the linux model we would see various distributions with their own features that are outside of AOL control. Is this what is happening
When you sign up for an ISP you give them money to use their network. Companies don't want to spend your money on other people's networks. SO they set up peering and BGP rules is such a way as to only use other company's networks rare cases.
This isn't what was envisioned when the DARPA was designing a decentralized network that could withstand nuclear war.
imagine getting an email and then replying back with an IM which could bring up a IM window. The email server could just negotiate the connection and then have nothing more to do with the clients. Having separate IM addresses is stupid.
This wouldn't add much load to the mail servers and it would make life a lot easier. It also would be easy to implement for web mail. and regular email clients would soon follow.
This isn't rocket science people. Am I gonna have to get outta my chair?
Slashdot Mirror
sorry. The original post implied that openAL was a dead project. I was responding to that.
Mostly I was expressing a bit of frustration that often I see projects use slashdot to announce themselves, get some attention and then fade away because of mismanagment. This can be worse than if they didn't exist in the first place.
OpenAL doesn't seem to be this type of project.
I think of indrema as an example of a project that didn't get very far and really seemed cool on paper (so to speak). If they had never existed then it is very likely that someone else would have gotten attention for doing something similar. I bet Indrema used up any venture capital that could have gone towards a real open source game system.
Anyway, I jumped a bit too fast at the OpenAL story. Doing exactly what I was accusing slashdot staff for doing.
my mistake.
Can slashdot not report on these types of projects until they start producing somethings besides vapor. It just causes people to think that something is already being done and people who otherwise would create their own projects move onto other things.
With that said I was/am part of a project which hasn't done anything for quite some time, but we don't bury our code in much marketing hype, so I think it is pretty clear to anyone who is interested to see what progress is or isn't being made.
Couldn't anyone be considered a "co-owner"?
"They" will trace this account and start spying on me.
Seriously though, I think we must not let any terrorists, dissuade us from expressing ourselves in this forum and others. That is our best defense against the enemies of freedom both foreign and domestic. We must refuse to be accomplices to the erosion of liberty.
I liked Where in the world is carmen sandiego... put them on the other side of the law.
C ID =244
http://www.learningcompany.com/SubCategory.asp?
This is exactly what happened to IBM in the 80s which made them behave better and led to greater innovation in the PC market. (and also gave rise to Microsoft's DOS)
A breakup would have been untenable and would have just made two monopolies instead of one. This way, at least they might find themselves under the eye of some court appointed watchdogs.
It isn't the monopoly that is the problem, it is the business practices that gave rise to that monoply and which continue today which hurt companies and consumers alike.
The software doesn't "get around copyright protections." Copyright is a legal protection, the software merely allows you to get around copy protections. Does anyone else think the difference is important?
I think the point is that no cops are going to come bust down your door for what would amount to a contract violation.
.Communist.
So, it is legal in general to do this... ie not an FCC violation, but it may get you disconnected from your ISP and blacklisted as an Internet
let's let them (companies with competing proprietary wireless networks) try to make this sound evil and try to regulate it.
You can't get anymore american than Neighbors communicating with eachother and donating equipment for community use.
If you have the means, then I see this as a civic responsibilty to make this happen.
I forget the name of the ACT, but devices that can record music are taxed in the US and that money goes into a fund that individuals or groups (the recording industry) can dip into. I believe the fund is administered by the Library of Congress.
I don't believe the law covers media though, but it could be expanded to cover multiple use technologies like computers. This would raise the price by a few bucks on all computers.
Yes, it does presume guilt and is very un American.
Well the author forgets that in order for there to be one Internet and many networks there has to be some connectivity between those varius networks. At some size, it starts to make economic sense to start not connecting to other networks, unless they pay you a lot of money (much more than the real value of the connectivity). So internet fracture is a real concern.
Government intervention should be very broad. Just say you have to provide connectivity to any network that asks at cost and in a reasonable time frame. At least connectivity to all users connected to your network, not transit across your network. For transit providers should be able to charge a premium.
This probably shouldn't be a government requirement, but rather a contractual agreement in order to get valid IP addresses.
It isn't a game without some sort of goal.
they did post the code... :)
My point was simply that peer review is usaully a gateway to acceptance to scientific journals, but to publish your results independently shouldn't be an automatic indication that the science is flawed. Just that the paper hasn't been formally peer reviewed to get to that point.
Often, I find that some of the peer reviewed stuff can be pretty clumsy itself. But these authors go into great detail as to how they conducted their experiment. I think it could be fairly simple to reproduce the experiment given some time, space and some cost for materials. That doesn't mean that what they are observing is what they think they are observing, but hopefully people can reproduce the effect and see for themselves.
As far as xxx goes, when I was a physics undergrad, I was tasked with downloading preprints from xxx.lanl.gov, so I know that these things get looked at by the physics community. Well, sometimes they do eventually.
So, Peer Review, as defined by the publishing process should be considered seperately from an open scientific process. Which goes both to the quality of the paper itself and what other information the authors make available to other experimentors.
As long as the effect is repeatable then we can have a scientific debate as to what is the cause. If this is like cold fusion, then we are going to have years of squabling.
I hope this doesn't hit the main stream press before we have independent labs trying to reproduce the effect and observing it.
I can just see the headlines "Man makes antigravity boots a real possibility" or "Overweight americans have hope now that gravity is a thing of the past".
Peer review implies he has peers. When apparently new phenomena are observed who do you submit your work to for review before publishing?
linking should be the same legally is telling someone where to find some information. That should never be illegal.
If it is, then we need to lobby the governemnts to make it explicitly protected as free speech.
Let's just stay away from using IP for Broadcast. Call it multicast or whatever you want to call it, but it isn't an ideal way to transmit a signal to a bunch of people and it just eats up bandwidth for people who are using the internet for two way communication.
It may be cool to get everything over IP but it doesn't make sense. Let's get video conferencing working on some sort of standard first.
The author is basically suggesting that we stop talking about existing laws and begin the debate in terms of why we need Intelectual property laws in the first place.
So...For instance, The difference between alchemy and chemistry can be considered the open sharing of information. Repeatable results. It could be that some alchemist, five hundred years ago, figured out to turn lead into gold, but then he took that information, made some gold and then retired to his country estate. Ultimately such inventions and knowledge die with the originator and don't benefit humanity.
So, open sharing of information needs to be encouraged by our IP laws. It seems to me that our modern technological society would not be possible unless people feel that they can share information without losing the value of that information. In fact under our IP laws the very act of sharing information protects it. Or at least it should be the case.
But now we seem to have laws that go against the very nature of Intelectual property laws. It seems to me that in order to hold a copyright, that information must be able to be copied in the first place. So why throw people in jail when they merely tell people how to copy information? There needs to be a threshold of profit that should be the basis for our laws and money needs to be the way disputes are settled, not jail.
But these are the things we must debate as a free people.
I think the main thing would be to use existing email addresses for routing which is half the battle with IM. username@domain is about the simplest you can get without having some monolithic messging system like AOL.
As for there being too much overhead with SMTP itself, then why not just have the clients make direct connections once the initial messages are sent back and forth whcih could contain direct address information. Then the switch could be made to a lighter persistent protocol.
Why is everyone trying to use AOL's IM? It is just email with a different interface. So.....just create a different interface for emails that are flagged as "IM_AN_INSTANT_MESSAGE", so the messages aren't saved and the text is just displayed in a window.
We don't need another damn marketing protocol...
If you want a free world, then use mozilla not netscape. The only company worse than Microsoft is AOL. My only concern is why nobody is using mozilla to brand their own browsers? It seems that if mozilla were using the linux model we would see various distributions with their own features that are outside of AOL control. Is this what is happening
When you sign up for an ISP you give them money to use their network. Companies don't want to spend your money on other people's networks. SO they set up peering and BGP rules is such a way as to only use other company's networks rare cases.
This isn't what was envisioned when the DARPA was designing a decentralized network that could withstand nuclear war.
imagine getting an email and then replying back with an IM which could bring up a IM window. The email server could just negotiate the connection and then have nothing more to do with the clients. Having separate IM addresses is stupid.
This wouldn't add much load to the mail servers and it would make life a lot easier. It also would be easy to implement for web mail. and regular email clients would soon follow.
This isn't rocket science people. Am I gonna have to get outta my chair?