Hmm... Come to think of it, nearly every gamer I know is either a network admin of some kind a programmer or an engineer. They all run at least half their purchased games cracked, but my view of "easy" may be warped.
Some guys I know even run warezed copies to keep their boxed copy pristeen and un-opened... (probably some kind of dark grey area there)
most people who buy the games and play them aren't running the cracks.
I guess we'll let the market decide... Oh wait, this try at CD protection is going to fail too isn't it? So, we won't know what truly rigid copyright enforcement might do to the market until somebody actually achieves it.
BTW - How many gamers do you know? Okay, now subtract the number of them that have ever infringed a copyright. Still know any gamers?
It certainly won't be profitable in the game biz. Show me a game that can't run without the CD and I'll show you a game no one wants to buy.
I have an 8x DVD drive that takes about 2 years to spin up, there's no way in luserland I'm going to wait for that delay anytime during game play, or application use for that matter.
If you're talking a whole company that only has 2 developers in it, then that might be a worry. However, if the company has other developers that could be moved into the niche if needed then I'm sure they'd find a way to squeak through in any case.
As for more eyeballs, I might be impressed by 5 testers, but 5 coders would make me squeamish.
In the project I recently awarded, we had two proposals that were even in every way, except that the $55,000 proposal had four developers (one graphic designer, a DBA, and two programmers)
Why do I get the feeling you would have gotten a much better website if you'd awarded the 4 developer bid instead? Of course, I haven't seen portfolios or paperwork. It's just a gut reaction. 4 developers (1 DBA,1 Graphic Artist, 2 coders) sounds like a good size for such a project.
7 developers, by contrast, seems like over kill for a project that doesn't have clearly defined sub-sections...
Ya, well whatever they are called they are a major bad deal. I guess I'm just not lawyer enough to be able to easily tell which legislation tries to get itself applied retro-actively. I just know that there have been a couple computer related ones in the last 10 years...
I guess you're saying this particular law isn't such a travesty, but I wasn't able to be sure from my brief reading of it.
Not that they have been paying attention to the US Constitution for some time now, but it is against the Constitution to make a law and prosecute people who did the newly outlawed thing in the past.
Which is exactly why they should scream bloody murder if it happens.
It seems to me that a lot of recent legislation (especially this "computer crime" stuff) runs under the misguided assumption that little clauses like this in the constitution don't apply. Getting out of a crime because it wasn't illegal when you commited it isn't a "loophole". It's the only way to avoid huge abuses of power.
If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. It really is that simple.
If only anything ever was... Actually, both of you are the problem.
First off, he isn't buying it. He's downloading it for free with no visible adverse affects.
Sure, wrong is wrong. There's nothing "right" about infringing someone's copyright. It's a sin against society. A little like pissing on the sidewalk or jaywalking.
The problem is in the same vein you are preaching copyright you're sitting here trying to equate physical theft with "intellectual property theft". "intellectual property theft" is an oxymoron. There's copyright infringement and there's trademark violation, heck there's even patent infringement. But there is no "intellectual property theft". Just saying the phrase makes me feel cheap and exploited.
If you actually want to convince "those punk kids" not to infringe copyright, start by not insulting their intelligence. Then, maybe you'll get time to explain exactly why you think copyright infringement is misguided and/or wrong, and how you think we should all go about reforming this broken system we're all trying to live and work under.
Don't think for a second that the next generation won't throw copyright right out the window if it's overly abused.
We have copyright laws for a good reason, and they should be protected.
If they should be protected, I'd certainly like to hear what you think these "good reasons" are.
I've heard various and sundry from others, and I might even consider some of them good. The problem is when you get down to the "good" ones, they often don't require nearly as much protection as some would like.
Where exactly do you think there's a majority/minority issue in copyright?
It's another bad use of a law which can be easily abused to deal with the situation.
Point taken, the law ain't perfect. However this gives me hope that the DOJ is at least *trying* to punish the actual wrongdoers instead of just controlling everyone like the RIAA would like to do.
If copyright actually is important and should continue to be viable, then going after copyright infringers in this manner is exactly what is needed. Sharing CD's openly with hundreds of people isn't fair use. It is copyright violation. This law might unfairly punish copyright violators, but at least copyright violators are the only ones punished. That's already light-years better than legislation like the DMCA, which is billed as solving the same problem, but which adversely affects all content users.
Translation: Don't rip any CD's and put them on KaZaA, unless you like to play russian roulette.
Also, if someone gets in trouble for something they did before this law was updated, scream bloody murder.
The FUD put out on some (not all, and mostly those related to Acadamia) of the DCMA cases has allowed Hollywood to use the DCMA as a bluff, knowing that most administrations will cave instead of taking it to court.
Or, maybe the law *is* that far reaching and could hold up in court. In this case the EFF has saved countless administrators from potential lawsuits by making them aware of implications of the DMCA.
The problem is that this is all speculation. Complaining that the EFF's speculation has had too great an effect is just silly. Should the EFF fight with spoons while the RIAA takes out the big guns? Obviously there are limits to how far the EFF should go in getting the DMCA repealed, but last I checked they hadn't killed anyone over it. It's when the EFF starts working on other things besides repealing the DMCA that I get twitchy.
Personally I think everyone *should* cower and act silly when presented with "official" threats from a large corporation. Perhaps then judges will take these threats seriously enough to punish the bullies making them, and maybe take away their bat(DMCA).
The reason not to let each agency decide is because it's a crapshoot whether or not the agency has someone around who is *qualified* to decide. If they don't, they'll pick whatever has the prettiest brochure and the most friendly salespeople. And maybe the best fidget toys. Given an absence of expertise, this law would at least ensure that private citizens could say "Hey, wait! That program has this problem! You should fix it!"
Yeah, this is impossible with closed source software. That's why no one ever publishes flaws in Microsoft's products.
Good idea. As soon as you get Microsoft and all the other big developers to stop lobbying and marketing to governments with deceptive or misleading tactics, we won't have any reason for a law like this.
If lobbying is such a problem perhaps laws should be targetted at removing its sway.
I think both you and I know that this law does nothing to improve goverment in general, and is just an attempt to win favor with a particular group. In this case, you seem to be saying "lobbyists, can't beat em, might as well join em". I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is more to software than the specific operations it performs. If I and a coworker wrote two programs to do the same thing, his was 20% faster but mine was maintainable, flexible, and still likely to be useful into the future even if I leave the company, which do you think the manager will prefer?
Personally I'd hope the manager chooses the software that is 20% faster, unless he absolutely can't read it or has trouble getting others to work on it. Just because you think your code is more "future friendly" and maintainable than someone else's doesn't mean it is. The simple solution is usually better because it's cheaper and lighter weight. Less time now is more money now (which translates to a *lot* more money later).
Likewise, OSS is no silver bullet for wonderful future-friendly easy to use software that will save time, lives, money and freedom. In fact, there are no silver bullets.
If you want to safeguard your freedom, there's only one thing that will do it. It's called diligence. Unfortunately, the steps from here to there are a lot more difficult than just passing some law requiring vendors to use a particular licensing model when dealing with government.
Come to think of it, this legislation is a perfect example of a lack of diligence. It has all these supposed purposes, but even if it gets enacted and followed, who is going to follow up afterward to see if the intended goals were met or even that the net effect was positive?
The only good government is a small government. Personally, I dream of a legislature where they don't have time to add this kind of law, because they are so busy repealing bad old laws and cutting the budget!
We're probably more or less in agreement on most of the core issues. Yes, citizens have a right and duty to pay attention to how their government manages resources and treats citizens. No citizens don't have a right to invade each others privacy.
The thing we disagree about is this bill. I feel that OSS in government is a good idea as far as it goes, but that OSS is still immature, and that a natural competition between open and closed source will most likely arise to benefit this sector as much as any other.
I further feel that this particular piece of legislation is an example of micro-management by high level government over smaller agencies in an attempt to win votes from a particular sector. This "pork" seems more like a kickback to the OSS community than any kind of real change.
As such, I find something like this a setback both to open government and the fundamentals that OSS was based on in the first place.
Quit clowning around! The system is either safe or not. Hidding the engine behind it wont solve any problem. You know damn well that proprietary software wont prevent a corrupted government employee from stealing your private informations.
Heh, his point was, neither will OSS. There are no silver bullets, so why don't we just let each agency decide what is best for it rather than trying to shove a particular solution down everyone's throat?
You ever think that proprietary monitoring software might sometimes catch corrupted state employees just as well as open source code? You might further think that resources are generally a problem and that if you want a reliable system yesterday, you might just have to pay for it?
This whole bill smacks more of micro-mangement than of open goodness.
The arguments of "state secrecy" are only defensible if a) we don't care what our government does or b) we don't want to know what our government does.
I guess simple citizen privacy is too much to ask? This proposal deals with computer systems that carry all criminal and driver inquiry information used by law enforcement. Do you have a right to know every time someone else got pulled over and had a criminal history check run on them? Do you have a right to know every time law enforcement may have suspected someone of committing a crime whether they actually were convicted or not?
Worse yet, what do you think corporations would do with this kind of information available to them?
Hmm... Jim had his license plate run 3 times last week even though he never got a ticket, lets raise his car insurance rates.
There is already a huge black market in criminal history and similar information. Do you really think this information needs to be more available? It might be appropriate for state employees to fully understand the software and systems they work on down to the very last detail, and it might even be appropriate for taxpayers to know something about how the government systems are run, but making everything the sysadmin knows (including crypto keys and honeypots) available to the pulblic for every computer run by the government would be a titanic mistake.
This article is bogus. He claims to have perception across his entire visual field. How can this be if the wires are attached to one hemisphere?
Because much like everyone else, his "visual field" is defined by his perception.
Secondly, how can he possibly see if the connection point is at the somatosensory pathway. He could interact with the world but not see it. Cognitive psychology people.
I must not grok this question. He "sees" by using his brain(mind) to process signals coming in from his optical nerve. The fact these nerve signals are generated by an external electrical stimulus to the nerve cells instead of coming directly from the eyes should make little difference.
Since he definitely has a brain(mind) and perception, much like all humans, I don't see where there's any trouble defining what he does as "seeing".
From m-w.com: see v. 1 a : to perceive by the eye b : to perceive or detect as if by sight
So, in the area of VR HMD research, I am wondering if resolution really matters at all, or if there is a minimum resolution you can give the eyes, and let the brain fill in the rest?
There's a commonly ignored dimension here that is very important. It's time.
So, generate a "full scene" that follows head movement and you'll have one resolution and update rate that is requried to "fill" the user perception.
Generate a "full scene" that displays directly to the users eyes and follows eye motion and there will be another (lower) resolution and movement rate (faster?) that will be required to "fill" the user perception.
The biggest problem with VR and video displays these days is that most "chunk" rather than always maintaining a seamless viewing experience.
What do you think would happen if your eyes cut out for the wrong 1/4 of a second during a boxing match?
Since "the consumer in general" isn't trusted, all DRM will eventually fail. PKI isn't a silver bullet, as a viewer of conent the only thing I need to be able to decrypt is the movie I want to watch. If I need Sony's private key for that then it's not a very "private" key is it?
Sure, Sony can put a unique private key in each player, but how well do you really think the private key inside that player can be protected? We've already established it can't be protected as software on a PC. The challenge of "key hidden in hardware" hasn't been pushed all the way yet, but early indications are this only makes it more difficult, not impossible.
It only takes one decryptor to "open" a whole lot of content, especially if content is simple. This is why the DRM initiatives are so Draconian and against allowing any "open" content at all. If your PC won't play any open content without major mods, they might keep many consumers out of the market for "open" goods. (look at game consoles for an example of this)
"Compilation" bugs? Those are actually there to help you and will save you many more nasty "logic" bugs in the future. Take some time and learn the language a little better, these will gradually become insignificant and invaluaable at the same time.
"Logic" bugs? It's hard to see how logic bugs could be unrelated to the "problem at hand" unless it's a lack of libraries and or consistent interface that is your problem. Not sure how Fortran would help in any case.
Knowing something about these bugs is the first step in trying to avoid them. (whereas switching languages would be one possible last step)
I'll make some guesses:
You're experiencing many compilation bugs because you don't understand the C/C++ environment you're working in, or because you're trying to force fit code from one environment to another. This is natural in switching from a specialized high level language to a very general purpose low level language. It takes a lot of time and effort to really master C or C++.
A nice compromise might be using C or C++ that is callable from Matlab code. This could give you performance where you need it and ease of use when you don't. (Although from what I remember of Matlab the *seems* are no fun...)
Of course, an even better alternative might be Java. It has wide library support and a great degree of similarity in the API's presented by most libraries. It might not be quite as efficient as C or C++ for some problems, but can be more efficient for others. It's also fairly easy to learn and use, and it's going to beat the pants off Matlab or Maple in computation speed. (It can also call native C when necessary, though the data structures differ greatly between C and Java)
Hmm, maybe this whole article is just a Java troll...
Isn't the "fairness" to different businesses. It's the lawyer friendly addition of more legalease.
In actual application, UCITA attempts to create a "default" license model under which all software is sold. Then it creates mechanisms companies can use to over-ride the defaults. One of these mechanisms happens to be "click-wrapped" agreements. This really just means more legalese for everyone, and which ever companies hire lots of lawyers benefit. (Redhat included)
If the courts really do feel that software companies haven't been responsible, they should hit the co's with fines based on what was charged for faulty product. This is how consumer law has worked for many years. If you sell something and the consumer becomes dissatisfied, you'll probably have to give those dissatisfied a refund.
Perhaps what is really missing in UCITA is a gaurantee that legal liablity for software producers won't exceed price charged, unless extra warranties were offered. Also, that when not sold at retail some risk should remain with the consumer.
If RedHat really is worried about being charged more than they were paid in liability fees, then I commend them for knowing they should be scared, and I hope they get better at stating their case.
If instead, they are worried that they may have to give a refund on copies of their software where customers are legitimately dissatisfied, then I hope they quit whining, and behave like a real business.
If the FSF ever "wins" the GPL will vanish in a poof of smoke as though it never existed.
If this is actually true (and I hope it is), we should be able to track the progress of the FSF by measuring the size of the GPL. The smaller it gets the better the FSF is doing in the world...
By that arguement, click-throughs would probably be a major retreat for the FSF.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Come to think of it, nearly every gamer I know is either a network admin of some kind a programmer or an engineer. They all run at least half their purchased games cracked, but my view of "easy" may be warped.
Some guys I know even run warezed copies to keep their boxed copy pristeen and un-opened... (probably some kind of dark grey area there)
Of course there are cracks for most of them,
My point exactly.
most people who buy the games and play them aren't running the cracks.
I guess we'll let the market decide... Oh wait, this try at CD protection is going to fail too isn't it? So, we won't know what truly rigid copyright enforcement might do to the market until somebody actually achieves it.
BTW - How many gamers do you know? Okay, now subtract the number of them that have ever infringed a copyright. Still know any gamers?
It certainly won't be profitable in the game biz. Show me a game that can't run without the CD and I'll show you a game no one wants to buy.
I have an 8x DVD drive that takes about 2 years to spin up, there's no way in luserland I'm going to wait for that delay anytime during game play, or application use for that matter.
What if one coder quits? Gets injured...etc
If you're talking a whole company that only has 2 developers in it, then that might be a worry. However, if the company has other developers that could be moved into the niche if needed then I'm sure they'd find a way to squeak through in any case.
As for more eyeballs, I might be impressed by 5 testers, but 5 coders would make me squeamish.
Gee, I'm not a pirate
Then don't dignify that silly term. Copyright infringement is one crime. Plundering ships at sea is another.
"Copyright infringement" makes you stop and go: "Wait, isn't that something only publishers get charged with?"
While "piracy" or "theft" sound like foregone conclusions.
Always remember, it isn't what you say, its how you say it that matters.
Sure, you have a small minority that likes to download linux iso images for fun,
Um... the future of OSS could also be endangered by some of these laws. So much for that minority.
In the project I recently awarded, we had two proposals that were even in every way, except that the $55,000 proposal had four developers (one graphic designer, a DBA, and two programmers)
Why do I get the feeling you would have gotten a much better website if you'd awarded the 4 developer bid instead? Of course, I haven't seen portfolios or paperwork. It's just a gut reaction. 4 developers (1 DBA,1 Graphic Artist, 2 coders) sounds like a good size for such a project.
7 developers, by contrast, seems like over kill for a project that doesn't have clearly defined sub-sections...
Those are called Ex Post Facto laws.
Ya, well whatever they are called they are a major bad deal. I guess I'm just not lawyer enough to be able to easily tell which legislation tries to get itself applied retro-actively. I just know that there have been a couple computer related ones in the last 10 years...
I guess you're saying this particular law isn't such a travesty, but I wasn't able to be sure from my brief reading of it.
Not that they have been paying attention to the US Constitution for some time now, but it is against the Constitution to make a law and prosecute people who did the newly outlawed thing in the past.
Which is exactly why they should scream bloody murder if it happens.
It seems to me that a lot of recent legislation (especially this "computer crime" stuff) runs under the misguided assumption that little clauses like this in the constitution don't apply. Getting out of a crime because it wasn't illegal when you commited it isn't a "loophole". It's the only way to avoid huge abuses of power.
If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. It really is that simple.
If only anything ever was... Actually, both of you are the problem.
First off, he isn't buying it. He's downloading it for free with no visible adverse affects.
Sure, wrong is wrong. There's nothing "right" about infringing someone's copyright. It's a sin against society. A little like pissing on the sidewalk or jaywalking.
The problem is in the same vein you are preaching copyright you're sitting here trying to equate physical theft with "intellectual property theft". "intellectual property theft" is an oxymoron. There's copyright infringement and there's trademark violation, heck there's even patent infringement. But there is no "intellectual property theft". Just saying the phrase makes me feel cheap and exploited.
If you actually want to convince "those punk kids" not to infringe copyright, start by not insulting their intelligence. Then, maybe you'll get time to explain exactly why you think copyright infringement is misguided and/or wrong, and how you think we should all go about reforming this broken system we're all trying to live and work under.
Don't think for a second that the next generation won't throw copyright right out the window if it's overly abused.
Exactly right. Copyright infringement isn't theft. It isn't piracy. It's copyright infringement.
But if you're not even willing to use the right term, why do you expect the RIAA will?
We have copyright laws for a good reason, and they should be protected.
If they should be protected, I'd certainly like to hear what you think these "good reasons" are.
I've heard various and sundry from others, and I might even consider some of them good. The problem is when you get down to the "good" ones, they often don't require nearly as much protection as some would like.
Where exactly do you think there's a majority/minority issue in copyright?
It's another bad use of a law which can be easily abused to deal with the situation.
Point taken, the law ain't perfect. However this gives me hope that the DOJ is at least *trying* to punish the actual wrongdoers instead of just controlling everyone like the RIAA would like to do.
If copyright actually is important and should continue to be viable, then going after copyright infringers in this manner is exactly what is needed. Sharing CD's openly with hundreds of people isn't fair use. It is copyright violation. This law might unfairly punish copyright violators, but at least copyright violators are the only ones punished. That's already light-years better than legislation like the DMCA, which is billed as solving the same problem, but which adversely affects all content users.
Translation:
Don't rip any CD's and put them on KaZaA, unless you like to play russian roulette.
Also, if someone gets in trouble for something they did before this law was updated, scream bloody murder.
The FUD put out on some (not all, and mostly those related to Acadamia) of the DCMA cases has allowed Hollywood to use the DCMA as a bluff, knowing that most administrations will cave instead of taking it to court.
Or, maybe the law *is* that far reaching and could hold up in court. In this case the EFF has saved countless administrators from potential lawsuits by making them aware of implications of the DMCA.
The problem is that this is all speculation. Complaining that the EFF's speculation has had too great an effect is just silly. Should the EFF fight with spoons while the RIAA takes out the big guns? Obviously there are limits to how far the EFF should go in getting the DMCA repealed, but last I checked they hadn't killed anyone over it. It's when the EFF starts working on other things besides repealing the DMCA that I get twitchy.
Personally I think everyone *should* cower and act silly when presented with "official" threats from a large corporation. Perhaps then judges will take these threats seriously enough to punish the bullies making them, and maybe take away their bat(DMCA).
The reason not to let each agency decide is because it's a crapshoot whether or not the agency has someone around who is *qualified* to decide. If they don't, they'll pick whatever has the prettiest brochure and the most friendly salespeople. And maybe the best fidget toys. Given an absence of expertise, this law would at least ensure that private citizens could say "Hey, wait! That program has this problem! You should fix it!"
Yeah, this is impossible with closed source software. That's why no one ever publishes flaws in Microsoft's products.
Good idea. As soon as you get Microsoft and all the other big developers to stop lobbying and marketing to governments with deceptive or misleading tactics, we won't have any reason for a law like this.
If lobbying is such a problem perhaps laws should be targetted at removing its sway.
I think both you and I know that this law does nothing to improve goverment in general, and is just an attempt to win favor with a particular group. In this case, you seem to be saying "lobbyists, can't beat em, might as well join em". I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is more to software than the specific operations it performs. If I and a coworker wrote two programs to do the same thing, his was 20% faster but mine was maintainable, flexible, and still likely to be useful into the future even if I leave the company, which do you think the manager will prefer?
Personally I'd hope the manager chooses the software that is 20% faster, unless he absolutely can't read it or has trouble getting others to work on it. Just because you think your code is more "future friendly" and maintainable than someone else's doesn't mean it is. The simple solution is usually better because it's cheaper and lighter weight. Less time now is more money now (which translates to a *lot* more money later).
Likewise, OSS is no silver bullet for wonderful future-friendly easy to use software that will save time, lives, money and freedom. In fact, there are no silver bullets.
If you want to safeguard your freedom, there's only one thing that will do it. It's called diligence. Unfortunately, the steps from here to there are a lot more difficult than just passing some law requiring vendors to use a particular licensing model when dealing with government.
Come to think of it, this legislation is a perfect example of a lack of diligence. It has all these supposed purposes, but even if it gets enacted and followed, who is going to follow up afterward to see if the intended goals were met or even that the net effect was positive?
The only good government is a small government. Personally, I dream of a legislature where they don't have time to add this kind of law, because they are so busy repealing bad old laws and cutting the budget!
We're probably more or less in agreement on most of the core issues. Yes, citizens have a right and duty to pay attention to how their government manages resources and treats citizens. No citizens don't have a right to invade each others privacy.
The thing we disagree about is this bill. I feel that OSS in government is a good idea as far as it goes, but that OSS is still immature, and that a natural competition between open and closed source will most likely arise to benefit this sector as much as any other.
I further feel that this particular piece of legislation is an example of micro-management by high level government over smaller agencies in an attempt to win votes from a particular sector. This "pork" seems more like a kickback to the OSS community than any kind of real change.
As such, I find something like this a setback both to open government and the fundamentals that OSS was based on in the first place.
Quit clowning around! The system is either safe or not. Hidding the engine behind it wont solve any problem. You know damn well that proprietary software wont prevent a corrupted government employee from stealing your private informations.
Heh, his point was, neither will OSS. There are no silver bullets, so why don't we just let each agency decide what is best for it rather than trying to shove a particular solution down everyone's throat?
You ever think that proprietary monitoring software might sometimes catch corrupted state employees just as well as open source code? You might further think that resources are generally a problem and that if you want a reliable system yesterday, you might just have to pay for it?
This whole bill smacks more of micro-mangement than of open goodness.
The arguments of "state secrecy" are only defensible if a) we don't care what our government does or b) we don't want to know what our government does.
I guess simple citizen privacy is too much to ask? This proposal deals with computer systems that carry all criminal and driver inquiry information used by law enforcement. Do you have a right to know every time someone else got pulled over and had a criminal history check run on them? Do you have a right to know every time law enforcement may have suspected someone of committing a crime whether they actually were convicted or not?
Worse yet, what do you think corporations would do with this kind of information available to them?
Hmm... Jim had his license plate run 3 times last week even though he never got a ticket, lets raise his car insurance rates.
There is already a huge black market in criminal history and similar information. Do you really think this information needs to be more available? It might be appropriate for state employees to fully understand the software and systems they work on down to the very last detail, and it might even be appropriate for taxpayers to know something about how the government systems are run, but making everything the sysadmin knows (including crypto keys and honeypots) available to the pulblic for every computer run by the government would be a titanic mistake.
This article is bogus. He claims to have perception across his entire visual field. How can this be if the wires are attached to one hemisphere?
Because much like everyone else, his "visual field" is defined by his perception.
Secondly, how can he possibly see if the connection point is at the somatosensory pathway. He could interact with the world but not see it. Cognitive psychology people.
I must not grok this question. He "sees" by using his brain(mind) to process signals coming in from his optical nerve. The fact these nerve signals are generated by an external electrical stimulus to the nerve cells instead of coming directly from the eyes should make little difference.
Since he definitely has a brain(mind) and perception, much like all humans, I don't see where there's any trouble defining what he does as "seeing".
From m-w.com:
see v.
1 a : to perceive by the eye b : to perceive or detect as if by sight
So, in the area of VR HMD research, I am wondering if resolution really matters at all, or if there is a minimum resolution you can give the eyes, and let the brain fill in the rest?
There's a commonly ignored dimension here that is very important. It's time.
So, generate a "full scene" that follows head movement and you'll have one resolution and update rate that is requried to "fill" the user perception.
Generate a "full scene" that displays directly to the users eyes and follows eye motion and there will be another (lower) resolution and movement rate (faster?) that will be required to "fill" the user perception.
The biggest problem with VR and video displays these days is that most "chunk" rather than always maintaining a seamless viewing experience.
What do you think would happen if your eyes cut out for the wrong 1/4 of a second during a boxing match?
You're dealing with a trusted party.
Since "the consumer in general" isn't trusted, all DRM will eventually fail. PKI isn't a silver bullet, as a viewer of conent the only thing I need to be able to decrypt is the movie I want to watch. If I need Sony's private key for that then it's not a very "private" key is it?
Sure, Sony can put a unique private key in each player, but how well do you really think the private key inside that player can be protected? We've already established it can't be protected as software on a PC. The challenge of "key hidden in hardware" hasn't been pushed all the way yet, but early indications are this only makes it more difficult, not impossible.
It only takes one decryptor to "open" a whole lot of content, especially if content is simple. This is why the DRM initiatives are so Draconian and against allowing any "open" content at all. If your PC won't play any open content without major mods, they might keep many consumers out of the market for "open" goods. (look at game consoles for an example of this)
What types of bugs would these be exactly.
"Compilation" bugs? Those are actually there to help you and will save you many more nasty "logic" bugs in the future. Take some time and learn the language a little better, these will gradually become insignificant and invaluaable at the same time.
"Logic" bugs? It's hard to see how logic bugs could be unrelated to the "problem at hand" unless it's a lack of libraries and or consistent interface that is your problem. Not sure how Fortran would help in any case.
Knowing something about these bugs is the first step in trying to avoid them. (whereas switching languages would be one possible last step)
I'll make some guesses:
You're experiencing many compilation bugs because you don't understand the C/C++ environment you're working in, or because you're trying to force fit code from one environment to another. This is natural in switching from a specialized high level language to a very general purpose low level language. It takes a lot of time and effort to really master C or C++.
A nice compromise might be using C or C++ that is callable from Matlab code. This could give you performance where you need it and ease of use when you don't. (Although from what I remember of Matlab the *seems* are no fun...)
Of course, an even better alternative might be Java. It has wide library support and a great degree of similarity in the API's presented by most libraries. It might not be quite as efficient as C or C++ for some problems, but can be more efficient for others. It's also fairly easy to learn and use, and it's going to beat the pants off Matlab or Maple in computation speed. (It can also call native C when necessary, though the data structures differ greatly between C and Java)
Hmm, maybe this whole article is just a Java troll...
Isn't the "fairness" to different businesses. It's the lawyer friendly addition of more legalease.
In actual application, UCITA attempts to create a "default" license model under which all software is sold. Then it creates mechanisms companies can use to over-ride the defaults. One of these mechanisms happens to be "click-wrapped" agreements. This really just means more legalese for everyone, and which ever companies hire lots of lawyers benefit. (Redhat included)
If the courts really do feel that software companies haven't been responsible, they should hit the co's with fines based on what was charged for faulty product. This is how consumer law has worked for many years. If you sell something and the consumer becomes dissatisfied, you'll probably have to give those dissatisfied a refund.
Perhaps what is really missing in UCITA is a gaurantee that legal liablity for software producers won't exceed price charged, unless extra warranties were offered. Also, that when not sold at retail some risk should remain with the consumer.
If RedHat really is worried about being charged more than they were paid in liability fees, then I commend them for knowing they should be scared, and I hope they get better at stating their case.
If instead, they are worried that they may have to give a refund on copies of their software where customers are legitimately dissatisfied, then I hope they quit whining, and behave like a real business.
If the FSF ever "wins" the GPL will vanish in a poof of smoke as though it never existed.
If this is actually true (and I hope it is), we should be able to track the progress of the FSF by measuring the size of the GPL. The smaller it gets the better the FSF is doing in the world...
By that arguement, click-throughs would probably be a major retreat for the FSF.