I guess the good news is that it shows GNU/Linux is gaining in popularity, enough that it is now "the long term threat against [MS'] core business" but -- do we want Microsoft using its substantial influence to retard the development and implementation of GNU/Linux and related free software? This basically a direct assault by MS -- look at the language they're using: "wins against Linux", "Linux Compete Team", etc.
The free software community seems to be in a bit of a sticky point right now. We can no longer be completely ignored. However, the bigger we get, the more attention and fire we're going to get, and we're not really equipped to defend ourselves yet. It would nice to suddenly be the same size as Microsoft, to have that much power and influence, but the only way to get that influence is go through this very impenetrable gauntlet. It's a real Catch-22.
Look at what happened to, say, Napster. When no one had heard of it, it was great. Then the meme started to spread, and more and more people adopted it, and it eventually trickled all the way into mainstream news. And as it broke onto the mainstream, the RIAA immediately caught wind of it (well, they'd probably caught wind of it earlier, but didn't need to take action against it until it was getting too popular) and shut it down. It's sort of like underground bands that steadily gain in popularity for their genuine talent, then suddenly use that popularity as a wedge to sell-out and become yet another generic pop group.
Maybe GNU/Linux would be after all as a purely underground software phenomenom. Then the people who really need a free operating system can make use of it, without attracting fire from biased mainstream news outlets or monopolistic evil corporations. Maybe it's time to stop trying to position the growth of Linux as a "good" thing -- after all, you don't see ISO groups writing up Warez Advocacy FAQs, do you?
Of course, there's really nothing we can do to STOP people from adopting Linux. It's just part of the cycle of things. The underground, real coders start an operating system (remember, DOS and Windows were the new kids on the block once), it gradually spreads to more and more people, it starts getting compromised by the mainstream, the underground jumps ship, the platform soon dies without the support of the underground, and the underground begins its work anew.
To continue the MP3-sharing-software analogy, look at how Napster was abandoned in favor of Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Now everyone knows about and is using them. So the RIAA sues them, and they've started to crack down. Now we'll have a bit of a "dead" period, but soon they'll be another wave coming out of the underground.
...it's easy to poke fun at groups like Clonaid, because after all, their ideas are pretty far removed from "normal" society and have almost no (if any) basis on fact. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to write off everything they do as fodder for the "humor" category. Human cloning presents some serious ethical and moral issues, and we should be prepared for the possibility that some group like the Raelians will actually clone in human. The cloning process has been pretty extensively documented to the public -- I certainly wouldn't have any trouble believing that some fringe group could pull it off.
When we mock groups outside mainstream society, we only give them more reason to retaliate. Just look at Columbine, or at the Oklahoma City bombing in which Timothy McVeigh was motivated by the cover-up of those who died at Ruby Ridge. I'd think the supposedly free-minded people at Slashdot would know better to mock ostracized groups and deride them as "tinfoil-hat wearing" (note that nowhere in the CNN article are the Raelians actually described as wearing tin-foil hats). These people may be different from us, but their actions could present a real, serious issue.
As we progress into the future of computing at an ever-expanding rapid rate,
it is imperative that we occasionally take time to reflect on how others will react to these
unprecendented advances. Examples liek the DMCA and Australia's draconian Internet censorship laws show how easily a new communications paradigm can be thwarted. While enthusiastic "early adopters", who represent
the tide of new ideas and schematics into the technology field, are quick to recognize the virute of these advances, more experienced, but possibly behind-the-times, leaders may perceive these advances not as weapons but enemies. (e.g. While Slashdot readers see themselves as fighting against the attacking tide of user-access control, media industry and government figures see themselves as fighting against the attacking tide of copyright infringement.)
Of course, there is probably some merit to both of these viewpoints. Certainly, commerce and society as a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and
access provided by the Internet. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural
shifts; existing communications and media technologies simply may not be as efficient as Internet-based ones.
Will the Internet sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique
forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and
confrontations for the pioneers in the Internet field. Whatever the final result is,
it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
As we progress into the future of communications at an ever-expanding rapid rate,
it is imperative that we occasionally take time to reflect on how these
unprecendented advances will impact our daily life structure. The recent
case of "space cell phones" shows how controversy can touch upon many aspects of a new
communication paradigm. On one hand, we have enthusiastic "early adopters" who represent
the tide of new ideas and schematics into the communication technology field. On the other hand,
we have the more experienced, but possibly flawed, viewpoint of the current
communication leaders.
Who is correct? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would
argue that this technology presents an undue intrusion into existing social models.
Cell-phone and other long distance communication technology is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of communication;
it alters the capacity for travel, communication, and intellectual exchange in ways that our current economic structure
and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps
glitches in this untested process may condemn cell phones to a footnote in our history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that these kind of cell phones an important step forward for
communications and society. With previous types of cell-phones, not all users could not take
advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day research. Telemetry, they say, opens the proverbial floodgates by bringing this technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day
user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly, society as
a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the mobility capacity and
access provided by cell phones. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural
shifts; existing insular communities may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will telemetry sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique
forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and
confrontations for the pioneers in the telecommuncations field. Whatever the final result is,
it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
As we progress into the future of computing at an ever-expanding rapid rate,
it is imperative that we occasionally take time to reflect on how these
unprecendented advances will impact our daily life structure. The recent
cases involving Instant Messaging shows how controversy can touch upon many aspects of a new
communications paradigm. On one hand, we have enthusiastic "early adopters" who represent
the tide of new ideas and schematics into the IM field. On the other hand,
we have the more experienced, but possibly flawed, viewpoint of the current
IM leaders.
Who is correct? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would
argue that open source technology presents an undue intrusion into the existing IM model.
Jabber technology is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of message interoperability;
it alters the capacity for instant communication in ways that our current economic structure
and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps
glitches in this untested process may condemn open-source IM programs to a footnote in computing
history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that Jabber is an important step forward for
computing and communications. With previous IM platforms, users could not take
advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day
information research. Jabber and other open-source IM programs, they say, open the proverbial floodgates by bringing the
IM technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day
user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly, commerce as
a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and
access provided by open-source instant messaging. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural
shifts; existing IM programs may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will Jabber sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique
forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and
confrontations for the pioneers in the IM field. Whatever the final result is,
it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
It seems that many government agencies -- from many different countries -- are switching from traditional operating systems to free and/or open-source ones. As we progress into the future of computing at an ever-expanding rapid rate,
it is imperative that we occasionally take time to reflect on how this kind of advance will impact our daily life structure. The recent
case of Mexico City's Linux adoption shows how controversy can touch upon many aspects of a new
software sales paradigm. On one hand, we have enthusiastic "early adopters" who represent
the tide of new ideas and schematics into the operating system field. On the other hand,
we have the more experienced, but possibly flawed, viewpoint of the current OS leaders.
Who will prevail? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would
argue that free software presents an undue intrusion into existing economic model.
Open source code is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of software distribution;
it alters the capacity for user freedom in ways that our current economic structure
and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps
foibles in this untested process may condemn Linux to an ultimate footnote amongst economic history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that Linux is an important step forward for both
computer manufacturers and the government. With previous informational "protection" schemes, users could not take
advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day
information research. Open source, they say, opens the proverbial floodgates by bringing knowledge and technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day
user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly,the government as
a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and
access provided by Linux. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural
shifts; Windows and MacOS may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will Linux sink or swim in the government? The question is still up in the air; with many unique
forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and
confrontations for the pioneers in the field. Whatever the final result is,
it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
If we insist on standardization, we run the risk of cutting off future innovation.
Suppose someone develops a new, even better installer. But since it's not the same as your hypothetical Ximian/Helix universal installer, it would be shunned for not meeting the standard.
Standards are made to be broken. It's hard to push the envelope in terms of technology and features when you're stuck with a strict standard to obey. Some of the best software programs have been the ones that have "thought outside the box" and rebuilt everything we know about a particular type of application. (Should we fault Linux for not supporting the "Windows standard?" I think not.) So let's not worry about setting a standard -- the best techonology will always set its own standard.
There's always different tools for different tasks. RPM might fit one project better, while the Debian packages might be the best choice for a second project. Let's not turn a hammer and a screwdriver into the same thing just for simplicity's sake.
It's nice to hear that are some clueful courts out there that are actually paying attention to the issues behind these suits;).
Remember, though, this is just a ruling on the injunction, not on the actual court cases. An injunction is simply used as a preliminary step to prevent one side or the other from significantly damaging the other; there was obviously no need to apply an injunction here as Barnes and Noble's use of a one-click shopping scheme has only a tenuously connection at best to damages to Amazon. An injunction not a final decision by any means. (Note that the Napster "ruling" was also just a ruling on an injunction.)
A full trial is still on its way (starting in September, according to the story), so we could see a different result then -- or the same one. (Barnes and Noble actually stands a better chance of victory in a full trial, as their lawyers will have more of a chance to outline the flaws in the "one-click shopping" patent. Amazon would want to put this case through as quickly as possible so that the jury wouldn't get to hear all the arguments that could be levied against them.)
Companies have been pitching this whole "Internet appliance" for the past five years, and it still hasn't caught on. WebTV was supposed to revolutionize TV and the Internet, and it hasn't made a dent in either. It's pretty apparent that no matter what some corporate visionary says, consumers just don't want "Internet appliances."
They'd rather have a PC that also does word processing, or a music player that also plays CDs, or a game console for gaming...
Internet appliances are a classic example of a misguided inventor trying to use technology to fill a need that doesn't exist. Few people are going to buy a Internet appliance just because it's shiny and new, and there's no real void the systems fill. You can already get Internet access through your PC, a device at least a third of all Americans now own.
Everything an Internet console does can be duplicated by more feature-rich systems. Believe it or not, most people are actually capable of turning on computer and clicking on their web page. It's just "all-in-one" home entertainment systems like the ill-fated 3D0 or PS2 -- companies expected them to be a big hit because they're simple, but no one needed one. People are smarter than you think.
The most successful products are the ones that fulfill an actual desire. Granted, sometimes consumers don't really know they'd benefit from the introduction of a given product until it's actually introduced, but the long history of failures that "Internet appliances" have met indicates that there's not much interest in these kind of products.
Okay, I'll be the first to admit -- this sounds really impressive and would be an amazing engineering feet if they pulled it off. But given the state of Russia's economy, spending $60 billion just to put in a railway, however impressive, seems to be awfully suspect. Remember what happened to the U.S. economy in the 1930s as a result of projects like the Tennessee Valley damming? The worst economic crisis in our nation's history, that's what.
Unfortunately, the death of communism hasn't done much to improve Russia's economy; there's still a lot of hungry people that must be fed, buildings that must be repaired, and pollution that must be removed (the Communists weren't too good about picking up after themselves). $60 billion would go a long way to repairing Russia's economy and fighting the rampant corruption there.
Engineering marvels and feats of science are cool and all, but I think it would be foolish to forget that technology is designed to serve the people, not enslave them. For a country as impoverished as Russia, the first order of business should be to help the many poor and/or depressed families get back on their feet.
Last of all...I'd really like to know what they did to Mr. Hanks' diet. I realize actors have to gain and lose weight often at the whims of their directors, but Hanks started off as a pink, slightly pudgy FedEx worker, and by the time the ship picked him up he was lean and tanned. Quite a dramatic change, if you ask me. Anyone know what kind of diet they put the man on? I want it.
The movie was filmed in two pieces. First they filmed the beginning (and end?) of the movie, then they took some time off while Hanks lost weight before they filmed the island segments.
Fansubbing isn't necessarily illegal; if the anime isn't released in the States, it seems to be basically OK.
Not true. Ever heard of the Berne Convention? Over 120 nations, including Japan, are party to it, which basically means that they all agree to respect each other's copyrights. The Convention requires that "Works originating in one of the contracting States must be given the same protection in each of the other contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals." Among the copyrights protected by the Berne Convention including the right to translate, the right to broadcast, and the right to reproduce.
So, assuming the fansubbers live in a nation that has signed the Berne Convention (and chances are that they do), anything copyrighted in Japan is copyrighted in their nation as well, and they are still committing copyright infringment by translating, broadcastign, and/or reproducing the original anime.
It's easy to cry "censorship" and wave a fist at eBay, but for once I believe they're making the right decision. It seems like the people being targetted here are basically spammers -- companies that are using eBay's services to promote their own sites or stores. Quoth ZDNET:
"Many small businesses use eBay like they would banner ads or newspaper classifieds: as a way to draw in new customers. "
When I visit eBay, it's usually because I'm looking to buy something. I want to see people who are honestly trying to sell that given item, not advertisement. Corporations listing items on eBay as promotional stunt just dilute the list of "real" sellers and jack up prices. As far as I'm concerned, we're better off without them.
If you're just an average eBay user, I don't think they're going to crack down on you just because you arranged an off-site sale once. Not only would this generate some obvious bad karma, policing it would be difficult and expensive. The ones who will be affected by this are the fly-by-night companies who consistently place ad-oriented eBay listings. Average users don't have anything to worry about it.
Besides, the servers hosting eBay.com belong to eBay, and they can ban whatever they want from them.
Hey, you can't browse pornographic sites, but we can let you play violent games where you kill each other by gunning down your enemy or throwing hand granades at them and see their blood get splattered all over the pavement. Oh, and don't forget the head shots!
Sounds like you haven't played CounterStrike much (nor has the Mercury Register, apparently) -- the game actually emphasizes stealth; you're rewarded for killing as few targets as possible. You can read a bit more about what it's actually like on CNet.
I think you must have dozed off during Econ 101... under basic capitalistic theory, competition improves quality and/or reduces price because two companies are competing for the same dollar. For example, if Sega wants to you buy their nintendo system (and not Sony's), they'll try to make their system more attractive -- perhaps by offering better games, or selling it for less. Sony, of course, will try to get you to buy their nintendo (and not Sega's) by doing the same thing. The result? You're offered a better selection because both companies are now putting out improved products.
Buying products from everyone doesn't accomplish this. If you buy both Sega's and Sony's systems, both companies get what they want: your money. Sega has no reason to improve its products because you already bought one; and Sony has also no reason to improve because you also bought one of theirs as well. If consumers don't discriminate between quality and non-quality goods (or cheap and non-cheap goods), then no competitive situation exists.
So if you really want to see forward progress, don't support both. Support whichever one is putting out the product you believe is most worthy of success. If you like Sega's system better, buy it; now you're giving Sony an incentive to make its system more attractive to you by being more like Sega -- which is good for you! And if you like Sony's better, buy it and give Sega to do business like Sony.
Of course, competition also requires consumers not to be very brand loyal. A lot of die-hard Linux or Windows users would be reluctant to switch operating systems even if they'd be happier with the other one. So, there's no harm in changing your "loyalty" and finding a new "adversary" (as you put it) to go up against. In an ideal world, people wouldn't have any consumer loyalty at all -- they'd always vote with their money and buy whatever product is the best product available.
How can this be enforced? There's no "hard drive coalition" like the RIAA or MPAA. Anyone who wants to make a hard drive can -- and plenty of manufacturers do. Sure, the big ones will no doubt bow to the entertainment indus^H^H^H^H^Hcabal's demanads, but just as smaller DVD player manufacturers don't include regional coding, smaller hard driver manufacturers probably won't include any copy protection schemes. And there isn't yet a law that can force people to purchase a disabled hard drive; that would be an illegal restraint of free trade.
When people find that their mainstream hard drivers don't have the functionality they want, they'll simply buy hard drivers from smaller manufacturers. No big surprise there -- we already saw the same thing happen to Circuit City's ill-fated TiVo. I don't see how this situation merits such doomsday predictions; it might be inconvenient, but people aren't stupid. They know what to buy, and it won't be copy protected hard drives.
Remember, ultimately, companies are dependent on your dollar to keep them in business. Don't like their products? Don't buy them, and watch everything start to change.
At least you're just running "an OS" instead of "GNU/Linux." Because then you'd have GNU's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix in a browser in GNU's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix in a browser in GNU's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix...
I've had it up to here with your Metal Gear Solid nonsense. As you yourself said, no one wants to play a game about blood and shooting -- and no one wants to play a game about spies, either. If gaming is to ever become succesful, we need to end the gaming world's obsession with violence and work on perfecting the forklift simulation.
Forklifts have universal appeal. Everyone, from old grandmothers to middle-aged businessman to your little brother can understand what to do with a forklift: race it through the streets of 1980s Yokohama!
Also, the idea of using smells in video games is simply preposterous. Research has shown that the most desired feature of the children of the 21st century is not smells, but taste. How could you not to want to join Ryo Hazuki in experiencing the cool, refreshing taste of Coca-Cola? Or of licking your new UFO catcher figures just to see if you can get high off the paint?
If Hideo Kojima has his way, we'll all be doomed to spend the rest of our gaming lives playing trite old spy sims and mecha fighters. These kind of games have been done over and over. But where, may I ask, are all the forklift racers? Or how about the cat-raising simulations? And what happened to the adjusting-a-sign-to-make-sure-it's-level games of the mid-90s? Only Shenmue can provide you with these experiences.
You have violated my Golden Ule by including the lette 'R', also known as the devil's lette, in you post. Fo you convenience, a coected vesion of you post appeas below:
I think that one of the keys in this fight (if you want to call it that) is to get kids using linux. Get people familia. I believe that to be one of the big easons which Macinstosh computes efuse to die - is because many kids ae using them. Pehaps we need to have install festivals in schools to pomote linux classes in addition to all those typing and CS classes that high-schools aleady offe.
Does anyone know of a school who's major OS is linux? That eally ought to change. These install fests do help, but only to people who would have conveted soone or later anyway. Let's get kids inteested in linux, show them the games they can play, and show the geek-oiented kids how cool it is to hack source.
It's easier to get someone to ty linux after they've had at some exposue to it. Eveything else is the same.
Gramma Nazi's opinion:
I don't agee with this post. I ealize that some of my gramma coections slightly changed the meanings, but the point is still there. Please, fluxad, do try to proofead your comments in the futue
Load up on grits and bring your aunts They're fun to pour right down your pants Natalie is naked and turned to stone Oh no, OOG's gone, now I'm all alone
I like trolling, it's contagious Here we are now, moderate us You don't like caps, post aborted? ASCII art plans, they are thwarted! I got bitchslapped, I dissed Bojay I post flamebait every Troll Day Yeah!
First posting's what I do best And for this gift I feel blessed Commander T likes other men And always will until the end
VA's stock price, it's disastrous Hey, does timmy ride the short bus? All they post now: Lars and Napster Well, this sure ain't stuff that matters Raymond shoots ten who don't 'get it'? Read it Tuesday on ZDNet Yeah!
And I forgot Just why I post Oh yeah, I'm first, so now I can boast I'm not that lame, the filters are blind Can you imagine a -- oh, nevermind
I'm not rabid, like the zealots So they flamed me, they're just jealous Metamodding and IP bans Won't you use them on ol' sorehands? I don't want to beg for karma Don't hate patents, just your dogma I'm not insightful Not insightful Not insightful...
As we progress into the future of computing at an ever-expanding rapid rate, it is imperative that we occasionally take time to reflect on how these unprecendented advances will impact our daily life structure. The recent case of a government-funded search engine shows how controversy can touch upon many aspects of a new searching paradigm. On one hand, we have enthusiastic "early adopters" who represent the tide of new ideas and schematics into the search-engine field. On the other hand, we have the more experienced, but possibly flawed, viewpoint of the current search leaders.
Who is correct? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would argue that this technology presents an undue intrusion into existing search model. The government's search technology is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of Internet search engines; it alters the capacity for searching in ways that our current economic structure and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps glitches in this untested process may condemn a government search engine to a footnote in computing history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that a government search engine is an important step forward for computing and information resources. With previous informational searches, users could not take advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day information research. A government search engine, they say, opens the proverbial floodgates by bringing the search technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly, commerce as a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and access provided by a government search engine. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural shifts; existing search engines may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will a government search engine sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and confrontations for the pioneers in the searching field. Whatever the final result is, it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the good news is that it shows GNU/Linux is gaining in popularity, enough that it is now "the long term threat against [MS'] core business" but -- do we want Microsoft using its substantial influence to retard the development and implementation of GNU/Linux and related free software? This basically a direct assault by MS -- look at the language they're using: "wins against Linux", "Linux Compete Team", etc.
The free software community seems to be in a bit of a sticky point right now. We can no longer be completely ignored. However, the bigger we get, the more attention and fire we're going to get, and we're not really equipped to defend ourselves yet. It would nice to suddenly be the same size as Microsoft, to have that much power and influence, but the only way to get that influence is go through this very impenetrable gauntlet. It's a real Catch-22.
Look at what happened to, say, Napster. When no one had heard of it, it was great. Then the meme started to spread, and more and more people adopted it, and it eventually trickled all the way into mainstream news. And as it broke onto the mainstream, the RIAA immediately caught wind of it (well, they'd probably caught wind of it earlier, but didn't need to take action against it until it was getting too popular) and shut it down. It's sort of like underground bands that steadily gain in popularity for their genuine talent, then suddenly use that popularity as a wedge to sell-out and become yet another generic pop group.
Maybe GNU/Linux would be after all as a purely underground software phenomenom. Then the people who really need a free operating system can make use of it, without attracting fire from biased mainstream news outlets or monopolistic evil corporations. Maybe it's time to stop trying to position the growth of Linux as a "good" thing -- after all, you don't see ISO groups writing up Warez Advocacy FAQs, do you?
Of course, there's really nothing we can do to STOP people from adopting Linux. It's just part of the cycle of things. The underground, real coders start an operating system (remember, DOS and Windows were the new kids on the block once), it gradually spreads to more and more people, it starts getting compromised by the mainstream, the underground jumps ship, the platform soon dies without the support of the underground, and the underground begins its work anew.
To continue the MP3-sharing-software analogy, look at how Napster was abandoned in favor of Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Now everyone knows about and is using them. So the RIAA sues them, and they've started to crack down. Now we'll have a bit of a "dead" period, but soon they'll be another wave coming out of the underground.
It's all cycle.
When we mock groups outside mainstream society, we only give them more reason to retaliate. Just look at Columbine, or at the Oklahoma City bombing in which Timothy McVeigh was motivated by the cover-up of those who died at Ruby Ridge. I'd think the supposedly free-minded people at Slashdot would know better to mock ostracized groups and deride them as "tinfoil-hat wearing" (note that nowhere in the CNN article are the Raelians actually described as wearing tin-foil hats). These people may be different from us, but their actions could present a real, serious issue.
Yu Suzuki
Of course, there is probably some merit to both of these viewpoints. Certainly, commerce and society as a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and access provided by the Internet. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural shifts; existing communications and media technologies simply may not be as efficient as Internet-based ones.
Will the Internet sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and confrontations for the pioneers in the Internet field. Whatever the final result is, it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
Yu Suzuki
Who is correct? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would argue that this technology presents an undue intrusion into existing social models. Cell-phone and other long distance communication technology is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of communication; it alters the capacity for travel, communication, and intellectual exchange in ways that our current economic structure and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps glitches in this untested process may condemn cell phones to a footnote in our history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that these kind of cell phones an important step forward for communications and society. With previous types of cell-phones, not all users could not take advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day research. Telemetry, they say, opens the proverbial floodgates by bringing this technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly, society as a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the mobility capacity and access provided by cell phones. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural shifts; existing insular communities may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will telemetry sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and confrontations for the pioneers in the telecommuncations field. Whatever the final result is, it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
Yu Suzuki
Who is correct? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would argue that open source technology presents an undue intrusion into the existing IM model. Jabber technology is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of message interoperability; it alters the capacity for instant communication in ways that our current economic structure and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps glitches in this untested process may condemn open-source IM programs to a footnote in computing history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that Jabber is an important step forward for computing and communications. With previous IM platforms, users could not take advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day information research. Jabber and other open-source IM programs, they say, open the proverbial floodgates by bringing the IM technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly, commerce as a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and access provided by open-source instant messaging. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural shifts; existing IM programs may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will Jabber sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and confrontations for the pioneers in the IM field. Whatever the final result is, it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
Yu Suzuki
Who will prevail? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would argue that free software presents an undue intrusion into existing economic model. Open source code is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of software distribution; it alters the capacity for user freedom in ways that our current economic structure and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps foibles in this untested process may condemn Linux to an ultimate footnote amongst economic history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that Linux is an important step forward for both computer manufacturers and the government. With previous informational "protection" schemes, users could not take advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day information research. Open source, they say, opens the proverbial floodgates by bringing knowledge and technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly,the government as a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and access provided by Linux. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural shifts; Windows and MacOS may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will Linux sink or swim in the government? The question is still up in the air; with many unique forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and confrontations for the pioneers in the field. Whatever the final result is, it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
Yu Suzuki
Suppose someone develops a new, even better installer. But since it's not the same as your hypothetical Ximian/Helix universal installer, it would be shunned for not meeting the standard. Standards are made to be broken. It's hard to push the envelope in terms of technology and features when you're stuck with a strict standard to obey. Some of the best software programs have been the ones that have "thought outside the box" and rebuilt everything we know about a particular type of application. (Should we fault Linux for not supporting the "Windows standard?" I think not.) So let's not worry about setting a standard -- the best techonology will always set its own standard.
There's always different tools for different tasks. RPM might fit one project better, while the Debian packages might be the best choice for a second project. Let's not turn a hammer and a screwdriver into the same thing just for simplicity's sake.
Yu Suzuki
Remember, though, this is just a ruling on the injunction, not on the actual court cases. An injunction is simply used as a preliminary step to prevent one side or the other from significantly damaging the other; there was obviously no need to apply an injunction here as Barnes and Noble's use of a one-click shopping scheme has only a tenuously connection at best to damages to Amazon. An injunction not a final decision by any means. (Note that the Napster "ruling" was also just a ruling on an injunction.)
A full trial is still on its way (starting in September, according to the story), so we could see a different result then -- or the same one. (Barnes and Noble actually stands a better chance of victory in a full trial, as their lawyers will have more of a chance to outline the flaws in the "one-click shopping" patent. Amazon would want to put this case through as quickly as possible so that the jury wouldn't get to hear all the arguments that could be levied against them.)
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
Internet appliances are a classic example of a misguided inventor trying to use technology to fill a need that doesn't exist. Few people are going to buy a Internet appliance just because it's shiny and new, and there's no real void the systems fill. You can already get Internet access through your PC, a device at least a third of all Americans now own.
Everything an Internet console does can be duplicated by more feature-rich systems. Believe it or not, most people are actually capable of turning on computer and clicking on their web page. It's just "all-in-one" home entertainment systems like the ill-fated 3D0 or PS2 -- companies expected them to be a big hit because they're simple, but no one needed one. People are smarter than you think.
The most successful products are the ones that fulfill an actual desire. Granted, sometimes consumers don't really know they'd benefit from the introduction of a given product until it's actually introduced, but the long history of failures that "Internet appliances" have met indicates that there's not much interest in these kind of products.
Neat to see BeIA getting some use, though...
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
Unfortunately, the death of communism hasn't done much to improve Russia's economy; there's still a lot of hungry people that must be fed, buildings that must be repaired, and pollution that must be removed (the Communists weren't too good about picking up after themselves). $60 billion would go a long way to repairing Russia's economy and fighting the rampant corruption there.
Engineering marvels and feats of science are cool and all, but I think it would be foolish to forget that technology is designed to serve the people, not enslave them. For a country as impoverished as Russia, the first order of business should be to help the many poor and/or depressed families get back on their feet.
Yu Suzuki
The movie was filmed in two pieces. First they filmed the beginning (and end?) of the movie, then they took some time off while Hanks lost weight before they filmed the island segments.
Yu Suzuki
Not true. Ever heard of the Berne Convention? Over 120 nations, including Japan, are party to it, which basically means that they all agree to respect each other's copyrights. The Convention requires that "Works originating in one of the contracting States must be given the same protection in each of the other contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals." Among the copyrights protected by the Berne Convention including the right to translate, the right to broadcast, and the right to reproduce.
So, assuming the fansubbers live in a nation that has signed the Berne Convention (and chances are that they do), anything copyrighted in Japan is copyrighted in their nation as well, and they are still committing copyright infringment by translating, broadcastign, and/or reproducing the original anime.
Yu Suzuki
When I visit eBay, it's usually because I'm looking to buy something. I want to see people who are honestly trying to sell that given item, not advertisement. Corporations listing items on eBay as promotional stunt just dilute the list of "real" sellers and jack up prices. As far as I'm concerned, we're better off without them.
If you're just an average eBay user, I don't think they're going to crack down on you just because you arranged an off-site sale once. Not only would this generate some obvious bad karma, policing it would be difficult and expensive. The ones who will be affected by this are the fly-by-night companies who consistently place ad-oriented eBay listings. Average users don't have anything to worry about it.
Besides, the servers hosting eBay.com belong to eBay, and they can ban whatever they want from them.
Yu Suzuki
Sounds like you haven't played CounterStrike much (nor has the Mercury Register, apparently) -- the game actually emphasizes stealth; you're rewarded for killing as few targets as possible. You can read a bit more about what it's actually like on CNet.
Yu Suzuki
Buying products from everyone doesn't accomplish this. If you buy both Sega's and Sony's systems, both companies get what they want: your money. Sega has no reason to improve its products because you already bought one; and Sony has also no reason to improve because you also bought one of theirs as well. If consumers don't discriminate between quality and non-quality goods (or cheap and non-cheap goods), then no competitive situation exists.
So if you really want to see forward progress, don't support both. Support whichever one is putting out the product you believe is most worthy of success. If you like Sega's system better, buy it; now you're giving Sony an incentive to make its system more attractive to you by being more like Sega -- which is good for you! And if you like Sony's better, buy it and give Sega to do business like Sony.
Of course, competition also requires consumers not to be very brand loyal. A lot of die-hard Linux or Windows users would be reluctant to switch operating systems even if they'd be happier with the other one. So, there's no harm in changing your "loyalty" and finding a new "adversary" (as you put it) to go up against. In an ideal world, people wouldn't have any consumer loyalty at all -- they'd always vote with their money and buy whatever product is the best product available.
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
When people find that their mainstream hard drivers don't have the functionality they want, they'll simply buy hard drivers from smaller manufacturers. No big surprise there -- we already saw the same thing happen to Circuit City's ill-fated TiVo. I don't see how this situation merits such doomsday predictions; it might be inconvenient, but people aren't stupid. They know what to buy, and it won't be copy protected hard drives.
Remember, ultimately, companies are dependent on your dollar to keep them in business. Don't like their products? Don't buy them, and watch everything start to change.
Yu Suzuki
Oh dearie me.
Yu Suzuki
You've obviously never played Xenogears.
Yu Suzuki
Forklifts have universal appeal. Everyone, from old grandmothers to middle-aged businessman to your little brother can understand what to do with a forklift: race it through the streets of 1980s Yokohama!
Also, the idea of using smells in video games is simply preposterous. Research has shown that the most desired feature of the children of the 21st century is not smells, but taste. How could you not to want to join Ryo Hazuki in experiencing the cool, refreshing taste of Coca-Cola? Or of licking your new UFO catcher figures just to see if you can get high off the paint?
If Hideo Kojima has his way, we'll all be doomed to spend the rest of our gaming lives playing trite old spy sims and mecha fighters. These kind of games have been done over and over. But where, may I ask, are all the forklift racers? Or how about the cat-raising simulations? And what happened to the adjusting-a-sign-to-make-sure-it's-level games of the mid-90s? Only Shenmue can provide you with these experiences.
Yu Suzuki
You have violated my Golden Ule by including the lette 'R', also known as the devil's lette, in you post. Fo you convenience, a coected vesion of you post appeas below:
Thank you fo you coopeation.
Yu Suzuki
They're fun to pour right down your pants
Natalie is naked and turned to stone
Oh no, OOG's gone, now I'm all alone
Hello, hello, hello, Katz blows
Hello, hello, hello, Katz blows
I like trolling, it's contagious
Here we are now, moderate us
You don't like caps, post aborted?
ASCII art plans, they are thwarted!
I got bitchslapped, I dissed Bojay
I post flamebait every Troll Day
Yeah!
First posting's what I do best
And for this gift I feel blessed
Commander T likes other men
And always will until the end
Hello, hello, hello, Katz blows
Hello, hello, hello, Katz blows
VA's stock price, it's disastrous
Hey, does timmy ride the short bus?
All they post now: Lars and Napster
Well, this sure ain't stuff that matters
Raymond shoots ten who don't 'get it'?
Read it Tuesday on ZDNet
Yeah!
And I forgot
Just why I post
Oh yeah, I'm first, so now I can boast
I'm not that lame, the filters are blind
Can you imagine a -- oh, nevermind
I'm not rabid, like the zealots
So they flamed me, they're just jealous
Metamodding and IP bans
Won't you use them on ol' sorehands?
I don't want to beg for karma
Don't hate patents, just your dogma
I'm not insightful
Not insightful
Not insightful...
Yu Suzuki
Who is correct? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would argue that this technology presents an undue intrusion into existing search model. The government's search technology is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of Internet search engines; it alters the capacity for searching in ways that our current economic structure and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps glitches in this untested process may condemn a government search engine to a footnote in computing history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that a government search engine is an important step forward for computing and information resources. With previous informational searches, users could not take advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day information research. A government search engine, they say, opens the proverbial floodgates by bringing the search technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly, commerce as a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and access provided by a government search engine. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural shifts; existing search engines may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will a government search engine sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and confrontations for the pioneers in the searching field. Whatever the final result is, it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
Yu Suzuki