E-books do get a lot of criticism, which is not surprising considering the fact that they are revolutionary (that is, they stop the custom of printing that dates back to Guttenberg and the Chinese), and also that they are located at the bleeding edge of modern copyright disputes. I'd like to explain why I think E-books are good:
First of all, E-books save space. That is, instead of a whole cabinet full of various books some of which I access very seldom, I get one small and elegant device (plus a few gigs of computer storage). Also, I get the ability to cross-reference, that is, for example, if I read some Latin texts, I can look words up in a dictionary. Also, one can take much of his library with him, without having to carry books in luggage (books are generally very heavy).
Secondly, they spare paper. I don't really need many of the books, and some others I need for a brief period of time. For each course I take in the University, I get at least 8 centimeters of A4 format books and brouchures. I really need them for 5 months; afterwards they become a static excuse to my ecological conscience.
Often complaints are heard over PC-displayed E-books. Of course, CRT screens irritate the eyes in almost all conditions, and therefore make time-intensive occupations (such as reading books) a torture. Also, the CRT screen is not designed to contain lots of readable type, even when anti-aliasing is used. However, the forthcoming designs of next-generation PDAs show us that they will have a big-enough, readable but not irritating LCD screen. Reading an E-book with a PC is difficult; however reading one with a PDA will be much more convenient.
Reading this way or other is a habit, and I think that E-books will soon become parts of our households, and indeed of our lives.
First of all, the article seems to have a point (although I am not a computer security expert). Particularly, the redirects inolving HTTP and DNS tricks are already popular compromises. Therefore, Passport is indeed insecure.
What makes stuff worse is that (unlike most other web-based authentication systems), Passport is going to be used massively by thousands of online dealers. Think about what would happen if Amazon were compromised. Passport break-in would be worse, since all of the Amazons of the world will grow to rely on it.
So the real problem with Passport is that it is going to be used so widely; it is a valid small-scale solution (where the profit from compromising such a service is minimal), however it does not scale well when we talk about millions of users spending billions of dollars. I just hope that Passport will not be used by serious retailers, if we ever want to have some semblance of security and privacy.
Remember, we are discussing non-lethal weapons. I suppose that to stop a riot one has to use some weapon, or do you suppose to do it telepathically?
Also, if you are aproached by muggers who want to kill you, will you not try to kill them first, if you can? All depends on context, soldiers shooting civilians is OK when they do it as self-defence.
You are again deviating from the course of the discussion. I am merely pointing at the fact that if a crowd attacks armed soldiers, it should not expect that the soldiers won't protect themselves. So when protestors at Berkley attacked the NG, four of them were killed since they attacked the soldiers, and not since, say, they had had corrupted Communist beliefs. Clear and present danger to a soldier translates into a clear and present danger to the rioters. No gizmo may change that.
It is beyond the scope of this discussion whether the soldiers are supposed to be there or not, however any armed force will not tolerate big crowds (remember the National Guard in the 60s, don't tell me the NG was an alien force occupying California universities)
Yes, that's right. Everything that can go wrong will go wrong. However with machines instead of people making the decisions can lead to serious problems, as the price is too high: human life.
Even the relatively elegant solutions often fail. Thus, for example, the "rubber bullets" that the Israeli Army and Police use are especially designed to be non-lethal - their velocity is lower than a real bullet's, and their shape discourages penetration of the protestors' skin. Usually all these bullets do is a serious bruise (which is the desireable outcome, and essencially the reason why real ammunition is not used instead). However, at close range, if a rubber bullet hits a protestor's head, it might lead to severe traumas or even death.
The problem is worsened by the tendency of the protesters to put the police forces in unfavorable conditions, so that the nonlethal weapons become lethal. For example, in the recent Palestinian riots, one could see groups of few soldiers facing crowds of few hundreds, that approached them with sticks, stones and guns. Since a violent crowd of such size poses a serious threat, the soldiers had to shoot rubber bullets, some of them at ranges which were not as safe as it could be desired.
So it looks to me, that no matter how safe is a weapon, protesters will always find a way to push the law enforcement forces to the corner and make them use it in a dangerous way (or simply fire their handguns).
My opinion on this topic is: since genetic material is, by its nature, not unique, it should not be possible to patent it. Therefore, the family should not receive anything, however it should also be obligatory for the researchers to put the results of their investigation into public domain. As of any future developments using that genetic material, any company should be allowed to use this material for the manufacturing of drugs.
Genetic material is in most cases not unique. Therefore it will not be just to allow the grabbing of discoveries by someone who was simply the first to spot some phenomenon. Genetics contain enormous goods and evils for the whole of humanity, therefore the custody over it should also be common.
As of the economic issue, I am aware that research costs money; however big biotech companies can just as well finance their research labs as they do now, since practical use of genetic technologies also calls for considerable investments, decreasing the possibilities of parasitical competition.
We will need to support.NET on Linux, since that is what everyone in the world will use. The architectures you've mentioned might be great; however.NET seems to have the biggest potential potential user base. The same way noone can afford to use EBCDIC as the default encoding of an OS, Linux can't rely on technologic solutions that are in the minority.
Also please note that.NET is not just for web servers; it can also be used for all sorts of client-side programs. Think what would happen if Microsoft rewrote Word around.NET (which seems quite likely to me), and then almost any Linux user would be capable of using it. This would make Windows obsolete almost immediately.
Linux's history is a history of emulating Microsoft, and only then surpassing it. Linux was written (and still used mainly) on i386 platforms which were made popular by Microsoft. Linux GUIs have borrowed much from Windows. Samba is one of the most popular pieces of software. Word processors in developments get MS Word filters as a first priority. I think this is normal - we cannot just become better than Microsoft and win the market. We must first surpass it, and this could only be done at the expense of some emulation.
As far as I understand, the making of a whole.NET compatibility layer is an immense task. Writing a C# compiler is relatively easy - perhaps a year for a CS student, even less for an experienced guru. However the real problem is the libraries.
.NET uses a whole lot of libraries, which go all the way from standard UI elements and up to DirectX support. There is an enormous number of features to implement. Look at Wine, for example, which in spite of its excellent, big team, are currently lagging behind Microsoft (generally, Wine's support is on Windows 95 API level, with incomplete DirectX and advanced COM support. One programmer (or even a limited group of programmers) will find it hard to implement all of the libraries.
Finally, I think that Linux will have to support.NET (or some other contemporary technology) at some point. The only way to win in the OS war with Windows will be to provide an embrace-and-extend policy of our own. Look for instance at Samba, which is designed to retire NT/2000 servers. Samba did not become the Linux networking default, although it did take an important place in virtually every distro that there is. The same thing should happen to.NET
Previously, I'd thought that the DMCA might only be stopped by years of protests supported by the wide masses, and possibly with a revolutionary mood (a la 60s). However it does not have to be that way.
I believe that localized law (and just a bit of activist) action may cause the trial to go up all the way to the High Court, where DMCA could be overthrown. That way we could evade the really harsh consequences of the DMCA.
Of course, using such approach we take the risk that one of the courts will be bribed sufficiently to deny his appeal. Also, the public won't have the chance to develop a comprehensive attitude towards IP. However DMCA is such a major obstacle, that it's better to be removed as soon as possible. Skylarov's arrest is only the first word in the preface of a tragedy which could happen if DMCA stays.
It seems to me now that all that Microsoft has won was a single battle in the browser war.
Internet Explorer was, undoubtedly, one of the best programs MS ever wrote. It was quite fast (initially), supported many of the web standards and had excellent internationalization. However, while Mozilla had to retreat and regroup, it was well worth it.
Mozilla has now grown to accomodate many of IE's "cool" features. And here we can see IE's greatest shortcoming: it was built with corporate thinking in mind. Mozilla has an excellent development team which is concerned solely with Mozilla's good functioning as a browser. On the other hand, Microsoft has now become concerned with integrated IM, their online "services" and other features which make IE unstable and bloated.
A couple of weeks ago I saw one of my friends (who is not deeply involved with the open-source movement) using Mozilla. The reason for his choice was the fact that Mozilla (even the earlier 0.8!) ran faster than IE 6. It gave me hope - I saw that open-source software can prevail upon commercial software in the trial of public opinion.
As a person who uses Linux quite systematically, I don't give a damn whether my computer has inside it an i386, a PPC, an UltraSPARC or an ARM. Much was done to ensure that Linux was platform independent, and as far as I can judge it is.
The PC hardware is burdened by hundreds of legacy solutions, for example the memory model, the peripherial interfaces and the BIOS. A newly designed board will do much better.
So what I would personally like to see is a cheap non-i386 board which has IDE (or at least SCSI) connectors, video out, USB, Ethernet, and possibly an audio system. I do not think it'll require a form factor exceeding that of a set-top box. To sum up, it's like a SUN workstation, just cheaper. I hope that someday I'll be able to see such a system upon my desk.
M$ FUD generally makes a bad reading, since it persumes the listener to be a total idiot. However it did use to have one valid point: the economic factor.
Open-source projects earn money with much difficulty and in indirect ways. This was an issue which has concerned me much, because money is necessary for existence in any reasonable society.
The recent news about RedHat making profit uplifted that concern from my heart. RedHat is built around free software. It is apparent that if RedHat can make profit, others can too.
I think that this is an excellent project in general, not just in the input library. It already has much functionality, it is developed an coordinated thoroughly, and they even gave thought to porting their player to other platforms.
Notate bene also the fact that they have not tried to make themselves known, in spite of the fact that they have a superior product, contrary to the massive media coverage some other, significantly less successfull developments are drawing.
Also mark the fact that the students in questions are as far as I can tell college students. Writing a DVD player is an exceedingly difficult task; I just hope that my school would spawn projects more significant than a pocker game simulator.
I think it's generally wrong to look for the coolest/newest/most elegant language to use. It's better to stick with the simpler one. During the last year, I've had had two courses in beginning to program: Pascal at school and C++ (without OO) in the university where I've been taking courses. I knew C, C++ and Pascal beforehand, so I had a plenty of time to reflect upon the teaching progress.
I've reached the conclusion that students who do not program have difficulty even with loops, pointers etc. I've come to the notice that often understanding of procedural programming is crucial for OO work. That's why it is important to teach pupils a procedural programming language.
The language of my choice is C. It is one of the most prominent procedural languages, has a simple and ubitiquous syntax, and can be easily used for advanced work. Knowledge of C has some real weight in the market, unlike, say, Pascal. To sum up, simple is beautiful
I think many of us have a false assumption: that an 11 year old girl might find interest in unallowed sites. I think that it's generally a false assumption, and the less we try to use it, the better.
As far as I remember myself at the age of 12 (which was only 4 years ago), I've browsed the 'net quite extensively. I've never, even once, felt the urge to look for pr0n. Contrarily, when I did come accross some banners (or whatever), I closed the browser or ignored it alltogether. It was simply a bit disgusting for me.
The 'net-pr0n mania is just a frenzy, and it has little to do with reality. I consider pr0n to be something quite harmless, even if one looks for it deliberately. Instead, it seems to me that the issue is really about parents who can't give their children a talk about [pr0n|sex|drugs|whatever]. And the more adults will talk about the need to block any sites, the more children will be needlessly drawn to watching them.
One of the PDAs' biggest problems is the fact that the screen is too small to do anything useful. Perhaps such paper could solve this problem.
It's generally more difficult to watch TV from an uncomfortable position (e.g. too close) than to read from a sheet of paper. For the same reason, the addition of a convenient, big and readable display to PDAs might improve their usability greatly.
A disadvantage of digital paper is the lower refresh rates such a display may provide. Even 10 fps don't usually do the trick, and such paper probably has less than 1. However it could potentially become the display solution of choice for the PDA market.
The article's got it wrong, I think
on
Lord of the Geeks
·
· Score: 1
I deem it a mistake to consider literature purely by the deductive value it bears. Therefore, it is a mistake to deprecate Tolkien's book because they lack a deductive sense.
The main attribute of the books, as I see them, is their internal esthetics. It can be found in just about any page of the book - in the sentences of Tolkien's immensly elegant and sophisticated English, in the development of the plot (which certainly looks like it has been really worked upon for all of the 15 years of the writing of the book), and in the tongues Tolkien used (for me, the very words "A Elbereth Gilthoniel" sound beautiful).
Besides the undeniable esthetic aspect, the very existence of Tolkien's mythology seems fascinating to me. The story of Beren and Luthien is as fascinating as any Greek myth (and certainly, their deductive values are almost identical). Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece, whether you like it or not.
I'd like to begin with the fact that I'm full or respect towards the guys that had written this port of Linux. Great job, guys.
However, I must also say that the hardware in the PS/1 is simply not enough. If it only had some kind of a network interface, I'd be the first to get it. However without a network interface it becomes quite useless. I can cope with the absence of a hard drive or good input, as long as I can burn the system on a CD and telnet in.
What I would have been glad to find is a box similar to the PS/1, plus a network interface. There can be countless areas where it could be applied - from mp3 playing to firewalling.
I know, this is an odd thing to say. However, it seems to me that many people are just too ardent to throw away an old computer when they get a new one.
It really surprises me how much can be done with very limited hardware. A PDP-11 was enough for the development of UNIX and of C, in spite of the fact that it has performance not exceeding that of an 286 (PDP was 32 bit, though). My parents began using computers at the time they had to punch bytecodes (which were not called that way then:-) on perforated paper. And yet they (and thousands of other people) have managed to achieve much using these very simple means.
I am not saying that a computer never gets old. An XT should have become total junk by now. However, even now an old 486 has a plenty of uses: MP3 (well, a Pentium is better for that), print serving, firewalling, limited-scale web-serving, just studying Linux and more. It seems to me that the problem would diminish if people started thinking what their "garbage" could do before throwing it away.
It is quite apparent to me that Microsoft will fall down eventually, as all the creations of humanity have downfallen from the greatness they once had had. However I expect their demise to be neither shortcoming nor quick.
Microsoft has occupied very important positions in two vital areas: office software and desktop operating systems. They have also ventured into countless other markets, such as server software and even gaming hardware. However, it is in these areas that Microsoft will face determined oposition.
Microsoft's corporate attitude to problems (releasing often and making the public beleive there are major improvements each time) may work well for their fields of dominance - amid the ignorant public. However, Microsoft does not convince the professionals. It is the reason that Microsoft will never expand its share in the server market.
As to the desktop software area, it might take some time for opposing forces to appear. Microsoft may lose popularity among customers, for things like XP's forced registration. It is also apparent that the level of average knowledge of computers among the population will increase greatly in 10 years. Hardware may also change in such ways that may make Microsoft's activities more difficult (or the opposite - who knows?).
To sum up, remember these words in a language that was once considered to be a part of an omnipotent global culture - sic transit gloria mundi.
To begin with, I'm 16 years old. By definition I am biased, and my comment shall speak
from only one point of view. However I tried to put it down well.
To me, such enforcement of parental control over their children clearly defies all wisdom
that has ever been collected while bringing up children. It all comes to trust.
Trust is a vital aspect in any kind of a relationship. It persumes a certain degree of
independence, yet it also provides a degree of security. And old saying states that
"where there's no trust, there's no love". However, it is also true that where
there's no love there's no trust.
It also disturbs me that many parents try to shape their children the way they would like
themselves to be. Indeed, I dare not imagine how many Mozarts, Turings, Tolkiens or Hilberts
are being born each year, of which just few get to do what they're good at.
Another issue is horizon of knowledge. I believe that there should not be any single book
that is forbidden to the youth. I've already heard (not being a citizen of the US) that the
American authorities deprecate a wide range of books (e.g. "The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn"). I am Jewish; yet I find a higher wisdom in the fact that my parents
allow me to read Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories", since I'm interested in WWII
history. I fail to understand why the youth is considered basically unable to distinguish
good and bad, right and wrong. It is this treatment that diminishes its ability to do
so.
The traits which development I consider most important are creativity, originality,
freshness of perception, good judgement, love of the fair. Many of these are virtues of
freedom. They are impossible to achieve by keeping children in a cage - even if the cage is
gilded.
The last point I'd like to make is regarding freedom. The Convention on the Rights of the Child
speaks of this clearly: Articles 12 to 19 speak about the children's rights, specifically
the right to information and Article 16 specifically forbids "arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence". I will only
mention such issues as curfews or various sorts of giving-in organizations which sponsor
unlawful deprivation of rights which is combined with ghestapo tactics. I think that such
policies may laugh a totalitarian country to scorn. What do you think?
As a Tolkien fan, I've been watching the progress of the movie with some care, and I'd like to say that I'm quite happy with the way it is supposed to be going.
While I do not intend to spoil your experience (this you can do at theonering.net),
it seems to me that the movie is in good hands. As far as I see it, it is neither an over-simplification, nor an exact duplicate of the books.
Superficially, Tolkien's style may appear obscure and overcomplicated. However, when one considers it, it is only natural that the characters have be submerged so deep into the universe Tolkien described, since it is their universe.
It is impossible to make LoTR a movie directly from the books: too much of the "action" occurs in the characters' thought or surfaces in their memory. A movie needs to focus us on a set certain plots.
As I said earlier, the forthcoming movie seems to do quite a good job in staying true to LoTR and in the same time transforming it into a movie. This is one film I'm going to see this winter.
It is impossible to do this for drivers. There are countless reasons for that, but I'll just try to reiterate a few of them:
Interface: a "sound driver" for Linux does not do what a sound driver for Windows does. The APIs are completely different.
Architectural issues: some Windows drivers play tricks with real mode or create interrupts for DOS TSRs, which is much more difficult to do in Linux.
System architecture: drivers are built in order to fit to their operating system. Even if the API problem is solved, Linux uses other strategies for handling data.
I am not a kernel hacker, so perhaps my reasoning is not complete (or exact). However, it seems to me that it is virtually impossible to use efficiently (i.e. the way consumers want) the drivers which were written for other operating systems. Considering the above topics, the overhead should be enormous, and who'd like to have his, say GeForce 3 perform like a Cirrus 5424?
The author's piece is quite naive in the places that concern the thing's physical shape. A viewfinder just won't do it. Just don't expect any video output, if you want it to be as small as a finger.
The current conceptions for video display are very primitive. Currently we employ only two types of video devices: CRT and LCD. We can make neither small enough. However, it occured to me that we simply do not need video. Good voice-to-text and text-to-voice will do for the recorder and cell-phone function. If video output is necessary, a possible solution could be a way to connect to a digital book (another thing everyone's gonna have in 10 years). A small pad, and clear to go for Tetris.
As an endnote, does the "finger" idea have anything to do with the fact that digitus is the noun for "finger" in Latin?
Slashdot Mirror
E-books do get a lot of criticism, which is not surprising considering the fact that they are revolutionary (that is, they stop the custom of printing that dates back to Guttenberg and the Chinese), and also that they are located at the bleeding edge of modern copyright disputes. I'd like to explain why I think E-books are good:
First of all, E-books save space. That is, instead of a whole cabinet full of various books some of which I access very seldom, I get one small and elegant device (plus a few gigs of computer storage). Also, I get the ability to cross-reference, that is, for example, if I read some Latin texts, I can look words up in a dictionary. Also, one can take much of his library with him, without having to carry books in luggage (books are generally very heavy).
Secondly, they spare paper. I don't really need many of the books, and some others I need for a brief period of time. For each course I take in the University, I get at least 8 centimeters of A4 format books and brouchures. I really need them for 5 months; afterwards they become a static excuse to my ecological conscience.
Often complaints are heard over PC-displayed E-books. Of course, CRT screens irritate the eyes in almost all conditions, and therefore make time-intensive occupations (such as reading books) a torture. Also, the CRT screen is not designed to contain lots of readable type, even when anti-aliasing is used. However, the forthcoming designs of next-generation PDAs show us that they will have a big-enough, readable but not irritating LCD screen. Reading an E-book with a PC is difficult; however reading one with a PDA will be much more convenient.
Reading this way or other is a habit, and I think that E-books will soon become parts of our households, and indeed of our lives.
First of all, the article seems to have a point (although I am not a computer security expert). Particularly, the redirects inolving HTTP and DNS tricks are already popular compromises. Therefore, Passport is indeed insecure.
What makes stuff worse is that (unlike most other web-based authentication systems), Passport is going to be used massively by thousands of online dealers. Think about what would happen if Amazon were compromised. Passport break-in would be worse, since all of the Amazons of the world will grow to rely on it.
So the real problem with Passport is that it is going to be used so widely; it is a valid small-scale solution (where the profit from compromising such a service is minimal), however it does not scale well when we talk about millions of users spending billions of dollars. I just hope that Passport will not be used by serious retailers, if we ever want to have some semblance of security and privacy.
Remember, we are discussing non-lethal weapons. I suppose that to stop a riot one has to use some weapon, or do you suppose to do it telepathically?
Also, if you are aproached by muggers who want to kill you, will you not try to kill them first, if you can? All depends on context, soldiers shooting civilians is OK when they do it as self-defence.
You are again deviating from the course of the discussion. I am merely pointing at the fact that if a crowd attacks armed soldiers, it should not expect that the soldiers won't protect themselves. So when protestors at Berkley attacked the NG, four of them were killed since they attacked the soldiers, and not since, say, they had had corrupted Communist beliefs. Clear and present danger to a soldier translates into a clear and present danger to the rioters. No gizmo may change that.
It is beyond the scope of this discussion whether the soldiers are supposed to be there or not, however any armed force will not tolerate big crowds (remember the National Guard in the 60s, don't tell me the NG was an alien force occupying California universities)
Yes, that's right. Everything that can go wrong will go wrong. However with machines instead of people making the decisions can lead to serious problems, as the price is too high: human life.
Even the relatively elegant solutions often fail. Thus, for example, the "rubber bullets" that the Israeli Army and Police use are especially designed to be non-lethal - their velocity is lower than a real bullet's, and their shape discourages penetration of the protestors' skin. Usually all these bullets do is a serious bruise (which is the desireable outcome, and essencially the reason why real ammunition is not used instead). However, at close range, if a rubber bullet hits a protestor's head, it might lead to severe traumas or even death.
The problem is worsened by the tendency of the protesters to put the police forces in unfavorable conditions, so that the nonlethal weapons become lethal. For example, in the recent Palestinian riots, one could see groups of few soldiers facing crowds of few hundreds, that approached them with sticks, stones and guns. Since a violent crowd of such size poses a serious threat, the soldiers had to shoot rubber bullets, some of them at ranges which were not as safe as it could be desired.
So it looks to me, that no matter how safe is a weapon, protesters will always find a way to push the law enforcement forces to the corner and make them use it in a dangerous way (or simply fire their handguns).
My opinion on this topic is: since genetic material is, by its nature, not unique, it should not be possible to patent it. Therefore, the family should not receive anything, however it should also be obligatory for the researchers to put the results of their investigation into public domain. As of any future developments using that genetic material, any company should be allowed to use this material for the manufacturing of drugs.
Genetic material is in most cases not unique. Therefore it will not be just to allow the grabbing of discoveries by someone who was simply the first to spot some phenomenon. Genetics contain enormous goods and evils for the whole of humanity, therefore the custody over it should also be common.
As of the economic issue, I am aware that research costs money; however big biotech companies can just as well finance their research labs as they do now, since practical use of genetic technologies also calls for considerable investments, decreasing the possibilities of parasitical competition.
Why would you need to support .NET on Linux?
We will need to support .NET on Linux, since that is what everyone in the world will use. The architectures you've mentioned might be great; however .NET seems to have the biggest potential potential user base. The same way noone can afford to use EBCDIC as the default encoding of an OS, Linux can't rely on technologic solutions that are in the minority.
Also please note that .NET is not just for web servers; it can also be used for all sorts of client-side programs. Think what would happen if Microsoft rewrote Word around .NET (which seems quite likely to me), and then almost any Linux user would be capable of using it. This would make Windows obsolete almost immediately.
Linux's history is a history of emulating Microsoft, and only then surpassing it. Linux was written (and still used mainly) on i386 platforms which were made popular by Microsoft. Linux GUIs have borrowed much from Windows. Samba is one of the most popular pieces of software. Word processors in developments get MS Word filters as a first priority. I think this is normal - we cannot just become better than Microsoft and win the market. We must first surpass it, and this could only be done at the expense of some emulation.
As far as I understand, the making of a whole .NET compatibility layer is an immense task. Writing a C# compiler is relatively easy - perhaps a year for a CS student, even less for an experienced guru. However the real problem is the libraries.
.NET uses a whole lot of libraries, which go all the way from standard UI elements and up to DirectX support. There is an enormous number of features to implement. Look at Wine, for example, which in spite of its excellent, big team, are currently lagging behind Microsoft (generally, Wine's support is on Windows 95 API level, with incomplete DirectX and advanced COM support. One programmer (or even a limited group of programmers) will find it hard to implement all of the libraries.
Finally, I think that Linux will have to support .NET (or some other contemporary technology) at some point. The only way to win in the OS war with Windows will be to provide an embrace-and-extend policy of our own. Look for instance at Samba, which is designed to retire NT/2000 servers. Samba did not become the Linux networking default, although it did take an important place in virtually every distro that there is. The same thing should happen to .NET
Previously, I'd thought that the DMCA might only be stopped by years of protests supported by the wide masses, and possibly with a revolutionary mood (a la 60s). However it does not have to be that way.
I believe that localized law (and just a bit of activist) action may cause the trial to go up all the way to the High Court, where DMCA could be overthrown. That way we could evade the really harsh consequences of the DMCA.
Of course, using such approach we take the risk that one of the courts will be bribed sufficiently to deny his appeal. Also, the public won't have the chance to develop a comprehensive attitude towards IP. However DMCA is such a major obstacle, that it's better to be removed as soon as possible. Skylarov's arrest is only the first word in the preface of a tragedy which could happen if DMCA stays.
It seems to me now that all that Microsoft has won was a single battle in the browser war. Internet Explorer was, undoubtedly, one of the best programs MS ever wrote. It was quite fast (initially), supported many of the web standards and had excellent internationalization. However, while Mozilla had to retreat and regroup, it was well worth it.
Mozilla has now grown to accomodate many of IE's "cool" features. And here we can see IE's greatest shortcoming: it was built with corporate thinking in mind. Mozilla has an excellent development team which is concerned solely with Mozilla's good functioning as a browser. On the other hand, Microsoft has now become concerned with integrated IM, their online "services" and other features which make IE unstable and bloated.
A couple of weeks ago I saw one of my friends (who is not deeply involved with the open-source movement) using Mozilla. The reason for his choice was the fact that Mozilla (even the earlier 0.8!) ran faster than IE 6. It gave me hope - I saw that open-source software can prevail upon commercial software in the trial of public opinion.
As a person who uses Linux quite systematically, I don't give a damn whether my computer has inside it an i386, a PPC, an UltraSPARC or an ARM. Much was done to ensure that Linux was platform independent, and as far as I can judge it is.
The PC hardware is burdened by hundreds of legacy solutions, for example the memory model, the peripherial interfaces and the BIOS. A newly designed board will do much better.
So what I would personally like to see is a cheap non-i386 board which has IDE (or at least SCSI) connectors, video out, USB, Ethernet, and possibly an audio system. I do not think it'll require a form factor exceeding that of a set-top box. To sum up, it's like a SUN workstation, just cheaper. I hope that someday I'll be able to see such a system upon my desk.
M$ FUD generally makes a bad reading, since it persumes the listener to be a total idiot. However it did use to have one valid point: the economic factor.
Open-source projects earn money with much difficulty and in indirect ways. This was an issue which has concerned me much, because money is necessary for existence in any reasonable society.
The recent news about RedHat making profit uplifted that concern from my heart. RedHat is built around free software. It is apparent that if RedHat can make profit, others can too.
To sum up, eat your wallet, M$!
I think that this is an excellent project in general, not just in the input library. It already has much functionality, it is developed an coordinated thoroughly, and they even gave thought to porting their player to other platforms.
Notate bene also the fact that they have not tried to make themselves known, in spite of the fact that they have a superior product, contrary to the massive media coverage some other, significantly less successfull developments are drawing.
Also mark the fact that the students in questions are as far as I can tell college students. Writing a DVD player is an exceedingly difficult task; I just hope that my school would spawn projects more significant than a pocker game simulator.
To sum up, bene factum.
I think it's generally wrong to look for the coolest/newest/most elegant language to use. It's better to stick with the simpler one. During the last year, I've had had two courses in beginning to program: Pascal at school and C++ (without OO) in the university where I've been taking courses. I knew C, C++ and Pascal beforehand, so I had a plenty of time to reflect upon the teaching progress.
I've reached the conclusion that students who do not program have difficulty even with loops, pointers etc. I've come to the notice that often understanding of procedural programming is crucial for OO work. That's why it is important to teach pupils a procedural programming language.
The language of my choice is C. It is one of the most prominent procedural languages, has a simple and ubitiquous syntax, and can be easily used for advanced work. Knowledge of C has some real weight in the market, unlike, say, Pascal. To sum up, simple is beautiful
I think many of us have a false assumption: that an 11 year old girl might find interest in unallowed sites. I think that it's generally a false assumption, and the less we try to use it, the better.
As far as I remember myself at the age of 12 (which was only 4 years ago), I've browsed the 'net quite extensively. I've never, even once, felt the urge to look for pr0n. Contrarily, when I did come accross some banners (or whatever), I closed the browser or ignored it alltogether. It was simply a bit disgusting for me.
The 'net-pr0n mania is just a frenzy, and it has little to do with reality. I consider pr0n to be something quite harmless, even if one looks for it deliberately. Instead, it seems to me that the issue is really about parents who can't give their children a talk about [pr0n|sex|drugs|whatever]. And the more adults will talk about the need to block any sites, the more children will be needlessly drawn to watching them.
One of the PDAs' biggest problems is the fact that the screen is too small to do anything useful. Perhaps such paper could solve this problem.
It's generally more difficult to watch TV from an uncomfortable position (e.g. too close) than to read from a sheet of paper. For the same reason, the addition of a convenient, big and readable display to PDAs might improve their usability greatly.
A disadvantage of digital paper is the lower refresh rates such a display may provide. Even 10 fps don't usually do the trick, and such paper probably has less than 1. However it could potentially become the display solution of choice for the PDA market.
I deem it a mistake to consider literature purely by the deductive value it bears. Therefore, it is a mistake to deprecate Tolkien's book because they lack a deductive sense.
The main attribute of the books, as I see them, is their internal esthetics. It can be found in just about any page of the book - in the sentences of Tolkien's immensly elegant and sophisticated English, in the development of the plot (which certainly looks like it has been really worked upon for all of the 15 years of the writing of the book), and in the tongues Tolkien used (for me, the very words "A Elbereth Gilthoniel" sound beautiful).
Besides the undeniable esthetic aspect, the very existence of Tolkien's mythology seems fascinating to me. The story of Beren and Luthien is as fascinating as any Greek myth (and certainly, their deductive values are almost identical). Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece, whether you like it or not.
I'd like to begin with the fact that I'm full or respect towards the guys that had written this port of Linux. Great job, guys.
However, I must also say that the hardware in the PS/1 is simply not enough. If it only had some kind of a network interface, I'd be the first to get it. However without a network interface it becomes quite useless. I can cope with the absence of a hard drive or good input, as long as I can burn the system on a CD and telnet in.
What I would have been glad to find is a box similar to the PS/1, plus a network interface. There can be countless areas where it could be applied - from mp3 playing to firewalling.
I know, this is an odd thing to say. However, it seems to me that many people are just too ardent to throw away an old computer when they get a new one.
It really surprises me how much can be done with very limited hardware. A PDP-11 was enough for the development of UNIX and of C, in spite of the fact that it has performance not exceeding that of an 286 (PDP was 32 bit, though). My parents began using computers at the time they had to punch bytecodes (which were not called that way then :-) on perforated paper. And yet they (and thousands of other people) have managed to achieve much using these very simple means.
I am not saying that a computer never gets old. An XT should have become total junk by now. However, even now an old 486 has a plenty of uses: MP3 (well, a Pentium is better for that), print serving, firewalling, limited-scale web-serving, just studying Linux and more. It seems to me that the problem would diminish if people started thinking what their "garbage" could do before throwing it away.
It is quite apparent to me that Microsoft will fall down eventually, as all the creations of humanity have downfallen from the greatness they once had had. However I expect their demise to be neither shortcoming nor quick.
Microsoft has occupied very important positions in two vital areas: office software and desktop operating systems. They have also ventured into countless other markets, such as server software and even gaming hardware. However, it is in these areas that Microsoft will face determined oposition.
Microsoft's corporate attitude to problems (releasing often and making the public beleive there are major improvements each time) may work well for their fields of dominance - amid the ignorant public. However, Microsoft does not convince the professionals. It is the reason that Microsoft will never expand its share in the server market.
As to the desktop software area, it might take some time for opposing forces to appear. Microsoft may lose popularity among customers, for things like XP's forced registration. It is also apparent that the level of average knowledge of computers among the population will increase greatly in 10 years. Hardware may also change in such ways that may make Microsoft's activities more difficult (or the opposite - who knows?).
To sum up, remember these words in a language that was once considered to be a part of an omnipotent global culture - sic transit gloria mundi.
To begin with, I'm 16 years old. By definition I am biased, and my comment shall speak from only one point of view. However I tried to put it down well.
To me, such enforcement of parental control over their children clearly defies all wisdom that has ever been collected while bringing up children. It all comes to trust.
Trust is a vital aspect in any kind of a relationship. It persumes a certain degree of independence, yet it also provides a degree of security. And old saying states that "where there's no trust, there's no love". However, it is also true that where there's no love there's no trust.
It also disturbs me that many parents try to shape their children the way they would like themselves to be. Indeed, I dare not imagine how many Mozarts, Turings, Tolkiens or Hilberts are being born each year, of which just few get to do what they're good at.
Another issue is horizon of knowledge. I believe that there should not be any single book that is forbidden to the youth. I've already heard (not being a citizen of the US) that the American authorities deprecate a wide range of books (e.g. "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"). I am Jewish; yet I find a higher wisdom in the fact that my parents allow me to read Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories", since I'm interested in WWII history. I fail to understand why the youth is considered basically unable to distinguish good and bad, right and wrong. It is this treatment that diminishes its ability to do so.
The traits which development I consider most important are creativity, originality, freshness of perception, good judgement, love of the fair. Many of these are virtues of freedom. They are impossible to achieve by keeping children in a cage - even if the cage is gilded.
The last point I'd like to make is regarding freedom. The Convention on the Rights of the Child speaks of this clearly: Articles 12 to 19 speak about the children's rights, specifically the right to information and Article 16 specifically forbids "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence". I will only mention such issues as curfews or various sorts of giving-in organizations which sponsor unlawful deprivation of rights which is combined with ghestapo tactics. I think that such policies may laugh a totalitarian country to scorn. What do you think?
As a Tolkien fan, I've been watching the progress of the movie with some care, and I'd like to say that I'm quite happy with the way it is supposed to be going. While I do not intend to spoil your experience (this you can do at theonering.net), it seems to me that the movie is in good hands. As far as I see it, it is neither an over-simplification, nor an exact duplicate of the books.
Superficially, Tolkien's style may appear obscure and overcomplicated. However, when one considers it, it is only natural that the characters have be submerged so deep into the universe Tolkien described, since it is their universe. It is impossible to make LoTR a movie directly from the books: too much of the "action" occurs in the characters' thought or surfaces in their memory. A movie needs to focus us on a set certain plots.
As I said earlier, the forthcoming movie seems to do quite a good job in staying true to LoTR and in the same time transforming it into a movie. This is one film I'm going to see this winter.
It is impossible to do this for drivers. There are countless reasons for that, but I'll just try to reiterate a few of them:
I am not a kernel hacker, so perhaps my reasoning is not complete (or exact). However, it seems to me that it is virtually impossible to use efficiently (i.e. the way consumers want) the drivers which were written for other operating systems. Considering the above topics, the overhead should be enormous, and who'd like to have his, say GeForce 3 perform like a Cirrus 5424?
The author's piece is quite naive in the places that concern the thing's physical shape. A viewfinder just won't do it. Just don't expect any video output, if you want it to be as small as a finger.
The current conceptions for video display are very primitive. Currently we employ only two types of video devices: CRT and LCD. We can make neither small enough. However, it occured to me that we simply do not need video. Good voice-to-text and text-to-voice will do for the recorder and cell-phone function. If video output is necessary, a possible solution could be a way to connect to a digital book (another thing everyone's gonna have in 10 years). A small pad, and clear to go for Tetris.
As an endnote, does the "finger" idea have anything to do with the fact that digitus is the noun for "finger" in Latin?