Actually users care a great deal. Especially as we start moving to touch. There is nothing in nature that causes your visual image of your finger to lag your finger. Latency over 1ms are distressing to human subconscious under those conditions. They experience negative emotions. 0% of the current systems are that fast even using low level languages.
It isn't the byte code interpreter that's the problem. It is running in a low level state. Let's take a simple example division by zero. If you send a division by zero to an x86 processor something has to catch that exception or the entire system crashes. So either:
a) You have to have a wrapping layer which prevents virtual instructions from causing exceptions in the kernel or OS (Javascript) which is slow b) You have to have a complex system where things move up and down abstractions layers freely (C++ / Active-X) c) You have to have a high speed specifically tuned VM that offers services of all types and that is big and complex (Java) d) You have to have a family of high speed specifically tuned VMs that each offer only some services (flash, movie players, reader...)
Why don't browsers come with a generic scripting engine (in addition to, or replacing, the JavaScript virtual machine) that runs some sort of intermediate language a la.NET CIL, or LLVM IR, etc.?
You mean like: Java applets, Active-X, flash or quicktime?
As someone who actually has 2 decades in the industry you don't sound like someone with that kind of time at all. Us middle aged folks look at NoSQL and think "Network database" or CODASYL databases are coming back. We weren't attached to Java-EJBs and expected a lighter weight version, Ruby seems like a scripting language...
Stop trying to pretend to be older. Older people saw shit when you were young that isn't used anymore and that's hard to fake.
I've been seeing slow but steady progress. Today we have robotic systems capable of operating at the level of a insect, including the very hard detection problem in production and in use. That didn't exist a generation ago. We are decomposing more and more areas of the mind.
As the saying went in the 1990s. Today we can program computers that can beat the world chess champion. We still can't program a computer that can walk into a room and find the chessboard. 20 years later that's starting to change we are pretty close to being able to find the chessboard.
Take a look at your list and notice the asian countries vs. the african countries. Certainly standard of living matters but Christian africans buy far more movie tickets than asians at the same wealth levels.
We know that movie sales are higher in places with strong copyright protection. So while a small percentage of people who will watch a low quality version for free would be willing to pay for the high quality version, a somewhat large percentage of people who will pay for the high quality version will substitute the low quality version for free.
I responded to most of your comments in another thread and you are an AC.
. If it was me, they would have gotten the three standard questions and nothing more until I had a lawyer present. "Am I under arrest?" "Am I free to go?" "Why am I being detained?"
Most likely if he had pushed the issue the answer to "am I under arrest" would have been "yes". And then he has a federal arrest. His approach was the right thing to do.
The only evidence that the FBI had was the open presence of a recording device
Well yes. That's a lot of evidence of an intent to record.
No it isn't that's an interview. An interview is designed to collection information. An interrogation is a later procedure carried out in a police station designed to illicit a confession.
How about taken to the back of a police station, beaten into confessing. Then interrogated after the confession with the confession being used as leverage. That sound more like thuggery?
but as far as proportional responses go, I think this is appaling.
This is standard pre-arrest procedure for any criminal for virtually any crime. He was being questioned not interrogated. Interrogated is a whole lot more scary and that is also standard.
As for "Why was he wearing them in the first place..." - how is that relevant in any way?
Because they are a recording device and recording devices are not supposed to be used during public performances. Video cameras are not illegal either, but their use in a movie theater is evidence of crime.
. But since he's there, why not, right? And if we can get him to confess over hours of interrogation, even better, right?
Yes, that's standard police procedure as far as I know all over the world. Try interviews (this was not an interrogation) before conducting an expensive investigation.
And frankly, if theatres are worried about screencam movie rips, then they're doing something wrong. Especially a head mount setup.
We know for a fact that huge numbers of people watch low quality versions of movies for free, usually far more than buy tickets.
22 homes is rather low density likely. Which means this would be expensive. The home owner's association could buy the line and run it free of charge to all 22 homes. But... let's assume the cost was $1k / mo / home for the first 3 years and something like $100/mo/home thereafter. Would you be willing to incur that kind of cost? If so, this is fixable. If not, then I don't have a good suggestion.
If there was no crime then the movie theatre should be heavily fined for abusing the time and resources of the FBI.
That's not an abuse. Law enforcement is brought in to investigate possible crimes. They want to be called when people think a crime might be happening but are unsure. Because quite often to become sure requires an investigation.
Also the man should receive an apology and compensation for his wasted time.
I'm sure he got an apology if he was polite. As for compensation, you are expected to cooperate with investigations.
Really it should be the police who are called for this matter
Copyright is federal not state or county. The police aren't entitled to investigate.
An average FBI agent isn't trained in how to do computer forensics. He has no way of determining what has or has not been recorded by Google glasses. He knows he can be tricked, why would he put himself in that situation?
There was a report of a crime. The appropriate policing agency investigated and determined that no crime had taken place. There is no thuggery there. And yes. It is entirely unclear why somebody would be wearing Google glasses to a movie.
Then he gets arrested on reasonable suspicion rather than questioned. The laptop may happen after his arraignment. Which creates an incentive for the FBI to find other illegal stuff. Moreover a federal arrest in and of itself is a rather big deal.
How is it pathetic. The FBI is federal law enforcement. Copyright law is federal not state. Commercial piracy, like recording movies for others, is a federal crime. There is nothing pathetic about it. For many moves the property owners are conglomerates that hire studios not the movie theaters, they can't "kick the guy out".
$2b for FAT32? We don't know the details but I don't know the basis for your assertion that everything is patent free. Certainly FAT32 can be replaced easily which so using it ain't worth $2b.
Just look at how many banking systems are still running on mainframes and were written in COBOL by the retiring breed of mainframe-gurus.
I haven't worked on ATMs but when it comes to COBOL banking systems I have. Those COBOL systems involve incredibly complex and arcane business rules that would need to be refactored. I've worked on national systems that have special rules for each country in California because the different counties want different information in their reports. The midwestern states have very aggressive bank regulators who want special information and compliances. This isn't a "because it is the way things are always done" but rather a boatload of exception handling.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting points. I agree that Python is missing the window regarding Perl. What are your thoughts on Ruby's approach?
Actually users care a great deal. Especially as we start moving to touch. There is nothing in nature that causes your visual image of your finger to lag your finger. Latency over 1ms are distressing to human subconscious under those conditions. They experience negative emotions. 0% of the current systems are that fast even using low level languages.
Because "worst language" is generally a compromise between competing ideas and interests of various stakeholders. Compromise is rarely pretty.
It isn't the byte code interpreter that's the problem. It is running in a low level state. Let's take a simple example division by zero. If you send a division by zero to an x86 processor something has to catch that exception or the entire system crashes. So either:
a) You have to have a wrapping layer which prevents virtual instructions from causing exceptions in the kernel or OS (Javascript) which is slow
b) You have to have a complex system where things move up and down abstractions layers freely (C++ / Active-X)
c) You have to have a high speed specifically tuned VM that offers services of all types and that is big and complex (Java)
d) You have to have a family of high speed specifically tuned VMs that each offer only some services (flash, movie players, reader...)
etc...
You mean like: Java applets, Active-X, flash or quicktime?
As someone who actually has 2 decades in the industry you don't sound like someone with that kind of time at all. Us middle aged folks look at NoSQL and think "Network database" or CODASYL databases are coming back. We weren't attached to Java-EJBs and expected a lighter weight version, Ruby seems like a scripting language...
Stop trying to pretend to be older. Older people saw shit when you were young that isn't used anymore and that's hard to fake.
I've been seeing slow but steady progress. Today we have robotic systems capable of operating at the level of a insect, including the very hard detection problem in production and in use. That didn't exist a generation ago. We are decomposing more and more areas of the mind.
As the saying went in the 1990s. Today we can program computers that can beat the world chess champion. We still can't program a computer that can walk into a room and find the chessboard. 20 years later that's starting to change we are pretty close to being able to find the chessboard.
Take a look at your list and notice the asian countries vs. the african countries. Certainly standard of living matters but Christian africans buy far more movie tickets than asians at the same wealth levels.
We know that movie sales are higher in places with strong copyright protection. So while a small percentage of people who will watch a low quality version for free would be willing to pay for the high quality version, a somewhat large percentage of people who will pay for the high quality version will substitute the low quality version for free.
I responded to most of your comments in another thread and you are an AC.
Most likely if he had pushed the issue the answer to "am I under arrest" would have been "yes". And then he has a federal arrest. His approach was the right thing to do.
Well yes. That's a lot of evidence of an intent to record.
No it isn't that's an interview. An interview is designed to collection information. An interrogation is a later procedure carried out in a police station designed to illicit a confession.
How about taken to the back of a police station, beaten into confessing. Then interrogated after the confession with the confession being used as leverage. That sound more like thuggery?
This is standard pre-arrest procedure for any criminal for virtually any crime. He was being questioned not interrogated. Interrogated is a whole lot more scary and that is also standard.
Because they are a recording device and recording devices are not supposed to be used during public performances. Video cameras are not illegal either, but their use in a movie theater is evidence of crime.
Yes, that's standard police procedure as far as I know all over the world. Try interviews (this was not an interrogation) before conducting an expensive investigation.
We know for a fact that huge numbers of people watch low quality versions of movies for free, usually far more than buy tickets.
22 homes is rather low density likely. Which means this would be expensive. The home owner's association could buy the line and run it free of charge to all 22 homes. But... let's assume the cost was $1k / mo / home for the first 3 years and something like $100/mo/home thereafter. Would you be willing to incur that kind of cost? If so, this is fixable. If not, then I don't have a good suggestion.
That's not an abuse. Law enforcement is brought in to investigate possible crimes. They want to be called when people think a crime might be happening but are unsure. Because quite often to become sure requires an investigation.
I'm sure he got an apology if he was polite. As for compensation, you are expected to cooperate with investigations.
Copyright is federal not state or county. The police aren't entitled to investigate.
An average FBI agent isn't trained in how to do computer forensics. He has no way of determining what has or has not been recorded by Google glasses. He knows he can be tricked, why would he put himself in that situation?
I don't think it should. But right now it isn't entirely a civil matter. Talk to congress if you want the law changed. That's not the FBI's job.
I addressed this in the previous post. The "it" private property isn't owned by the owners of the movie.
There was a report of a crime. The appropriate policing agency investigated and determined that no crime had taken place. There is no thuggery there. And yes. It is entirely unclear why somebody would be wearing Google glasses to a movie.
The FBI's prime directive is to, "to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States".
Then he gets arrested on reasonable suspicion rather than questioned. The laptop may happen after his arraignment. Which creates an incentive for the FBI to find other illegal stuff. Moreover a federal arrest in and of itself is a rather big deal.
So no, your approach doesn't work.
How is it pathetic. The FBI is federal law enforcement. Copyright law is federal not state. Commercial piracy, like recording movies for others, is a federal crime. There is nothing pathetic about it. For many moves the property owners are conglomerates that hire studios not the movie theaters, they can't "kick the guy out".
Those are reasons for Linux but they the reasons of someone primarily focused on security.
$2b for FAT32? We don't know the details but I don't know the basis for your assertion that everything is patent free. Certainly FAT32 can be replaced easily which so using it ain't worth $2b.
You are double counting. The faster replacement cycle is what drives the discrepancy in user / sales. On the other hand the Macs have higher prices.
Also I doubt iPads and iPhones are on a 15mo replacement cycle, I suspect it is more like 20-30 mo. Remember these do get sold used, passed on....
I haven't worked on ATMs but when it comes to COBOL banking systems I have. Those COBOL systems involve incredibly complex and arcane business rules that would need to be refactored. I've worked on national systems that have special rules for each country in California because the different counties want different information in their reports. The midwestern states have very aggressive bank regulators who want special information and compliances. This isn't a "because it is the way things are always done" but rather a boatload of exception handling.