The front-cover picture in the Ebay auction has a very suspect-looking computer-created smudge on the front cover.... as if the advertiser was trying to hide something.
I can see how continued development may infringe if patent law was enacted but if these projects did nothing, ie simply left the code up on the web exactly as is, then they have performed no illegal activity since it became illegal. Would anyone have standing to get the code taken down?
Patents don't actually cover development. You may privately develop technologies which implement existing patents without worry. Patents do cover use of a patented technology or technique. So while the code is actively in development or not, the use of the code does suddenly become illegal as it is an unlicenced implementation of a patented method. This allows patent holders can go after people/companies who purchase or distribute a product from a country which doesn't respect their patents.
The source code is merely documentation - and it is no more "infringing" as the original patent document (which is also public access). But the compiled binaries will be infringing as they have been prepared for use and only exist in that form to be used.
Media Player is just a front end shell for the multimedia services in windows.
Removing media player should not affect window's capabilities in handling multimedia content - and should not affect any application using the multimedia services.
It completely omits the Amstrad luggable... which were among the first usefully portable PCs - maybe excepting the PPC640.
The 80386 one was revolutionary for having a full spec 386 with cache etc - it outperformed the majority of desktops in its day. The PSU was integrated so no need for a seperate power brick but it was essentially modern with VGA colour LCD display.
However, given that even the geeks here refuse to RTFA before they post, I'm not entirely sure how many people would read their PC's owner's manual.
From my experience of dealing with end-users and new computers (about 15yrs)... Users fall into 2 categories. Those who think they know it and those who know that they don't.
The latter group will religiously read the hardcopy manual... If provided. They would often read through most of the books provided before even switching the machine on for the first time. At one time, we would throw in a beginners book of some kind to these people knowing that it will be read. These users never caused any problems, so the cost of throwing in a free book was easily made by time saved supporting them.
Nowadays, there are no hardcopy manuals. Everyone is thrown in at the deep end. Of course, the people who think that they know it all already are in no different a situation - after having read 1 or 2 computer magazines, they believe that they are set and will frequently mess up their PC - that won't deter them. However, the people who would read manuals (if they were provided with one) would struggle and muddle their way through, and like a drowning man who has managed to grasp onto a lifebelt, they would stick to a strict routine whenever they find a way which works. However, such a routine wouldn't typically include best security practices - because these people were never told!
There should be a campaign to bring back the hardcopy manual... Paper is largely made from renewable forests nowadays and paper is fully biodegradable. Also, it would be nice to get something tangable for all that money you parted with, instead of a 50 CDROM/DVD in a cardboard sleave and a simple slip of paper which only contains legalese!
In addition it could also possibly pose an interesting safety issue, since a pedestrian or motorist would not hear it coming.
Pedestrians should look where they are going anyways. If they are not at a crosswalk/zebra crossing, they should look, not just wander into the road blindly with their back facing oncoming traffic!
I have this problem with my car - the engine is too well insulated and the exhaust silencer actually works - and pedestrians wander into the street in front of me. Its costing me a small fortune in new brake pads!
Or maybe some silly bugger has put a SEP device on my car for a joke... I have even had pedestrians walk into my car while it is stationary. They bounce off, look all confused while attempting to navigate themselves around the vehicle.
In myy opinion, the ideal storage system for the future would supply enough capacity so that an individual can keep one medium for their personal data for their lifetime... perhaps use some form of log-based filesystem, where data is only appended, and never erased.
Maybe millipede will be a step towards this outcome... or at least, I can hope.
If they are really short of the $4m per year to fund this project, put the mission up for tender...
I am sure that there are other countries whose governments would love to have a deep-space mission... as long as their own scientists get first dibs on the data.
In some 20yr old semiconductor catalogues, you can sometimes find Write-Only Memory... Not sure as to the precise application of such devices but I am pretty sure I remember seeing a datasheet from a company called "Signetics Semiconductor" detailing the WOM.
...someone took a prototype nano-itx board and tried to fit it into a Mac mini, it was discovered it didn't fit; they hat to saw down the heatsink AND they had to remove the optical drive, so the Mac mini is STILL smaller than nano-itx.
So I guess the spec to wait for is the pico-itx and femto-itx?
Also, where would you find a quarter-height form factor slot-load cd drive?
Nah... all seems like too much effort and my time is worth more than that... I'm very tempted to get an Apple after 10.4 is released.
"Docking Station" (the Dock) is NOT like the Start menu in windows and NOT like the task bar ar the bottom either. It is a place where you can put applications you often run, so they are easily accessed, as well as applications that are running, to easily switch between, as well as open or closed documents you may be working on and even file folders and finally, the trash can. That's why they call it the Dock, you can just "dock" things there.
Hmm... Sounds just like the Toolbar in OS/2 Warp 3 - which was available around 1995... The difference, you can easily disable the toolbar or have multiple toolbars...
I must agree - OS/2 was the only platform which I have used which felt comfortable and natural - never needing to pick up a manual to do any particular task.
Windows always seems to be an exercise in frustration, where it does what it thinks I wants... which is usually not what I really wanted. There is a feeling of control - and the user is not the one wielding that power.
Nowadays, I tend to use FreeBSD a lot - mostly because of the consistancy of the CLI. Alas, nither KDE nor Gnome has given me the joy and ease of GUI experience that the WPS has given me. So naturally, I spend most of my time at the command line.
I think that there is confusion over the distinction between "Identification" and "Authorization".
A good secure transaction would require both.
For example: To withdraw money from an ATM, you have the bank card (identification) and the PIN (authorization).
So.... I think a distinct likeness like DNA or fingerprint would make a reasonable form of identification, I do not think it is reasonable as a form of authorization.
IMO, a monetary transaction which involves a fingerprint will still require the user to enter a pin number for authorization.
1. Company X is based in a country which doesn't have laws regarding sw patents. They develop a product Q which has some novel software concepts. They cannot patent it because their patent office won't move on sw patents.
2. Company Y is based in a country which has laws permitting sw patents. They see product Q and think that some concept in it is pretty cool and so they patent such a concept. Brain dead examiner rubber-stamps patent.
3. Company X can no longer sell product Q in any region where sw patents are recognised (due to Berne convention)
The only real solution to this is to have some countries to have a law which explicitly makes sw patents invalid AND is a signatory of the Berne convention. Then they can be safe to exercise their innovation.
Right now, it is exceedingly unfair to permit software patents because the USA has such a headstart in that arena, anyone coming afterwards is automatically disadvantaged.
The major benefit of a law which renders sw patents dead is that other signatories of the Berne convention would eventually have to follow suit or risk some kind of international trade war... and as trigger-happy some people are, I think invading Belgium would not help the pro-sw-patents argument much.
We already did have "open-source" hardware... 20 years ago!
My original IBM PC/XT came with a technical reference manual which contains the complete BIOS assembler source code and complete circuit diagrams for every board in the computer. Since it was constructed using OTS ICs, someone single-minded enough could construct a whole PC based upon those specifications - and I am sure that the whole PC industry owes it to IBM for making available those specifications and hence giving rise to all the clones... The tricky part for the cloners is to 'clean-room' design a clone without infringing on IBM's copyright - an issue which IBM did take to court on more than one occasion.
That PC is long gone but I still have the original IBM technical reference manual. Its a nice hardcover ring-bound book. They don't make manuals like they used to!
I think that they may be taking the wrong approach by putting 2 whole processor cores on the same die...
We have SMT (HyperThreading in Intelese) which in my opinion is a pretty decent idea... just a crying shame about how they set about doing it. They sacrificed the silicon used by the original P4's integrated RamBus memory controller and put in the necessary silicon for their HT technology. The idea of getting an extra CPU for 'free' in the current HT processors doesn't work because in a demanding application, most of the execution units will be busy anyways.
Because of this, many old RamBus P4 machines can outperform their newer P4 siblings - mostly because the newer P4 do not have an integrated memory controller and have to go through the IO originally for peripherals. (ok, they are fixing this with the much higher pincount chips than the 1st gen P4 which did not need all that IO due to integrated RDRAM controller)
Instead, I believe that they need to design a processor with the original intent to be hyperthreaded (instead of the P4's original intent, to use RDRAM). What this means, is perhaps provide many execution units, maybe 50% more than what a single processor requires, and then make it look like 2 CPUs. Or perhaps double or triple the number of units and make it look like 4 CPUs to the software.
So... What they need for the consumer is a high-pincount device which is truely designed for hyperthreading (ie, has enough execution units available to be able to perform nearly as good as having a whole 2nd CPU) And for the server market, bring back the integrated RamBus controller, still have plenty of pins so that the server can have perhaps 4 or more RDRAM channels to keep the data flowing fast enough to keep the 4 SMT logical processors occupied. (IIRC, the original P4 has 2 RDRAM 800 channels)
And while I am in my Intel rant mood, I'll criticise the Itanic... Surely with the EPIC architecture, all that branch-prediction and other crud they have in the processor is unnecessary... They need to cut away 2/3rds of the silicon, and get people to write compilers which really do work for them. IIRC, the whole point of all that extra cruft is to make it perform ok for brain-dead compilers. Either they get decent compilers out there (perhaps, open-source their Itanic compiler optimiser) or admit that EPIC was "another nice idea, pity it doesn't work in practice".
Rant off.
I still prefer Intel x86 CPUs to AMD's... but mostly because of a kind of weird loyalty to a chip manufacturer whose CPUs have been in my PCs since my old IBM PC/XT...
In my experience with PC repair, you can usually tell by how thoroughly the person who brought it in denies having opened the case, which is always in proportion to how broken it is.
In my experience with PC repair (10+ years), it is usually obvious when they have really screwed it up bad when they send in the wife and 2 screaming kids into the shop to drop off the machine for repair.
They know that the guilt would be written all over their face if they bring it in themselves!
Yep. All Apple has to do is recompile for x86 and it'd be instant success and millions in additional revenue. It's a no-brainer. The roaring success of other commercial x86 offerings such as OS/2 Warp and BeOS pave the way.
IIRC, Apple did used to compile OS X on a Pentium with a Matrox Millenium graphics card... Mostly to check if they are coding clean portable code. The only part of this work that we would ever see is Darwin/x86. There were rumors that Apple was concidering Intel/AMD processors but with some homebrew propriety (non-Windows, maybe OpenFirmware BIOS) chipset if Motorola couldn't scale the G4 speeds. Fortunately for Apple, IBM came in to the rescue with their Power4 derived PPC970.
It is not in Apple's interest to make OS X available on x86 hardware - mostly because it is still profitable for Apple to sell their hardware. But I would not be surprised if in some deep dark office within Apple, there is a renegade engineer who is running OS X + frills on some Intel-based computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Darn... My wife just said that I can't use this to hoard my old PC and electronics magazines under the floorboards...
**sighs**
I'm afraid guys... its off to the recycling center.
Hmmm....
The front-cover picture in the Ebay auction has a very suspect-looking computer-created smudge on the front cover.... as if the advertiser was trying to hide something.
A library stamp perhaps?
Too bad International Waters was extended to 15 miles out from the coast not that long ago...
Patents don't actually cover development. You may privately develop technologies which implement existing patents without worry.
Patents do cover use of a patented technology or technique. So while the code is actively in development or not, the use of the code does suddenly become illegal as it is an unlicenced implementation of a patented method.
This allows patent holders can go after people/companies who purchase or distribute a product from a country which doesn't respect their patents.
The source code is merely documentation - and it is no more "infringing" as the original patent document (which is also public access). But the compiled binaries will be infringing as they have been prepared for use and only exist in that form to be used.
IANAL - These are my opinions.
Media Player is just a front end shell for the multimedia services in windows.
Removing media player should not affect window's capabilities in handling multimedia content - and should not affect any application using the multimedia services.
It completely omits the Amstrad luggable... which were among the first usefully portable PCs - maybe excepting the PPC640.
The 80386 one was revolutionary for having a full spec 386 with cache etc - it outperformed the majority of desktops in its day. The PSU was integrated so no need for a seperate power brick but it was essentially modern with VGA colour LCD display.
From my experience of dealing with end-users and new computers (about 15yrs)... Users fall into 2 categories. Those who think they know it and those who know that they don't.
The latter group will religiously read the hardcopy manual... If provided. They would often read through most of the books provided before even switching the machine on for the first time. At one time, we would throw in a beginners book of some kind to these people knowing that it will be read. These users never caused any problems, so the cost of throwing in a free book was easily made by time saved supporting them.
Nowadays, there are no hardcopy manuals. Everyone is thrown in at the deep end. Of course, the people who think that they know it all already are in no different a situation - after having read 1 or 2 computer magazines, they believe that they are set and will frequently mess up their PC - that won't deter them. However, the people who would read manuals (if they were provided with one) would struggle and muddle their way through, and like a drowning man who has managed to grasp onto a lifebelt, they would stick to a strict routine whenever they find a way which works. However, such a routine wouldn't typically include best security practices - because these people were never told!
There should be a campaign to bring back the hardcopy manual... Paper is largely made from renewable forests nowadays and paper is fully biodegradable. Also, it would be nice to get something tangable for all that money you parted with, instead of a 50 CDROM/DVD in a cardboard sleave and a simple slip of paper which only contains legalese!
It is much easier to put bandwidth limitation on their connection.... and just keep tweeking it downwards until they notice.
Then when they complain that their web-browsing is slow, you can blame the trojan/spyware/zombie-net software which is on their computer.
Pedestrians should look where they are going anyways. If they are not at a crosswalk/zebra crossing, they should look, not just wander into the road blindly with their back facing oncoming traffic!
I have this problem with my car - the engine is too well insulated and the exhaust silencer actually works - and pedestrians wander into the street in front of me. Its costing me a small fortune in new brake pads!
Or maybe some silly bugger has put a SEP device on my car for a joke... I have even had pedestrians walk into my car while it is stationary. They bounce off, look all confused while attempting to navigate themselves around the vehicle.
In myy opinion, the ideal storage system for the future would supply enough capacity so that an individual can keep one medium for their personal data for their lifetime... perhaps use some form of log-based filesystem, where data is only appended, and never erased.
Maybe millipede will be a step towards this outcome... or at least, I can hope.
If they are really short of the $4m per year to fund this project, put the mission up for tender...
I am sure that there are other countries whose governments would love to have a deep-space mission
And for $4m per year, it's a bargain!
In some 20yr old semiconductor catalogues, you can sometimes find Write-Only Memory... Not sure as to the precise application of such devices but I am pretty sure I remember seeing a datasheet from a company called "Signetics Semiconductor" detailing the WOM.
I distinctly remember seeing similar computer mouse in the early 90s. Pretty sure that one was made by Philips and probably Logitech too.
So I guess the spec to wait for is the pico-itx and femto-itx?
Also, where would you find a quarter-height form factor slot-load cd drive?
Nah... all seems like too much effort and my time is worth more than that
Hmm... Sounds just like the Toolbar in OS/2 Warp 3 - which was available around 1995... The difference, you can easily disable the toolbar or have multiple toolbars...
Ahhh.... Nostalgia...
I must agree - OS/2 was the only platform which I have used which felt comfortable and natural - never needing to pick up a manual to do any particular task.
Windows always seems to be an exercise in frustration, where it does what it thinks I wants... which is usually not what I really wanted. There is a feeling of control - and the user is not the one wielding that power.
Nowadays, I tend to use FreeBSD a lot - mostly because of the consistancy of the CLI. Alas, nither KDE nor Gnome has given me the joy and ease of GUI experience that the WPS has given me. So naturally, I spend most of my time at the command line.
Well, that's not a problem.
I have in my InfoCom game packaging an original sealed sachet which contains a "Microscopic Space Fleet".
I just wish I knew where the Peril Sensitive sunglasses went...
Would that be be "buy them out" method as shown in the Simpsons?
Heh...
It would be funny (and karmic justice) if Microsoft is definitely infringing on Sony's patents...
Then Sony can do onto Microsoft what Microsoft did unto IBM.
"Sure, Bill. We'll let you license our patents. On one condition - Knife the XBox and make no successors..."
(ok, feel free to mod this as flamebait)
I think that there is confusion over the distinction between "Identification" and "Authorization".
A good secure transaction would require both.
For example: To withdraw money from an ATM, you have the bank card (identification) and the PIN (authorization).
So.... I think a distinct likeness like DNA or fingerprint would make a reasonable form of identification, I do not think it is reasonable as a form of authorization.
IMO, a monetary transaction which involves a fingerprint will still require the user to enter a pin number for authorization.
Just my 2p worth.
Here is a thought experiment:
1. Company X is based in a country which doesn't have laws regarding sw patents. They develop a product Q which has some novel software concepts. They cannot patent it because their patent office won't move on sw patents.
2. Company Y is based in a country which has laws permitting sw patents. They see product Q and think that some concept in it is pretty cool and so they patent such a concept. Brain dead examiner rubber-stamps patent.
3. Company X can no longer sell product Q in any region where sw patents are recognised (due to Berne convention)
The only real solution to this is to have some countries to have a law which explicitly makes sw patents invalid AND is a signatory of the Berne convention. Then they can be safe to exercise their innovation.
Right now, it is exceedingly unfair to permit software patents because the USA has such a headstart in that arena, anyone coming afterwards is automatically disadvantaged.
The major benefit of a law which renders sw patents dead is that other signatories of the Berne convention would eventually have to follow suit or risk some kind of international trade war... and as trigger-happy some people are, I think invading Belgium would not help the pro-sw-patents argument much.
We already did have "open-source" hardware ... 20 years ago!
My original IBM PC/XT came with a technical reference manual which contains the complete BIOS assembler source code and complete circuit diagrams for every board in the computer. Since it was constructed using OTS ICs, someone single-minded enough could construct a whole PC based upon those specifications - and I am sure that the whole PC industry owes it to IBM for making available those specifications and hence giving rise to all the clones... The tricky part for the cloners is to 'clean-room' design a clone without infringing on IBM's copyright - an issue which IBM did take to court on more than one occasion.
That PC is long gone but I still have the original IBM technical reference manual. Its a nice hardcover ring-bound book. They don't make manuals like they used to!
I think that they may be taking the wrong approach by putting 2 whole processor cores on the same die...
We have SMT (HyperThreading in Intelese) which in my opinion is a pretty decent idea... just a crying shame about how they set about doing it. They sacrificed the silicon used by the original P4's integrated RamBus memory controller and put in the necessary silicon for their HT technology. The idea of getting an extra CPU for 'free' in the current HT processors doesn't work because in a demanding application, most of the execution units will be busy anyways.
Because of this, many old RamBus P4 machines can outperform their newer P4 siblings - mostly because the newer P4 do not have an integrated memory controller and have to go through the IO originally for peripherals. (ok, they are fixing this with the much higher pincount chips than the 1st gen P4 which did not need all that IO due to integrated RDRAM controller)
Instead, I believe that they need to design a processor with the original intent to be hyperthreaded (instead of the P4's original intent, to use RDRAM). What this means, is perhaps provide many execution units, maybe 50% more than what a single processor requires, and then make it look like 2 CPUs. Or perhaps double or triple the number of units and make it look like 4 CPUs to the software.
So... What they need for the consumer is a high-pincount device which is truely designed for hyperthreading (ie, has enough execution units available to be able to perform nearly as good as having a whole 2nd CPU)
And for the server market, bring back the integrated RamBus controller, still have plenty of pins so that the server can have perhaps 4 or more RDRAM channels to keep the data flowing fast enough to keep the 4 SMT logical processors occupied. (IIRC, the original P4 has 2 RDRAM 800 channels)
And while I am in my Intel rant mood, I'll criticise the Itanic... Surely with the EPIC architecture, all that branch-prediction and other crud they have in the processor is unnecessary... They need to cut away 2/3rds of the silicon, and get people to write compilers which really do work for them. IIRC, the whole point of all that extra cruft is to make it perform ok for brain-dead compilers. Either they get decent compilers out there (perhaps, open-source their Itanic compiler optimiser) or admit that EPIC was "another nice idea, pity it doesn't work in practice".
Rant off.
I still prefer Intel x86 CPUs to AMD's... but mostly because of a kind of weird loyalty to a chip manufacturer whose CPUs have been in my PCs since my old IBM PC/XT...
In my experience with PC repair (10+ years), it is usually obvious when they have really screwed it up bad when they send in the wife and 2 screaming kids into the shop to drop off the machine for repair.
They know that the guilt would be written all over their face if they bring it in themselves!
IIRC, Apple did used to compile OS X on a Pentium with a Matrox Millenium graphics card... Mostly to check if they are coding clean portable code. The only part of this work that we would ever see is Darwin/x86. There were rumors that Apple was concidering Intel/AMD processors but with some homebrew propriety (non-Windows, maybe OpenFirmware BIOS) chipset if Motorola couldn't scale the G4 speeds. Fortunately for Apple, IBM came in to the rescue with their Power4 derived PPC970.
It is not in Apple's interest to make OS X available on x86 hardware - mostly because it is still profitable for Apple to sell their hardware. But I would not be surprised if in some deep dark office within Apple, there is a renegade engineer who is running OS X + frills on some Intel-based computer.