Well, we've got Open Source hardware in the news. I figure with all the theorizations, I'd toss in my two cents on what this will entail.
THE BAD:
1) Expect to see some of the cultic behavior we've seen that has affected Linux's reputation - people jumping on every note on LEON and related technolog as the Ultimate Thing to Save Us from Microsoft. Expect this behavior to be noted by non-OS manufacturers and used against OS hardware.
2) Expect serious reality cramps when people discover just how much fabricating chips cost. Expect conspiracy theories to emerge.
3) This is a first step, and there's a lot further to go.
THE GOOD:
1) OS processors are at least feasible. Let's face it - this is just cool.
2) The genie is out of the bottle - the idea is there. It will spread.
3) Intel has been made a fool of by AMD. Transmeta (associated with Linus Torvalds fortunately) has their new chips. Now we've got this. People are starting to rethink chips, processors, etc.
Do I think a revolution just started? No, though I expect some people will play it up as such. There may be a revolution, but it won't happen immediately.
However, a good idea is out there and its physically manifested. I expect good things to come of it - just not right away.
The lesson of Congress ignoring email? (as if we ourselves don't have to ignore it sometimes).
Don't rely on one method of reaching your congressperson:
Send email.
Send regular mail.
Send by any other method you can.
Make all of these intelligent and to the point.
And most importantly, when you do these 3 things at once? Note that you send the message all three ways. If you've sent an intelligent message, it may just make them appreciate the people they represent more.
The futue isn't kept on a Microsoft Project chart. There's no "must" no "have to" about change. God didn't post a plan saying when specific technological and social changes must occur.
So things didn't turn out like some of us expected? That's normal. Things aren't what we wanted out of the technology boom? Learn your lessons and move on.
Forget "had to", "must have", "should", and "didn't". The future is what we make it. Sitting around waiting for something miraculous to happen because of some ephemeral predictions is ridiculous. Complaining things didn't turn out like we want doesn't fix problems.
Too many people expected the Internet Revolution to happen to them - but that they didn't have to participate actively. Well, a Revolution needs Revolutionaries - so if you want changes, get off your backside and make them.
If MS was any other company doing this, people wouldn't take notice.
However, as famous and infamous as they are, as disliked as they are by some people in the computing community, they can be sure that plenty of people want to get their eyes on their code. If they allowed more people to see the code they'd have plenty of volunteers.
Thus, by their bad reputation, they ensure heightened curiosity.
I think you make a very good and oft forgotten point - despite this patent ridiculousness (and I consdier it ridiculous no matter why it was done), Amazon.com has done a lot of good things, done them well, and helped people take net business seriously.
I've got to give them that.
However, I the one-click patent actually hurt the company in the end - it made them look petty, it made their competitors angry, it perpetuated the copyright-as-a-weapon mentality, and it was a distraction from needed efforts.
Well this isn't a total victory, IMHO, but is close to one. At least the legal and governmental entities involved are starting to actually think about the big picture.
Personally, I'm hoping that this causes a review of other ridiculous patents, and raises public awareness of patent abuse. Certainly the one-click patent is so breathtakingly stupid that if the general public hears about it, it'll be extremely humiliating for Amazon (and those who liscenced the idea).
To quote one of my co-workers: no one should be able to patent something that could be designed by a marketing department.
Re:The Microsoft Era is over?
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 2
Very well said - and that illustrates a problem that is often missed.
Microsoft's greatest enemy is its own delusion and own self-aggrandizement, as you said. And what is missed by the OS community is that their enemy is the very same traits. Ever minute spent contemplating the Flaws of Bill is a minute lost contemplating ones own potential for mistakes.
That is why I would prefer the book reviews here be more focused on the books themselves and not propaganda, even if it is supposedly "correct." Every heartbeat spent creating FUD for Open Source is a heartbeat spent legitimizing the FUD from closed-source advocates.
The Microsoft Era is over?
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 4
The Microsoft Era is over? That's news to me - right now I'm finishing my MCSD and developing a complex website on ASP. My wife does her video editing and graphic work on a windows box. Most of my friends in the tech industry deals with Microsoft as well, at times reluctantly.
I'm sure this is an excellent book - I'm very curious about it. However, broad statements like this do NOT encourage people to take reviews seriously.
This is a review, not wish-fulfillment. If Open Source has a true enemy it is NOT Microsoft or anyone else - it's self-delusion and self-aggrandizement.
I find this article not surprising in the least, nor should anyone.
In regards to media (in general), our country (and to an extent the world) is suffering a kind of slow-motion nervous breakdown. There are changing issues, changing technologies, new opportunities, and missed potentials.
Instead of rationally looking at the big picture, people are busyily scrabbling in a mixture of Cover-Their-Backsides and Exploit The New thing. The end result is a kind of bizare insanity where our Public Libraries become evil pirates, insane copyright laws are enforced, no one's happy, everyone's afraid, and layer upon layer of technical and social limits are conjured up with no thought of the future.
I say this article, this situation, needs to be shoved in the face of the public as much as possible. PEOPLE ARE ATTACKING LIBRARIES, treasured public institutions. Copyright issues have gone completely insane.
I take some comfort in knowing these moronic legal acrobatics will eventually produce such an unenforceable mess and lead to so many ridiculous lawsuits, they'll be scrapped. I'd rather it didn't come to that however.
A lot of people who see and understand this agreement will go through the roof. Easier to switch providers or just put a crowbar in their wallet and pay for an ISP.
Some people are going to see this, see a challenge, and find ways to do wonderfully hideous things to Juno. There's plenty of people out there with programming skills who love sticking it to companies with outrageous ideas like this.
The program and the processing cycles and the screen saver are going to cause problems on any number of computers - we all remember the joys of installing something harmless that then exploded unexpectedly. Expect to loose customers and maybe even expect some lawsuits.
Juno seems anxious to find all sorts of ways to kick customers off for not complying. If they follow through with these requrements - less customers.
The basic idea is pretty hare-brained as it is - it sounds like desperation already. Desperation does not produce sound business models.
With this news making the rounds already, expect lost customers, angry customers, and humiliation from the get-to.
End result? Another company with a death wish and no concept of how the Internet and the world work.
My guess is that if Bush and company try anything stupid, they're going to get smacked in the face b harsh reality, as will many other people.
Censorship? Good luck enforcing it, and you may just annoy some campaign contributors. Also, prepare for the Court Cases From Hell.
Moral Values? Why not stick a sign on your back reading "please investigate my past and humiliate me?" This is especially bad coming from a president with a background that includes alchohol and possible drug use and whose victory is in doubt.
Net Regulation? The Corporate Republic wants their money, and they won't like changes that affect that. Tech regulation is an ugly minefield.
Enforcement? Good luck - let's see people handle the complex logistical nightmare of the internet. Where's the money going to come from in the age where people are proposing tax cuts.
Finally, there's simply the backfire effect - anyone that gets pious and self-rigtheous ends up creating their own opposition. Twenty years ago, no one would suggest ending the drug war, but now I hear it in regular conversation.
Imagine such a political backfire happening in internet time . . .
Me, I expect some self-rigtheous posturing, some dumb new laws few people can enforce, and a lot of pussyfooting to avoid annoying people.
Adapting Dune is a nightmarish concept, a huge, sprawling, detailed mixture of metaphor, historical reference, psychology, and politics. The question is, do you feel its worth adapting and can you make the story transition to the adaption.
Well, as it is a classic, I felt it was worth trying to adapt it, if for nothing else but the challenge. If it went down in flames, then lesson learned, life goes on.
The question is, how well did it transition to the screen?
I'd say, pretty good. It was never going to be perfect (and we'll hear of this again when Lord of the Rings coms out). But I felt it suceeded on several levels.
The basic story of a feudal culture in space, the making of a messiah, and the repercussions was told.
The major elements of the story were kept in, and fortuntely (mostly) cabbagehead-level explanations were kept out.
The actors, though not always perfect, did a good job, and I feel that the cast had fun making this.
Liberties taken, in general, were done to help move things along and condense the book. (Some of the Irulian stuff bugged me, admittedly).
Success? Yes, I feel. Perfect? It was never going to be.
In the end, I feel this success will open up media people to new ideas, to adaptions of classics, to more limitied but larger-scope series. It'll change the status quo, hopefully.
Dune itself did that when it came out. It's just doing it again in a different medium;)
Well, I watched the series despite the fact that, ironically, I don't really like "Dune." I just wanted to see how well it was pulled off.
Well first and foremost, I had fun. I enjoyed it. It got me thinking. It made me go "wow," so I'd rate that as successful.
Good points:
The writers managed to compress things rather well and keep the story moving.
The look, as shallow as this may sound, blew me away. Funky costumes, neat craft, good settings, and an awesome sandworm certainly provided eye candy.
Baron Harkonnen. Now there's a villain for you! A charismatic and funny sadistic vengeful nutty madman. Great job, a real scene-stealer.
Paul. I found him to be nicely human, a bit whiny, and obviously very attached to his father. He didn't seem very heroic, and I think his evolution wll be nice towatch.
Unabashed religious and mystical elements. The disciplines of the Benne Gesserit, the messianic wishes of the Fremen, were presented without overdone explanations.
A sense of fun. I got the impression this was a blast to make.
The bad:
Some of the acting. The actors were good, but I didn't feel everyone was comfortable in their roles.
Story liberties. I'm glad they kept to the story overall, but I still felt a bit uncomfortable with some new scenes and condensed scenes. They were well done, so it's probably just me.
Occasional bad CGI. Some of the CGI elements were great, some felt less than stellar. I didn't like the contrast.
Overall? I'm taping it and watching it (heck, I got off-LINE to watch it). Not perfect, but a damn sight better than a lot of stuff out there. I hope it encourges more risk-taking and miniseries (instead of over-extended series).
For a man who just announced he's president, I wonder why he's not confident?
My guess is he knows he's still standing on shaky ground, and hopes acting like he's won will make the challenges go away. I don't think that bodes well for his confidence in the process.
I've worked with flex time and telecommuting, and had to make cases for both.
The advantages of flex time, I have found are:
1) Adaptability. One can work around various events, crises, etc. in a smoother manner.
2) Less Bureaucracy. Having to constantly clear things with supervisors, fill out forms, etc. wastes time.
3) More productive. Able to integrate all of one's life better, work is usually more productive - being able to take that extra two hours when you're on a roll, OR leave an hour early when there's nothing to do (and make it up when there is) makes your work time DO more.
4) Loyalty. Simply, flex time is something people appreciate.
5) Less sick time. I've found if people can adapt their hours, they can work around illness easier.
6) Less stress. This is always a good thing.
Agreed. Some programmers are putting themselves in a dangerous position - to themselves, and to feeding the delusion some (not all) companies have.
We *DO* have the talent to broker deals, to make a difference. But to do that we need to be willing to change, to find the right jobs, and to sometime take that lower paycheck in exchange for sanity.
It's also important that companies get realistic views of programmers and programmer needs now. Otherwise they will make plans based on inaccurate information. Taking a job that gives you time and sanity is one small way to contribute to this.
And these jobs are out there. I'm employeed at a consulting firm with training, bench time, and a reasonable support-the-employee attitude. I even make more money than where I used to be. Best of all for them, I WILL work those long weeks when they're really necessary, because I won't be burnt out.
A moment of enjoyable, paranoid speculation
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 2
Considering the antitrust case going on, can Microsoft leverage this to show that Windows "now isn't closed" and "the code is in the wild" and thus claim they shouldn't be treated as a monopoly?
Could this have been "allowed" to happen? Note there seems to be a great deal of confidence no source code was changed, just code stolen.
Not rational sepculations, of course, merely interesting ones to explore the depths of paranoia.
So, I've been part of an online community for two years. Help with their web page. We've held get-togethers to hang out. Two of my friends are being "tutored" by me in job searching. I got together with others at a convention. Sounds like a community to me.
What people miss is that virtual communities are reflective of and become "real-life ones." There's no division, the two blend into each other. The Internet is just another tool.
We'd be better off focusing on what the Internet can do then arguing minutate of definitions on a hideously personal and subjective subject such as this. Now getting people more technical access, THAT'S a worthy goal.
Re:Action Figure Piracy
on
3D Printers
·
· Score: 2
This is actually a good look at what people may face, and how insane some recent legal acrobatics are.
If we have 3D printers that can print most things (let's say something like an.OBJ file with a UV texture map, simple), then people could in theory make anything. Then, what is to stop them from making their own versions of copyrighted toys and other elements? Nothing, though you can bet some comapnies will try.
Worse, for the comapnies, people can make their own versions - maybe you've got a programmable voice chip system you can toss inside your 3D-printed doll. Custom toy, totally unique. Or maybe you want to duplicate that neat weapon that isn't included with the figure.
The Information Age gave us ways to share and copy information. Now that it's physical objects, what limits are there?
This could just make Napster look like nothing. I eagerly await the future just to see what happens.
Humor and sanity . . .
on
3D Printers
·
· Score: 5
After I read this, my first thought was "this is going to take photocopying your backside as a joke to a whole new level."
However, in all seriousness, even with some of the jokes her about 3D porn, there are going to be uses for this technology that we'll have to strain to imagine, and implications we're not forseeing. A few thoughts:
1) I use Bryce and Poser for 3D images, mainly for fun. I could now make dioramas, and it's not incocievable I could eventually make home made action figures and other elements as gifts.
2) What will this do to intellectual property and other property concepts? Couldn't I just scan in some copyrighted mechanical widget and then people could print it out? How many industries will be impacted by the ability to print out material at home?
3) We're making technology that produces technology. Could we create systems where you can actually "print" a new peripheral for your system and then install it? Ala the Infinite Improbability Drive, will I some day print out a new 3D Printer??
We used the 3D world to make computing, and now computing is making objects. The results will be interesting to watch.
Now this is John Katz at his best - worried about people and pissed at folks stomping on them. This is what made me like the Hellmouth series, and why I was disappointed in some of his recent work.
And, yes, there is a problem - people are blaming technology for every ill they can think of, instead of noticing that people use technology. A gun, a computer, a car, a knife - they're tools, but its people who put them to use.
However, frankly, it does seem Americans (at least politicians) don't want to take responsibility for their actions, but instead seek to justify them and demonize people. The net is seen as "Power to the Perverts" technology, guns are the cause of all violence (as opposed to irresponsibility), and so on. Demonize a technology and some of its users and bingo - instant reason to put the smack down on the Constitution.
Most people are just fine and responsible on their own, but we get the neo-Luddites and the Pat Robertsons and the rest of their ilk convincing them they need to find someone to blame. The average person, given a few days to think about an issue, will probably reach a rational, intelligent conclusion. Sadly, with all the alarmists, we rarely get time to think.
I'm also glad to see Katz call attention to child-rearing processes. That almost always seems to be ignored in discussions of violence - after all, we must be raising our children right and its only those weirdos with their technology causing problems . . .
My impression of CueCat (and this is from limited data, admittedly) is that they have no idea how the internet, software, and computer world work in general.
Lawsuits do not make you popular, screwing around with data does not make you popular, and posturing does not make you popular.
You have to wonder if that company's left hand knows what the right hand is doing. That, to me, seems to be a major cause of internet/lawsuit/technical stupidity today.
Pessimism is understandable, Open Source and related concepts, frankly, sound pretty wild. I didn't used to buy Open Source as viable, but over time I began understanding it.
However, it's obvious that for different media and different situations, there will have to be different forms of Open Source. A book is like a program (involves information and perhaps instructions) but it is not a program.
Still, it's worth experimenting. I've enjoyed some of the wild non-program OS ideas here at Slashdot, and even if every last one of them turns out to be useless, they at least made me think.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we've got Open Source hardware in the news. I figure with all the theorizations, I'd toss in my two cents on what this will entail.
THE BAD:
1) Expect to see some of the cultic behavior we've seen that has affected Linux's reputation - people jumping on every note on LEON and related technolog as the Ultimate Thing to Save Us from Microsoft. Expect this behavior to be noted by non-OS manufacturers and used against OS hardware.
2) Expect serious reality cramps when people discover just how much fabricating chips cost. Expect conspiracy theories to emerge.
3) This is a first step, and there's a lot further to go.
THE GOOD:
1) OS processors are at least feasible. Let's face it - this is just cool.
2) The genie is out of the bottle - the idea is there. It will spread.
3) Intel has been made a fool of by AMD. Transmeta (associated with Linus Torvalds fortunately) has their new chips. Now we've got this. People are starting to rethink chips, processors, etc.
Do I think a revolution just started? No, though I expect some people will play it up as such. There may be a revolution, but it won't happen immediately.
However, a good idea is out there and its physically manifested. I expect good things to come of it - just not right away.
Don't rely on one method of reaching your congressperson:
Make all of these intelligent and to the point.
And most importantly, when you do these 3 things at once? Note that you send the message all three ways. If you've sent an intelligent message, it may just make them appreciate the people they represent more.
The futue isn't kept on a Microsoft Project chart. There's no "must" no "have to" about change. God didn't post a plan saying when specific technological and social changes must occur.
So things didn't turn out like some of us expected? That's normal. Things aren't what we wanted out of the technology boom? Learn your lessons and move on.
Forget "had to", "must have", "should", and "didn't". The future is what we make it. Sitting around waiting for something miraculous to happen because of some ephemeral predictions is ridiculous. Complaining things didn't turn out like we want doesn't fix problems.
Too many people expected the Internet Revolution to happen to them - but that they didn't have to participate actively. Well, a Revolution needs Revolutionaries - so if you want changes, get off your backside and make them.
When any solution creates more problems than the problem, it's not a solution.
If MS was any other company doing this, people wouldn't take notice.
However, as famous and infamous as they are, as disliked as they are by some people in the computing community, they can be sure that plenty of people want to get their eyes on their code. If they allowed more people to see the code they'd have plenty of volunteers.
Thus, by their bad reputation, they ensure heightened curiosity.
I think you make a very good and oft forgotten point - despite this patent ridiculousness (and I consdier it ridiculous no matter why it was done), Amazon.com has done a lot of good things, done them well, and helped people take net business seriously.
I've got to give them that.
However, I the one-click patent actually hurt the company in the end - it made them look petty, it made their competitors angry, it perpetuated the copyright-as-a-weapon mentality, and it was a distraction from needed efforts.
Well this isn't a total victory, IMHO, but is close to one. At least the legal and governmental entities involved are starting to actually think about the big picture.
Personally, I'm hoping that this causes a review of other ridiculous patents, and raises public awareness of patent abuse. Certainly the one-click patent is so breathtakingly stupid that if the general public hears about it, it'll be extremely humiliating for Amazon (and those who liscenced the idea).
To quote one of my co-workers: no one should be able to patent something that could be designed by a marketing department.
Very well said - and that illustrates a problem that is often missed.
Microsoft's greatest enemy is its own delusion and own self-aggrandizement, as you said. And what is missed by the OS community is that their enemy is the very same traits. Ever minute spent contemplating the Flaws of Bill is a minute lost contemplating ones own potential for mistakes.
That is why I would prefer the book reviews here be more focused on the books themselves and not propaganda, even if it is supposedly "correct." Every heartbeat spent creating FUD for Open Source is a heartbeat spent legitimizing the FUD from closed-source advocates.
The Microsoft Era is over? That's news to me - right now I'm finishing my MCSD and developing a complex website on ASP. My wife does her video editing and graphic work on a windows box. Most of my friends in the tech industry deals with Microsoft as well, at times reluctantly.
I'm sure this is an excellent book - I'm very curious about it. However, broad statements like this do NOT encourage people to take reviews seriously.
This is a review, not wish-fulfillment. If Open Source has a true enemy it is NOT Microsoft or anyone else - it's self-delusion and self-aggrandizement.
I find this article not surprising in the least, nor should anyone.
In regards to media (in general), our country (and to an extent the world) is suffering a kind of slow-motion nervous breakdown. There are changing issues, changing technologies, new opportunities, and missed potentials.
Instead of rationally looking at the big picture, people are busyily scrabbling in a mixture of Cover-Their-Backsides and Exploit The New thing. The end result is a kind of bizare insanity where our Public Libraries become evil pirates, insane copyright laws are enforced, no one's happy, everyone's afraid, and layer upon layer of technical and social limits are conjured up with no thought of the future.
I say this article, this situation, needs to be shoved in the face of the public as much as possible. PEOPLE ARE ATTACKING LIBRARIES, treasured public institutions. Copyright issues have gone completely insane.
I take some comfort in knowing these moronic legal acrobatics will eventually produce such an unenforceable mess and lead to so many ridiculous lawsuits, they'll be scrapped. I'd rather it didn't come to that however.
End result? Another company with a death wish and no concept of how the Internet and the world work.
Goodbye Juno.
My guess is that if Bush and company try anything stupid, they're going to get smacked in the face b harsh reality, as will many other people.
Censorship? Good luck enforcing it, and you may just annoy some campaign contributors. Also, prepare for the Court Cases From Hell.
Moral Values? Why not stick a sign on your back reading "please investigate my past and humiliate me?" This is especially bad coming from a president with a background that includes alchohol and possible drug use and whose victory is in doubt.
Net Regulation? The Corporate Republic wants their money, and they won't like changes that affect that. Tech regulation is an ugly minefield.
Enforcement? Good luck - let's see people handle the complex logistical nightmare of the internet. Where's the money going to come from in the age where people are proposing tax cuts.
Finally, there's simply the backfire effect - anyone that gets pious and self-rigtheous ends up creating their own opposition. Twenty years ago, no one would suggest ending the drug war, but now I hear it in regular conversation.
Imagine such a political backfire happening in internet time . . .
Me, I expect some self-rigtheous posturing, some dumb new laws few people can enforce, and a lot of pussyfooting to avoid annoying people.
Adapting Dune is a nightmarish concept, a huge, sprawling, detailed mixture of metaphor, historical reference, psychology, and politics. The question is, do you feel its worth adapting and can you make the story transition to the adaption.
Well, as it is a classic, I felt it was worth trying to adapt it, if for nothing else but the challenge. If it went down in flames, then lesson learned, life goes on. The question is, how well did it transition to the screen? I'd say, pretty good. It was never going to be perfect (and we'll hear of this again when Lord of the Rings coms out). But I felt it suceeded on several levels.
- The basic story of a feudal culture in space, the making of a messiah, and the repercussions was told.
- The major elements of the story were kept in, and fortuntely (mostly) cabbagehead-level explanations were kept out.
- The actors, though not always perfect, did a good job, and I feel that the cast had fun making this.
- Liberties taken, in general, were done to help move things along and condense the book. (Some of the Irulian stuff bugged me, admittedly).
Success? Yes, I feel. Perfect? It was never going to be.In the end, I feel this success will open up media people to new ideas, to adaptions of classics, to more limitied but larger-scope series. It'll change the status quo, hopefully.
Dune itself did that when it came out. It's just doing it again in a different medium ;)
I found this Harkonnen more charismatic - I could BUY him as a leader. I can see him as dangerous because of his mind and a disarming sense of humor.
Good points:
The bad:
Overall? I'm taping it and watching it (heck, I got off-LINE to watch it). Not perfect, but a damn sight better than a lot of stuff out there. I hope it encourges more risk-taking and miniseries (instead of over-extended series).
The Bush team apparently is still going after uncounted overseas votes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote 200 0/legal3.htm
For a man who just announced he's president, I wonder why he's not confident?
My guess is he knows he's still standing on shaky ground, and hopes acting like he's won will make the challenges go away. I don't think that bodes well for his confidence in the process.
I've worked with flex time and telecommuting, and had to make cases for both.
The advantages of flex time, I have found are:
1) Adaptability. One can work around various events, crises, etc. in a smoother manner.
2) Less Bureaucracy. Having to constantly clear things with supervisors, fill out forms, etc. wastes time.
3) More productive. Able to integrate all of one's life better, work is usually more productive - being able to take that extra two hours when you're on a roll, OR leave an hour early when there's nothing to do (and make it up when there is) makes your work time DO more.
4) Loyalty. Simply, flex time is something people appreciate.
5) Less sick time. I've found if people can adapt their hours, they can work around illness easier.
6) Less stress. This is always a good thing.
Well, that's what I've found.
Agreed. Some programmers are putting themselves in a dangerous position - to themselves, and to feeding the delusion some (not all) companies have.
We *DO* have the talent to broker deals, to make a difference. But to do that we need to be willing to change, to find the right jobs, and to sometime take that lower paycheck in exchange for sanity.
It's also important that companies get realistic views of programmers and programmer needs now. Otherwise they will make plans based on inaccurate information. Taking a job that gives you time and sanity is one small way to contribute to this.
And these jobs are out there. I'm employeed at a consulting firm with training, bench time, and a reasonable support-the-employee attitude. I even make more money than where I used to be. Best of all for them, I WILL work those long weeks when they're really necessary, because I won't be burnt out.
Considering the antitrust case going on, can Microsoft leverage this to show that Windows "now isn't closed" and "the code is in the wild" and thus claim they shouldn't be treated as a monopoly?
Could this have been "allowed" to happen? Note there seems to be a great deal of confidence no source code was changed, just code stolen.
Not rational sepculations, of course, merely interesting ones to explore the depths of paranoia.
So, I've been part of an online community for two years. Help with their web page. We've held get-togethers to hang out. Two of my friends are being "tutored" by me in job searching. I got together with others at a convention. Sounds like a community to me. What people miss is that virtual communities are reflective of and become "real-life ones." There's no division, the two blend into each other. The Internet is just another tool. We'd be better off focusing on what the Internet can do then arguing minutate of definitions on a hideously personal and subjective subject such as this. Now getting people more technical access, THAT'S a worthy goal.
This is actually a good look at what people may face, and how insane some recent legal acrobatics are.
.OBJ file with a UV texture map, simple), then people could in theory make anything. Then, what is to stop them from making their own versions of copyrighted toys and other elements? Nothing, though you can bet some comapnies will try.
If we have 3D printers that can print most things (let's say something like an
Worse, for the comapnies, people can make their own versions - maybe you've got a programmable voice chip system you can toss inside your 3D-printed doll. Custom toy, totally unique. Or maybe you want to duplicate that neat weapon that isn't included with the figure.
The Information Age gave us ways to share and copy information. Now that it's physical objects, what limits are there?
This could just make Napster look like nothing. I eagerly await the future just to see what happens.
After I read this, my first thought was "this is going to take photocopying your backside as a joke to a whole new level."
However, in all seriousness, even with some of the jokes her about 3D porn, there are going to be uses for this technology that we'll have to strain to imagine, and implications we're not forseeing. A few thoughts:
1) I use Bryce and Poser for 3D images, mainly for fun. I could now make dioramas, and it's not incocievable I could eventually make home made action figures and other elements as gifts.
2) What will this do to intellectual property and other property concepts? Couldn't I just scan in some copyrighted mechanical widget and then people could print it out? How many industries will be impacted by the ability to print out material at home?
3) We're making technology that produces technology. Could we create systems where you can actually "print" a new peripheral for your system and then install it? Ala the Infinite Improbability Drive, will I some day print out a new 3D Printer??
We used the 3D world to make computing, and now computing is making objects. The results will be interesting to watch.
Now this is John Katz at his best - worried about people and pissed at folks stomping on them. This is what made me like the Hellmouth series, and why I was disappointed in some of his recent work.
And, yes, there is a problem - people are blaming technology for every ill they can think of, instead of noticing that people use technology. A gun, a computer, a car, a knife - they're tools, but its people who put them to use.
However, frankly, it does seem Americans (at least politicians) don't want to take responsibility for their actions, but instead seek to justify them and demonize people. The net is seen as "Power to the Perverts" technology, guns are the cause of all violence (as opposed to irresponsibility), and so on. Demonize a technology and some of its users and bingo - instant reason to put the smack down on the Constitution.
Most people are just fine and responsible on their own, but we get the neo-Luddites and the Pat Robertsons and the rest of their ilk convincing them they need to find someone to blame. The average person, given a few days to think about an issue, will probably reach a rational, intelligent conclusion. Sadly, with all the alarmists, we rarely get time to think.
I'm also glad to see Katz call attention to child-rearing processes. That almost always seems to be ignored in discussions of violence - after all, we must be raising our children right and its only those weirdos with their technology causing problems . . .
My impression of CueCat (and this is from limited data, admittedly) is that they have no idea how the internet, software, and computer world work in general.
Lawsuits do not make you popular, screwing around with data does not make you popular, and posturing does not make you popular.
You have to wonder if that company's left hand knows what the right hand is doing. That, to me, seems to be a major cause of internet/lawsuit/technical stupidity today.
Pessimism is understandable, Open Source and related concepts, frankly, sound pretty wild. I didn't used to buy Open Source as viable, but over time I began understanding it.
However, it's obvious that for different media and different situations, there will have to be different forms of Open Source. A book is like a program (involves information and perhaps instructions) but it is not a program.
Still, it's worth experimenting. I've enjoyed some of the wild non-program OS ideas here at Slashdot, and even if every last one of them turns out to be useless, they at least made me think.