So if you don't trust the video source, or set WMP to not download codec you will be safe
Well, no you actually won't be safe...it isn't the codec that is the issue here, it is the acquisition of a license, and as in all Microsoft applications without exception when they added this feature they initially set the defaults to an automatic and hazardous setting.
You are right, however, that if you disable automatic stuff and not be so trusting that you will not be at risk ffrom this vulnerability. I STILL find it quite disturbing about the MS platform that vulnerability seems to be engineered right into the system, even at this late stage in the game when everyone knows better. Yes, you can nail things down and disable bells and whistles, but how usable is that to a typical end user? And if "trusted" computing and DRM is embraced by content suppliers then we'd have no choice--in order to use that content we'd be forced to use a flawed DRM mechanism.
I don't mean to bash Windows specifically because Linux and MacOS could be vulnerable as complexity increases as well. Point is, that DRM really contributes nothing to the user's experience whatsoever so it is useless complexity. Windows is full of useless complexity--moreso than any other platform, and not all of it is driven by pressure from the content industry.
There is a blog called "the new old thing" or something along those lines that I find a fascinating read. It seems that MS has historically been hellbent on being all things to all people, which you can be to a degree when you are a behemoth corporation. Problem is, in MS's case it tries to make *each product* be all things to all people. The hoops and kludges and quirks outlined in that blog that show what that mentality has done to Windows is both fascinating and scary. MS employs some of the smartest, most talented developers on the planet and some of these stories demonstrate their genious--misguided as it is. This quest for compatibility and accommodation has gotten so bad now that typical apps--even "small" integrated ones like WMP--have dozens to hundreds of options buried levels deep in menus. This as much as any buffer overflow or open TCP port is a root cause of the security and reliability problems we have today.
I think we hit the "sweet spot" for the PC "user experience" in about 1995--that is when MS was at its best (but not perfect) with the Win95 interface, and when the MacOS was both pretty and elegant. Since then software in general has slowly been sliding back into the depths of hell in terms of being pleasant to use. Mac OS X is still a great platform, but even it seems to stand out in the crowd less prominently than its ancestor did 20 years ago. The whole reason? It is getting too complex again. I don't wan't my media player to have more switches and indicators on its UI than the Altair and IMSAI had on their front panels.
Because you have a fixation on money like some I've been acquainted with.
Seriously... I don't see how to make money off this...
Seriously...why is that important? Did you even read the article? The author of this BitTorrent enhancement does not even use the word "money"--it is WAY down the list of motivations for its creation, not does it seem to be about getting pr0n and warez. This guy sounds like an idealist in a very true sense--it's about decentralisation of control--making content available without being reliant on central servers.
I think this would be immensely useful. The reliance on central BT trackers has been shown to be BTs primary weak point--once a torrent is located and transfer is initiated it is incredibly robust.
Besides the fact that the admins of BT trackers are being harassed into submission by MPAA and RIAA, the more popular trackers seemed to be quite unreliable. If this innovation (open sourced to boot) addresses the reliablity issues in LOCATING the content that BT is so good at DISTRIBUTING then it could be start a dramatic shift in how we use the Internet, much like the WWW was.
It doesn't even have to be about piracy. Used within a VPN or on a corporate WAN it would make distribution of a large number of big applications much easier to distribute. I make VMWare and ghost images of machines that are many gigabytes and this solution would be a great way of distrubuting them to a large customer with global sites (keep in mind that these clients are legally permitted to use these images--my employer is a stickler for that).
A small operator could distribute software this way and save on the costs and time associated with maintaining a critical server with big pipe to the 'net. Security patches could be distributed this way very effectively without reliance on a single entity for distribution. The possibilities are endless. It might not be a money making machine, but it is the kind of thing that (if it works well) could change the face of computing.
Fact is, it is extremely unlikely that the Chinese would request that the US alter its laws.
That's because US laws are already quite favourable to Chinese business interests. Furthermore, US Corporations generally bend over backwards to accomodate their Chinese hosts. In terms of potential market size, US is a big fish, but China is a whale. Guess who's going to set the rules of the game?
In any case, I think we are beyond telling China to play by our rules or we'll take our marbles home, because they have enough marbles of their own and they play the game here too. "Enforce copyright or face sanctions" would not ever work. Sanctions haven't ousted Castro from Cuba after all these decades (even without Soviet support) and it wouldn't be so much as a flea bite for China.
Odd as it is to say about "Communist" China I'd venture to say an economic carrot would be more effective. If the US made a convincing argument that strict enforcement of copyrights would result in millions/billions more money to the government, then the Chinese government will be all too happy to throw street vendors in gulags and steamroll over their $2 copies of WinXP.
Just be patient and give them some time though. Software is complex. If you want the calibre of software MS is more commonly known for, it'll take a team of hundreds of MS developers two or three new releases to really foul it up during the "product integration" process. I mean, look at Hotmail--it took them a couple years after they bought it to introduce service disruptions on the scale only Microsoft could achieve.
Explain how it's more Americanized that Calgary or Vancouver.
Yeah it is an opinionated statement that Toronto is very American, but in my case it is an informed opinion because I've actually BEEN there and to some American cities (Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc) and I've been able to see the similarites first hand.
Torontonians are in a bit of denial because they have the impression that then the world thinks of Canada, it thinks of Toronto fisrt. Perhaps I should explain since others have not, why I think Toronto is an "American" city (Actually, Vancouver is fairly "American" as well in the sense that it is shares some common characteristics with San Fransisco and Seattle--high-tech centres, thriving Asian communities, etc--Toronto, however, is even more so).
There are differences for sure, but the day-to-day Toronto experience is very American-like:
* First impressions--you step off the plane into a very big, busy airport, where you are greeted by efficient but impersonal staff that herd you along like cattle during peak traffic. The size, the impersonal nature of the staff (out of necessity I'm sure) eta at Pearson are exactly like the way you are treated at O'Hare, Hopkins, etc. In fact, at PHL the newer terminals even have the same architecture as the new Pearson terminal. In Calgary, they have greeters in white coboy hats to say "howdy" to all the internatinoal arrivals. In Montreal, you hear French first and most staff have an accent (if not French, something else). Right from the start there is something defferent.
* Roads--Nowhere else in Canada will you find such big, congested monuments to automotive excess. Outside the GTA, nothing compares except for American freeways. That includes making the most useful thoroughfares toll roads. That makes driving in the area just like driving in a big US urban centre. The drivers are even just as rude. Even Calgarians are more polite on the road, and Montrealsers, well we won't go there, except to say they somehow learned to drive like the good people of Paris.
* Architecture: So long as you stand looking away from the CN Tower, Toronto basically has nothing distinguishing from any big American city--it is "Generica"--which is what makes it so good as a film location for American features. It is about as exciting as Winnipeg excet with the scale of a US city, and even Calgary, whose city planners seem to abhor imagination, is more visually pleasant. At least Calgary has a mountain view, big parks, a very nice zoo, etc that are fairly prominent.
* Cleanliness...if you live in a Canadian city outside Toronto, in some places within Toronto you can actually notice it isn't as clean. Toronto isn't filthy, and is probably cleaner than the average big city, but there is a difference.
* Size...Toronto is HUGE...Montreal and Vancouver are quite large but quite distinctive...but when you go down the list of largest cities the size drops dramatically...Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg....they just don't have the scale of a big American city like Toronto. And unlike Montral and Vancouver there isn't that cultural distinctiveness to remind you that it isnt the US.
* Friendliness/temperment. Toronto shares a similar temperment with Americans that reside along the eastern seaboard...you are all so uptight! Relax, man! People who move to Calgary from BC make that observation about Calgary...then they visit Toronto and find out whoah...now I know what uptight REALLY is! I know that Torontonians are actually pretty nice people one you know them, but strangers on the street, in the stores, etc...if I had to live there I'd probably get an ulcer. I thought that the more east you went the more uptight you got, but I was wrong...it's the closer you get to Toronto--found that out when I went to the maritimes.
* Culture -- there is a LOT to do in Toronto, the cultural scene is amazing...umm...not unlike New York. And therein lies the rub. Toronto is culturally activ
erm.. forgive me here, but isn't the Arctic totally landless?
erm...no. If the ice were to melt away it would expose the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and northern coastal areas of Greenland, Siberia and Alaska, among other places. The corresponding rise in sea-levels might put some of the Canadian islands underwater but there would still be a considerable increase in exposed, above-sea landmass.
So, not only would there be land to use, much of it would be waterfront property. Considering the Canadian Arctic has sizable diamond deposits, the receding glaciers might expose some lucrative opportunities--I wonder how much "ice" is under all that ice...
I think it was prudent for CBC to stop broadcasting the show as many found its "portrayal of facts" offensive. In any case, it seems some transgressions are more serious than others, as McKenna's and MacDonald's jobs were not seriously on the line, whereas CBC only grudgingly keep Cherry, who's editorial stand on issues matters less then those of producers and correspondents.
I heard a lot about Hakim Faqiryar because he was running in the riding I lived in at the time. I was disappointed in the media overall for the lack of attention the story got vs. the press some given to non-issues like an Alliance candidate's "Asian Invasion" comment or Elinor Caplan's assertion the Alliance harboured anti-semites (her Alliance opponent was Jewish). In any case, the CBC never covered it nationally, but IIRC, CTV televised a story on its national evening newscast and the Herald and Calgary Sun wrote articles on it. Maybe if it happened post-9/11 when Al Quaida gained much more infamy they wouldn't ignore it. In any case, the fact the CBC ignored the issue until Stockwell Day (a conservative politician) got himself tangled in a lawsuit over it speaks to the priorities at CBC News.
As I said originally, the CBC did not cover the election of the Grewals until the election was actually over--not even as a side item on the numerous occasions they mentioned Layton and Chow. The article you reference was released AFTER the election resultes were in. You are also mistaken about them not being MPs before the election--it was Gurmant's THIRD ELECTION. It was also the second time he made history (in 1997 he became the first Sikh MP in Canadian history). His wife might be a back-bench rookie right now, but her husband is NOT a career backbencher--he has been the opposition's Deputy House Leader, Foreign Affais critic and is one of the few opposition MPs to be a committee chair. He is more active and influential than most Liberal MPs.
How far left CBC is biased is in the eye of the viewer, but you'd have to be blind and deaf not to notice some degree of leftward bias. Also as you state, the CBC is rather Ontario-centric. Considering the CBC is a taxpayer-funded, public netowrkk for ALL canadians, the fact that they are neglecting two-thirds of Canadians with their Ontario focus is wrong. Actually it's worse than that--they are TORONTO-centric. Even northern Ontarians have trouble identifying with the CBC at times. Given that Toronto is the most American-like city in Canada (yes, even more so than Calgary--I know from first-hand experience) the CBC is doing the nation a disservice. They are also overlooking the fact that some of the best stuff Canada has to offer has come from "the hinterland" outside Toronto--CODCO, 22 Minutes, The Nature of Things, Beachcombers, Corner Gas, North of 60, and many more all relied on talent, locations, cultural references, etc from outside Toronto.
Yes, it is available to citizens at no cost over the air. However, it is impossible to get cable or legal sattelite TV in Canada without having some of your money get sent to the CBC.
To the person who says the CBC is biased towards the left. It's called balanced reporting.
It is balanced provided you read a SUN newspaper or the National Post for contrast maybe.
Please give a solid example of CBC being biased towards the left.
There are many:
* The whole ideological bend in the documentary "The Valour and the Horror". WWII veterans criticised the feature for being a bit too fast and loose with the facts in order to support McKenna's political views.
* The 2000 federal election coverage: The CBC made a concerted effort to dig up dirt on the Alliance party, ranging from the high-profile "22 Minutes" "change the leader's name petition" gag to giving national coverage to wing-nut candidates like Elinor Caplan harping on how the Alliance harbours anti-semetic candidates. Meanwhile, the Liberals ran a candidate in Calgary who was being investgated for his ties to Al Quaida and what photographed holding a banner proclaiming "Death to Jews!", and it made not even a whisper on CBC nationally. Also, NDP leader at the time--a self-professed "socialist" who figured a household income of $60,000 meant you were "rich" and should pay the most taxes--was from a very rich familyherself, who held interest in many factories that paid rather mediocre wages. Despite some of these contradictions in her past, Ms. McDonough could do no wrong as NDP leader in CBCs eyes. If you are a conservative politician, you'd better have a spotless record or you're slagged mercilessly.
* The whole "Best Canadian" series--it had its good moments and I liked the viewer participation, but its portrayal of Tommy Douglas (founder of Canada's medicare system) wasn't entriely complete and balanced. There is also question about the voting methodology used in selecting Tommy Douglas as the "winner".
* Middle East correspondent Neil MacDonald has raised controversy often over his apparent bias towards Palistinians/mildly anti-Semitic viewppoints (depending on who is complaining). His viewpoints often do not reflect Canadian citizens' views or the government's stand. He was allowed to freely express such opinions for years. I'd say that in the interest of free speech, that is good--but where is the "pro-Israel" correspondent? And why was he allowed to repeatedly be controversial and colour commentator Don Cherry was nearly fired for his jokes about Francophones and Quebec Separatists (that weren't even in a serious news report)?
* 2004 federal election: The CBC made a really big deal about how NDP leader Jack Layton and his wife were both running for office in Toronto, and that if both won they would be the first husband-wife in the Commons in Canadian history. Layton's wife Olivia Chow did not win and they did not make history. However, the CBC completely missed the fact that there was a husband and wife running in adjacent Vancouver-area ridings for the Conservatives, and didn't mention it until they had acutally won. The CBC probably missed it for two reasons--it wasn't in Toronto and they were not left wing. Also they didn't fit the image the CBC likes to portray of conservative politicians--Gurmeet and Nina Grewal are not old, white Christian men.
Want me to continue? I guess bias is in the eye of the beholder. I am a regular CBC viewer and like some of their programming (and yay for them advocating open source!) but to me it is very obviously biased so I know not to rely solely on what the CBC says as being an objective viewpoint.
...is about as Canadian as Chrysler is American. That is, it is part of a greater corporation formed by a "merger of equals" where one of the equals was just a bit more equal than the other (in this case the Wendy's burger chain). So a significant portion of Wendys-Tim Hortons is Canadian held but the majority is American owned and managed (similar to how Chrysler is mostly German now).
Tim Hortons is still a part of Canadian culture, and relatively unknown in the US (it only has a limited presence in certain regions of the US). In Canada, there are more Tim Hortons stores than McDonalds stores. When I was in Hamilton (where the chain got its start) I can pretty much say without exaggeration that you are in easy walking distance to a Tim Hortons from any imaginable location in that city. If you've watched "Supersize Me" where they plot the McDonalds stores on a map of Manhattan, and add a couple more stores, that is kind of what a map of Hamilton would look like.
The CBC should make a documentary about Tim Hortons (oh wait--they already did, sort of--one on the hockey star and founder of the chain that bears his name). The CBC makes documentaries on nearly everything remotely to do with Canada it seems. Overall they are very good but sometimes it's like "WTF eh?"
Please, don't bring up the BBC, then someone will bring up the fact that everone HAS to buy a TV license if they have a TV
Interestingly enough that is almost the same way CBC receives much of its funding. In Canada, if you want wo have *cable or legal satellite* television you MUST pay a fee to CBC. This fee is hidden in your cable or satellite bill. In return, we get the CBC--by law, all cable and satellite providers in Canada must provide CBC Newsworld, and one channel each of the CBC main network and Radio-Canada (French CBC). I *AM* glad that we don't have that silly license scheme here though.
Then someone with a complete lack of understanding of the way the BBC works, will call it a puppet of the government.
Cant speak for the BBC, but the CBC seems fairly independent of government, and is quite regularly on its case about corruption, etc (they also get a good skewering on "This Hour has 22 Minutes"). I DO have to say that they are far from neutral, and arguably very out-of-touch with Canadian's overall viewpoint editorially. Canada is markedly to the left of the US, but not outright socialist as often the CBC's editorial stance seems to be. Compared to th BBC programming I've seen I'd say the BBC is not nearly as ideologicallly bent as the CBC. And while they are not a puppet of the government, during election time they cover the Liberal and NDP (socialist) party much more favourably than others (Conservative, Greens, separatists, fringe parties).
As far as government puppets go, in Canada they are private media companies--Bell GlobeMedia is owned by a staunchly Liberal family with close ties to high-powered politicians. The "old and stale" Globe and Mail editorials are a good example of mutual backscratching.
Then finally someone will pour scorn on the actual quality of the programming
Much of what the CBC does is crap, and I'm sure the same is true of the BBC too, but it seems (at least here across the pond) we get to see the best of what the BBC has to offer, and even when production values are sometimes low, it is very good entertainment, which is often emulated here (hits like "All in the Family" are Americanised British imports). The CBC has carried such shows before too (Degrassi Junior High had a following around he world, Beachcombers was a bit hokey but still a perennial favourite, The Nature of Things is world-renowned and very long-running). However, finding the treasure amongst the crap that sometimes gets put front-and-centre is sometimes frustrating.
The CBC *is* too overlooked, and there is quality stuff on there, but it has incompetent management. Their biggest hits never seem to air on the same day and time from week to week. They are too often pre-empted for special presentations or sports events or whatever reason they can come up with to move things around. Furthermore they have no real direction. On one hand they try to meet some kind of official mandate and be like the BBC or PBS, and on the other hand they are driven to fill air time with American movie features and revenue-generating commercials and Canadian-produced content that emulate American formulae.
There has to be a corporate-wide shake-up at CBC to allow for more innovation. They can't be both the BBC and ABC. Furhtermore, private networks are starting to make some really good, truly Canadian programming that beats what the CBC has come up with for awhile (Check out Corner Gas...also CTV has picked up the latest sequel to the original Degrassi shows at CBC's expense).
I'm not totally against the CBC--as I said they have some good programming and it's nice to see initiatives like the open source one by ZED. However, if taxpayer money is going to fund it, the CBC should offer something different than "just another network" (which they too often try to be). Private enterprise can give me the same old stuff. The CBC will know they are successful when they air something a bit off the wall that becomes enough of a hit t
Actually, isn't a government granted monopoly (copyright) and "incentives" more communist than capitalist?
Patents, copyrights and trademarks are are quite ANTI-communist because part of what they do is allow one to claim ownership of ideas, and Communists do not like anyone other than the state to own anything. They are a capitalist in a sense for the same reason--they create a legal "thing" that can be given a monetary value and owned.
However, the above-mentioned IP instruments (especially as they exist today) would make Adam Smith roll in his grave. They do NOT make for an unhindered free-market economy. Heavy-handed IP laws could in fact be applied towards creating a Soviet-like centrally-planned economy: Think of it--a government agency has the power to grant and revoke exclusive rights to inventions, media, software, etc. It could play a central role in a government run by an elite band of old cronies. The result would be a money-driven, privately-owned (by an elite classs) economy--highly capitalist but very restrictive, with high barriers to participation.
In short, IP laws that are excessive in creating artificial "things" to own and granting too much exclusive power to these things would contribute greatly to the emergence of Economic Fascism. Bill Gates is, in essence, an Economic Fascist to a degree. Someone like Jack Valenti or Darl McBride are extremely fascist from an economic standpoint.
I think that the whole left-right single-axis spectrum oversimplifies reality, and I'm suprised someone as smart as Gates doesn't express that in his interview. He brands IP-rights reformers as "Communists" when not all of them are. I'd venture to say most in the US are Economic Libertarians (ie. want less government interference) and have no problem with making money at all.
I hold a fairly libertarian view on things--leave people alone to innovate, and let people be free to compete. There needs to be some level of IP rights in the interest of fairness, to ensure creators are free to chose how their works are used (GNU is unenforceable without a copyright law for example), but such things are privliges, not fundamental rights, and as such the more power you are granted the more RESPONSIBILITY you have. In other words, if you want to patent, copyright, trademark and DRM your works to death feel free to try...HOWEVER it is YOUR responsibility to enforce those conditions---you should not make the government responsible to do your work for you.
My recommendation in regard to the non-CS core classes with a math foundation is to get a broad exposure to them
I would go a step further and say that you should take elective courses that may not even have a math foundation. Take a humanities course or two (sociology, history, philosophy, anthropology, etc.). Computer-savvy types are sometimes a breed apart from the folks who actually end up using their software, and taking courses to learn about people instead of math and machines for a change will help you identify with other perspectives better. If you want to go beyond being a code-monkey (ie. someone who doesn't have to "worry about India") you'll need those skills.
I also highly recommend taking a business, management or marketing course or two. You're boss is certainly going to have background in that area. I also agree with Joel on another point: Taking an English course is mandatory for success.
I know that CS and engineering school workloads can be harsh and it is hard to fit those sort of courses in but I ended up being able to take more than required by taking a couple night courses during work terms.
One last point about courses to take. I disagree with Joel on a minor point: You should take a course that involves assembly language in preference to a C course (or maybe in addition to it)--typically an EE/CE Microprocessor Systems Design. THAT is the way to truly program close to the system. If you have a solid grasp of the low-level behaviour of a computer then some of that can rub off in your high-level programming work--sometimes even in a language like Java there are benefits to approaching a problem as a state machine for example. I think that a lot of bloat and resource consumption comes from coders who do not have a grasp of these concepts.
Other advice:
Co-op and internship programs make you more employable than an excellent GPA will by itself.
One you have a GPA above 3.0 it is less of a factor for employment. After 5 years experience your GPA will be almost meaningless anyways.
If you want to stand out don't just do what is required or you think you'd be good at. Be different, and actually take some courses purely out of personal interest. I think I was the only EE in my class to take two Canadian History courses for example. Those sort of things get noticed when your first job applications include transcripts.
Keep learning new things even after graduation, whether it be something like MCSE or RHCE, or community college courses on running your own business and so on. Not all the time of course--maybe just one thing a year, just to keep your brain in gear.
If you want to keep your tech job and not worry about India, you won't do it by just being a programmer--you'll have to get into high-level design, research or management roles. Simply coding to specifications is becoming the future "assembly line" job and you have to accept that. Beyond entry-level positions it is probably going to be outsourced or temporaray contract work in a lot of cases.
Perhaps it's my Windows background, but I want a single window with toolboxes and sidebars inside that window (see Visual Studio or KDevelop).
I use Visual Studio all the time and while I think overall it is an excellent product, I find the "single window with toolboxes and sidebars INSIDE" MDI setup completely pointless and annoying. When I use Visual Studio's IDE I find it is almost useless unless the main window is maximised anyways--all the toolboxes and menubars and frames and everything must be jammed into the parent window and when that window is too small the actual area showing my code gets too small. Therefore, what is the point of making that one big window in the first place?
Why not just put all that stuff right on the desktop so you can move and size it wherever you want on the screen? The only reason I can see for the MDI in most cases is that it is a workaround for the limited capabilities of the Windows desktop (which does not allow you to switch between multiple screens/workspaces out-of-the-box).
Anyways it seems that when I use Windows apps that are presented in an MDI almost without exception I maximise that parent window (Visual Studio and Paintshop Pro being the two that stand out in my mind). As such, I think that while the GAMBAS IDE might need some polish it is taking the right approach. That's just my observation...YMMV.
I tend to prefer MacOS and GNOME-like interfaces over Windows and KDE-style. Perhaps the MDI would be a better choice for consistency's sake if an app is targeted towards Windows and KDE much more heavily than MacOD and GNOME. Other than that, it seems to me creating an extra window just to contain other windows is a waste of resources.
* being powered by Windows * playing music and annoying ringtones * takes even more megapixels of pics than ever before! * plays microscopic video
No--it's about a phone that...get ready for it...improves the ability to make phone calls! What a new and novel idea! It's about F***in' time, and I have to say that this is the first phone that has piqued my interest in a long time.
Think about it the other way though, if you trip and fall and smash stuff in your jacket or on your belt, then you only have to replace one thing instead of 4 that might break all at the same time. Also, there's insurance on cell phones, none on the others.
1. I don't carry all four with me at all times. I generally have no need for more than two of those at once
2. You can get insurance on anything you want. My insurance covers cell phones, laptops, PDAs and digital cameras. If I had an iPod that I really valued it could cover that too I suppose.
As for interrupting your calls, most of these phones have speakerphones and "driving modes". They also have headsets that can be used while using the phone for other things.
1. Speakerphones do not allow for privacy.
2. Sometimes you don't want to cover your ears with a headset. Wires are a nusiance. Wireless bluetooth ones require separate battery/charger and bluetooth has some security concerns if not set up right.
Great, a convergence unit is not for you. That doesn't mean they're not for me, and more like it doesn't mean all phones will be convergence phones.
1. Not only is it not for me, in some things it isn't for most people and is a niche market. If it were really appealing then set-top convergence boxes would be much more commonplace today.
2. I HOPE it means all phones will not be "convergence phones", but it could happen, given the kind of industry we are talking about. People buy these phones through cellular providers. Have you tried to get ANYTHING "basic" from a cell-co? Root canals are more pleasant! NO I don't want the colour phone with the camera, thanks. NO I don't want the 400 anytime minutes leasure plan fro only $49.95 (*plus access fee..blah blah fine print). They ALWAYS try the upsell, and while they are not too pushy there, if you try to go LOWER than their widely advertised "basic" plan it becomes a serious battle.
I can just imagine: colour cellphones with cameras and games and crappy reception are cool gimicky things popular with teenage girls and make the cell-co boatloads of money. Marketing PHB sees the $ numbers regardless of the demographic and soon the "base plan" offers the colour, game-filled cam-phone, and if you want something basic then you are pulling teeth even more to get it. If you don't get a discount for getting a plainer phone at that point so help me....
Yeah...the same as with any other type of phone or technology.
Yeah--except that I just can't make phone calls, and I still have a camera and PDA that DO work.
So you use it as a PDA when you're not on the phone. Not everyone has constant phone calls to interrupt their PDAing.
Not everyone, but I'm not everyone. There are times when I DO have constant cellphone calls. And oddly enough, the time that I am most likely to be using the PDA is...when I'm retrieving information to relay to a person I'm talking to on the phone.
But do you think everyone uses their technology the same way you do? Is someone forcing you to buy a 'mega-feature' phone? Diversity in the marketplace is good, not bad.
I agree, but the problem is that these features are creeping into the mainstream segment, and the market is degradating to the state where Wintel PCs are now. I do NOT want buying a cellphone to be that complex. There is a sizeable market for a low-cost, simple computer but for some reason manufacturers can't seem to capture that market. There is NO NEED AT ALL for a gigahertz-clock-speed, many-hundred-megabytes RAM P4-class machine if all you do is personal word processing, spreadsheets, contact lists, email and web surfing--and even a lot of games. Aside from spelunking for used equipment everywhere you CANNOT find a simple, new machine easily. Even Walmart's PC is more than many people need to do what they want and that's the closest thing.
The same goes for phones--all that crap is often overkill. I'm willing to bet that although not EVERYONE uses technology like me that there are a enough that do that would lament the extinction of the basic cellphone, especially since all the added cruft seems to cut into the potential battery life and reception quality.
You seem to constantly be on the phone. I feel sorry for you, but you should realize that not all of us are
Don't feel sorry, it is part of my job, and when I'm done work I just turn it off and deal with the missed calls the next morning. Right now, it's nice that I can do that and still have a digital camera for the vacations or an MP3 player that I can take with me jogging, etc. and leave the phone at home.
I long for the days when I used to be able to get a simple cell phone with a simple interface, contact phone book, and good reception -- for less than $25 dollars a month!
Amen, brotha! But don't dispair quite yet, you can still get such a deal--except there is a catch:
* you have to be at the end of a 2 year or longer contract
* you have to be fully paid--and may have to have a good payment history with the provider
* not requirement, but you get "bonus points" for being a "good customer" in general--ie. you have had the same phone through the whole contract (no lost/stolen/damaged phones, etc).
* you must take the time to actually visit their store/office/etc. The plans you get on-line or over the phone completely STINK.
Phone companies treat their basic plans like "dirty little secrets" they pull out when they are desperate to keep you. Be polite but assertive, and bargain with them like you would at a Tiajuana flea market.
My parents got lots of practice by sitting through sales pitches for timeshares in Florida and British Columbia. You have to listen to a sleazy, high-pressure guy for a couple hours and pretend you are interested in the wonderful amenities when all you *really* are after is the free TV or 3-day ski pass you "won". It is the same when your cellphone contract comes up for renewal. The longer you resist buying the more incredible the deal gets.
My mother used this tactic last month with Telus Mobility when her contract came up. The salespeople probably thought "nice old retiree lady--easy commission" but they were wrong. They go through the following steps:
1. Offer you the same overpriced plan they give joe schmoe off the street, but get a nifty colour phone upgrade. You respond: sorry, I don't need a colour phone and it is still too much for my budget.
2. Offer new but basic phone, less daytime minutes but still unlimited evening/weekend or something like that. Still $40/month or so but a bit cheaper. You: but I use even less than that, can't I get something without the daytime minutes?
3. (grumble grumble) Offers pre-paid/pay-as-you-go. Points out emphatically the convoluted process of buying minutes (picking up cards, conditions where minutes do not carry over etc etc) hoping you'll relent and at least pick #2. You: no dice--that's too inconvenient, who would ever put up with that crap if they didn't have to?
4. (in desperation to keep you from signing with Bell) Pleeeeze stay with us--we value your business. Here is our new basic phone, no evenings or weekends free but anytime minutes for $25 canadian per month.
Hmmm 500 MHz processor. Guess that's what ya gotta do if you want to run Windows on your phone. Seems crazy though, given that I've run a database/email/file server that routinely queried 2 million-record database tables, ran dynamic mod-perl web apps and handled gigs of IMAP folders without breaking a sweat, all on a 500 MHz Celeron PC with similar specs as these superphones (except for 20 gigs of drive space).
I'm still trying to wrap my head around WHY. If it breaks or I lose it I have no functionality.
When I'm talking on the phone I cannot look at the screen so it would be a pain in the ass to look up info to relay to the person I'm talking to. Thus, I prefer a separate device, or at the very least a handset and some assurance I won't accidentally hang up on the person while I fiddle with things. PDA phones might be very capable, but if I were a power user I'd prefer a standalone PDA.
I only take pictures when I'm out somewhere interesting (on vacation, etc) so it seems pointless to have one on a phone that I use all the time. There are many places where photographic equipment is banned, and that means I cannot have a camera phone for work (a lot of manufacturing facilities, generating stations, etc do not allow photography equipment inside without signing special agreements). Besides, even the best camera phones take pretty crappy pictures even compared to budget digital cams. Anyone who is even semi-serious about their pics would have a separate camera.
MP3 player? Seems cool, but again a telephone conversation would interfere with operation. Besides, if even an ipod mini is too big for you you can get a basic player that fites nicely on a keychain now.
Video. Puleeeze. I don't care how far technology advances, nothing needs to be watched so bad that I MUST watch it right now---on a 2-inch screen. If these phones had TV-out...well I might look again....maybe...but all we are doing is replacing gadgets with tangled cables anyways.
I hope this superphone fad dies down a bit, and that I won't be forced to deal with unwanted features. I am just fine with a phone that makes phone calls, stores phone numbers and maybe has text messaging so I can receive alerts when I get new email. That is all I do now and nothing I've seen in these phones makes me want to do more. If they want to get me excited about a new phone...how about one with much improved reception , from a phone company that has a billing policy less complicated than spacecraft schematics.
I'm still waiting for your argument that it does no harm or impact. PROOVE to me that there was no impact on revenues in the industry from piracy as it has happens now "in the REAL WORLD". Hollywood had a record year? Good for them. How do you know it couldn't have been even better? You cannot say that NONE of the beneficiaries of piracy would've bought the movie legally were it the only option. OTOH, The SCO fiasco is a good direct example of the damage a person or corporation could do without copyright protection for creators of a work. Without that protection in place, SCO wouldn't have had to make any case at all to prove ownership of code in the IBM suit. While copyright law (particualrly American law) has been used against the interest of consumers, it has also allowed us all to benefit from things like the Free Software movement.
Is it lost on you that one of the many reasons EVERYONE doesn't download free digital copies of movies is that there are laws against doing so, and people already think it is wrong? Right now, the quality of even good illegal movies is crap compared to legally purchased versions, but that won't be the case forever. In the case of music, the difference in quality is usually not enough to matter. Why does Apple still sell millions of tracks when even to this day you can get them for free from opther P2P networks? BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL AND THE FREE STUFF IS NOT. People choose the legal route because it is not worth a dollar a track savings to do something wrong and have it on their conscience and risk violating the law.
iTunes is more convenient you say? Hmm why would that be...maybe because the tracks ARE THERE BY PERMISSION? The pirated stuff has not organised distribution model and in order to evade the law it cannot be made as conveniently available. If in the eyes of the law and society you could copy and distribute songs to your hearts content (and the author and publisher had no say at all) then what WOULD stop *everyone* from getting content for free? Nothing at all--not until at some point there was no way to sustain the development of new material and people got bored of existing stuff. Not sure the resulting upheaval would be easy to contend with however.
what is the reason people make personal multi-thousand dollar investments to do this?
1 Because they are low-life/no-life people who choose movie piracy as a hobby. I know hardcore raver types who fill gigs of drive space with songs of all types--even like Partridge Family and Neil Diamond--"just because". It isn't really revenue lost because they would never buy that stuff and they are lucky if they've heard some songs even once. I don't get it, but to each his own I guess.
2 Because the MPAA's antiquated, greed-driven distribution system restricts distribution (no world-wide releases, etc etc. Some people want to see a completed movie before the general public in their locale can. In some cases, a movie might never reach some places at all. Same with TV and music (cable company monopoly won't carry station X with show Y so I can only get it with BitTorrent). Piracy fills the vacuum MPAA and RIAA are to dense and short-sighted to fill themselves. Rather than try to shut down pirates they should embrace their methods and fight fire with fire. Apple proved there is a market in the music space with the iPod now MPAA should consider this a fire lit under thier asses.
3 Donating $15k can get you access to top-level sites and thousands of movies, shows and songs so it is probably a $1 or less per file--still cheaper than retail by a wide margin. What would a single person do with more content than they could watch in a lifetime? See reason 1.
4 Psychololgical reasons. At the top level, some of the players exhibit obsessive-compulsive and other abnormal behaviour. Left untreated, people with OCD will spend hours of time and in some cases even thousands of dollars or lose their jobs because of their compulsions. If it's out there they NEED to have it. Some crave attention to the point of phychological disorder. Some parents make their kids sick purposely to draw attention to themselves--perhaps some pirates satisfy that sort of craving for attention through the credit they get for a good movie rip seen by thousands.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but the motives and methods behind this kind of theft are obviously more complicated simple shoplifting, so the solution is going to have to be less dense and simplistic than the MPAA is embarking on now.
It's not much use defining something as wrong, because it doesn't actually HURT anyone. Not the studios, not the actors, not the writers.
Doesn't HURT anyone? How do you figure that? Nobody is killed or maimed? For the sake of argument, say that EVERYBODY downloads digital copies of a movie at no monetary cost. I'm not convinced there is no harm done. You give absolutely NO argument supporting your conclusion. Where would the money come from to pay the actors and writers? Do you expect the manufacturers of camera, sound and lighting equipment to volunteer their time and materials toward the noble cause of completing the next great Star Wars movie?
I'm not saying that I agree with MPAA's stand--I think the traditional distribution and marketing system is antiquated and obsolete, and that studios and A-list actors make an obscene amount of money. I also think that using judicial and legislative means to force consumers into dealing with this antiquated system is immoral and short-sighted. However, protection of creative works is essential and the authors of these works MUST have the right to be compensated and/or recognised for their efforts--so long as it is FAIR AND REASONABLE (today, it isn't going in that direction unfortunately)
Lets carry your argument further--I'd say by making your statement you support SCO's attack on Linux:
* Digital copies of both the source and executables of Linux are out there and we can get them free (this is in fact encouraged)--we cannot stop SCO from doing that.
* SCO and their ilk can do whatever they want with these files and we can't actually STOP them Copyright be dammed--let's ignore it (and the GNU terms of that copyright) and use it as we please (distrubute binaries without source, try to claim the source as our own--we did spend preciouis hours downloading it after all)
* Those nice people at SCO aren't actually HURTING anyone, right? Not Linus Torvalds, not the FSF, not the thousands of coders out there, not the distro packagers.
Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. It IS wrong to ignore the terms of copyright. If you cannot live with the terms set by the copyright holder then JUST SUCK IT UP AND DON'T WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE. People should be allowed to control their own works--but on the flip-side they shouldn't be protected from the consequences as the MPAA and RIAA would like. Even Free Software depends on reasonable, equitable copyright law in order to exist and flourish.
The technical info is correct, but there is a minor point:
The main difference between the MOS 6510 and the original Rockwell 6502
MOS created the "original" 6502 design and licensed it to others--Rockwell probably being the biggest of those (I think they supplied Atari for a time? Cannot remember). The MOS6510 was harware enhanced, whereas the ROK6502 was software enhanced. The ROK6502 didn't have the I/O port, but Rockwell defined ALL the "undefined opcodes" in the base 6502 design.
The "undefined opcodes" are binary numbers that do not represent an assembly-language operation and their behaviour is unpredictable and may change between chip revisions. The 6510 did not enhance the instruction set in any real way (and Commodore warned in its user manual ominously about "not being responsible for the use of undefined opcodes"). Some hackers found that the most popular 6502s had some opcodes that did neat things and ignored Commodore's advice. Rockwell officially "defined" some of those and added more opcodes (mostly to support a new addressing mode). Rockwell defined almost all 255 possible opcodes, andas such the ROK6502 has the largest instruction set of any 6502-variant ever produced.
This was all amazing and cool stuff, until a sharp young high-school dropout put all of it in a single FPGA chip as a hobby and made some money selling it in a retro-looking joystick.
Funny--nearly choked on my tea when I read that one. Maybe when Tramiel was around. What's the old joke? If Commodore bought the KFC company, they would advertise their product as "warm dead bird"? Even pre-Amiga they had their share of blunders--the B128 (the C128 too actually), the Plus/4, the C16...but in the last 10 years of the original company's existence their legendary blunders paled in comparison to even Atari's....amazing engineers...
Like all the *EX-ATARI* people who designed the Amiga before Commodore bought it? They also had an amazing talent for completely avoiding backwards compatibility in their product line, even while using derivatives of the SAME CPU and other chips. Even when they came out with the C128 the C64-compatible mode disabled all of the C128's extra capabilities. They had some solid semiconductor engineers, but if you want "amazing engineers" on the system level you'd better take a closer look at Apple....good products.
Like the C64 with a Bill-Gates-Reject BASIC that had no built-in commands to exploit the machines amazing sound and graphics capabilities? That machine that could not auto-boot and required most everything be loaded by typing something like LOAD "blahblah",8,1 and would overwrite your BASIC programme if you wanted to retrieve a list of files on your floppy? The floppy drive that loaded slower than Coleco's CASSETTE drive (I am not kidding--personal experience)?
Well I guess they were reliable since less than half of them were DOA or failed within weeks when purchased new at my primary school years ago (35 to 40 percent failure rate isn't bad....is it?)
I have to agree with you on one point...Gould was the king of corporate malfeasance.
Slashdot Mirror
So if you don't trust the video source, or set WMP to not download codec you will be safe
Well, no you actually won't be safe...it isn't the codec that is the issue here, it is the acquisition of a license, and as in all Microsoft applications without exception when they added this feature they initially set the defaults to an automatic and hazardous setting.
You are right, however, that if you disable automatic stuff and not be so trusting that you will not be at risk ffrom this vulnerability. I STILL find it quite disturbing about the MS platform that vulnerability seems to be engineered right into the system, even at this late stage in the game when everyone knows better. Yes, you can nail things down and disable bells and whistles, but how usable is that to a typical end user? And if "trusted" computing and DRM is embraced by content suppliers then we'd have no choice--in order to use that content we'd be forced to use a flawed DRM mechanism.
I don't mean to bash Windows specifically because Linux and MacOS could be vulnerable as complexity increases as well. Point is, that DRM really contributes nothing to the user's experience whatsoever so it is useless complexity. Windows is full of useless complexity--moreso than any other platform, and not all of it is driven by pressure from the content industry.
There is a blog called "the new old thing" or something along those lines that I find a fascinating read. It seems that MS has historically been hellbent on being all things to all people, which you can be to a degree when you are a behemoth corporation. Problem is, in MS's case it tries to make *each product* be all things to all people. The hoops and kludges and quirks outlined in that blog that show what that mentality has done to Windows is both fascinating and scary. MS employs some of the smartest, most talented developers on the planet and some of these stories demonstrate their genious--misguided as it is. This quest for compatibility and accommodation has gotten so bad now that typical apps--even "small" integrated ones like WMP--have dozens to hundreds of options buried levels deep in menus. This as much as any buffer overflow or open TCP port is a root cause of the security and reliability problems we have today.
I think we hit the "sweet spot" for the PC "user experience" in about 1995--that is when MS was at its best (but not perfect) with the Win95 interface, and when the MacOS was both pretty and elegant. Since then software in general has slowly been sliding back into the depths of hell in terms of being pleasant to use. Mac OS X is still a great platform, but even it seems to stand out in the crowd less prominently than its ancestor did 20 years ago. The whole reason? It is getting too complex again. I don't wan't my media player to have more switches and indicators on its UI than the Altair and IMSAI had on their front panels.
Because you have a fixation on money like some I've been acquainted with.
Seriously... I don't see how to make money off this...
Seriously...why is that important? Did you even read the article? The author of this BitTorrent enhancement does not even use the word "money"--it is WAY down the list of motivations for its creation, not does it seem to be about getting pr0n and warez. This guy sounds like an idealist in a very true sense--it's about decentralisation of control--making content available without being reliant on central servers.
I think this would be immensely useful. The reliance on central BT trackers has been shown to be BTs primary weak point--once a torrent is located and transfer is initiated it is incredibly robust.
Besides the fact that the admins of BT trackers are being harassed into submission by MPAA and RIAA, the more popular trackers seemed to be quite unreliable. If this innovation (open sourced to boot) addresses the reliablity issues in LOCATING the content that BT is so good at DISTRIBUTING then it could be start a dramatic shift in how we use the Internet, much like the WWW was.
It doesn't even have to be about piracy. Used within a VPN or on a corporate WAN it would make distribution of a large number of big applications much easier to distribute. I make VMWare and ghost images of machines that are many gigabytes and this solution would be a great way of distrubuting them to a large customer with global sites (keep in mind that these clients are legally permitted to use these images--my employer is a stickler for that).
A small operator could distribute software this way and save on the costs and time associated with maintaining a critical server with big pipe to the 'net. Security patches could be distributed this way very effectively without reliance on a single entity for distribution. The possibilities are endless. It might not be a money making machine, but it is the kind of thing that (if it works well) could change the face of computing.
Fact is, it is extremely unlikely that the Chinese would request that the US alter its laws.
That's because US laws are already quite favourable to Chinese business interests. Furthermore, US Corporations generally bend over backwards to accomodate their Chinese hosts. In terms of potential market size, US is a big fish, but China is a whale. Guess who's going to set the rules of the game?
In any case, I think we are beyond telling China to play by our rules or we'll take our marbles home, because they have enough marbles of their own and they play the game here too. "Enforce copyright or face sanctions" would not ever work. Sanctions haven't ousted Castro from Cuba after all these decades (even without Soviet support) and it wouldn't be so much as a flea bite for China.
Odd as it is to say about "Communist" China I'd venture to say an economic carrot would be more effective. If the US made a convincing argument that strict enforcement of copyrights would result in millions/billions more money to the government, then the Chinese government will be all too happy to throw street vendors in gulags and steamroll over their $2 copies of WinXP.
Of course a Microsoft product can be good...
BillG always buys the best he can get...
Just be patient and give them some time though. Software is complex. If you want the calibre of software MS is more commonly known for, it'll take a team of hundreds of MS developers two or three new releases to really foul it up during the "product integration" process. I mean, look at Hotmail--it took them a couple years after they bought it to introduce service disruptions on the scale only Microsoft could achieve.
Explain how it's more Americanized that Calgary or Vancouver.
Yeah it is an opinionated statement that Toronto is very American, but in my case it is an informed opinion because I've actually BEEN there and to some American cities (Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc) and I've been able to see the similarites first hand.
Torontonians are in a bit of denial because they have the impression that then the world thinks of Canada, it thinks of Toronto fisrt. Perhaps I should explain since others have not, why I think Toronto is an "American" city (Actually, Vancouver is fairly "American" as well in the sense that it is shares some common characteristics with San Fransisco and Seattle--high-tech centres, thriving Asian communities, etc--Toronto, however, is even more so).
There are differences for sure, but the day-to-day Toronto experience is very American-like:
* First impressions--you step off the plane into a very big, busy airport, where you are greeted by efficient but impersonal staff that herd you along like cattle during peak traffic. The size, the impersonal nature of the staff (out of necessity I'm sure) eta at Pearson are exactly like the way you are treated at O'Hare, Hopkins, etc. In fact, at PHL the newer terminals even have the same architecture as the new Pearson terminal. In Calgary, they have greeters in white coboy hats to say "howdy" to all the internatinoal arrivals. In Montreal, you hear French first and most staff have an accent (if not French, something else). Right from the start there is something defferent.
* Roads--Nowhere else in Canada will you find such big, congested monuments to automotive excess. Outside the GTA, nothing compares except for American freeways. That includes making the most useful thoroughfares toll roads. That makes driving in the area just like driving in a big US urban centre. The drivers are even just as rude. Even Calgarians are more polite on the road, and Montrealsers, well we won't go there, except to say they somehow learned to drive like the good people of Paris.
* Architecture: So long as you stand looking away from the CN Tower, Toronto basically has nothing distinguishing from any big American city--it is "Generica"--which is what makes it so good as a film location for American features. It is about as exciting as Winnipeg excet with the scale of a US city, and even Calgary, whose city planners seem to abhor imagination, is more visually pleasant. At least Calgary has a mountain view, big parks, a very nice zoo, etc that are fairly prominent.
* Cleanliness...if you live in a Canadian city outside Toronto, in some places within Toronto you can actually notice it isn't as clean. Toronto isn't filthy, and is probably cleaner than the average big city, but there is a difference.
* Size...Toronto is HUGE...Montreal and Vancouver are quite large but quite distinctive...but when you go down the list of largest cities the size drops dramatically...Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg....they just don't have the scale of a big American city like Toronto. And unlike Montral and Vancouver there isn't that cultural distinctiveness to remind you that it isnt the US.
* Friendliness/temperment. Toronto shares a similar temperment with Americans that reside along the eastern seaboard...you are all so uptight! Relax, man! People who move to Calgary from BC make that observation about Calgary...then they visit Toronto and find out whoah...now I know what uptight REALLY is! I know that Torontonians are actually pretty nice people one you know them, but strangers on the street, in the stores, etc...if I had to live there I'd probably get an ulcer. I thought that the more east you went the more uptight you got, but I was wrong...it's the closer you get to Toronto--found that out when I went to the maritimes.
* Culture -- there is a LOT to do in Toronto, the cultural scene is amazing...umm...not unlike New York. And therein lies the rub. Toronto is culturally activ
erm.. forgive me here, but isn't the Arctic totally landless?
erm...no. If the ice were to melt away it would expose the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and northern coastal areas of Greenland, Siberia and Alaska, among other places. The corresponding rise in sea-levels might put some of the Canadian islands underwater but there would still be a considerable increase in exposed, above-sea landmass.
So, not only would there be land to use, much of it would be waterfront property. Considering the Canadian Arctic has sizable diamond deposits, the receding glaciers might expose some lucrative opportunities--I wonder how much "ice" is under all that ice...
I think it was prudent for CBC to stop broadcasting the show as many found its "portrayal of facts" offensive. In any case, it seems some transgressions are more serious than others, as McKenna's and MacDonald's jobs were not seriously on the line, whereas CBC only grudgingly keep Cherry, who's editorial stand on issues matters less then those of producers and correspondents.
I heard a lot about Hakim Faqiryar because he was running in the riding I lived in at the time. I was disappointed in the media overall for the lack of attention the story got vs. the press some given to non-issues like an Alliance candidate's "Asian Invasion" comment or Elinor Caplan's assertion the Alliance harboured anti-semites (her Alliance opponent was Jewish). In any case, the CBC never covered it nationally, but IIRC, CTV televised a story on its national evening newscast and the Herald and Calgary Sun wrote articles on it. Maybe if it happened post-9/11 when Al Quaida gained much more infamy they wouldn't ignore it. In any case, the fact the CBC ignored the issue until Stockwell Day (a conservative politician) got himself tangled in a lawsuit over it speaks to the priorities at CBC News.
As I said originally, the CBC did not cover the election of the Grewals until the election was actually over--not even as a side item on the numerous occasions they mentioned Layton and Chow. The article you reference was released AFTER the election resultes were in. You are also mistaken about them not being MPs before the election--it was Gurmant's THIRD ELECTION. It was also the second time he made history (in 1997 he became the first Sikh MP in Canadian history). His wife might be a back-bench rookie right now, but her husband is NOT a career backbencher--he has been the opposition's Deputy House Leader, Foreign Affais critic and is one of the few opposition MPs to be a committee chair. He is more active and influential than most Liberal MPs.
How far left CBC is biased is in the eye of the viewer, but you'd have to be blind and deaf not to notice some degree of leftward bias. Also as you state, the CBC is rather Ontario-centric. Considering the CBC is a taxpayer-funded, public netowrkk for ALL canadians, the fact that they are neglecting two-thirds of Canadians with their Ontario focus is wrong. Actually it's worse than that--they are TORONTO-centric. Even northern Ontarians have trouble identifying with the CBC at times. Given that Toronto is the most American-like city in Canada (yes, even more so than Calgary--I know from first-hand experience) the CBC is doing the nation a disservice. They are also overlooking the fact that some of the best stuff Canada has to offer has come from "the hinterland" outside Toronto--CODCO, 22 Minutes, The Nature of Things, Beachcombers, Corner Gas, North of 60, and many more all relied on talent, locations, cultural references, etc from outside Toronto.
Yes, it is available to citizens at no cost over the air. However, it is impossible to get cable or legal sattelite TV in Canada without having some of your money get sent to the CBC.
To the person who says the CBC is biased towards the left. It's called balanced reporting.
It is balanced provided you read a SUN newspaper or the National Post for contrast maybe.
Please give a solid example of CBC being biased towards the left.
There are many:
* The whole ideological bend in the documentary "The Valour and the Horror". WWII veterans criticised the feature for being a bit too fast and loose with the facts in order to support McKenna's political views.
* The 2000 federal election coverage: The CBC made a concerted effort to dig up dirt on the Alliance party, ranging from the high-profile "22 Minutes" "change the leader's name petition" gag to giving national coverage to wing-nut candidates like Elinor Caplan harping on how the Alliance harbours anti-semetic candidates. Meanwhile, the Liberals ran a candidate in Calgary who was being investgated for his ties to Al Quaida and what photographed holding a banner proclaiming "Death to Jews!", and it made not even a whisper on CBC nationally. Also, NDP leader at the time--a self-professed "socialist" who figured a household income of $60,000 meant you were "rich" and should pay the most taxes--was from a very rich familyherself, who held interest in many factories that paid rather mediocre wages. Despite some of these contradictions in her past, Ms. McDonough could do no wrong as NDP leader in CBCs eyes. If you are a conservative politician, you'd better have a spotless record or you're slagged mercilessly.
* The whole "Best Canadian" series--it had its good moments and I liked the viewer participation, but its portrayal of Tommy Douglas (founder of Canada's medicare system) wasn't entriely complete and balanced. There is also question about the voting methodology used in selecting Tommy Douglas as the "winner".
* Middle East correspondent Neil MacDonald has raised controversy often over his apparent bias towards Palistinians/mildly anti-Semitic viewppoints (depending on who is complaining). His viewpoints often do not reflect Canadian citizens' views or the government's stand. He was allowed to freely express such opinions for years. I'd say that in the interest of free speech, that is good--but where is the "pro-Israel" correspondent? And why was he allowed to repeatedly be controversial and colour commentator Don Cherry was nearly fired for his jokes about Francophones and Quebec Separatists (that weren't even in a serious news report)?
* 2004 federal election: The CBC made a really big deal about how NDP leader Jack Layton and his wife were both running for office in Toronto, and that if both won they would be the first husband-wife in the Commons in Canadian history. Layton's wife Olivia Chow did not win and they did not make history. However, the CBC completely missed the fact that there was a husband and wife running in adjacent Vancouver-area ridings for the Conservatives, and didn't mention it until they had acutally won. The CBC probably missed it for two reasons--it wasn't in Toronto and they were not left wing. Also they didn't fit the image the CBC likes to portray of conservative politicians--Gurmeet and Nina Grewal are not old, white Christian men.
Want me to continue? I guess bias is in the eye of the beholder. I am a regular CBC viewer and like some of their programming (and yay for them advocating open source!) but to me it is very obviously biased so I know not to rely solely on what the CBC says as being an objective viewpoint.
...is about as Canadian as Chrysler is American. That is, it is part of a greater corporation formed by a "merger of equals" where one of the equals was just a bit more equal than the other (in this case the Wendy's burger chain). So a significant portion of Wendys-Tim Hortons is Canadian held but the majority is American owned and managed (similar to how Chrysler is mostly German now).
Tim Hortons is still a part of Canadian culture, and relatively unknown in the US (it only has a limited presence in certain regions of the US). In Canada, there are more Tim Hortons stores than McDonalds stores. When I was in Hamilton (where the chain got its start) I can pretty much say without exaggeration that you are in easy walking distance to a Tim Hortons from any imaginable location in that city. If you've watched "Supersize Me" where they plot the McDonalds stores on a map of Manhattan, and add a couple more stores, that is kind of what a map of Hamilton would look like.
The CBC should make a documentary about Tim Hortons (oh wait--they already did, sort of--one on the hockey star and founder of the chain that bears his name). The CBC makes documentaries on nearly everything remotely to do with Canada it seems. Overall they are very good but sometimes it's like "WTF eh?"
Please, don't bring up the BBC, then someone will bring up the fact that everone HAS to buy a TV license if they have a TV
Interestingly enough that is almost the same way CBC receives much of its funding. In Canada, if you want wo have *cable or legal satellite* television you MUST pay a fee to CBC. This fee is hidden in your cable or satellite bill. In return, we get the CBC--by law, all cable and satellite providers in Canada must provide CBC Newsworld, and one channel each of the CBC main network and Radio-Canada (French CBC). I *AM* glad that we don't have that silly license scheme here though.
Then someone with a complete lack of understanding of the way the BBC works, will call it a puppet of the government.
Cant speak for the BBC, but the CBC seems fairly independent of government, and is quite regularly on its case about corruption, etc (they also get a good skewering on "This Hour has 22 Minutes"). I DO have to say that they are far from neutral, and arguably very out-of-touch with Canadian's overall viewpoint editorially. Canada is markedly to the left of the US, but not outright socialist as often the CBC's editorial stance seems to be. Compared to th BBC programming I've seen I'd say the BBC is not nearly as ideologicallly bent as the CBC. And while they are not a puppet of the government, during election time they cover the Liberal and NDP (socialist) party much more favourably than others (Conservative, Greens, separatists, fringe parties).
As far as government puppets go, in Canada they are private media companies--Bell GlobeMedia is owned by a staunchly Liberal family with close ties to high-powered politicians. The "old and stale" Globe and Mail editorials are a good example of mutual backscratching.
Then finally someone will pour scorn on the actual quality of the programming
Much of what the CBC does is crap, and I'm sure the same is true of the BBC too, but it seems (at least here across the pond) we get to see the best of what the BBC has to offer, and even when production values are sometimes low, it is very good entertainment, which is often emulated here (hits like "All in the Family" are Americanised British imports). The CBC has carried such shows before too (Degrassi Junior High had a following around he world, Beachcombers was a bit hokey but still a perennial favourite, The Nature of Things is world-renowned and very long-running). However, finding the treasure amongst the crap that sometimes gets put front-and-centre is sometimes frustrating.
The CBC *is* too overlooked, and there is quality stuff on there, but it has incompetent management. Their biggest hits never seem to air on the same day and time from week to week. They are too often pre-empted for special presentations or sports events or whatever reason they can come up with to move things around. Furthermore they have no real direction. On one hand they try to meet some kind of official mandate and be like the BBC or PBS, and on the other hand they are driven to fill air time with American movie features and revenue-generating commercials and Canadian-produced content that emulate American formulae.
There has to be a corporate-wide shake-up at CBC to allow for more innovation. They can't be both the BBC and ABC. Furhtermore, private networks are starting to make some really good, truly Canadian programming that beats what the CBC has come up with for awhile (Check out Corner Gas...also CTV has picked up the latest sequel to the original Degrassi shows at CBC's expense).
I'm not totally against the CBC--as I said they have some good programming and it's nice to see initiatives like the open source one by ZED. However, if taxpayer money is going to fund it, the CBC should offer something different than "just another network" (which they too often try to be). Private enterprise can give me the same old stuff. The CBC will know they are successful when they air something a bit off the wall that becomes enough of a hit t
Actually, isn't a government granted monopoly (copyright) and "incentives" more communist than capitalist?
Patents, copyrights and trademarks are are quite ANTI-communist because part of what they do is allow one to claim ownership of ideas, and Communists do not like anyone other than the state to own anything. They are a capitalist in a sense for the same reason--they create a legal "thing" that can be given a monetary value and owned.
However, the above-mentioned IP instruments (especially as they exist today) would make Adam Smith roll in his grave. They do NOT make for an unhindered free-market economy. Heavy-handed IP laws could in fact be applied towards creating a Soviet-like centrally-planned economy: Think of it--a government agency has the power to grant and revoke exclusive rights to inventions, media, software, etc. It could play a central role in a government run by an elite band of old cronies. The result would be a money-driven, privately-owned (by an elite classs) economy--highly capitalist but very restrictive, with high barriers to participation.
In short, IP laws that are excessive in creating artificial "things" to own and granting too much exclusive power to these things would contribute greatly to the emergence of Economic Fascism. Bill Gates is, in essence, an Economic Fascist to a degree. Someone like Jack Valenti or Darl McBride are extremely fascist from an economic standpoint.
I think that the whole left-right single-axis spectrum oversimplifies reality, and I'm suprised someone as smart as Gates doesn't express that in his interview. He brands IP-rights reformers as "Communists" when not all of them are. I'd venture to say most in the US are Economic Libertarians (ie. want less government interference) and have no problem with making money at all.
I hold a fairly libertarian view on things--leave people alone to innovate, and let people be free to compete. There needs to be some level of IP rights in the interest of fairness, to ensure creators are free to chose how their works are used (GNU is unenforceable without a copyright law for example), but such things are privliges, not fundamental rights, and as such the more power you are granted the more RESPONSIBILITY you have. In other words, if you want to patent, copyright, trademark and DRM your works to death feel free to try...HOWEVER it is YOUR responsibility to enforce those conditions---you should not make the government responsible to do your work for you.
My recommendation in regard to the non-CS core classes with a math foundation is to get a broad exposure to them
I would go a step further and say that you should take elective courses that may not even have a math foundation. Take a humanities course or two (sociology, history, philosophy, anthropology, etc.). Computer-savvy types are sometimes a breed apart from the folks who actually end up using their software, and taking courses to learn about people instead of math and machines for a change will help you identify with other perspectives better. If you want to go beyond being a code-monkey (ie. someone who doesn't have to "worry about India") you'll need those skills.
I also highly recommend taking a business, management or marketing course or two. You're boss is certainly going to have background in that area. I also agree with Joel on another point: Taking an English course is mandatory for success.
I know that CS and engineering school workloads can be harsh and it is hard to fit those sort of courses in but I ended up being able to take more than required by taking a couple night courses during work terms.
One last point about courses to take. I disagree with Joel on a minor point: You should take a course that involves assembly language in preference to a C course (or maybe in addition to it)--typically an EE/CE Microprocessor Systems Design. THAT is the way to truly program close to the system. If you have a solid grasp of the low-level behaviour of a computer then some of that can rub off in your high-level programming work--sometimes even in a language like Java there are benefits to approaching a problem as a state machine for example. I think that a lot of bloat and resource consumption comes from coders who do not have a grasp of these concepts.
Other advice:
Co-op and internship programs make you more employable than an excellent GPA will by itself.
One you have a GPA above 3.0 it is less of a factor for employment. After 5 years experience your GPA will be almost meaningless anyways.
If you want to stand out don't just do what is required or you think you'd be good at. Be different, and actually take some courses purely out of personal interest. I think I was the only EE in my class to take two Canadian History courses for example. Those sort of things get noticed when your first job applications include transcripts.
Keep learning new things even after graduation, whether it be something like MCSE or RHCE, or community college courses on running your own business and so on. Not all the time of course--maybe just one thing a year, just to keep your brain in gear.
If you want to keep your tech job and not worry about India, you won't do it by just being a programmer--you'll have to get into high-level design, research or management roles. Simply coding to specifications is becoming the future "assembly line" job and you have to accept that. Beyond entry-level positions it is probably going to be outsourced or temporaray contract work in a lot of cases.
Perhaps it's my Windows background, but I want a single window with toolboxes and sidebars inside that window (see Visual Studio or KDevelop).
I use Visual Studio all the time and while I think overall it is an excellent product, I find the "single window with toolboxes and sidebars INSIDE" MDI setup completely pointless and annoying. When I use Visual Studio's IDE I find it is almost useless unless the main window is maximised anyways--all the toolboxes and menubars and frames and everything must be jammed into the parent window and when that window is too small the actual area showing my code gets too small. Therefore, what is the point of making that one big window in the first place?
Why not just put all that stuff right on the desktop so you can move and size it wherever you want on the screen? The only reason I can see for the MDI in most cases is that it is a workaround for the limited capabilities of the Windows desktop (which does not allow you to switch between multiple screens/workspaces out-of-the-box).
Anyways it seems that when I use Windows apps that are presented in an MDI almost without exception I maximise that parent window (Visual Studio and Paintshop Pro being the two that stand out in my mind). As such, I think that while the GAMBAS IDE might need some polish it is taking the right approach. That's just my observation...YMMV.
I tend to prefer MacOS and GNOME-like interfaces over Windows and KDE-style. Perhaps the MDI would be a better choice for consistency's sake if an app is targeted towards Windows and KDE much more heavily than MacOD and GNOME. Other than that, it seems to me creating an extra window just to contain other windows is a waste of resources.
A new wireless phone product that isn't about
* being powered by Windows
* playing music and annoying ringtones
* takes even more megapixels of pics than ever before!
* plays microscopic video
No--it's about a phone that...get ready for it...improves the ability to make phone calls! What a new and novel idea! It's about F***in' time, and I have to say that this is the first phone that has piqued my interest in a long time.
Think about it the other way though, if you trip and fall and smash stuff in your jacket or on your belt, then you only have to replace one thing instead of 4 that might break all at the same time. Also, there's insurance on cell phones, none on the others.
1. I don't carry all four with me at all times. I generally have no need for more than two of those at once
2. You can get insurance on anything you want. My insurance covers cell phones, laptops, PDAs and digital cameras. If I had an iPod that I really valued it could cover that too I suppose.
As for interrupting your calls, most of these phones have speakerphones and "driving modes". They also have headsets that can be used while using the phone for other things.
1. Speakerphones do not allow for privacy.
2. Sometimes you don't want to cover your ears with a headset. Wires are a nusiance. Wireless bluetooth ones require separate battery/charger and bluetooth has some security concerns if not set up right.
Great, a convergence unit is not for you. That doesn't mean they're not for me, and more like it doesn't mean all phones will be convergence phones.
1. Not only is it not for me, in some things it isn't for most people and is a niche market. If it were really appealing then set-top convergence boxes would be much more commonplace today.
2. I HOPE it means all phones will not be "convergence phones", but it could happen, given the kind of industry we are talking about. People buy these phones through cellular providers. Have you tried to get ANYTHING "basic" from a cell-co? Root canals are more pleasant! NO I don't want the colour phone with the camera, thanks. NO I don't want the 400 anytime minutes leasure plan fro only $49.95 (*plus access fee..blah blah fine print). They ALWAYS try the upsell, and while they are not too pushy there, if you try to go LOWER than their widely advertised "basic" plan it becomes a serious battle.
I can just imagine: colour cellphones with cameras and games and crappy reception are cool gimicky things popular with teenage girls and make the cell-co boatloads of money. Marketing PHB sees the $ numbers regardless of the demographic and soon the "base plan" offers the colour, game-filled cam-phone, and if you want something basic then you are pulling teeth even more to get it. If you don't get a discount for getting a plainer phone at that point so help me....
Yeah...the same as with any other type of phone or technology.
Yeah--except that I just can't make phone calls, and I still have a camera and PDA that DO work.
So you use it as a PDA when you're not on the phone. Not everyone has constant phone calls to interrupt their PDAing.
Not everyone, but I'm not everyone. There are times when I DO have constant cellphone calls. And oddly enough, the time that I am most likely to be using the PDA is...when I'm retrieving information to relay to a person I'm talking to on the phone.
But do you think everyone uses their technology the same way you do? Is someone forcing you to buy a 'mega-feature' phone? Diversity in the marketplace is good, not bad.
I agree, but the problem is that these features are creeping into the mainstream segment, and the market is degradating to the state where Wintel PCs are now. I do NOT want buying a cellphone to be that complex. There is a sizeable market for a low-cost, simple computer but for some reason manufacturers can't seem to capture that market. There is NO NEED AT ALL for a gigahertz-clock-speed, many-hundred-megabytes RAM P4-class machine if all you do is personal word processing, spreadsheets, contact lists, email and web surfing--and even a lot of games. Aside from spelunking for used equipment everywhere you CANNOT find a simple, new machine easily. Even Walmart's PC is more than many people need to do what they want and that's the closest thing.
The same goes for phones--all that crap is often overkill. I'm willing to bet that although not EVERYONE uses technology like me that there are a enough that do that would lament the extinction of the basic cellphone, especially since all the added cruft seems to cut into the potential battery life and reception quality.
You seem to constantly be on the phone. I feel sorry for you, but you should realize that not all of us are
Don't feel sorry, it is part of my job, and when I'm done work I just turn it off and deal with the missed calls the next morning. Right now, it's nice that I can do that and still have a digital camera for the vacations or an MP3 player that I can take with me jogging, etc. and leave the phone at home.
I long for the days when I used to be able to get a simple cell phone with a simple interface, contact phone book, and good reception -- for less than $25 dollars a month!
Amen, brotha! But don't dispair quite yet, you can still get such a deal--except there is a catch:
* you have to be at the end of a 2 year or longer contract
* you have to be fully paid--and may have to have a good payment history with the provider
* not requirement, but you get "bonus points" for being a "good customer" in general--ie. you have had the same phone through the whole contract (no lost/stolen/damaged phones, etc).
* you must take the time to actually visit their store/office/etc. The plans you get on-line or over the phone completely STINK.
Phone companies treat their basic plans like "dirty little secrets" they pull out when they are desperate to keep you. Be polite but assertive, and bargain with them like you would at a Tiajuana flea market.
My parents got lots of practice by sitting through sales pitches for timeshares in Florida and British Columbia. You have to listen to a sleazy, high-pressure guy for a couple hours and pretend you are interested in the wonderful amenities when all you *really* are after is the free TV or 3-day ski pass you "won". It is the same when your cellphone contract comes up for renewal. The longer you resist buying the more incredible the deal gets.
My mother used this tactic last month with Telus Mobility when her contract came up. The salespeople probably thought "nice old retiree lady--easy commission" but they were wrong. They go through the following steps:
1. Offer you the same overpriced plan they give joe schmoe off the street, but get a nifty colour phone upgrade. You respond: sorry, I don't need a colour phone and it is still too much for my budget.
2. Offer new but basic phone, less daytime minutes but still unlimited evening/weekend or something like that. Still $40/month or so but a bit cheaper. You: but I use even less than that, can't I get something without the daytime minutes?
3. (grumble grumble) Offers pre-paid/pay-as-you-go. Points out emphatically the convoluted process of buying minutes (picking up cards, conditions where minutes do not carry over etc etc) hoping you'll relent and at least pick #2. You: no dice--that's too inconvenient, who would ever put up with that crap if they didn't have to?
4. (in desperation to keep you from signing with Bell) Pleeeeze stay with us--we value your business. Here is our new basic phone, no evenings or weekends free but anytime minutes for $25 canadian per month.
Takes an hour of haggling but it's worth it.
Hmmm 500 MHz processor. Guess that's what ya gotta do if you want to run Windows on your phone. Seems crazy though, given that I've run a database/email/file server that routinely queried 2 million-record database tables, ran dynamic mod-perl web apps and handled gigs of IMAP folders without breaking a sweat, all on a 500 MHz Celeron PC with similar specs as these superphones (except for 20 gigs of drive space).
I'm still trying to wrap my head around WHY. If it breaks or I lose it I have no functionality.
When I'm talking on the phone I cannot look at the screen so it would be a pain in the ass to look up info to relay to the person I'm talking to. Thus, I prefer a separate device, or at the very least a handset and some assurance I won't accidentally hang up on the person while I fiddle with things. PDA phones might be very capable, but if I were a power user I'd prefer a standalone PDA.
I only take pictures when I'm out somewhere interesting (on vacation, etc) so it seems pointless to have one on a phone that I use all the time. There are many places where photographic equipment is banned, and that means I cannot have a camera phone for work (a lot of manufacturing facilities, generating stations, etc do not allow photography equipment inside without signing special agreements). Besides, even the best camera phones take pretty crappy pictures even compared to budget digital cams. Anyone who is even semi-serious about their pics would have a separate camera.
MP3 player? Seems cool, but again a telephone conversation would interfere with operation. Besides, if even an ipod mini is too big for you you can get a basic player that fites nicely on a keychain now.
Video. Puleeeze. I don't care how far technology advances, nothing needs to be watched so bad that I MUST watch it right now---on a 2-inch screen. If these phones had TV-out...well I might look again....maybe...but all we are doing is replacing gadgets with tangled cables anyways.
I hope this superphone fad dies down a bit, and that I won't be forced to deal with unwanted features. I am just fine with a phone that makes phone calls, stores phone numbers and maybe has text messaging so I can receive alerts when I get new email. That is all I do now and nothing I've seen in these phones makes me want to do more. If they want to get me excited about a new phone...how about one with much improved reception , from a phone company that has a billing policy less complicated than spacecraft schematics.
I'm still waiting for your argument that it does no harm or impact. PROOVE to me that there was no impact on revenues in the industry from piracy as it has happens now "in the REAL WORLD". Hollywood had a record year? Good for them. How do you know it couldn't have been even better? You cannot say that NONE of the beneficiaries of piracy would've bought the movie legally were it the only option. OTOH, The SCO fiasco is a good direct example of the damage a person or corporation could do without copyright protection for creators of a work. Without that protection in place, SCO wouldn't have had to make any case at all to prove ownership of code in the IBM suit. While copyright law (particualrly American law) has been used against the interest of consumers, it has also allowed us all to benefit from things like the Free Software movement.
Is it lost on you that one of the many reasons EVERYONE doesn't download free digital copies of movies is that there are laws against doing so, and people already think it is wrong? Right now, the quality of even good illegal movies is crap compared to legally purchased versions, but that won't be the case forever. In the case of music, the difference in quality is usually not enough to matter. Why does Apple still sell millions of tracks when even to this day you can get them for free from opther P2P networks? BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL AND THE FREE STUFF IS NOT. People choose the legal route because it is not worth a dollar a track savings to do something wrong and have it on their conscience and risk violating the law.
iTunes is more convenient you say? Hmm why would that be...maybe because the tracks ARE THERE BY PERMISSION? The pirated stuff has not organised distribution model and in order to evade the law it cannot be made as conveniently available. If in the eyes of the law and society you could copy and distribute songs to your hearts content (and the author and publisher had no say at all) then what WOULD stop *everyone* from getting content for free? Nothing at all--not until at some point there was no way to sustain the development of new material and people got bored of existing stuff. Not sure the resulting upheaval would be easy to contend with however.
what is the reason people make personal multi-thousand dollar investments to do this?
1 Because they are low-life/no-life people who choose movie piracy as a hobby. I know hardcore raver types who fill gigs of drive space with songs of all types--even like Partridge Family and Neil Diamond--"just because". It isn't really revenue lost because they would never buy that stuff and they are lucky if they've heard some songs even once. I don't get it, but to each his own I guess.
2 Because the MPAA's antiquated, greed-driven distribution system restricts distribution (no world-wide releases, etc etc. Some people want to see a completed movie before the general public in their locale can. In some cases, a movie might never reach some places at all. Same with TV and music (cable company monopoly won't carry station X with show Y so I can only get it with BitTorrent). Piracy fills the vacuum MPAA and RIAA are to dense and short-sighted to fill themselves. Rather than try to shut down pirates they should embrace their methods and fight fire with fire. Apple proved there is a market in the music space with the iPod now MPAA should consider this a fire lit under thier asses.
3 Donating $15k can get you access to top-level sites and thousands of movies, shows and songs so it is probably a $1 or less per file--still cheaper than retail by a wide margin. What would a single person do with more content than they could watch in a lifetime? See reason 1.
4 Psychololgical reasons. At the top level, some of the players exhibit obsessive-compulsive and other abnormal behaviour. Left untreated, people with OCD will spend hours of time and in some cases even thousands of dollars or lose their jobs because of their compulsions. If it's out there they NEED to have it. Some crave attention to the point of phychological disorder. Some parents make their kids sick purposely to draw attention to themselves--perhaps some pirates satisfy that sort of craving for attention through the credit they get for a good movie rip seen by thousands.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but the motives and methods behind this kind of theft are obviously more complicated simple shoplifting, so the solution is going to have to be less dense and simplistic than the MPAA is embarking on now.
It's not much use defining something as wrong, because it doesn't actually HURT anyone. Not the studios, not the actors, not the writers.
Doesn't HURT anyone? How do you figure that? Nobody is killed or maimed? For the sake of argument, say that EVERYBODY downloads digital copies of a movie at no monetary cost. I'm not convinced there is no harm done. You give absolutely NO argument supporting your conclusion. Where would the money come from to pay the actors and writers? Do you expect the manufacturers of camera, sound and lighting equipment to volunteer their time and materials toward the noble cause of completing the next great Star Wars movie?
I'm not saying that I agree with MPAA's stand--I think the traditional distribution and marketing system is antiquated and obsolete, and that studios and A-list actors make an obscene amount of money. I also think that using judicial and legislative means to force consumers into dealing with this antiquated system is immoral and short-sighted. However, protection of creative works is essential and the authors of these works MUST have the right to be compensated and/or recognised for their efforts--so long as it is FAIR AND REASONABLE (today, it isn't going in that direction unfortunately)
Lets carry your argument further--I'd say by making your statement you support SCO's attack on Linux:
* Digital copies of both the source and executables of Linux are out there and we can get them free (this is in fact encouraged)--we cannot stop SCO from doing that.
* SCO and their ilk can do whatever they want with these files and we can't actually STOP them Copyright be dammed--let's ignore it (and the GNU terms of that copyright) and use it as we please (distrubute binaries without source, try to claim the source as our own--we did spend preciouis hours downloading it after all)
* Those nice people at SCO aren't actually HURTING anyone, right? Not Linus Torvalds, not the FSF, not the thousands of coders out there, not the distro packagers.
Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. It IS wrong to ignore the terms of copyright. If you cannot live with the terms set by the copyright holder then JUST SUCK IT UP AND DON'T WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE. People should be allowed to control their own works--but on the flip-side they shouldn't be protected from the consequences as the MPAA and RIAA would like. Even Free Software depends on reasonable, equitable copyright law in order to exist and flourish.
The technical info is correct, but there is a minor point:
The main difference between the MOS 6510 and the original Rockwell 6502
MOS created the "original" 6502 design and licensed it to others--Rockwell probably being the biggest of those (I think they supplied Atari for a time? Cannot remember). The MOS6510 was harware enhanced, whereas the ROK6502 was software enhanced. The ROK6502 didn't have the I/O port, but Rockwell defined ALL the "undefined opcodes" in the base 6502 design.
The "undefined opcodes" are binary numbers that do not represent an assembly-language operation and their behaviour is unpredictable and may change between chip revisions. The 6510 did not enhance the instruction set in any real way (and Commodore warned in its user manual ominously about "not being responsible for the use of undefined opcodes"). Some hackers found that the most popular 6502s had some opcodes that did neat things and ignored Commodore's advice. Rockwell officially "defined" some of those and added more opcodes (mostly to support a new addressing mode). Rockwell defined almost all 255 possible opcodes, andas such the ROK6502 has the largest instruction set of any 6502-variant ever produced.
This was all amazing and cool stuff, until a sharp young high-school dropout put all of it in a single FPGA chip as a hobby and made some money selling it in a retro-looking joystick.
look I got a commodore MP3 player, it has 64KB storage.
I'd be thinking:
"half the RAM is probably used up by a BASIC interpreter as soon as you power it up"
"if it has a data transfer rate anything like the 1541 drive it'll take a century to load songs into it"
"I wonder if I'll have to key an arcane command into it to play songs"
"I wonder if the next model will be almost totally incompatible with this one"
they had a damn good business strategy...
...amazing engineers...
...good products.
Funny--nearly choked on my tea when I read that one. Maybe when Tramiel was around. What's the old joke? If Commodore bought the KFC company, they would advertise their product as "warm dead bird"? Even pre-Amiga they had their share of blunders--the B128 (the C128 too actually), the Plus/4, the C16...but in the last 10 years of the original company's existence their legendary blunders paled in comparison to even Atari's.
Like all the *EX-ATARI* people who designed the Amiga before Commodore bought it? They also had an amazing talent for completely avoiding backwards compatibility in their product line, even while using derivatives of the SAME CPU and other chips. Even when they came out with the C128 the C64-compatible mode disabled all of the C128's extra capabilities. They had some solid semiconductor engineers, but if you want "amazing engineers" on the system level you'd better take a closer look at Apple.
Like the C64 with a Bill-Gates-Reject BASIC that had no built-in commands to exploit the machines amazing sound and graphics capabilities? That machine that could not auto-boot and required most everything be loaded by typing something like LOAD "blahblah",8,1 and would overwrite your BASIC programme if you wanted to retrieve a list of files on your floppy? The floppy drive that loaded slower than Coleco's CASSETTE drive (I am not kidding--personal experience)?
Well I guess they were reliable since less than half of them were DOA or failed within weeks when purchased new at my primary school years ago (35 to 40 percent failure rate isn't bad....is it?)
I have to agree with you on one point...Gould was the king of corporate malfeasance.