Excuse my ignorance about XForms...and perhaps about ActiveX as well. You are excused on both counts--I'm not exteremly well versed on them either;-)
but it doesn't look anything like ActiveX technology to me!
I'm confused. You say that like it's a BAD thing! ActiveX as a concept seems cool, but the implementation makes me cringe--it should be eradicated from the planet!
How is XForms supposed to replace QuickTime, RealPlayer, Flash, Shockwave, JAVA applets, VRML plugins
XForms is NOT an ActiveX replacement, and it isn't meant to replace ANY of those things. It is a proposal for an elegant, standard implementation of interactive form display and processing--compared to the complete mess we have today (DOM+Javascript, or *particular* ActiveX controls, flash, etc). Ironically, XForms support of sorts is ALREADY available for IE6 in the form of an ActiveX plugin. I suppose that at least allows one to replace a myriad of nonstandard controls with one plugin that implements the bells-and-whistles using an actual standard.
In my opinion NONE of the above plugins are of great use to me and in 90 percent of cases where they are used they only serve to be annoying. To the web authors out there--PLEASE THINK TWICE before using them. Don't use Quicktime, WMP9 or Real unless you are hosting a site dedicated to video and/or sound (I prefer to launch the player externally rather than embedded in the page anyways)! If you aren't making a web-based game then DITCH THE DAMN FLASH AND JAVA--PLEASE!
I want simple, fast-downloading, compatible and easy-to-use interfaces. Proprietary plug-ins and bloated code get in the way. If XHTML with XForms, etc. can make some of the above crap obsolete it'll be a great step forward for the internet.
But Big Brother is your friend in many cases... given the choice between Big Brother and Uncle Osama which would you support?
I think I'd rather be estranged from that entire twisted family!
Uncle Osama and his band of psychotic Islamic fundamentalists are just Big Brothers with turbans. Their means are different but the ends are just the same: they wish to have total control over you. Men must let their beards grow, women must cover their bodies head to toe. Women must not read or obtain education outside their homes, and men must go out and face certain death defending the Taliban against infidels at their leader's whims, and no one at all can vote. To enforce that requires constant surveillance.
Osama detests the western "free world" because it champions individual freedom--he views the USA as a decadent from a religious standpoint, but what he REALLY hates and fears is the lack of control, and the fact that the USA threatens what control he has. The free world is playing right into "uncle Osama's" hands by instituting draconian measures under the guise of the "war on terror". We need to find the terrorists and make security more effective, goes the argument. Thus, we must link the automobile registry with the gun registry with the medicare system with the immigration system with the court system with the tax system. We must install cameras everywhere to make sure terrorists aren't hiding bombs in buildings, and we'd better not tell them they are being watched--it would compromise security.
This kind of survaillance leads to control--that guy's name is Mohammed, we gotta run extra checks on him before we hire him. Mrs Jones, you can't take those nail clippers in your carry-on luggage, they are a security risk. Mr Smith, you're going to have to come with us--that information you discovered and published about the weak security in some of our systems could be used by terrorists. Big Brother is just Uncle Osama in reverse--the desire to see leads to the need to control, rather than the desire to control leading to the need to see. In the end, the result is the same, and Osama wins either way.
...about your vote being "wasted" because you do not support the status quo--which is basically what happens regardless of this election's outcome.
Face it--regardless of whether Bush or Kerry is POTUS next year, it'll be pretty much the status quo. If anything changed the status quo, it wasn't Bush's arrival in the White House, it was a bunch of demented Islamic fundamentalists driving planes into big buildings that changed everything. The domestic assault on personal liberties was well underway AGES before Floridians decided that most hanging and pregnant chads belonged to Bush.
The Clinton Democrats sheparded through bills leading to the cretion of the Broadcast Flag and the DMCA quite happily. Hollywood loves the Democratic party--the relationship makes them more money. Bush and company are too fixated on the "war on terror" and making sure their oil friends are taken care of. Elephant or Donkey it doesn't matter, they're both old-world political animals--they just obey different lobbyist masters.
At any rate if you are really dissatisfied with your government, I say PLEASE--"WASTE" your vote. Change may take years (a few terms to be sure) but it's the only way to guarantee change. Let me relate the "Canadian experience" for those Americans that may be unaware:
In 1988, Canada was goverened by the Mulroney-led Progressive Conservatives (PCs). The PCs were reaching the end of their first mandate and the polls looked good to call an election (no fixed election dates here--the PM gets to call an election when he feels he can win--unless parliament has sat for five years). Many (especially in the west) found the PCs to be arrogant and oblivious to their concerns, and by the time the election was called these voters had established the "Reform Party of Canada" (RPC).
In 1988 they barely registered--less than 10 percent of the vote and no seats. They were laughed off as a fringe movement as the PCs coasted to a large majority. The PCs continued to rule with arrogance, and in 1993 then forced to go to another election under a new (and equally arrogant) leader, discontent grew. By this time, nationalists in Quebec felt motivated to organise and had formed the BLOC. Those in ontario decided to give the opposition Liberals a chance.
The result was astonishing--but not simply because the Liberals won as expected. The PCs were reduced to 2 seats and lost party status (by parliamentary convention they could not form a caucus and had to sit as independents). The SEPARATIST BLOC party became official opposition by a one seat margin over the RPC (52 to 51 seats). These parties had ZERO representation previously. Enough people decided to "waste their votes" by not voting for the two traditional mainline parties (the Liberals and PCs) and changed the political landscape of Canada permanently.
The old-line PCs were understandably upset, blaming the breakaway RPCers of handing the Liberals a blank cheque and ineffective opposition, but nobody can disagree that the PCers we never that arrogant again. The RPC (later re-constituted into the Alliance party) later became official opposition and the PCs kept limping along--regaining party status just barely and holding enough support to split the vote and allow the Liberals to govern to this day.
This made the Liberals even more arrogant and corrupt than the original Mulroney-era PCs, which brough forth some new events. The Alliance and PC disbanded and agreed to set aside differences and create a new Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). The socialist New Democrats and the "fringe" Greens also had new leaders and re-worked platforms. The combination of a unified principal opposition and renewed choice on the left siphoned support from both sides of the Liberals and reduced them to a minority government this year, subsequently deflating the ego of the Liberals and making it neccesary for them to cooperate more with other parties to hold power. We've also got the strongest opposition party in 25 years--similar
Open Source is great, but as the licenses make clear, *you* wind up holding all the liabilities. There aren't any warranties, and there's no implied fitness for use.
And this is different in what way from Microsoft Windows? This is an exerpt from the Windows XP EULA:
Except for the Limited
Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable
law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and
support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and
hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either
express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited
to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions
of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose,
of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness
of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack
of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to
the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide
support or other services, information, software, and
related content through the Product or otherwise arising
out of the use of the Product. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT,
QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO
DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH
REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.
Basically what MS warrants is that if the media is scratched or it or the packaging are otherwise defective, or through defect Windows is not able to boot to a state in which your machine is able to perform its basic functions, then you are entitles for a replacement or refund within 90 days.
Beyond that any other warranty depends on how much warranty coverage your juristiction can force Microsoft to provide by law, or in the case of corporate customers on what is covered in a supplimental contract. In the case of legally minimum warranty I am now aware of ANYWHERE in the world that legally forces a vendor to indemnidy its customers from legal action involving patents. However, end users generally are not the target of patent violation cases--patent holders go after the manufacturer/vendor instead (even SCOs cases against Autozone and DaimlerChrysler don't involve patents--and they even skirt around copyright. They are basically contract disputes based on shaky ground).
In any case, Microsoft provides NO MORE WARRANTY than any Linux distributor might for a retail box or ISO download of their product. That being said, a major corporate or government enterprise would negotiate a special contract with the vendor.
In the case of the Munich Linux project, I cannot see how the city of Munich could be stuck with an order to suddenly stop using their software. The worst case scenario would be that the firms contracted to do the project (IBM and Novell) could be told to cease-and-desist Linux operations, which would delay the project or disrupt future expansion or support. I imagine that this would be handled by the contract between the city and IBM/Novell. A big enterprise customer generally is VERY through when it comes to risk management.
They can certainly sue you to require you to "destroy" your copies of that software.
Whatever the details, I've NEVER heard of a case where end users were ordered to destroy ANYTHING because it violates a patent. Could you give an example where, say, not only Red Hat would be ordered to stop distributing a software product due to patent violations--all its customers would be ordered to stop using the product too?
That would be like General Motors suing an aftermarket parts supplier for producing illegal replacement parts for Chevrolet Malibus and be granted the authority to send all registered owners of Malibus court orders to take their cars into dealers for examination and possible replacement of the parts. Such a remedy would be considered ridiculous.
Hmm...console as computer or terminal eh? Well the "geeky allure" certainly has nothing to do with novelty, as the concept is far from new. Witness the following:
1. The Bally Astrocade console of 1978 was the first to explore the concept commercially, as one of it's "game" carts was the BASIC programming language and cassette interface.
2. Later in 1978 Magnavox (the producer of the first ever home console called Odyssey) introduced the successor Odyssey^2. Marketed head-to-head with the Atari 2600 as a console, it actually had an integrated keyboard. It wasn't really a computer (The Sinclair ZX81 came standard with EIGHT TIMES the memory of the O^2!) the idea was that adventure/strategy games could better use a keyboard than a joystick, and that expanding it to a computer would simply involve adding a RAM expansion pack.
3. It seems Mattel had intentions from the start to give the Intellivision a computer expansion option, and touted those intentions from the console's intro in 1979. However, they were late in delivering on their promises, and were eventually forced by the FTC to bring out the computer expansion or pay huge fines. They did comply--barely--by selling a few hundred in test markets, then pulled out. Eventually the introduced a newer, quite different design to a wider market, however the result was a major disappointment.
4. Atari beat both Bally and Magnavox to the colour console market with the 2600, but it was a bit later in exploting the computer expansion option. This was probably because they figured the entry-level micro market was served adequately by its Atari 400 offering. In the end the "Graduate" keyboard was never released.
5. Coleco was probably had the most success at turning their Colecovision console into a computer in terms of units produced (300K to 500K, although much of that stock never sold) and time on the market (nearly 1.5 years starting in 1983). This was probably more to do with Coleco selling the ADAM as a self contained computer alongside the "expansion module 3" that attached to an existing Colecovision--which sold in lower numbers. The ADAM in fact simply contained a slightly modified Colecovision and the logic board of the Expansion Module 3 in one case.
And that only covers until 1983. Nintendo Famicom and the Sony PS2 could also be made into a computer (with the manufacturer's blessing and products). There certainly is some appeal in being able to "tinker" and have the flexibility of a full-fledged computer, so why did none of these ideas really take off?
I'd have to say that both price and features had a great deal to do with it--the same reason the whole market crashed in 1984. With the exception of the Coleco products (which failed because of poor marketing/late delivery and poor quality control of its initial run) all these expanded consoles were lousy computers, and the combined cost of the console and expander was the same or more than a better entry-level micro. Why would you purchase an Atari 2600 and graduate if the Atari 400 by itself was a way better system that had great games already? Why buy an intellivision that you MIGHT be able to expand to a computer when you could get a VIC or a 400 or a Speccy that was already a computer for the same price? Not only that, but these computers all came with great games to boot.
I also find the "geeky allure" appealing, but I think the market is limited--in fact I think the drive to "tinker" with some of these devices is because the were commercial failures. Hardcore fans feel like they are abandoned by the company and band together for support and to get the most out of the system. Because the supply of orphaned sys
I explicitly stated that as time goes on inheritance of wealth becomes less important to determining success.
My sister was borne to a father who worked shift work running the boilers in a meat processing facility at the time. He was not, isn't and probably won't ever be (as he is now retired) president or chairman of a multinational company. My sister worked her way up from selling door-to-door to suppliment a fairly modest household income to where she is now twenty years later. She is not related in any way to the founder of the company, and daddy had nothing to do with her current position except to raise his kids well.
While it's sure a hell of a lot easier to be born into a position of wealth, there is NOTHING in the free world today that prevents a "commoner" from improving his lot in life except his or her own sense of limitation.
...then how'd they become the Ruling Class? You know, not every rich person is a slutty blonde bimbo heiress like Paris Hilton (someone who I'm sure would struggle to make up the bed in just one room of one of daddy's hotels). A good deal of the wealthy class is self made (particularly in North America)--perhaps your view is coloured by the more class-oriented system of the UK, where there is a fair bit more wealth through inheritance.
Jobs and Woznaik founded Apple and Jobs still runs it (hell of a lot bigger than a mere electronics store chain). I'm sure both of them would be more than capable of wiring up a 13A plug seeing as they were capable of designing, building and programming a computer (and devices allowing them to call Europe for free). And while Bill Gates came from a fairly affluent family, he was hardly a billionaire and managed to survive the early Micro-soft days in dumpy New Mexico digs and do low-level assembly programming.
And yes, I'm sure many of the owners of GM and Ford know how to change a tyre--seing as they are publicly held companies with a large number of shareholders. I'm willing to bet that the executives.management could do it (Lee Iacocca comes agross as a guy who is down-to-earth enough that he could.
My sister is the Canadian president of a multi-national corporation and not only can she peel a potato, she peeled many of them making dinner for her two kids every night as a stay-at-home mother when she was in her early twenties.
Fact is, it is no longer the 19th century, democracy is widespread and the "ruling class" is no longer so dominated by inheritance like it once was. This Marxist theory of the proletariat rising up en-masse against a ruling class dependent on workers output just doesn't wash. Today, those of the working class with the capacity and drive to step up are able to rise one-by-one. And once you are part of the "ruling class" it is human nature to defend it regardless of others actions--particularly when your wealth is earned.
You aren't seeing Canadian or Irish outsourcing stories because it doesn't happen.
Really? Literally in less than five seconds I found this and this on Google.
It DOES happen, because Canadians and the Irish are not quite as "greedy" as Americans (ie. our salaries ARE lower). Canada is also attractive because of its proximity to the US and similar standards and practices--it makes up for the even cheaper wages in India. I was involed with a little outsourcing myself when I was self employed (I am Canadian--oddly enough with Irish ancestry).
You're right however, it has nothing to do with race. The reason I got the work instead of the Californians is because they wanted forty percent more money to do the same work. Probably becasue I didn't have to make payments on the Lexus or the half-million-dollar condo and they did.
"Outsourcing is an evil, plain and simple"? Are you seriously that short-sighted, selfish and inward-looking?
I'll bet those getting the work don't think it's so bad. The article states engineering services are outsourced at a rate of US$18/hour. A paltry rate by local standards but a princely sum in India, where that much per DAY would be heaven for the unwashed masses. What about less visible outsourcing examples? How about call centres moving from the US into eastern Canada? Seems to be a real shot in the arm for an economy dependent on depleting fishery stocks and government assistance.
Fact is, in a lot of cases OUTSOURCING IS A BLESSING. Things are 1000 percent better for the beneficiaries of IT/technical/professional outsourcing than they were when it happened for the textiles and manufacturing sectors. Tech companies aren't exactly setting up sweatshops where ten-year-old girls must work until their fingers bleed. India and other developing regions have benefited enormously by increasing living standards and diversifying their economies through providing technical services.
You talk about "profit at the expense of an individual's welfare". What about all those technicial people in India? Is their welfare less important than any other individuals? Do you expect them to sit in India and remain uneducated and unskilled? Must they have to spend their life savings to immigrate to the US, tehn work as a taxi driver for five years while they upgrade their credentials?
You're right about one thing...this IS basically about dollars. More work is becoming do-able from anywhere in the world, and the quality of the output is getting closer to equal. The global economy is also more capitalist than ever before, and all other things being equal the lowest bidder wins. Ironically, the result of this capitalist attitude seems to be tending slowly towards a global equalisation--something socialism and communism has tried and failed to achieve.
Outsourcing isn't the result of some evil master plan. It's the result, in part, of thousands of greedy Americans (and quite a few Canadians and Europeans to be sure) taking one or two year programming courses suring the.com craze and insisting they were worth $60,000 and up because they can vomit out functioning Java code or make a flashy web page. It's also in part because governments insist that it's your public duty to pay thousands of dollars in federal, state and local taxes and user fees. Finally, the consumers-at-large have to put their money where their mouths are. Americans invented the television but exactly ZERO are American made now. Why is that? Because Americans did not want to replace unskilled labour with robotics, wanted bigger and bigger raises and weren't willing to pay $1000 for a TV that Japan could make and sell for $500.
Well, the world is changing and the the USA is not an island (hell even island nations aren't islands anymore figuratively speaking). The.COM bubble popped and the cash dried up. American code-monkeys will have to realise they aren't worth the insane salaries they were paid five years ago, and Indian ones will eventually figure out how valuable they are and start demanding more (I'll bet that's alreadey happening).
So what can be done? Outsourcing is a reality here to stay forever. Make sure it's done right, that the RECIPIENTS have proper living and working conditions. The world failed miserably at that when textiles were outsourced. The problem of sweatchops was ignored for too long while textile workers fought bitterly to keep their overpaid, unionised butts comfortable. If the US can't sell on price they'd better start selling on QUALITY, and the US has to "catch the next wave"--they have led the world in moving from agrarian to industrial to information/service based economies. Now the next wave is in sight. I'm not sure what that is yet, but it seems more knowledge/research-based than mere information based. North America
My former neighbour spilled cherry kool-aid into the keyboard of his desktop PC. I lent him a spare keyboard until he could get a replacement, but he decided to try to fix it. He removed the small circuit board from the keyboard (the one that attaches to the cord) and put the rest of the keyboard in the dishwasher.
After going through the energy-saver cycle it was a good as new--including the remaining circuit boards that he washed (basically just copper traces and such). I guess as log as you don't use detergent or the lower rack/too high temp it works pretty well...
Another keyboard-related incident: A friend's P133 stopped responding to the keyboard. Other keyboards wouldn't work either and the original keyboard would work on my PC, so I figured it was either the keyboard connector or the keyboard controller chip. Re-soldering the joints on the connector did not work, so I used tin-snips to cut all the pins from the keyboard controller chip and soldered a chip salvaged from an old 486/40MHz in its place (onto what remained of the pins from the old chip). Worked like a charm...
Seems keyboards and related circuitry are quite resiliant. I guess they were engineered with the anticipation of many different sorts of incidents. Not only that, the technology is quite mature. From my observation, it looks like identical, pin-for-pin compatible controller chips were used on all AT and early ATX boards from the 286 all the way up to PII's (even in the same style DIP case. I suspect even today the same exact circuitry is used--just integrated into another chip or on a smaller surface-mount package.
It's amusing because O'Dowd makes a point of saying the FAA's standards of reliability and security should be what we aspire to, suggesing Linux isn't up to the task. The FAA obviously disagrees.
(make note of the retort to the FAA example--obviously the article was not well researched)
This article lacks depth. While O'Dowd makes no factually incorret statements, his argument against the use of open source software in critical applicataions (patricularly military applications) is quite flawed.
Firstly, O'Dowd argues that code is contriuted by authors in countries the US would not consider purchasing from for national security reasons, including China and Russia. He takes this fact alone and leaps to the conclusion that this leaves the door open for malicious coders to sabotage code.
Mr. O'Dowd has made a fatal mistake in his reasoning. Such a fact might be of concern when considering propretary code, however since complete access to the source code is both legally and monetarily free it allows for the military (or any other organization) to carefully scrutinize the code before compilation and deployment. In fact, the kernel maintainers (none of whom are security threats) control what changes become part of the standard release already--as part of a very transparent process. The same cannot be said about Windows or any other proprietary code--the ability to view or alter proprietary software is encumbered by very high monetary and legal requirements.
Furthermore, the leading proprietary alternatives are engineered by very large, multinational corporations, and as such you cannot guarantee the origins of that code either. I've personally heard of a case where a programmer for North-American based proprietary software vendors has been linked with Al'Qaida symethizer groups. At least in the case of Linux, you can personally verify the legitimacy of the code.
As for the Common Criteria specification level of Linux vs. Windows, much has to be done to a Windows implementation to make it conform--its approval at a certain level merely means it is POSSIBLE to secure it to a certain level. Windows certainly does not arrive out of the box with even rudimentary security measures implemented. The same is true with Linux-based systems--technically, a Linux system is a pile of source code waiting to be compiled, so it's security is largely an exercise in configuration rather than the way its fundamentally designed. Of course, should a certain level of standards requirement need to be met, you can bet Linux will be made to conform--the NSA is working to make the most secure Linux system available to the masses right now.
O'Dowd is very correct in stating that Windows should not be the standard developers should aspire to in terms of stability, performace and security, however in suggesting an alternative he suggests the FAA as the place to look for stringent security and stability requirements. This is certainly a good place to look, however he has shot himself in the foot, because the FAA has decided that in upgrading its common ARTS system that the best platform on which to build is--surprise surprise--Linux! An informative article on how the FAA is using Linux details how Linux is being used to phase out an aging, obsolete and very proprietary system.
Mr O'Dowd's company specialses in offering proprietary solutions and has a very close relationship with Microsoft, so it is natural that he would be critical of the competition. It is a shame he is not able to make a more compelling argument for his case. I suggest he and his company adopt a more open-minded approach and consider the best solution for any particular application, whether it be proprietary OR open source.
In my experience (I'm Canadian, and have visited seven provinces and over thirty US states), Toronto is the most "American" city in the whole country--the city looks American, has American-style freeways, and by and large the citizens of Toronto speak like residents of the mid-western US. Even Calgary is less American in that regard (Calgarians--and most Albertans talk with a stronger Canadian accent--Listen to how Joe Clark says "about" for example--and Preson Manning as well).
It's quite ironic, because although day-to-day life in Toronto is the most American-like of anywhere else in Canada, Torontonians tend to regard themselves as the "real, true Canadians". Politics is really the sole major difference--Toronto leans much more left than most of the US, and is also where most "anti-American" sentiment resides.
I'd say if you wanted to see or experience the most interesting, unique cultural and historical aspects of Canada you'd want to head a bit outside Toronto. Start by heading out to areas lite Collingwood, etc. Ottawa is a beautiful, friendly city and seat of government. Montreal and Quebec City both have incredible historical districts and unique culture (Montreal in particular). It's quite "european"-like
Besides the Ottawa region, New Brunswick is the only other truly, official bilingual region of the country--and it is even quite distinct from next-door Maine. Overall the Maritimes has a very distinct culture--the Acadians share their ancestry with the Cajuns in Louisiana, and there is a strong gaelic influence not just in language but overall culture. Nowhere on earth will you find better lobster than in Nova Scotia. And speaking of accents, just try to understand what a Cape Bretoner is trying to say--not only is the accent waaay out there, they have their own slang entirely.
Not enough central Canadians visit Western Canada either. There is NO decent skiing anywhere in Ontario (and if you say otherwise you haven't been skiing in the Alberta/BC rockies). Vancouver is like LA without smog, earthquakes and violent crime. The Calgary Stampede truly IS the greatest outdoor show an earth, and Edmonton hosts the best Fringe Festival on the continent (and the West Ed Mall totally kisk ass on the "Mall of America"--which incidentally is owned by the same Edmonton family-run corporation). You can even go to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan and see where Al Capone secretly operated his bootlegging operation during prohibition. Yes, history in the west is intertwined with that of the US but is still very unique and interesting).
Sorry, but when I hear another Canadian who lives in Toronto say something like "I live in Toronto and can tell ya that Canadians are like such-and-such" I can't help but think that they need reminding that Canada is much more than Toronto--it's like saying New York is the US when it clearly is very different from Chicago, or LA, or Atlanta etc.
Canada seems unaffected, but much of google's service to the US *is* affected. If you work for a larger organisation then your connection is through a corporate WAN or VPN most likely. In that case, the gateway and/or proxy may be geographically distant. I did the same thing as you (almost--I SSHed to my home server and used Lynx to browse to www.google.ca and managed to see it working).
With my employer's internet connection, however, it appears to pretty much every website that I am connecting from Ohio. I could be in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, or any branch office and websites always log me with an Ohio internet address. Even if I try to visit google.ca instead of google.com at work it still falls over right now. Glad I have the option to connect through my home server and thus have two very different points of presence on the 'net.
But here in Canada, it doesn't matter if you play a radio station or a CD in a commercial space, the same extortion fees apply. It doesn't matter if you bought the CD, or the radio station plays commercials, or you subscribe to a digital sattelite audio feed. SOCAN says that is for "personal enjoyment" and if a lot of people are hearing it then it's "public exhibition" and you have to pay more...over and over.
Dentists, shops, fast food restaurants and such do not directly generate any money from musical presentations--not unless perhaps they have juke boxes. If cutomers had to explicitly pay for the music, then they can have their cut--otherwise I'd tell them to get the hell out of my office/store/etc.
Someone mentioned how stupid this all is and wonders where it will end, asking "What's next, will taxi drivers be charged a fee for playing the radio while carrying a passenger?" This issue has been simmering for about a year here--last fall I was listning to a radio phone-in show and someone asked that same question of the SOCAN rep.
His answer about taxis? To paraphrase, "We have legitimate reason to apply fees in such a case. We are considering rate structures for various situations and should a rate be established for taxi operators we would certainly make an effort to enforce it". Not the exact words but something to that effect. SOCAN's stance was basically this: if you are involved in ANY sort of commercial activity, and for any significant time play copyrighted material from ANY source within comfortable hearing distance of your customers at ANY time, then SOCAN is entitled to exact a fee for the artist and itself.
From what I gather, the commercial aspect is what they focus on. These cases would not be subject to SOCAN fees:
* Playing music within your home for yourself and any number of family or friends--unless of course you charge your family and friends admission to enter your house;-)
* Listening to music in your personal vehicle or in a public space on your own personal player--even if other can hear it. For example, playing tunes while you barbecue in the back yard within earshot of neighbours or the street, or plyaing music on your personal stereo on the bus ride to work (so long as you're not the bus driver I suppose).
* Playing music in a commercial office, so long as customers are not in hearing range for significant amounts of time (ie. playing music only for the purposes of enhancing employees' working environments). Should customers (potential or paying) frequent the premesis, then you are thought to be enhancing their experience as well, and as such adding value to your services. It doesn't seem to matter how intangible that value is, SOCAN seems to think it knows how to quantify it in dollars and cents.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of though process that develops when lawyers are permitted to congregate unsupervised by those outside the legal profession for too long. Oh well--don't suppose it would be very easy or morally correct to exempt lawyers form the constitutional right of free association...
Which is basically since I performed the last OS upgrade. It runs nice'n'stable Linux and since it only handles email for a few email accounts as well as being the file and print and database server for my home network it's hardly stressed at all (as indicated by the load average). Plus the way it is set up I can accept 32MB attachments and a mail quota of 10 Gigs, both of which I can change any time.
Yeah, there are a lot of people that are going to buy an ultra-cheap WalMart PC and use a bootleg copy of Windows to overwrite the Linux installation. A lot of companies will buy Linux Dells to avoid purchasing redundant Windows licenses as well. That'll push the true market share down (I'd venture to say by 50-60 percent but that's just a wild guess)
However, the vast majority of Linux users out there did NOT buy their PCs with Linux installed. In my case I assembled my PC from components from local discount shops that will let you buy (gasp!) a "naked PC". Microsoft doesn't like this but it isn't illegal to do so--and they have no contracts with MS restricting the practice. Each and every machine either runs Linux exclusively or dual-boots with Win2k.
Furthermore, at a student job some years ago the corporate policy was to purchase all PCs through Compaq. Although Deskpro towers were not marketed as servers, my employer purchased nearly a dozen to replace an equal number of aging AT&T UNIX servers (those old beasts sporting 80386 processors that were the size of 2-drawer filing cabinets). These came with Windows 95B pre-installed (and thus would be counted as "market share" from a sales standpoint). However the machines were never once booted into Windows--the first thing we did on power up was to boot from an install floppy that loaded a pre-configured Slakware Linux image from a JAZ drive (so from a sales standpoint they only recognise the single purchased set of InfoMagic CDs used on all machines). I'd venture to say that a countless number of home users similarly dump Windows to this day.
So I think it nearly all washes out in the end. Linux might not run on quite 5% yet but I'd say it runs on much more than 2% share. Nobody will know for sure unless they figure out a way to count actual PCs in current use world wide (corporate, home, new, used...everything, even hacked XBoxes and TiVOs and such).
Implementing laws that make manufacturers liable for how their products MIGHT be used IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!
TiVO is not selling a product or service with the deliberate intention to break the law--it has a legitimate use. Furthermore, although it is possible to use the new TiVO to unlawfully distribute copyrighted material, to do so would requires deliberate actions on the part of the user. Such users should be the ones RIAA et al go after, NOT TiVO or ReplayTV, or ATI or nVidia or any of their *law-abiding* customers.
The same goes for Smith and Wesson. They do not sell products specifically for the purpose of killing people. Of course, anyone who says they cannot be easily used to do so would be a fool, but guns have legitimate, legal uses. A former minister of our family's church owned several guns--several generations of his family have been medal-winning, olympic-calibre target shooters (yes, target shooting is an official sport in both the summer and winter olympic games). Even today, in remote areas of the far north guns are still vital tools for sustinence hunting.
Where does the line get drawn? Far more people are killed in car accidents than in gun incidents (definately here in Canada, and I believe even in the US). And to my knowledge there's never been a TiVO related fatality. Does that mean that General Motors should justifiably be responsible if some punk steals a Ponitac Firebird and kills a cop in a high-speed chase? That's total crap! It's one thing to hold such companies accountable for wilful disregard of safety-related design flaws (exploding Pinto's and GMC's and flipping Bronco's). It's quite another thing to make them pay for actions of random criminals.
I think to change the law to make manufacturers or distributors liable would set a very dangerous precedent. As much as corporations have demonstrated the capacity to do evil, making them shoulder the responsibility for every single possible use of their products implies less individual accountability. "Judge, if they were never allowed to make that shotgun I'd never have sawed it off and used it to rob that store". "If that Camaro wasn't such a cool, fast gar I'd never have jacked it and ran it into that old lady's house going 120". "I'd never have burned that movie onto 200 DVDs and sold them at the flea market if I didn't have TiVO to record the movie".
Pure and total crap all around! Things don't commit crimes. PEOPLE use things in the act of committing crimes, and people who are willing to commit crimes will use whatever tools are at their disposal. If they didn't have TiVO they'd use a PC with a video input hooked to a bootleg digital sattelite or a DVD player and a rented movie, or they'd revert back to video tape. If all cars were 1982 Volvos some dumb kid would still steal it for a joyride. If there were no guns around, people would use knives, bats and stones.
All of this seems to come down to a culture of avoiding individual responsibility--even in the US, with it's history of individualism and freedom--seems to have become trapped in this attitude that the government ought to protect people from their own stupidity or immorality.
The A500 was indeed a computer self-contained within the keyboard unit (complete with an internal hard drive and floppy on the side)--my Atari ST was the same (although early hard drives were external--the monitor sat on top of them).
That being said, the need to make the overall case large enough to fit an entire 16-bit computer designed with 80's technology gave a lot of real-estate to put the keyboard. I think my Atari ST's keyboard is nearly as wide as my Microsoft "natural" ergonomic keyboard--ant the ST keyboard isn't split in two with a big space in the middle. Furthermore, it has fewer keys so the keys themselves are bigger.
The other thing that annoys me besides size is that in order to get a keyboard that doesn't feel mushy/crappy you have to get one that has all these dumb little "net" buttons to launch different apps, or one that has a weird shape (the ergonomic one I mentioned) or other oddball styling. I know that I should expect to pay extra for a quality keyboard, but I DON'T want to pay extra for all those useless little buttons I never use (and in some cases can't use at all when not running Windows). Nor do I want a neon green keyboard, or a silver one with illuminated keys, or one with a bulge and a gap running down the middle.
Does anyone know if IBM or others still sell those nice "clickey" keyboards that don't require taking out a second mortgage to purchase?
...but when Winston Churchill managed to make it sound profound.
Will there EVER really be an end though? SCO will probably lawyer themselves out of existence, but what is stopping some other greedy little twerp from pulling the same stunt with copyright claim or perhaps a software patent? (OK, I'll be fair, McBride isn't a little person)
It seems that even very obvious or simple ideas can be patented these days, which gives the patent holder a pretty effective legal weapon. Even without patents (after all, the central argument by SCO doesn't involve patent issues) the most flimsy and ridiculous claims can be brought before court, wasting everyone's time and money.
As long as there are lawyers without ethics or scruples (and the majority lack both) there will be no real end. Unfortunately, lawysers are quite resilient. If the bomb were ever to destroy civilisation, only cockroaches and lawyers would survive--and I'm sure one lawyer would sue another for millions and order him to exterminate the cockroaches at his expense.
Probably because "only one" meant ony one approved by the communist regime? What you saw were for the most part not "video arcade" machines per se, and the ones you did see were decidedly NOT "governemnt approved". I've seen photographs from the late eighties to early nineties (a period straddling the fall of the Soviet Union) that look like rip-offs of western products--ten year old arcade titles and MSX machines hacked to translate the fonts to Cyrillic and words to Russian. The hacked Coleco/Konami Cabbage Patch Kids game on an MSX knockoff machine bolted inside an arcade machine was probably not an APPROVED arcade machine.
Also, a scant few years after "Poly Play" came to be saw the rise of Glastnost and relaxation of strong central planning, even before the fall of the Communist regime. If grey-market Levis, Pepsi and ABBA could become status symbols in a culture of slowly emerging freedoms, why not Pacman, Joust and Donkey Kong?
if it saves one kid, then it's worth it......that you are one of those parents you sometimes see in the mall who walks their kid around on a leash too. Tracking chips and leashes are for dogs damn it. To many people have forgotten that children are human beings and deserve some respect and dignity. Like everything in live the pendulum can swing too far in either direction. very oerprotective behaviour, in my opinion, damages kids every bit as much as an alcoholic parent that smacks his kids around over spilled milk.
Besides the violation of privacy and dignity, what favours are we doing for our children by such protective treatment? What is the result when we mandate by some oficial decree constant monitoring of a childs every move, allow them to only play with toys made of soft rubber foam with no corners and make sure to the best of out abilities that they never see or hear anything on print, radio, TV or the Internet that might be the slightest bit offensive or controversial?
I'd say it would mean we have abdicated our resonsibilities as parents to a bunch of distant, beareaucratic social engineers, and result in a generation of dependent, weak, ignorant and cowardly citizens willing to give up anything that matters in life for safety and security, because, after all, it MIGHT save ONE person. this is a dystopian outlook to be sure, but these screwball ideas and your responses are evidence we have moved in that direction.
And I think I know exactly what I'd say to the parent of an abducted child on the matter. I'd say I hope they catch the bastard who took your kid and throw him in jail for the rest of his life. Fact is, the reason so many kids go missing is because of dysfunctional legal and family-welfare systems. It is very rare and tragic when a child is kidnapped by a complete stranger with no history of criminal behaviour or abuse. More often the kidnapper is a non-custodial parent, step parent, relative or other person known to the victim. Lot of good RF tags would to then--"oh yeah...my kid is seeing his mum"--until mum runs for the border with him. in cases of strange abduction, the kidnapper is always some kind of deviant--psychotic, a paedophile, raised in an abusive situation, a substance abuser, etc. Tragically, their stories are most often known before the abduction.
The way we deal with child abduction borders on perversion where I live (Canada). People conviced of kidnapping or raping children are often put away for as little as three years (maybe less), and the sentences rarely get worse for repeat offences. Only absolute monsters get put away indefinitely as a dangerous offender--generally they have to kill first.
And you think tagging children is a good way to solve the problem? If we are going to add more restrictions to anyones freedom, how about we start with the CRIMINALS instead? Let's forget about these damn RF tags and throw incurable and repeat violent offenders in jail for life, and never give them a chance to be released. That, and leave the rest of us law-abiding citizens the hell alone.
From what I recall Bill was Nishi's "boss" (he was employee of what became ASCII Corporation -- a spinoff of Microsoft Japan). MS Did a bit more than provide the BASIC--they created the design and wrote 100% of the system software (that being the OS and BASIC interpreter) as well as the bulk of application software outside games. Not to minimise Nishi's vision--I think he was very forward thinking in a lot of ways. The idea was to specify the platform and have others build the machines--which is basically what came about with "Wintel" machines after many, many years.
They were cool machines though--the games reminded me of Coleco games (not surprising as the MSX was largely a rip-off of that system--same CPU, same sound chip, same graphics) -- the Konami games for both were basically identical.
I think that besides being behind the technological curve (by the time MSX came to market in meaningful numbers machines like the Apple Macintosh were out and even flashier machines like the Amiga and Atari ST were on the horizon) the concept probably wouldn't have endured. It was wedded to fading concepts--a machine where reasonably fast mass-storage was optional. It was self-contained with limited expandability. When powered up it presented a command prompt for the BASIC interpreter.
By 1984, the future of computing was looking past that--the PC was striving to become an "appliance" where you turn it on and just "use it" to do things. None of this booting up into a programming language nonsense. Everything was included with the PC to make it useable. Power up, click here and write a letter, balance a chequebook, etc. It's functionality is extended by installing programs from time to time, but they remain in place after that. 99 percent of the time, users should actually be able to USE the machine.
MSX and other 8-bit machines of the time and previous to it were really beter suited to hobbyists. The machines were offered with NO persistent mass storage device included (tape and floppy drives were extra-cost options). You had to "program it" to do things. It was useless without putting a disk or tape in and typing "LOAD", or at the very least typing in many lines of BASIC code. In my experience, they were LEARNING machines--I learned a lot, but probably did "real work" with those old 8-bitters little more than half the time (even less if you don't count playing games).
I think that is what irks Alan Kay actually--and I agree. The pendulum has swung too far and the likes of MS keep trying to push the pendulum further. The vision today is of a cable box on steriods--you buy a sealed black box and turn it on to do things. You never explicitly install software--it comes to the box off the 'net "on demand". Sounds great, but MS wants you to pay a subscription, and doesn't want you to OWN the box. The EULA will forbid you from opening the box or altering the software (anything that can reveal the internal workings constitutes a threat to precious IP rights after all). Don't like how it works? Aww, too bad, but if enough people put a request in for your idea it MIGHT show up in the next update.
How boring and unimaginative. Lets try to bring that pendulum back to the centre a bit and give people back control of their machines. They are ALREADY very useful appliances--leave all that alone. It doesn't need to hook to a TV or boot up in BASIC, but PLEASE put programming tools back on the machine! And don't hide it away like it's meant for "experts only". If MS wanted to drive innovation and creativity it could start by GIVING AWAY visual studio by pre-installing it with the OS.
Thank God for Linux and BSD--right now they're the only true choice for PC owners who want to LEARN. The source is there, as are the development tools. There are no legal and technical impediments for getting under the hood in terms of software. In addition, Linux is getting very good at serving the "appliance" needs of the desktop PC user. For people who actually want to learn comp
The solution is to produce a standardised simpler system. An all-in-one unit with standard components, that will plug into a TV, and starts with a BAPSIC interpreter. Apps should be loaded with a "load" command. We don't need a mouse. Those are only useful for pixel addressing. In practive they confuse the user.
You know Bill, the global reception was lukewarm at BEST when you introduced the MSX platform over twenty tears ago. What makes you think the idea would fly the second time around?
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse my ignorance about XForms ...and perhaps about ActiveX as well. You are excused on both counts--I'm not exteremly well versed on them either ;-)
but it doesn't look anything like ActiveX technology to me!
I'm confused. You say that like it's a BAD thing!
ActiveX as a concept seems cool, but the implementation makes me cringe--it should be eradicated from the planet!
How is XForms supposed to replace QuickTime, RealPlayer, Flash, Shockwave, JAVA applets, VRML plugins
XForms is NOT an ActiveX replacement, and it isn't meant to replace ANY of those things. It is a proposal for an elegant, standard implementation of interactive form display and processing--compared to the complete mess we have today (DOM+Javascript, or *particular* ActiveX controls, flash, etc). Ironically, XForms support of sorts is ALREADY available for IE6 in the form of an ActiveX plugin. I suppose that at least allows one to replace a myriad of nonstandard controls with one plugin that implements the bells-and-whistles using an actual standard.
In my opinion NONE of the above plugins are of great use to me and in 90 percent of cases where they are used they only serve to be annoying. To the web authors out there--PLEASE THINK TWICE before using them. Don't use Quicktime, WMP9 or Real unless you are hosting a site dedicated to video and/or sound (I prefer to launch the player externally rather than embedded in the page anyways)! If you aren't making a web-based game then DITCH THE DAMN FLASH AND JAVA--PLEASE!
I want simple, fast-downloading, compatible and easy-to-use interfaces. Proprietary plug-ins and bloated code get in the way. If XHTML with XForms, etc. can make some of the above crap obsolete it'll be a great step forward for the internet.
But Big Brother is your friend in many cases... given the choice between Big Brother and Uncle Osama which would you support?
I think I'd rather be estranged from that entire twisted family!
Uncle Osama and his band of psychotic Islamic fundamentalists are just Big Brothers with turbans. Their means are different but the ends are just the same: they wish to have total control over you. Men must let their beards grow, women must cover their bodies head to toe. Women must not read or obtain education outside their homes, and men must go out and face certain death defending the Taliban against infidels at their leader's whims, and no one at all can vote. To enforce that requires constant surveillance.
Osama detests the western "free world" because it champions individual freedom--he views the USA as a decadent from a religious standpoint, but what he REALLY hates and fears is the lack of control, and the fact that the USA threatens what control he has. The free world is playing right into "uncle Osama's" hands by instituting draconian measures under the guise of the "war on terror". We need to find the terrorists and make security more effective, goes the argument. Thus, we must link the automobile registry with the gun registry with the medicare system with the immigration system with the court system with the tax system. We must install cameras everywhere to make sure terrorists aren't hiding bombs in buildings, and we'd better not tell them they are being watched--it would compromise security.
This kind of survaillance leads to control--that guy's name is Mohammed, we gotta run extra checks on him before we hire him. Mrs Jones, you can't take those nail clippers in your carry-on luggage, they are a security risk. Mr Smith, you're going to have to come with us--that information you discovered and published about the weak security in some of our systems could be used by terrorists. Big Brother is just Uncle Osama in reverse--the desire to see leads to the need to control, rather than the desire to control leading to the need to see. In the end, the result is the same, and Osama wins either way.
...about your vote being "wasted" because you do not support the status quo--which is basically what happens regardless of this election's outcome.
Face it--regardless of whether Bush or Kerry is POTUS next year, it'll be pretty much the status quo. If anything changed the status quo, it wasn't Bush's arrival in the White House, it was a bunch of demented Islamic fundamentalists driving planes into big buildings that changed everything. The domestic assault on personal liberties was well underway AGES before Floridians decided that most hanging and pregnant chads belonged to Bush.
The Clinton Democrats sheparded through bills leading to the cretion of the Broadcast Flag and the DMCA quite happily. Hollywood loves the Democratic party--the relationship makes them more money. Bush and company are too fixated on the "war on terror" and making sure their oil friends are taken care of. Elephant or Donkey it doesn't matter, they're both old-world political animals--they just obey different lobbyist masters.
At any rate if you are really dissatisfied with your government, I say PLEASE--"WASTE" your vote. Change may take years (a few terms to be sure) but it's the only way to guarantee change. Let me relate the "Canadian experience" for those Americans that may be unaware:
In 1988, Canada was goverened by the Mulroney-led Progressive Conservatives (PCs). The PCs were reaching the end of their first mandate and the polls looked good to call an election (no fixed election dates here--the PM gets to call an election when he feels he can win--unless parliament has sat for five years). Many (especially in the west) found the PCs to be arrogant and oblivious to their concerns, and by the time the election was called these voters had established the "Reform Party of Canada" (RPC).
In 1988 they barely registered--less than 10 percent of the vote and no seats. They were laughed off as a fringe movement as the PCs coasted to a large majority. The PCs continued to rule with arrogance, and in 1993 then forced to go to another election under a new (and equally arrogant) leader, discontent grew. By this time, nationalists in Quebec felt motivated to organise and had formed the BLOC. Those in ontario decided to give the opposition Liberals a chance.
The result was astonishing--but not simply because the Liberals won as expected. The PCs were reduced to 2 seats and lost party status (by parliamentary convention they could not form a caucus and had to sit as independents). The SEPARATIST BLOC party became official opposition by a one seat margin over the RPC (52 to 51 seats). These parties had ZERO representation previously. Enough people decided to "waste their votes" by not voting for the two traditional mainline parties (the Liberals and PCs) and changed the political landscape of Canada permanently.
The old-line PCs were understandably upset, blaming the breakaway RPCers of handing the Liberals a blank cheque and ineffective opposition, but nobody can disagree that the PCers we never that arrogant again. The RPC (later re-constituted into the Alliance party) later became official opposition and the PCs kept limping along--regaining party status just barely and holding enough support to split the vote and allow the Liberals to govern to this day.
This made the Liberals even more arrogant and corrupt than the original Mulroney-era PCs, which brough forth some new events. The Alliance and PC disbanded and agreed to set aside differences and create a new Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). The socialist New Democrats and the "fringe" Greens also had new leaders and re-worked platforms. The combination of a unified principal opposition and renewed choice on the left siphoned support from both sides of the Liberals and reduced them to a minority government this year, subsequently deflating the ego of the Liberals and making it neccesary for them to cooperate more with other parties to hold power. We've also got the strongest opposition party in 25 years--similar
Open Source is great, but as the licenses make clear, *you* wind up holding all the liabilities. There aren't any warranties, and there's no implied fitness for use.
And this is different in what way from Microsoft Windows? This is an exerpt from the Windows XP EULA:
Except for the Limited
Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable
law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and
support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and
hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either
express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited
to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions
of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose,
of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness
of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack
of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to
the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide
support or other services, information, software, and
related content through the Product or otherwise arising
out of the use of the Product. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT,
QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO
DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH
REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.
Basically what MS warrants is that if the media is scratched or it or the packaging are otherwise defective, or through defect Windows is not able to boot to a state in which your machine is able to perform its basic functions, then you are entitles for a replacement or refund within 90 days.
Beyond that any other warranty depends on how much warranty coverage your juristiction can force Microsoft to provide by law, or in the case of corporate customers on what is covered in a supplimental contract. In the case of legally minimum warranty I am now aware of ANYWHERE in the world that legally forces a vendor to indemnidy its customers from legal action involving patents. However, end users generally are not the target of patent violation cases--patent holders go after the manufacturer/vendor instead (even SCOs cases against Autozone and DaimlerChrysler don't involve patents--and they even skirt around copyright. They are basically contract disputes based on shaky ground).
In any case, Microsoft provides NO MORE WARRANTY than any Linux distributor might for a retail box or ISO download of their product. That being said, a major corporate or government enterprise would negotiate a special contract with the vendor.
In the case of the Munich Linux project, I cannot see how the city of Munich could be stuck with an order to suddenly stop using their software. The worst case scenario would be that the firms contracted to do the project (IBM and Novell) could be told to cease-and-desist Linux operations, which would delay the project or disrupt future expansion or support. I imagine that this would be handled by the contract between the city and IBM/Novell. A big enterprise customer generally is VERY through when it comes to risk management.
They can certainly sue you to require you to "destroy" your copies of that software.
Whatever the details, I've NEVER heard of a case where end users were ordered to destroy ANYTHING because it violates a patent. Could you give an example where, say, not only Red Hat would be ordered to stop distributing a software product due to patent violations--all its customers would be ordered to stop using the product too?
That would be like General Motors suing an aftermarket parts supplier for producing illegal replacement parts for Chevrolet Malibus and be granted the authority to send all registered owners of Malibus court orders to take their cars into dealers for examination and possible replacement of the parts. Such a remedy would be considered ridiculous.
Hmm...console as computer or terminal eh? Well the "geeky allure" certainly has nothing to do with novelty, as the concept is far from new. Witness the following:
1. The Bally Astrocade console of 1978 was the first to explore the concept commercially, as one of it's "game" carts was the BASIC programming language and cassette interface.
2. Later in 1978 Magnavox (the producer of the first ever home console called Odyssey) introduced the successor Odyssey^2. Marketed head-to-head with the Atari 2600 as a console, it actually had an integrated keyboard. It wasn't really a computer (The Sinclair ZX81 came standard with EIGHT TIMES the memory of the O^2!) the idea was that adventure/strategy games could better use a keyboard than a joystick, and that expanding it to a computer would simply involve adding a RAM expansion pack.
3. It seems Mattel had intentions from the start to give the Intellivision a computer expansion option, and touted those intentions from the console's intro in 1979. However, they were late in delivering on their promises, and were eventually forced by the FTC to bring out the computer expansion or pay huge fines. They did comply--barely--by selling a few hundred in test markets, then pulled out. Eventually the introduced a newer, quite different design to a wider market, however the result was a major disappointment.
4. Atari beat both Bally and Magnavox to the colour console market with the 2600, but it was a bit later in exploting the computer expansion option. This was probably because they figured the entry-level micro market was served adequately by its Atari 400 offering. In the end the "Graduate" keyboard was never released.
5. Coleco was probably had the most success at turning their Colecovision console into a computer in terms of units produced (300K to 500K, although much of that stock never sold) and time on the market (nearly 1.5 years starting in 1983). This was probably more to do with Coleco selling the ADAM as a self contained computer alongside the "expansion module 3" that attached to an existing Colecovision--which sold in lower numbers. The ADAM in fact simply contained a slightly modified Colecovision and the logic board of the Expansion Module 3 in one case.
And that only covers until 1983. Nintendo Famicom and the Sony PS2 could also be made into a computer (with the manufacturer's blessing and products). There certainly is some appeal in being able to "tinker" and have the flexibility of a full-fledged computer, so why did none of these ideas really take off?
I'd have to say that both price and features had a great deal to do with it--the same reason the whole market crashed in 1984. With the exception of the Coleco products (which failed because of poor marketing/late delivery and poor quality control of its initial run) all these expanded consoles were lousy computers, and the combined cost of the console and expander was the same or more than a better entry-level micro. Why would you purchase an Atari 2600 and graduate if the Atari 400 by itself was a way better system that had great games already? Why buy an intellivision that you MIGHT be able to expand to a computer when you could get a VIC or a 400 or a Speccy that was already a computer for the same price? Not only that, but these computers all came with great games to boot.
I also find the "geeky allure" appealing, but I think the market is limited--in fact I think the drive to "tinker" with some of these devices is because the were commercial failures. Hardcore fans feel like they are abandoned by the company and band together for support and to get the most out of the system. Because the supply of orphaned sys
I explicitly stated that as time goes on inheritance of wealth becomes less important to determining success.
My sister was borne to a father who worked shift work running the boilers in a meat processing facility at the time. He was not, isn't and probably won't ever be (as he is now retired) president or chairman of a multinational company. My sister worked her way up from selling door-to-door to suppliment a fairly modest household income to where she is now twenty years later. She is not related in any way to the founder of the company, and daddy had nothing to do with her current position except to raise his kids well.
While it's sure a hell of a lot easier to be born into a position of wealth, there is NOTHING in the free world today that prevents a "commoner" from improving his lot in life except his or her own sense of limitation.
...looks like it was inspired by this.
The knobby wheels don't seem to convey an image of speed and agility to me. Looks like an interesting movie though.
...then how'd they become the Ruling Class? You know, not every rich person is a slutty blonde bimbo heiress like Paris Hilton (someone who I'm sure would struggle to make up the bed in just one room of one of daddy's hotels). A good deal of the wealthy class is self made (particularly in North America)--perhaps your view is coloured by the more class-oriented system of the UK, where there is a fair bit more wealth through inheritance.
Jobs and Woznaik founded Apple and Jobs still runs it (hell of a lot bigger than a mere electronics store chain). I'm sure both of them would be more than capable of wiring up a 13A plug seeing as they were capable of designing, building and programming a computer (and devices allowing them to call Europe for free). And while Bill Gates came from a fairly affluent family, he was hardly a billionaire and managed to survive the early Micro-soft days in dumpy New Mexico digs and do low-level assembly programming.
And yes, I'm sure many of the owners of GM and Ford know how to change a tyre--seing as they are publicly held companies with a large number of shareholders. I'm willing to bet that the executives.management could do it (Lee Iacocca comes agross as a guy who is down-to-earth enough that he could.
My sister is the Canadian president of a multi-national corporation and not only can she peel a potato, she peeled many of them making dinner for her two kids every night as a stay-at-home mother when she was in her early twenties.
Fact is, it is no longer the 19th century, democracy is widespread and the "ruling class" is no longer so dominated by inheritance like it once was. This Marxist theory of the proletariat rising up en-masse against a ruling class dependent on workers output just doesn't wash. Today, those of the working class with the capacity and drive to step up are able to rise one-by-one. And once you are part of the "ruling class" it is human nature to defend it regardless of others actions--particularly when your wealth is earned.
You aren't seeing Canadian or Irish outsourcing stories because it doesn't happen.
Really? Literally in less than five seconds I found this and this on Google.
It DOES happen, because Canadians and the Irish are not quite as "greedy" as Americans (ie. our salaries ARE lower). Canada is also attractive because of its proximity to the US and similar standards and practices--it makes up for the even cheaper wages in India. I was involed with a little outsourcing myself when I was self employed (I am Canadian--oddly enough with Irish ancestry).
You're right however, it has nothing to do with race. The reason I got the work instead of the Californians is because they wanted forty percent more money to do the same work. Probably becasue I didn't have to make payments on the Lexus or the half-million-dollar condo and they did.
"Outsourcing is an evil, plain and simple"? Are you seriously that short-sighted, selfish and inward-looking?
.com craze and insisting they were worth $60,000 and up because they can vomit out functioning Java code or make a flashy web page. It's also in part because governments insist that it's your public duty to pay thousands of dollars in federal, state and local taxes and user fees. Finally, the consumers-at-large have to put their money where their mouths are. Americans invented the television but exactly ZERO are American made now. Why is that? Because Americans did not want to replace unskilled labour with robotics, wanted bigger and bigger raises and weren't willing to pay $1000 for a TV that Japan could make and sell for $500.
.COM bubble popped and the cash dried up. American code-monkeys will have to realise they aren't worth the insane salaries they were paid five years ago, and Indian ones will eventually figure out how valuable they are and start demanding more (I'll bet that's alreadey happening).
I'll bet those getting the work don't think it's so bad. The article states engineering services are outsourced at a rate of US$18/hour. A paltry rate by local standards but a princely sum in India, where that much per DAY would be heaven for the unwashed masses. What about less visible outsourcing examples? How about call centres moving from the US into eastern Canada? Seems to be a real shot in the arm for an economy dependent on depleting fishery stocks and government assistance.
Fact is, in a lot of cases OUTSOURCING IS A BLESSING. Things are 1000 percent better for the beneficiaries of IT/technical/professional outsourcing than they were when it happened for the textiles and manufacturing sectors. Tech companies aren't exactly setting up sweatshops where ten-year-old girls must work until their fingers bleed. India and other developing regions have benefited enormously by increasing living standards and diversifying their economies through providing technical services.
You talk about "profit at the expense of an individual's welfare". What about all those technicial people in India? Is their welfare less important than any other individuals? Do you expect them to sit in India and remain uneducated and unskilled? Must they have to spend their life savings to immigrate to the US, tehn work as a taxi driver for five years while they upgrade their credentials?
You're right about one thing...this IS basically about dollars. More work is becoming do-able from anywhere in the world, and the quality of the output is getting closer to equal. The global economy is also more capitalist than ever before, and all other things being equal the lowest bidder wins. Ironically, the result of this capitalist attitude seems to be tending slowly towards a global equalisation--something socialism and communism has tried and failed to achieve.
Outsourcing isn't the result of some evil master plan. It's the result, in part, of thousands of greedy Americans (and quite a few Canadians and Europeans to be sure) taking one or two year programming courses suring the
Well, the world is changing and the the USA is not an island (hell even island nations aren't islands anymore figuratively speaking). The
So what can be done? Outsourcing is a reality here to stay forever. Make sure it's done right, that the RECIPIENTS have proper living and working conditions. The world failed miserably at that when textiles were outsourced. The problem of sweatchops was ignored for too long while textile workers fought bitterly to keep their overpaid, unionised butts comfortable. If the US can't sell on price they'd better start selling on QUALITY, and the US has to "catch the next wave"--they have led the world in moving from agrarian to industrial to information/service based economies. Now the next wave is in sight. I'm not sure what that is yet, but it seems more knowledge/research-based than mere information based. North America
My former neighbour spilled cherry kool-aid into the keyboard of his desktop PC. I lent him a spare keyboard until he could get a replacement, but he decided to try to fix it. He removed the small circuit board from the keyboard (the one that attaches to the cord) and put the rest of the keyboard in the dishwasher.
After going through the energy-saver cycle it was a good as new--including the remaining circuit boards that he washed (basically just copper traces and such). I guess as log as you don't use detergent or the lower rack/too high temp it works pretty well...
Another keyboard-related incident: A friend's P133 stopped responding to the keyboard. Other keyboards wouldn't work either and the original keyboard would work on my PC, so I figured it was either the keyboard connector or the keyboard controller chip. Re-soldering the joints on the connector did not work, so I used tin-snips to cut all the pins from the keyboard controller chip and soldered a chip salvaged from an old 486/40MHz in its place (onto what remained of the pins from the old chip). Worked like a charm...
Seems keyboards and related circuitry are quite resiliant. I guess they were engineered with the anticipation of many different sorts of incidents. Not only that, the technology is quite mature. From my observation, it looks like identical, pin-for-pin compatible controller chips were used on all AT and early ATX boards from the 286 all the way up to PII's (even in the same style DIP case. I suspect even today the same exact circuitry is used--just integrated into another chip or on a smaller surface-mount package.
Take a look at this.
It's amusing because O'Dowd makes a point of saying the FAA's standards of reliability and security should be what we aspire to, suggesing Linux isn't up to the task. The FAA obviously disagrees.
(make note of the retort to the FAA example--obviously the article was not well researched)
This article lacks depth. While O'Dowd makes no factually incorret statements, his argument against the use of open source software in critical applicataions (patricularly military applications) is quite flawed.
Firstly, O'Dowd argues that code is contriuted by authors in countries the US would not consider purchasing from for national security reasons, including China and Russia. He takes this fact alone and leaps to the conclusion that this leaves the door open for malicious coders to sabotage code.
Mr. O'Dowd has made a fatal mistake in his reasoning. Such a fact might be of concern when considering propretary code, however since complete access to the source code is both legally and monetarily free it allows for the military (or any other organization) to carefully scrutinize the code before compilation and deployment. In fact, the kernel maintainers (none of whom are security threats) control what changes become part of the standard release already--as part of a very transparent process. The same cannot be said about Windows or any other proprietary code--the ability to view or alter proprietary software is encumbered by very high monetary and legal requirements.
Furthermore, the leading proprietary alternatives are engineered by very large, multinational corporations, and as such you cannot guarantee the origins of that code either. I've personally heard of a case where a programmer for North-American based proprietary software vendors has been linked with Al'Qaida symethizer groups. At least in the case of Linux, you can personally verify the legitimacy of the code.
As for the Common Criteria specification level of Linux vs. Windows, much has to be done to a Windows implementation to make it conform--its approval at a certain level merely means it is POSSIBLE to secure it to a certain level. Windows certainly does not arrive out of the box with even rudimentary security measures implemented. The same is true with Linux-based systems--technically, a Linux system is a pile of source code waiting to be compiled, so it's security is largely an exercise in configuration rather than the way its fundamentally designed. Of course, should a certain level of standards requirement need to be met, you can bet Linux will be made to conform--the NSA is working to make the most secure Linux system available to the masses right now.
O'Dowd is very correct in stating that Windows should not be the standard developers should aspire to in terms of stability, performace and security, however in suggesting an alternative he suggests the FAA as the place to look for stringent security and stability requirements. This is certainly a good place to look, however he has shot himself in the foot, because the FAA has decided that in upgrading its common ARTS system that the best platform on which to build is--surprise surprise--Linux! An informative article on how the FAA is using Linux details how Linux is being used to phase out an aging, obsolete and very proprietary system.
Mr O'Dowd's company specialses in offering proprietary solutions and has a very close relationship with Microsoft, so it is natural that he would be critical of the competition. It is a shame he is not able to make a more compelling argument for his case. I suggest he and his company adopt a more open-minded approach and consider the best solution for any particular application, whether it be proprietary OR open source.
...is because you live in Toronto.
In my experience (I'm Canadian, and have visited seven provinces and over thirty US states), Toronto is the most "American" city in the whole country--the city looks American, has American-style freeways, and by and large the citizens of Toronto speak like residents of the mid-western US. Even Calgary is less American in that regard (Calgarians--and most Albertans talk with a stronger Canadian accent--Listen to how Joe Clark says "about" for example--and Preson Manning as well).
It's quite ironic, because although day-to-day life in Toronto is the most American-like of anywhere else in Canada, Torontonians tend to regard themselves as the "real, true Canadians". Politics is really the sole major difference--Toronto leans much more left than most of the US, and is also where most "anti-American" sentiment resides.
I'd say if you wanted to see or experience the most interesting, unique cultural and historical aspects of Canada you'd want to head a bit outside Toronto. Start by heading out to areas lite Collingwood, etc. Ottawa is a beautiful, friendly city and seat of government. Montreal and Quebec City both have incredible historical districts and unique culture (Montreal in particular). It's quite "european"-like
Besides the Ottawa region, New Brunswick is the only other truly, official bilingual region of the country--and it is even quite distinct from next-door Maine. Overall the Maritimes has a very distinct culture--the Acadians share their ancestry with the Cajuns in Louisiana, and there is a strong gaelic influence not just in language but overall culture. Nowhere on earth will you find better lobster than in Nova Scotia. And speaking of accents, just try to understand what a Cape Bretoner is trying to say--not only is the accent waaay out there, they have their own slang entirely.
Not enough central Canadians visit Western Canada either. There is NO decent skiing anywhere in Ontario (and if you say otherwise you haven't been skiing in the Alberta/BC rockies). Vancouver is like LA without smog, earthquakes and violent crime. The Calgary Stampede truly IS the greatest outdoor show an earth, and Edmonton hosts the best Fringe Festival on the continent (and the West Ed Mall totally kisk ass on the "Mall of America"--which incidentally is owned by the same Edmonton family-run corporation). You can even go to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan and see where Al Capone secretly operated his bootlegging operation during prohibition. Yes, history in the west is intertwined with that of the US but is still very unique and interesting).
Sorry, but when I hear another Canadian who lives in Toronto say something like "I live in Toronto and can tell ya that Canadians are like such-and-such" I can't help but think that they need reminding that Canada is much more than Toronto--it's like saying New York is the US when it clearly is very different from Chicago, or LA, or Atlanta etc.
Canada seems unaffected, but much of google's service to the US *is* affected. If you work for a larger organisation then your connection is through a corporate WAN or VPN most likely. In that case, the gateway and/or proxy may be geographically distant. I did the same thing as you (almost--I SSHed to my home server and used Lynx to browse to www.google.ca and managed to see it working).
With my employer's internet connection, however, it appears to pretty much every website that I am connecting from Ohio. I could be in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, or any branch office and websites always log me with an Ohio internet address. Even if I try to visit google.ca instead of google.com at work it still falls over right now. Glad I have the option to connect through my home server and thus have two very different points of presence on the 'net.
But here in Canada, it doesn't matter if you play a radio station or a CD in a commercial space, the same extortion fees apply. It doesn't matter if you bought the CD, or the radio station plays commercials, or you subscribe to a digital sattelite audio feed. SOCAN says that is for "personal enjoyment" and if a lot of people are hearing it then it's "public exhibition" and you have to pay more...over and over.
;-)
Dentists, shops, fast food restaurants and such do not directly generate any money from musical presentations--not unless perhaps they have juke boxes. If cutomers had to explicitly pay for the music, then they can have their cut--otherwise I'd tell them to get the hell out of my office/store/etc.
Someone mentioned how stupid this all is and wonders where it will end, asking "What's next, will taxi drivers be charged a fee for playing the radio while carrying a passenger?" This issue has been simmering for about a year here--last fall I was listning to a radio phone-in show and someone asked that same question of the SOCAN rep.
His answer about taxis? To paraphrase, "We have legitimate reason to apply fees in such a case. We are considering rate structures for various situations and should a rate be established for taxi operators we would certainly make an effort to enforce it". Not the exact words but something to that effect. SOCAN's stance was basically this: if you are involved in ANY sort of commercial activity, and for any significant time play copyrighted material from ANY source within comfortable hearing distance of your customers at ANY time, then SOCAN is entitled to exact a fee for the artist and itself.
From what I gather, the commercial aspect is what they focus on. These cases would not be subject to SOCAN fees:
* Playing music within your home for yourself and any number of family or friends--unless of course you charge your family and friends admission to enter your house
* Listening to music in your personal vehicle or in a public space on your own personal player--even if other can hear it. For example, playing tunes while you barbecue in the back yard within earshot of neighbours or the street, or plyaing music on your personal stereo on the bus ride to work (so long as you're not the bus driver I suppose).
* Playing music in a commercial office, so long as customers are not in hearing range for significant amounts of time (ie. playing music only for the purposes of enhancing employees' working environments). Should customers (potential or paying) frequent the premesis, then you are thought to be enhancing their experience as well, and as such adding value to your services. It doesn't seem to matter how intangible that value is, SOCAN seems to think it knows how to quantify it in dollars and cents.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of though process that develops when lawyers are permitted to congregate unsupervised by those outside the legal profession for too long. Oh well--don't suppose it would be very easy or morally correct to exempt lawyers form the constitutional right of free association...
...that both the DNS server and the mail server for my personal domain reside on machine happily humming away in my basement.
It's nice to be able to have truly full control over how my email is handled. Here's another reason:
>uptime
11:01am up 251 days, 11:23, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.01, 0.00
Which is basically since I performed the last OS upgrade. It runs nice'n'stable Linux and since it only handles email for a few email accounts as well as being the file and print and database server for my home network it's hardly stressed at all (as indicated by the load average). Plus the way it is set up I can accept 32MB attachments and a mail quota of 10 Gigs, both of which I can change any time.
Sometimes it's good to be a geek...
...than anyone thinks.
Yeah, there are a lot of people that are going to buy an ultra-cheap WalMart PC and use a bootleg copy of Windows to overwrite the Linux installation. A lot of companies will buy Linux Dells to avoid purchasing redundant Windows licenses as well. That'll push the true market share down (I'd venture to say by 50-60 percent but that's just a wild guess)
However, the vast majority of Linux users out there did NOT buy their PCs with Linux installed. In my case I assembled my PC from components from local discount shops that will let you buy (gasp!) a "naked PC". Microsoft doesn't like this but it isn't illegal to do so--and they have no contracts with MS restricting the practice. Each and every machine either runs Linux exclusively or dual-boots with Win2k.
Furthermore, at a student job some years ago the corporate policy was to purchase all PCs through Compaq. Although Deskpro towers were not marketed as servers, my employer purchased nearly a dozen to replace an equal number of aging AT&T UNIX servers (those old beasts sporting 80386 processors that were the size of 2-drawer filing cabinets). These came with Windows 95B pre-installed (and thus would be counted as "market share" from a sales standpoint). However the machines were never once booted into Windows--the first thing we did on power up was to boot from an install floppy that loaded a pre-configured Slakware Linux image from a JAZ drive (so from a sales standpoint they only recognise the single purchased set of InfoMagic CDs used on all machines). I'd venture to say that a countless number of home users similarly dump Windows to this day.
So I think it nearly all washes out in the end. Linux might not run on quite 5% yet but I'd say it runs on much more than 2% share. Nobody will know for sure unless they figure out a way to count actual PCs in current use world wide (corporate, home, new, used...everything, even hacked XBoxes and TiVOs and such).
Implementing laws that make manufacturers liable for how their products MIGHT be used IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!
TiVO is not selling a product or service with the deliberate intention to break the law--it has a legitimate use. Furthermore, although it is possible to use the new TiVO to unlawfully distribute copyrighted material, to do so would requires deliberate actions on the part of the user. Such users should be the ones RIAA et al go after, NOT TiVO or ReplayTV, or ATI or nVidia or any of their *law-abiding* customers.
The same goes for Smith and Wesson. They do not sell products specifically for the purpose of killing people. Of course, anyone who says they cannot be easily used to do so would be a fool, but guns have legitimate, legal uses. A former minister of our family's church owned several guns--several generations of his family have been medal-winning, olympic-calibre target shooters (yes, target shooting is an official sport in both the summer and winter olympic games). Even today, in remote areas of the far north guns are still vital tools for sustinence hunting.
Where does the line get drawn? Far more people are killed in car accidents than in gun incidents (definately here in Canada, and I believe even in the US). And to my knowledge there's never been a TiVO related fatality. Does that mean that General Motors should justifiably be responsible if some punk steals a Ponitac Firebird and kills a cop in a high-speed chase? That's total crap! It's one thing to hold such companies accountable for wilful disregard of safety-related design flaws (exploding Pinto's and GMC's and flipping Bronco's). It's quite another thing to make them pay for actions of random criminals.
I think to change the law to make manufacturers or distributors liable would set a very dangerous precedent. As much as corporations have demonstrated the capacity to do evil, making them shoulder the responsibility for every single possible use of their products implies less individual accountability. "Judge, if they were never allowed to make that shotgun I'd never have sawed it off and used it to rob that store". "If that Camaro wasn't such a cool, fast gar I'd never have jacked it and ran it into that old lady's house going 120". "I'd never have burned that movie onto 200 DVDs and sold them at the flea market if I didn't have TiVO to record the movie".
Pure and total crap all around! Things don't commit crimes. PEOPLE use things in the act of committing crimes, and people who are willing to commit crimes will use whatever tools are at their disposal. If they didn't have TiVO they'd use a PC with a video input hooked to a bootleg digital sattelite or a DVD player and a rented movie, or they'd revert back to video tape. If all cars were 1982 Volvos some dumb kid would still steal it for a joyride. If there were no guns around, people would use knives, bats and stones.
All of this seems to come down to a culture of avoiding individual responsibility--even in the US, with it's history of individualism and freedom--seems to have become trapped in this attitude that the government ought to protect people from their own stupidity or immorality.
The A500 was indeed a computer self-contained within the keyboard unit (complete with an internal hard drive and floppy on the side)--my Atari ST was the same (although early hard drives were external--the monitor sat on top of them).
That being said, the need to make the overall case large enough to fit an entire 16-bit computer designed with 80's technology gave a lot of real-estate to put the keyboard. I think my Atari ST's keyboard is nearly as wide as my Microsoft "natural" ergonomic keyboard--ant the ST keyboard isn't split in two with a big space in the middle. Furthermore, it has fewer keys so the keys themselves are bigger.
The other thing that annoys me besides size is that in order to get a keyboard that doesn't feel mushy/crappy you have to get one that has all these dumb little "net" buttons to launch different apps, or one that has a weird shape (the ergonomic one I mentioned) or other oddball styling. I know that I should expect to pay extra for a quality keyboard, but I DON'T want to pay extra for all those useless little buttons I never use (and in some cases can't use at all when not running Windows). Nor do I want a neon green keyboard, or a silver one with illuminated keys, or one with a bulge and a gap running down the middle.
Does anyone know if IBM or others still sell those nice "clickey" keyboards that don't require taking out a second mortgage to purchase?
...but when Winston Churchill managed to make it sound profound.
Will there EVER really be an end though? SCO will probably lawyer themselves out of existence, but what is stopping some other greedy little twerp from pulling the same stunt with copyright claim or perhaps a software patent? (OK, I'll be fair, McBride isn't a little person)
It seems that even very obvious or simple ideas can be patented these days, which gives the patent holder a pretty effective legal weapon. Even without patents (after all, the central argument by SCO doesn't involve patent issues) the most flimsy and ridiculous claims can be brought before court, wasting everyone's time and money.
As long as there are lawyers without ethics or scruples (and the majority lack both) there will be no real end. Unfortunately, lawysers are quite resilient. If the bomb were ever to destroy civilisation, only cockroaches and lawyers would survive--and I'm sure one lawyer would sue another for millions and order him to exterminate the cockroaches at his expense.
Probably because "only one" meant ony one approved by the communist regime? What you saw were for the most part not "video arcade" machines per se, and the ones you did see were decidedly NOT "governemnt approved". I've seen photographs from the late eighties to early nineties (a period straddling the fall of the Soviet Union) that look like rip-offs of western products--ten year old arcade titles and MSX machines hacked to translate the fonts to Cyrillic and words to Russian. The hacked Coleco/Konami Cabbage Patch Kids game on an MSX knockoff machine bolted inside an arcade machine was probably not an APPROVED arcade machine.
Also, a scant few years after "Poly Play" came to be saw the rise of Glastnost and relaxation of strong central planning, even before the fall of the Communist regime. If grey-market Levis, Pepsi and ABBA could become status symbols in a culture of slowly emerging freedoms, why not Pacman, Joust and Donkey Kong?
if it saves one kid, then it's worth it... ...that you are one of those parents you sometimes see in the mall who walks their kid around on a leash too. Tracking chips and leashes are for dogs damn it. To many people have forgotten that children are human beings and deserve some respect and dignity. Like everything in live the pendulum can swing too far in either direction. very oerprotective behaviour, in my opinion, damages kids every bit as much as an alcoholic parent that smacks his kids around over spilled milk.
Besides the violation of privacy and dignity, what favours are we doing for our children by such protective treatment? What is the result when we mandate by some oficial decree constant monitoring of a childs every move, allow them to only play with toys made of soft rubber foam with no corners and make sure to the best of out abilities that they never see or hear anything on print, radio, TV or the Internet that might be the slightest bit offensive or controversial?
I'd say it would mean we have abdicated our resonsibilities as parents to a bunch of distant, beareaucratic social engineers, and result in a generation of dependent, weak, ignorant and cowardly citizens willing to give up anything that matters in life for safety and security, because, after all, it MIGHT save ONE person. this is a dystopian outlook to be sure, but these screwball ideas and your responses are evidence we have moved in that direction.
And I think I know exactly what I'd say to the parent of an abducted child on the matter. I'd say I hope they catch the bastard who took your kid and throw him in jail for the rest of his life. Fact is, the reason so many kids go missing is because of dysfunctional legal and family-welfare systems. It is very rare and tragic when a child is kidnapped by a complete stranger with no history of criminal behaviour or abuse. More often the kidnapper is a non-custodial parent, step parent, relative or other person known to the victim. Lot of good RF tags would to then--"oh yeah...my kid is seeing his mum"--until mum runs for the border with him. in cases of strange abduction, the kidnapper is always some kind of deviant--psychotic, a paedophile, raised in an abusive situation, a substance abuser, etc. Tragically, their stories are most often known before the abduction.
The way we deal with child abduction borders on perversion where I live (Canada). People conviced of kidnapping or raping children are often put away for as little as three years (maybe less), and the sentences rarely get worse for repeat offences. Only absolute monsters get put away indefinitely as a dangerous offender--generally they have to kill first.
And you think tagging children is a good way to solve the problem? If we are going to add more restrictions to anyones freedom, how about we start with the CRIMINALS instead? Let's forget about these damn RF tags and throw incurable and repeat violent offenders in jail for life, and never give them a chance to be released. That, and leave the rest of us law-abiding citizens the hell alone.
From what I recall Bill was Nishi's "boss" (he was employee of what became ASCII Corporation -- a spinoff of Microsoft Japan). MS Did a bit more than provide the BASIC--they created the design and wrote 100% of the system software (that being the OS and BASIC interpreter) as well as the bulk of application software outside games. Not to minimise Nishi's vision--I think he was very forward thinking in a lot of ways. The idea was to specify the platform and have others build the machines--which is basically what came about with "Wintel" machines after many, many years.
They were cool machines though--the games reminded me of Coleco games (not surprising as the MSX was largely a rip-off of that system--same CPU, same sound chip, same graphics) -- the Konami games for both were basically identical.
I think that besides being behind the technological curve (by the time MSX came to market in meaningful numbers machines like the Apple Macintosh were out and even flashier machines like the Amiga and Atari ST were on the horizon) the concept probably wouldn't have endured. It was wedded to fading concepts--a machine where reasonably fast mass-storage was optional. It was self-contained with limited expandability. When powered up it presented a command prompt for the BASIC interpreter.
By 1984, the future of computing was looking past that--the PC was striving to become an "appliance" where you turn it on and just "use it" to do things. None of this booting up into a programming language nonsense. Everything was included with the PC to make it useable. Power up, click here and write a letter, balance a chequebook, etc. It's functionality is extended by installing programs from time to time, but they remain in place after that. 99 percent of the time, users should actually be able to USE the machine.
MSX and other 8-bit machines of the time and previous to it were really beter suited to hobbyists. The machines were offered with NO persistent mass storage device included (tape and floppy drives were extra-cost options). You had to "program it" to do things. It was useless without putting a disk or tape in and typing "LOAD", or at the very least typing in many lines of BASIC code. In my experience, they were LEARNING machines--I learned a lot, but probably did "real work" with those old 8-bitters little more than half the time (even less if you don't count playing games).
I think that is what irks Alan Kay actually--and I agree. The pendulum has swung too far and the likes of MS keep trying to push the pendulum further. The vision today is of a cable box on steriods--you buy a sealed black box and turn it on to do things. You never explicitly install software--it comes to the box off the 'net "on demand". Sounds great, but MS wants you to pay a subscription, and doesn't want you to OWN the box. The EULA will forbid you from opening the box or altering the software (anything that can reveal the internal workings constitutes a threat to precious IP rights after all). Don't like how it works? Aww, too bad, but if enough people put a request in for your idea it MIGHT show up in the next update.
How boring and unimaginative. Lets try to bring that pendulum back to the centre a bit and give people back control of their machines. They are ALREADY very useful appliances--leave all that alone. It doesn't need to hook to a TV or boot up in BASIC, but PLEASE put programming tools back on the machine! And don't hide it away like it's meant for "experts only". If MS wanted to drive innovation and creativity it could start by GIVING AWAY visual studio by pre-installing it with the OS.
Thank God for Linux and BSD--right now they're the only true choice for PC owners who want to LEARN. The source is there, as are the development tools. There are no legal and technical impediments for getting under the hood in terms of software. In addition, Linux is getting very good at serving the "appliance" needs of the desktop PC user. For people who actually want to learn comp
The solution is to produce a standardised simpler system. An all-in-one unit with standard components, that will plug into a TV, and starts with a BAPSIC interpreter. Apps should be loaded with a "load" command. We don't need a mouse. Those are only useful for pixel addressing. In practive they confuse the user.
You know Bill, the global reception was lukewarm at BEST when you introduced the MSX platform over twenty tears ago. What makes you think the idea would fly the second time around?
Just Curious...