I used to own a speedboat and I checked the speed limits on the Thames with the PLA (Port of London Authority) and Environment Agency.
Now it works like this:
Upstream of Teddington Lock, the river is considered non-tidal and is the responsibility of the Environment Agency and has an 8 knot speed limit.
Below Teddington Lock it's the PLA who are the responsible Navigation Authority and they say: No speed limit.
Yes, I was surprised.
So, yes, I could drive this car to my nearest public slipway (In Woolwich), drive it into the river and bash the waves at 30mph, drive out at Richmond and drive the rest of the way to work.
Because it is all held in seperate databases across many government agencies (DVLA, Inland Revenue etc...) It's hard for them to collect it all in one place.
Currently (and trust me, I know this first hand) it takes up a fair amount of Civil Servant time to collect and collate all this data into a "file" on a person. This is usually done at the request of the NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence Service) and they don't tend to waste resources on annoying gits like me who fax thier MP saying $idea sucks. I'm not a big enough threat.
Now, put all this data in one handy place and any bugger can, at the click of a button, create a case file on me. Hell, even if they just wanted to see who this Chris Adams guy is, they'd get access to *all* my details including details of my "dependants" (You know, my Tax code says I'm married with one dependant, hyperlink here for details from Census etc...).
The main reason for the ID card idea has always been to reduce the time taken for Civil Servants to dig up cross agency data with the added bonuses of *potentially* reducing DSS fraud, random political bogeyman-du-jour dodgyness etc...
The initial reasoning behind this ID card plan was to make it *easier* for the government to check up on it's citizens.
>>theft on many levels would be wiped out...and replaced by one, all encompassing theft.
hack the central dbase, forge your own cards, you can be anyone you want to be.
And let's be honest, the main barrier to forgery is the cost:benefit ratio.
If the benefit is free state aid for life, free healthcare and nobody will ever know you're really an ex Taliban general and not Abdullah Hussein, IT Consultant from Willesden Green, then just about *any* cost of forgery is worth it.
This is creating the biggest honeypot in history and pretending it's actually to deter wasps.
This government has not got clue number one when it comes to application or restriction of technology. Blair can barely send bloody email!
My mate Al is going to kill me for slashdotting his site but:
This is one of the best articles I've read on this situation. It helps if you have some idea of the US Comics industry but Paul O'Brien is a good enough writer to make it all crystal clear. FWIW, Paul is a UK Lawyer.
OK, so I had the misfortune last year to be made redundant twice from nice Web Media companies where I could where pretty much what I wanted. This was nice, it meant I didn't have to stress about what I picked out of the wardrobe in the morning and could dress for the weather.
Now, I used to work for the public sector before this for nigh on two years as an external consultant and it was suit and tie every day. More ironing, sure, but lent a lot more credibility to an otherwise young punk in amongst some of the UK's most senior pharmacologists.
Now I'm back in the public sector except I can forgo the tie unless I'm meeting a senior client but I still look like I'm staff/a professional.
Except Friday which is "Dress Down Day" when we can dress how we like.
Now, we're all thinking: "If it's OK to dress down on Friday and still go out and see the clients, why the hell do we have to suit and tie-up Monday - Thursday? Surely there's no difference?"
Many of our clients in the same organisation do not have a dress code yet we do, except on Fridays.
Would it really be such a big step if we were to shed the business suit Monday to Thursday?
Not sure I can remove the WAP browser from my WAP phone either. Then again, why would I want to since I paid for the thing *because* of the browser facility? Same thing with WebTV. Anyway doesn't that run on an underlying OS anyway?
>>Madnick testified that Microsoft (MSFT: Research, Estimates) probably would not be able to develop and market a workable version of Windows under the terms proposed by the dissenting states. He believes the requirements -- such as building Windows in such a way that computer manufacturers could alter it -- are not technically feasible.
And he's right, it's not technically feasible because Microsoft will not relinquish control of the necessary source, preferring to keep everything black boxed, the hell away from people who could alter the product that carries their name. It's about controlling how you can use the product that they are associated with, because, "hell, a third party could screw Windows up and Microsoft could get a bad rep."
We know Microsoft are control freaks, there's no way they'd allow Windows to be opened up like that, and without that unlocking of the black box, it *is* not technically feasible for a computer manufacturer to alter Windows, and the reason for this is "technically" MSFT are not legally bound to release their source, and "technically" could charge for any SDK they may choose to never release that would allow that access.
"technically" this poor bastard who's been set up to fail, trying to defend the indefensible, is correct. In an "I did not have sexual relations..." kind of way.
I was just thinking how much I'd prefer reading ebooks from either my nice Dell Latitude or Compaq iPaq.
Then I thought about people with impaired vision trying to read Crime and Punishment off an iPaq.
The contrast of green/black should help make out text (I think I'm right in saying colour blindness wouldn't be affected by these colours - doesn't green get translated as white?) and with the large, familiar folding screen, you should be able to use nice big, clear lettering.
Perhaps a headphone socket for built in text-to-speech synthesis and bingo, a completely accessible eBook perfect for blind/colour blind/partially sighted people.
The idea of having a reliable, secure robot running medication around a site such as ours is interesting, but we get a lot of trouble from our patients, and I'm not talking disabled Vet's I'm talking drunk, violent, pissed off people who're waiting 5 hours to get seen in A&E. I can't see them dealing very well with a 4 foot 8 robot pushing in front of them in the queue for the lift.
I already said I could see some of the benefits, but these things would become a bigger problem in the long run.
>>Its been programmed to avoid everything/one in the hallway, if that is not possible, it stops and announces that it can not make any futher progress without assistance.
Except the Nurse who is waiting for the drugs, and the patient who is in pain/sick (and that's what hospitals are for in the first place) are now waiting longer for the cargo to arrive than if a human who could step over the blockage/child/whatever, or otherwise work around it were delivering the payload.
If it stops and decides it cannot deliver the possible life saving drugs, because a routine says "OK, can't get through, stand still and wait for a skilled technician to help" than it's not saving time/labour it's actually hindering the smooth running of the hospital.
The only benefit this gives is the hospital can get on the news by saying "look at the cool tech we've got!".
Personally I prefer my workplace (at a Hospital) to be functional, efficient with tech where it's needed, like in the theatres, at the consultants desk, at the GP's (same as the US term MD) office down the road, etc. Not blocking my way in front of the elevators.
Chris.
Overcomplication
on
Hospital Robots
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I happen to work in one of London's largest Hospital trusts and our site is abosultely massive. Often new starters require a long time before they can get from place to place without getting lost. In that aspect, a robot that knew where to go and could get there quickly and reliably, delivering stuff could be useful. However, that's what Porters are for, and for things like Medical Records, test results and drugs, for confidentiality reasons as well as safety, only trained people are allowed to carry them anyway. No doctor here would ever let a record or result out of his/her sight without handing it over personally to the intended destination. We're implementing IT systems that will enable these files to be transferred electronically, securely. This will free up skilled time a lot more than using a robot to carry stuff, and is easier to maintain.
Our Medical Equipment guys are busy enough fixing things like heart monitoring equipment. They really don't need to have to start fixing robots that kids or drunks or others have kicked to pieces.
The Tobor system would cause more problems than it solves by throwing a very complex solution at a very simple problem.
Better to pay a trained human to do the running or introduce it as part of a Medical degree.
The article states that these files will not play on MP3 players because the portable devices cannot run the decryption software required to "activate" the content.
However, when you play the file on your PC, you're generating an audio stream. Couldn't you just redirect that into an audio input and record in some format or other such as.wav and then recode to a normal MP3 file?
>>Of the record 20 films that reached the $100 million mark, five went soared past $200 million,
Now they reckon production costs have been slashed to an average 47Million USD.
How much money did the 20 big ones cost to make? How much profit did they make? Lots?
Now how about the other films, that cost 47Million to make and weren't one of the lucky 20? If they didn't make a ton of dosh at the box office they're relying on DVD/VHS sales to make thier money. It's *there* that the pirating can hit them. Even with the best home cinema system there's nothing like going to the flicks to see a movie, but when it's on the small screen it's not so important that you get a legal copy. That's where the studio's can lose out.
>>Don't whine, just *ask* for it to be delivered without windows, or else take your business elsewhere.
That's great if, like me, you can merrily build your own system using whatever OS I like.
For the average PC user, who buys a PC for home and small business, that's not going to necessarily be the case. They want a PC they can take out of the box, turn on and use. In fact if a computer says "Does not come with Windows" I know many people who wouldn't buy it. I know only a handful of people, all in IT, who would actually think that to be A Good Thing.
Just because us Geeks don't necessarily want to pay extra for Billware on our new toys doesn't mean the majority of the market share our opinions. That alone, will be enough to ensure Bill gets paid for the desktop OS for the forseeable.
To be honest I don't think teh majority of Windows users actually bought a copy from a store.
When you go to the shops (or mail order) and buy a new PC, usually they have a software bundle with them and that's where you get your copies of Windows and Office (Well, mostly MS Works) from.
Because of this, and because it's very difficult to buy a PC *without* Windows, I don't think that this is at all true.
Weird, but it looks like, according to this legislation, I could as it's "in the field of technology".
Europe has relied on some pretty good Intellectual property and fair use laws. Companies were protected by applying for patents on core technologies in their products, for instance the ever popular "Dyson" cyclonic vacuum cleaner. It doesn't mean nobody else can build a cyclonic vacuum cleaner, they just have to do so using thier own design of parts.
Unfortunately, European Ministers aren't used to digital technology. Britain is, scarily enough, one of the most advanced countries in terms of digital communications technology - and we can't even get a bloody *DSL line to most of the country! This means that Europe is well behind on incorporating Digital content and technology into it's legislation. The big companies themselves are generously offering advice and support to politicians who are out of their depth. When the "Civil Rights" or "Hacker" communities start to pick technical holes in your arguments, if you can say "Well this resspected coalition of Major Digital Dudes says I'm right" then you look a lot better in front of your peers.
The EU is trying to force through a version of the DMCA (I feel a great disturbance in the force, as if thousands of/. readers suddenly cried out in terror...) and it's just as pathetic.
more on that at http://uk.eurorights.org/
This proposal really only paves the way for this bill, by saying that copyright laws should be considered applicable to software. Once that's been accepted, the bigger and more difficult to swallow, bill will go down a bit easier now that you've already swallowed some of it.
It's nothing to worry about on it's own, except it may let me copyright just about any arbitrary function. When the big one hits, then see teh nasty things I'll be able to do to you if you use "my" Hello World app!
To be honest, all Game Reviews are suspect anyway, as Games magazines get review copies from the developers. If the Magazine writes bad things about a game the developer has been pinning big bucks on, the developer gets pissed off and stops supplying review copies (as well as other perks like invites to seminars, launches and other Things To Write About) to that Mag.
Essentially, the safe option is to spout whatever Press Release blurb the developers give you right back, translated through a Journalist with maybe 2 hours experience of that game. Just enough to put a personal spin on the Party Line.
If you're an online review site not out to recover printing costs, it's not quite so crucial to your bottom line to pander to the games developers, but for a print mag whose very existence depends on them, the guy who gets the first exclusive sneak peek because the developer likes his mag, shifts more copies of his publication.
So, if the developer says "Hey, want an exclusive sneak peek in return for saying what we want you to say about something you can't really test properly anyway?" most Editors are going to jump up and down singing "Free Content! Gimme Gimme Gimme".
And then theres the guy who writes a review because he's a writer, based on what his mate said about the game, but he's a different story.
It looks like what the Coalition are arguing about is not that the Recording Company own the copyright to the recorded music, but that the Artists should retain the right to be recognised as the Author, and owner of the intellectual rights to the work. This simply means they get to choose who to transfer the copyright to, should the Work appear to have much greater value than the Recording Company initially compensated for.
Basically, if "Tuesday Night Music Club" becomes a much bigger selling album due to some massive increase in demand, Sheryl Crow retains the intellectual rights to the songs, meaning she has a position to renegotiate with A&M from. A&M still own the rights to the recording of the Album, but the Artist can re-record the songs for a different company.
The RIAA's position, which the coalition is attempting to undermine, is that artists who signed work-for-hire contracts have no claim to intellectual property.
I know various instances of the work-for-hire contract from the Comics industry and, basically, the Company own every damn thing.
Unfortunately, I can't see how a bunch of artists, famous or not, can, by telling the court how-it-is-for-an-artist is going to overturn those contracts, as, while not necessarily presented in good faith by the Recording Companies, are legally binding and accepted by the Artist. Citing previous legislation which is relevant to a different contract type, is, as/. would say, Offtopic.
I wish them luck because I want to see some draconian money-grabbing bunch of RIAA protected scumbags get thier comeuppance for bad faith business practice. Alas I think this particular battle tactic is a lost cause.
Actually a wonderful Quantum Gravitational Theory has been put forward by Superstring theory.
In the mid 90's, the 5 seemingly disparate String theories were united by a common, unifying theoretical structure that included 11 Dimensional Quantum Gravity.
The problems that have beset String theory since are the limitations of perturbative methods of mathematical solutions in providing exact answers in the extreme arena of string theory.
If you've not already read it, the book "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene gives a great explanation of this area of theoretical physics, even if it is 5 years out of date now.
"They" need to take a snapshot of the Standards Model at one point in time and work towards that.
It's my personal belief that all references to W3A standards, and, in fact, any other standards, should include a datestamp, akin to the "Information correct at time of printing" label you see on printed advertising and leaflets and such.
>>Imagine if a kilogram was 2.2lb one day, then 4.3lb the next. Not much of a "standard", is it?
That's not the "standards evolution" that happens here. It's about new functionality and methods of providing it being ratified, upgrades to existing standards such as CSS, not changing what CSS does, just expanding it's repertoire. Hence the Standard Model, to borrow from the world of Physics, keeps getting larger, so a browser needs to support more features to comply with *all* the standards.
Now they only want to be the most standards compliant browser out there, but what happens if a "feature" of another brower model suddenly gets ratified as the best way of doing things, and that "standard" gets updated to reflect this?
Standards compliance is a worthy cause, but, ultimately, a lost one. They need to sit down, pick the standards they want to use as they stand *now* and make it comply with those.
Any newer standards can be included in version 1.1 or something.
>>Good performance and memory footprint.>If things go well, we'll be within a milestone of 1.0 after 0.9.9. If 1.0 seems to continually recede as we approach it, our definition of 1.0 in terms of bugs to be fixed is broken.
What are the definitions of bugs that need to be "fixed" before a 1.0 version can be approved?
"not too many non-crash bugs and misfeatures"
Again, what counts as "not too many?"
Reading this defintion document, I don't see any hard targets to hit, or even any tolerances, just a vague commitment to tighten the code already in existence and to hit moving "standards" targets.
Judging by these criteria, I don't see how you can then stamp a *FINISHED* label to it and "ship it" as a 1.0 version.
At some point they're just going to have to decide that an arbitrary bug fix is no longer version 0.9.10 or whatever, they're just going to have to bite the bullet and call it version 1.0
Slashdot Mirror
I used to own a speedboat and I checked the speed limits on the Thames with the PLA (Port of London Authority) and Environment Agency.
Now it works like this:
Upstream of Teddington Lock, the river is considered non-tidal and is the responsibility of the Environment Agency and has an 8 knot speed limit.
Below Teddington Lock it's the PLA who are the responsible Navigation Authority and they say: No speed limit.
Yes, I was surprised.
So, yes, I could drive this car to my nearest public slipway (In Woolwich), drive it into the river and bash the waves at 30mph, drive out at Richmond and drive the rest of the way to work.
Fantastic!
Yes they have the data.
Because it is all held in seperate databases across many government agencies (DVLA, Inland Revenue etc...) It's hard for them to collect it all in one place.
Currently (and trust me, I know this first hand) it takes up a fair amount of Civil Servant time to collect and collate all this data into a "file" on a person. This is usually done at the request of the NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence Service) and they don't tend to waste resources on annoying gits like me who fax thier MP saying $idea sucks. I'm not a big enough threat.
Now, put all this data in one handy place and any bugger can, at the click of a button, create a case file on me. Hell, even if they just wanted to see who this Chris Adams guy is, they'd get access to *all* my details including details of my "dependants" (You know, my Tax code says I'm married with one dependant, hyperlink here for details from Census etc...).
The main reason for the ID card idea has always been to reduce the time taken for Civil Servants to dig up cross agency data with the added bonuses of *potentially* reducing DSS fraud, random political bogeyman-du-jour dodgyness etc...
The initial reasoning behind this ID card plan was to make it *easier* for the government to check up on it's citizens.
Chris.
>>theft on many levels would be wiped out. ..and replaced by one, all encompassing theft.
hack the central dbase, forge your own cards, you can be anyone you want to be.
And let's be honest, the main barrier to forgery is the cost:benefit ratio.
If the benefit is free state aid for life, free healthcare and nobody will ever know you're really an ex Taliban general and not Abdullah Hussein, IT Consultant from Willesden Green, then just about *any* cost of forgery is worth it.
This is creating the biggest honeypot in history and pretending it's actually to deter wasps.
This government has not got clue number one when it comes to application or restriction of technology. Blair can barely send bloody email!
Chris.
Actually you don't.
If you buy Spiderman merchandise Stan Lee gets his 10% of the profits of that.
Now bearing in mind Marvel is owned by a toy company, they really can't fudge the profits on merchandise. It's what pulled them out of Chapter 11.
Spiderman movie Merch is about the only way Stan Lee is guaranteed to see money from that film.
Chris.
My mate Al is going to kill me for slashdotting his site but:
This is one of the best articles I've read on this situation. It helps if you have some idea of the US Comics industry but Paul O'Brien is a good enough writer to make it all crystal clear. FWIW, Paul is a UK Lawyer.
http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=428
OK, so I had the misfortune last year to be made redundant twice from nice Web Media companies where I could where pretty much what I wanted. This was nice, it meant I didn't have to stress about what I picked out of the wardrobe in the morning and could dress for the weather.
Now, I used to work for the public sector before this for nigh on two years as an external consultant and it was suit and tie every day.
More ironing, sure, but lent a lot more credibility to an otherwise young punk in amongst some of the UK's most senior pharmacologists.
Now I'm back in the public sector except I can forgo the tie unless I'm meeting a senior client but I still look like I'm staff/a professional.
Except Friday which is "Dress Down Day" when we can dress how we like.
Now, we're all thinking: "If it's OK to dress down on Friday and still go out and see the clients, why the hell do we have to suit and tie-up Monday - Thursday? Surely there's no difference?"
Many of our clients in the same organisation do not have a dress code yet we do, except on Fridays.
Would it really be such a big step if we were to shed the business suit Monday to Thursday?
Chris.
Not sure I can remove the WAP browser from my WAP phone either. Then again, why would I want to since I paid for the thing *because* of the browser facility?
Same thing with WebTV.
Anyway doesn't that run on an underlying OS anyway?
Chris.
>>Madnick testified that Microsoft (MSFT: Research, Estimates) probably would not be able to develop and market a workable version of Windows under the terms proposed by the dissenting states. He believes the requirements -- such as building Windows in such a way that computer manufacturers could alter it -- are not technically feasible.
And he's right, it's not technically feasible because Microsoft will not relinquish control of the necessary source, preferring to keep everything black boxed, the hell away from people who could alter the product that carries their name. It's about controlling how you can use the product that they are associated with, because, "hell, a third party could screw Windows up and Microsoft could get a bad rep."
We know Microsoft are control freaks, there's no way they'd allow Windows to be opened up like that, and without that unlocking of the black box, it *is* not technically feasible for a computer manufacturer to alter Windows, and the reason for this is "technically" MSFT are not legally bound to release their source, and "technically" could charge for any SDK they may choose to never release that would allow that access.
"technically" this poor bastard who's been set up to fail, trying to defend the indefensible, is correct. In an "I did not have sexual relations..." kind of way.
Chris.
The
I was just thinking how much I'd prefer reading ebooks from either my nice Dell Latitude or Compaq iPaq.
Then I thought about people with impaired vision trying to read Crime and Punishment off an iPaq.
The contrast of green/black should help make out text (I think I'm right in saying colour blindness wouldn't be affected by these colours - doesn't green get translated as white?) and with the large, familiar folding screen, you should be able to use nice big, clear lettering.
Perhaps a headphone socket for built in text-to-speech synthesis and bingo, a completely accessible eBook perfect for blind/colour blind/partially sighted people.
Chris.
The idea of having a reliable, secure robot running medication around a site such as ours is interesting, but we get a lot of trouble from our patients, and I'm not talking disabled Vet's I'm talking drunk, violent, pissed off people who're waiting 5 hours to get seen in A&E.
I can't see them dealing very well with a 4 foot 8 robot pushing in front of them in the queue for the lift.
I already said I could see some of the benefits, but these things would become a bigger problem in the long run.
Chris.
>>Its been programmed to avoid everything/one in the hallway, if that is not possible, it stops and announces that it can not make any futher progress without assistance.
Except the Nurse who is waiting for the drugs, and the patient who is in pain/sick (and that's what hospitals are for in the first place) are now waiting longer for the cargo to arrive than if a human who could step over the blockage/child/whatever, or otherwise work around it were delivering the payload.
If it stops and decides it cannot deliver the possible life saving drugs, because a routine says "OK, can't get through, stand still and wait for a skilled technician to help" than it's not saving time/labour it's actually hindering the smooth running of the hospital.
The only benefit this gives is the hospital can get on the news by saying "look at the cool tech we've got!".
Personally I prefer my workplace (at a Hospital) to be functional, efficient with tech where it's needed, like in the theatres, at the consultants desk, at the GP's (same as the US term MD) office down the road, etc. Not blocking my way in front of the elevators.
Chris.
I happen to work in one of London's largest Hospital trusts and our site is abosultely massive. Often new starters require a long time before they can get from place to place without getting lost.
In that aspect, a robot that knew where to go and could get there quickly and reliably, delivering stuff could be useful.
However, that's what Porters are for, and for things like Medical Records, test results and drugs, for confidentiality reasons as well as safety, only trained people are allowed to carry them anyway. No doctor here would ever let a record or result out of his/her sight without handing it over personally to the intended destination.
We're implementing IT systems that will enable these files to be transferred electronically, securely. This will free up skilled time a lot more than using a robot to carry stuff, and is easier to maintain.
Our Medical Equipment guys are busy enough fixing things like heart monitoring equipment. They really don't need to have to start fixing robots that kids or drunks or others have kicked to pieces.
The Tobor system would cause more problems than it solves by throwing a very complex solution at a very simple problem.
Better to pay a trained human to do the running or introduce it as part of a Medical degree.
Chris.
The article states that these files will not play on MP3 players because the portable devices cannot run the decryption software required to "activate" the content.
.wav and then recode to a normal MP3 file?
However, when you play the file on your PC, you're generating an audio stream. Couldn't you just redirect that into an audio input and record in some format or other such as
This stuff appears fairly trivial to work around.
Chris.
Yes but Piracy doesn't just happen in the US.
It effects (especially pacific asia) foreign exports too.
Chris.
from the article:
>>Of the record 20 films that reached the $100 million mark, five went soared past $200 million,
Now they reckon production costs have been slashed to an average 47Million USD.
How much money did the 20 big ones cost to make?
How much profit did they make? Lots?
Now how about the other films, that cost 47Million to make and weren't one of the lucky 20?
If they didn't make a ton of dosh at the box office they're relying on DVD/VHS sales to make thier money. It's *there* that the pirating can hit them. Even with the best home cinema system there's nothing like going to the flicks to see a movie, but when it's on the small screen it's not so important that you get a legal copy. That's where the studio's can lose out.
Chris.
>>Don't whine, just *ask* for it to be delivered without windows, or else take your business elsewhere.
That's great if, like me, you can merrily build your own system using whatever OS I like.
For the average PC user, who buys a PC for home and small business, that's not going to necessarily be the case. They want a PC they can take out of the box, turn on and use.
In fact if a computer says "Does not come with Windows" I know many people who wouldn't buy it.
I know only a handful of people, all in IT, who would actually think that to be A Good Thing.
Just because us Geeks don't necessarily want to pay extra for Billware on our new toys doesn't mean the majority of the market share our opinions. That alone, will be enough to ensure Bill gets paid for the desktop OS for the forseeable.
Chris.
To be honest I don't think teh majority of Windows users actually bought a copy from a store.
When you go to the shops (or mail order) and buy a new PC, usually they have a software bundle with them and that's where you get your copies of Windows and Office (Well, mostly MS Works) from.
Because of this, and because it's very difficult to buy a PC *without* Windows, I don't think that this is at all true.
Chris
OK, that's it, I'm off to patent "Hello World".
/. readers suddenly cried out in terror...) and it's just as pathetic.
Weird, but it looks like, according to this legislation, I could as it's "in the field of technology".
Europe has relied on some pretty good Intellectual property and fair use laws.
Companies were protected by applying for patents on core technologies in their products, for instance the ever popular "Dyson" cyclonic vacuum cleaner. It doesn't mean nobody else can build a cyclonic vacuum cleaner, they just have to do so using thier own design of parts.
Unfortunately, European Ministers aren't used to digital technology. Britain is, scarily enough, one of the most advanced countries in terms of digital communications technology - and we can't even get a bloody *DSL line to most of the country! This means that Europe is well behind on incorporating Digital content and technology into it's legislation.
The big companies themselves are generously offering advice and support to politicians who are out of their depth.
When the "Civil Rights" or "Hacker" communities start to pick technical holes in your arguments, if you can say "Well this resspected coalition of Major Digital Dudes says I'm right" then you look a lot better in front of your peers.
The EU is trying to force through a version of the DMCA (I feel a great disturbance in the force, as if thousands of
more on that at http://uk.eurorights.org/
This proposal really only paves the way for this bill, by saying that copyright laws should be considered applicable to software. Once that's been accepted, the bigger and more difficult to swallow, bill will go down a bit easier now that you've already swallowed some of it.
It's nothing to worry about on it's own, except it may let me copyright just about any arbitrary function. When the big one hits, then see teh nasty things I'll be able to do to you if you use "my" Hello World app!
Chris.
Silly me forgot the obvious and forgot to mention Advertising revenue as a "perk" (in fact the main source of revenue, I believe).
I shall now go beat myself with bamboo in penance for being a moron.
Chris.
To be honest, all Game Reviews are suspect anyway, as Games magazines get review copies from the developers. If the Magazine writes bad things about a game the developer has been pinning big bucks on, the developer gets pissed off and stops supplying review copies (as well as other perks like invites to seminars, launches and other Things To Write About) to that Mag.
Essentially, the safe option is to spout whatever Press Release blurb the developers give you right back, translated through a Journalist with maybe 2 hours experience of that game. Just enough to put a personal spin on the Party Line.
If you're an online review site not out to recover printing costs, it's not quite so crucial to your bottom line to pander to the games developers, but for a print mag whose very existence depends on them, the guy who gets the first exclusive sneak peek because the developer likes his mag, shifts more copies of his publication.
So, if the developer says "Hey, want an exclusive sneak peek in return for saying what we want you to say about something you can't really test properly anyway?" most Editors are going to jump up and down singing "Free Content! Gimme Gimme Gimme".
And then theres the guy who writes a review because he's a writer, based on what his mate said about the game, but he's a different story.
Chris.
It looks like what the Coalition are arguing about is not that the Recording Company own the copyright to the recorded music, but that the Artists should retain the right to be recognised as the Author, and owner of the intellectual rights to the work. This simply means they get to choose who to transfer the copyright to, should the Work appear to have much greater value than the Recording Company initially compensated for.
/. would say, Offtopic.
Basically, if "Tuesday Night Music Club" becomes a much bigger selling album due to some massive increase in demand, Sheryl Crow retains the intellectual rights to the songs, meaning she has a position to renegotiate with A&M from. A&M still own the rights to the recording of the Album, but the Artist can re-record the songs for a different company.
The RIAA's position, which the coalition is attempting to undermine, is that artists who signed work-for-hire contracts have no claim to intellectual property.
I know various instances of the work-for-hire contract from the Comics industry and, basically, the Company own every damn thing.
Unfortunately, I can't see how a bunch of artists, famous or not, can, by telling the court how-it-is-for-an-artist is going to overturn those contracts, as, while not necessarily presented in good faith by the Recording Companies, are legally binding and accepted by the Artist. Citing previous legislation which is relevant to a different contract type, is, as
I wish them luck because I want to see some draconian money-grabbing bunch of RIAA protected scumbags get thier comeuppance for bad faith business practice. Alas I think this particular battle tactic is a lost cause.
Chris.
Actually a wonderful Quantum Gravitational Theory has been put forward by Superstring theory.
1 1/ qid=1004615200/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/103-5726037-41 19066
In the mid 90's, the 5 seemingly disparate String theories were united by a common, unifying theoretical structure that included 11 Dimensional Quantum Gravity.
The problems that have beset String theory since are the limitations of perturbative methods of mathematical solutions in providing exact answers in the extreme arena of string theory.
If you've not already read it, the book "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene gives a great explanation of this area of theoretical physics, even if it is 5 years out of date now.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/03757081
if you're interested, priced 9 of your US Dollars.
Chris.
"They" need to take a snapshot of the Standards Model at one point in time and work towards that.
It's my personal belief that all references to W3A standards, and, in fact, any other standards, should include a datestamp, akin to the "Information correct at time of printing" label you see on printed advertising and leaflets and such.
Chris.
>>Imagine if a kilogram was 2.2lb one day, then 4.3lb the next. Not much of a "standard", is it?
That's not the "standards evolution" that happens here. It's about new functionality and methods of providing it being ratified, upgrades to existing standards such as CSS, not changing what CSS does, just expanding it's repertoire. Hence the Standard Model, to borrow from the world of Physics, keeps getting larger, so a browser needs to support more features to comply with *all* the standards.
Now they only want to be the most standards compliant browser out there, but what happens if a "feature" of another brower model suddenly gets ratified as the best way of doing things, and that "standard" gets updated to reflect this?
Standards compliance is a worthy cause, but, ultimately, a lost one. They need to sit down, pick the standards they want to use as they stand *now* and make it comply with those.
Any newer standards can be included in version 1.1 or something.
Chris.
>>Good performance and memory footprint.>If things go well, we'll be within a milestone of 1.0 after 0.9.9. If 1.0 seems to continually recede as we approach it, our definition of 1.0 in terms of bugs to be fixed is broken.
What are the definitions of bugs that need to be "fixed" before a 1.0 version can be approved?
"not too many non-crash bugs and misfeatures"
Again, what counts as "not too many?"
Reading this defintion document, I don't see any hard targets to hit, or even any tolerances, just a vague commitment to tighten the code already in existence and to hit moving "standards" targets.
Judging by these criteria, I don't see how you can then stamp a *FINISHED* label to it and "ship it" as a 1.0 version.
At some point they're just going to have to decide that an arbitrary bug fix is no longer version 0.9.10 or whatever, they're just going to have to bite the bullet and call it version 1.0
As any filmmaker knows, "Nothing's ever finished"
Chris.