"Sony has big plans for the Clie as one of the four gateways to the networked
home," Michael Vitelli, president of Sony Electronics, said at the launch
event here last night. The four gateways are the PC, the PlayStation2 game console, the television and Clie, which is expected to eventually feature wireless Internet access.
I'm not sure that this will work. Sony has tried this sort of thing with component audio systems -- you can connect Sony CD players, tape decks, receivers, etc., together and have them interact. I think they thought people would go out and buy all Sony stereo components because of this. I don't think this "one house, one system, one Sony" sort of thing will appeal that much to people. It's just not that big of a benefit for home electronics.
I put at least some of the blame on Hemos:
From/. :
"So as not to embarass any employees with the same name Apple has not revealed the employee's name as at now."
And the actual article: "Although Apple named the worker in a court filing, News.com chose not to publish the name because Apple would not confirm whether he is the only employee with that name. An Apple spokesperson also would not say whether the defendant still works at the company."
It makes you really wonder if/. or people who comment bother to read the article in the first place.
This points out a significant metaphysical principle: we can't really know how the universe works, we can only come up with rules, explanations, and methods to describe and predict its behavior. Eventually, someone observes behavior that doesn't quite fit, and the rules have to be changed - sometimes a tweak, sometimes thrown out altogether, sometimes a mix.
Consider relativity. At speeds less than c, newtonian phyics holds up quite well. Technically, they are an approximation, and we know more is going on "behind the scenes" than classical physics equations describe, but they work and so we use them until they cause problems and then we start factoring in relativistic effects.
Another example is the heliocentric theory. Previous to that, scientists used epicycles to describe the movements of the planets and stars that they observed. As more observation went on, the rules got more and more complicated until the heliocentric theory was introduced, which simplified everything. But the average joe was not in a position to evaluate whether the scientists needed to scrap their theories in favor of a more elegant one.
This strikes me as a similar situation. I don't know whether superstring theory is all wet or not. I don't even pretend that I understand it or the math involved. Only the march of history will determine whether it is the next relativity/heliocentric theory or the next phrenology.
People are always saying "let's rethink this." Of course, an awful lot of the time, they really can't do it better, so the prevailing theory stands -- it woudn't have got there in the first place if it did not work at all. But I believe there is someone out there who is not content with "the way it is." Look for him.
This state would represent both zero and one and everything in between. Instead of solving the problem by adding all the numbers in order, a quantum computer would add all the numbers at the same time.
Does that mean I'll be able to be everywhere at once? Of course that could work both ways -- being everywhere presents a big target...
This is for the embedded/appliance market. It is unlikely that AOL cares much for the relatively small number of Linux desktop users (compared to their 50 million Win/Mac users or whatever they have). This not only gives MS a preview, but the Netpliance et al guys a look at what their biggest competition is going to be in a short time. If those guys can adjust quickly enough, they might be able to grab some of AOL's big slice of the pie.
What I am wondering is whether we will see anyone try to do with full client software what MS and others tried to do with AOL IM - make a client that can connect to AOL's networks. That would be a big step forward in getting people to switch from AOL to something else.
It is at least arguable that having an on-line collection of theses and disserations would be beneficial to progress and innovation.
I would say that it has greater potential to benefit society than a few million MP3's, at the very least.
Isn't that what it's supposed to be about? How many people are going to be harmed by having their master's thesis published without their consent? This reminds me a bit of the "abandonware" thing.
Fraunhofer (and MPEG in general) and the RIAA are also a bit too friendly
behind the scenes, if not entirely in bed together.
There's been no real reason to think that MP3 will be "controlled" by the dark forces of the RIAA. MP3 is VHS, Ogg is Beta (a bit better - but is it worth the switch?), and the only way that it is going to catch on is through scaring people away from MP3. The RIAA is the best bogeyman to come along, so it's no surprise that they're used; and Fraunhofer - well, Germans always scare people, don't they?
Q: How do you stop people from reading the latest issue of Swank in the laundromat?
A: You don't. People just don't read Swank in laundromats.
Q: How do you stop people from looking at pornography in a public laundromat?
A: You gotta be pretty desperate to be loading up porn in full view of other people in a laundromat.
Here's a novel approach: Put up a sign that politely asks users to be courteous of others around them. Ask parents to keep an eye on their children. Don't assume that there is going to be a problem. Give people a chance to do the right thing; they might just surprise you.
From Hilary Rosen: "We did not intend to change the law and have worked diligently to assure that the issue of work-for-hire is resolved without prejudice to anyone's position," she said in the release.
It looks like that the RIAA wanted this to slip in and maybe nobody would notice for, oh, 35 years or so. Spin control is now saying that they were just trying to clarify what was already in place, not actually change anyone's copyrights. Sure, they were just looking out for the artists, you know, with all those evil Napsterites out there and all...
The FBI should ask Jon Katz what university would be best for the review. Without his help, they might select a university influenced by UnichemaMcPetroColaNikeDollars and not really do any real research.
It's called selling out. People have been selling out for thousands of years. Get over it. The problem is that in America we all think we have the right to be rich. The fact is, we don't. Artists, authors, researchers, etc., are not immune to this.
But really, Jon, nobody in America is forcing anyone to compromise their principles. But it makes it a lot easier to make money. The choice is made by the Academe (nice high-falutin' term!) to make this bargain. We surrender our freedom for $$$, but the great thing about this country is that you can get your freedom back anytime you want. All you have to do is give up the ca$h. Which very few of us would be willing to do.
Jon Katz likes to make it seem like there is some "outsider" presence (today it's corporatism - 50 years ago it would have been the communists) that is destroying the good in this world. Give it up, Jon. The presence is in us. We give in to greed ourselves in lots of ordinary little ways every day. Are you surprised that Universities are selling research? Why? Most of us go through life thinking "What can I do to make money/more money off of this?"
Real change, Jon, will not come not when the juggernaut of corporatism is smashed against the altar of free-thinking-Libertarian-anti-Luddite-Katzian dogma, but when each person takes responsibility to devote their life to something other than themselves.
If you think you can change the world - you can't
If you think you can change this country - you can't
If you think you can change your friends - you can't
If you think you can change your wife - you can't
If you think you can change yourself - you can, and you will do all of the above in the process.
That Netscape is the worst browser ever. Quote from his article: "Today a bug was reported in Netscape, versus none reported today for IE. That proves that Netscape is the worst browser ever!"
But the problem is the closed lists. How would one know whether it is actually child porn or simply an idea that the list-maker would want banned? With a closed list, you can't know, and there is no outside review.
I suspect what Fred Moody is doing is trying to turn some of the Linux rhetoric back on the Linux community. Linux zealots are well noted for making statments like "Windows is the most bloated piece of garbage ever made into 1's and 0's." He is just taking what many would point to as evidence of this (vulnerabilities), and making a semi-rational statment about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, Linux.com has just the design I'm looking for! I'm going to make my site look just like it. Thanks for the tip!
-------------
"Sony has big plans for the Clie as one of the four gateways to the networked home," Michael Vitelli, president of Sony Electronics, said at the launch event here last night. The four gateways are the PC, the PlayStation2 game console, the television and Clie, which is expected to eventually feature wireless Internet access.
I'm not sure that this will work. Sony has tried this sort of thing with component audio systems -- you can connect Sony CD players, tape decks, receivers, etc., together and have them interact. I think they thought people would go out and buy all Sony stereo components because of this. I don't think this "one house, one system, one Sony" sort of thing will appeal that much to people. It's just not that big of a benefit for home electronics.
-------------
I put at least some of the blame on Hemos: /. :
"So as not to embarass any employees with the same name Apple has not revealed the employee's name as at now."
/. or people who comment bother to read the article in the first place.
From
And the actual article:
"Although Apple named the worker in a court filing, News.com chose not to publish the name because Apple would not confirm whether he is the only employee with that name. An Apple spokesperson also would not say whether the defendant still works at the company."
It makes you really wonder if
-------------
get one of these for my apartment?
So what exactly happens at these geek parties besides the normal consompution of large amounts of yellow liquid?
/.'ers don't get invited to those kind of parties...
I assume you mean beer --
This points out a significant metaphysical principle: we can't really know how the universe works, we can only come up with rules, explanations, and methods to describe and predict its behavior. Eventually, someone observes behavior that doesn't quite fit, and the rules have to be changed - sometimes a tweak, sometimes thrown out altogether, sometimes a mix.
Consider relativity. At speeds less than c, newtonian phyics holds up quite well. Technically, they are an approximation, and we know more is going on "behind the scenes" than classical physics equations describe, but they work and so we use them until they cause problems and then we start factoring in relativistic effects.
Another example is the heliocentric theory. Previous to that, scientists used epicycles to describe the movements of the planets and stars that they observed. As more observation went on, the rules got more and more complicated until the heliocentric theory was introduced, which simplified everything. But the average joe was not in a position to evaluate whether the scientists needed to scrap their theories in favor of a more elegant one.
This strikes me as a similar situation. I don't know whether superstring theory is all wet or not. I don't even pretend that I understand it or the math involved. Only the march of history will determine whether it is the next relativity/heliocentric theory or the next phrenology.
People are always saying "let's rethink this." Of course, an awful lot of the time, they really can't do it better, so the prevailing theory stands -- it woudn't have got there in the first place if it did not work at all. But I believe there is someone out there who is not content with "the way it is." Look for him.
This state would represent both zero and one and everything in between. Instead of solving the problem by adding all the numbers in order, a quantum computer would add all the numbers at the same time.
Does that mean I'll be able to be everywhere at once? Of course that could work both ways -- being everywhere presents a big target...
This is for the embedded/appliance market. It is unlikely that AOL cares much for the relatively small number of Linux desktop users (compared to their 50 million Win/Mac users or whatever they have). This not only gives MS a preview, but the Netpliance et al guys a look at what their biggest competition is going to be in a short time. If those guys can adjust quickly enough, they might be able to grab some of AOL's big slice of the pie.
What I am wondering is whether we will see anyone try to do with full client software what MS and others tried to do with AOL IM - make a client that can connect to AOL's networks. That would be a big step forward in getting people to switch from AOL to something else.
It is at least arguable that having an on-line collection of theses and disserations would be beneficial to progress and innovation.
I would say that it has greater potential to benefit society than a few million MP3's, at the very least.
Isn't that what it's supposed to be about? How many people are going to be harmed by having their master's thesis published without their consent? This reminds me a bit of the "abandonware" thing.
Fraunhofer (and MPEG in general) and the RIAA are also a bit too friendly behind the scenes, if not entirely in bed together.
There's been no real reason to think that MP3 will be "controlled" by the dark forces of the RIAA. MP3 is VHS, Ogg is Beta (a bit better - but is it worth the switch?), and the only way that it is going to catch on is through scaring people away from MP3. The RIAA is the best bogeyman to come along, so it's no surprise that they're used; and Fraunhofer - well, Germans always scare people, don't they?
Q: How do you stop people from reading the latest issue of Swank in the laundromat?
A: You don't. People just don't read Swank in laundromats.
Q: How do you stop people from looking at pornography in a public laundromat?
A: You gotta be pretty desperate to be loading up porn in full view of other people in a laundromat.
Here's a novel approach: Put up a sign that politely asks users to be courteous of others around them. Ask parents to keep an eye on their children. Don't assume that there is going to be a problem. Give people a chance to do the right thing; they might just surprise you.
From Hilary Rosen: "We did not intend to change the law and have worked diligently to assure that the issue of work-for-hire is resolved without prejudice to anyone's position," she said in the release.
It looks like that the RIAA wanted this to slip in and maybe nobody would notice for, oh, 35 years or so. Spin control is now saying that they were just trying to clarify what was already in place, not actually change anyone's copyrights. Sure, they were just looking out for the artists, you know, with all those evil Napsterites out there and all...
The FBI should ask Jon Katz what university would be best for the review. Without his help, they might select a university influenced by UnichemaMcPetroColaNikeDollars and not really do any real research.
It's called selling out. People have been selling out for thousands of years. Get over it. The problem is that in America we all think we have the right to be rich. The fact is, we don't. Artists, authors, researchers, etc., are not immune to this.
But really, Jon, nobody in America is forcing anyone to compromise their principles. But it makes it a lot easier to make money. The choice is made by the Academe (nice high-falutin' term!) to make this bargain. We surrender our freedom for $$$, but the great thing about this country is that you can get your freedom back anytime you want. All you have to do is give up the ca$h. Which very few of us would be willing to do.
Jon Katz likes to make it seem like there is some "outsider" presence (today it's corporatism - 50 years ago it would have been the communists) that is destroying the good in this world. Give it up, Jon. The presence is in us. We give in to greed ourselves in lots of ordinary little ways every day. Are you surprised that Universities are selling research? Why? Most of us go through life thinking "What can I do to make money/more money off of this?"
Real change, Jon, will not come not when the juggernaut of corporatism is smashed against the altar of free-thinking-Libertarian-anti-Luddite-Katzian dogma, but when each person takes responsibility to devote their life to something other than themselves.
If you think you can change the world - you can't
If you think you can change this country - you can't
If you think you can change your friends - you can't
If you think you can change your wife - you can't
If you think you can change yourself - you can, and you will do all of the above in the process.
I hacked my TiVo 99 hours of Simpsons Burns says: Excellent
That Netscape is the worst browser ever. Quote from his article: "Today a bug was reported in Netscape, versus none reported today for IE. That proves that Netscape is the worst browser ever!"
But the problem is the closed lists. How would one know whether it is actually child porn or simply an idea that the list-maker would want banned? With a closed list, you can't know, and there is no outside review.
I suspect what Fred Moody is doing is trying to turn some of the Linux rhetoric back on the Linux community. Linux zealots are well noted for making statments like "Windows is the most bloated piece of garbage ever made into 1's and 0's." He is just taking what many would point to as evidence of this (vulnerabilities), and making a semi-rational statment about it.