If this person is, say, a Holocaust survivor, then maybe patenting this device is a way of preventing its use for 17 years. Or perhaps, the person is researching it as a way for people to voluntarily go through grocery lanes faster, move through toll booths immediate, etc. Not all the possibilities have to exist purely in the realm of forced control of human beings. The idea, obviously enough, has been out there far longer than this patent. All the patent does is say that this process now has a 'owner'.
Yeah, you're completely right. The Internet has tons of self-regulation of activity, but very little self-regulation of information. I'm not talking censorship-type information, but privacy-type information. This is one of those grey boundaries (where do Internet rights give way to physical-world realities), but I definitely see a problem with all the information companies 'require' for online transactions.
It always interests me to see how countries think that the Internet doesn't regulate itself. Countries have their own rules and the Internet has theirs, which are slightly more liberal, but much more universal. Take, for example, USENET, a prime example of self-regulation if there ever was one. Groups have charters. Group members take their gripes to ISPs and uplinks if problems occur. If there's too much spam coming from a site, a UDP can be put in place. None of these events happen with the help of government. For the most part, binary pictures of naked teens stay in their respective groups and news servers decide whether to carry them.
The Web has its own form of self-regulation, and it involves linking. If people deem a site of not being worthy, they don't link to it, plain and simple. Porn and violence sites are allowed under the same free speech principles which govern America, but in a much 'freer' context.
Where the conflict lies is when boundaries cross, just like when countries' rules contradict each other. Who is right where? A Canadian was convicted in Texas of murder and sentenced to death. Canada said it was unfair. Texas told the Canadians to go screw themselves? Who's right? Both? Neither? I say, it happened in Texas, let Texas take care of it. Same holds true for the Internet. If it happens there, let the self-regulation take care of it, but if it crosses boundaries (ie. bomb plans get printed and then get confiscated or porn gets saved and then gets discovered), let the parties involved take care of it.
In essence, everyone self-governs themselves in a democratic society, and the Internet is just a democracy with no central governing body.
IIRC, Linux can't support 24 processors. Linux has problems running more than two or four processors. SMP support in Linux right now is greatly behind even that of NT's. This is one of the main areas of development in the Linux kernel.
What people fail to notice in this argument is the inherent contradiction between 'labeling' and 'censorship'. Labeling involves actually providing more (albeit biased) information to the consumer so the consumer can make a decision. Censorship involves actually preventing such information from being disseminated altogether. What labeling is, rather than censorship, is an application of moral judgment to the product. People then apply those morals to their own morals to make a decisions. As powerful as the paranoia group makes the government out to be, it is explicitly denied the right to censor material, except in cases where the local community has allowed it the right to do so (eg. pornography). The 'censorship decision' rests cleanly upon the heads of the market.
So far, the market has responded to the labeling phenomena positively. Otherwise, you wouldn't see Congresspeople pushing for it. Everyone makes the assumption that the MPAA censors because the government tells it to, and as an example, gives forth Eyes Wide Shut. No one bothers to ask why the MPAA gave its rating. The MPAA is influenced by the very same industry it regulates. Releasing an uncut version of Eyes Wide Shut could potentially have harmful effects for the movie industry, especially in America which is predominantly a morally conservative country (despite what MTV would have you believe). Morally conservative people tend to boycott things that threaten their morals, of which Eyes Wide Shut might possibly have done. Boycotting things means business is lost. Boycotting things also means public outcry. Public outcry means Congress gets a stick up their panties. Sticks up panties lead to a strongly-led backlash. The movie company is ruled by the almighty dollar. Offending the moral conservatism of the country, despite your personal liberal views, does not bode well for the industry (nor the country, I might add).
Labeling, though, does offer consumers more information and more information means "better" decisions about what products to buy. Again, we live in a morally conservative country where the majority of parents don't want their children visiting potentially sociologically harmful material. PICS gives these parents more information and the ability to actually parent. So what if maybe the child can't get access to the local Gay & Lesbian organization or the Bible because certain words are spoken. Let parents parent their children. Parenting is about making certain mistakes and learning from them.
Take a look at history and how labels have truly affected sales, and how labels have adjusted to the marketplace. It used to be that any album with a swear word had a Parental Advisory sticker on it. Now, you'll be lucky if the worst rap album has that sticker. NWA threw this nation's retailers into a tizzy, but now, there's CDs with ten times more 'offensive' lyrics sitting in the same store with Neil Diamond. Why? The labels are still around. The stores are the same. What's changed is the market. The market loves the stuff. The almighty dollar rules again. But still, labeling is still used as a form of information dispersal.
The point is, government isn't driving these movements, the populace is, and the market will determine the outcome. Right now, a lot of you seem to be disagreeing with the majority of America, and the only way you're going change things are by changing popular sentiment. You shouldn't be chiding the government in this case. Chide the people. Stir up popular sentiment, not government support. Don't just write your congressperson. Write your newspaper. Speak with your local television news. If it's really that important, change the people's minds. The legislation will follow.
Actually, knowing all our script kiddie friends, they would probably be rolling along in their parents' brand-new Expedition or something and be trying this thing out. Somehow, I doubt a script kiddie would be smart enough to realize that it's going to affect their car as well.
I can see the headlines now (and they're not getting the terminology correct)!
Well, the Diamond RIO runs for quite a long time (exactly how long I don't know) on it's single 1.5V AA battery, so it can't draw *that* much power. My current CD player requires two AA's and it dies out well before the Rio.
... car trips On average, a CD will last me about 80 miles. Get one of these, plug it in, and I could drive for over 700 miles without having to change the music. It's still not enough to get me out of Texas, but it's close.
... the architecture studio As it is now, CDs allow the time to pass. Put in a CD, listen, work, the next thing you know an hour's gone by. Put in one of these babies, listen, work, the next thing you know, four projects are done and you're still dancin'.
... the party As it is now, even with a 5-disc changer, my party runs out of music 5 hours into the dang thing and something's gotta be changed. Put one CD in one of these babies and voila! You've got yourself ten hours of non-stop partying. Given my current rate of being completely smashed about eight hours into such an event, and I'm all set.
Given the anticipated popularity of this device, I only hope that they a) take advance orders and b) can handle production so I have one of these for the drive home over Christmas.
The map of the Internet reminded me of a map of an airline's routing table, which, unless you fly Southwest Airlines, usually runs through a series of hubs. I'm sure that the 'Net has it's own hubs (hell, you have Yahoo and Slashdot already), but I wonder if it has many Southwests. Webrings are the only real analogy I can think of, so I wonder if anyone else could throw any more of those out.
FYI: Southwest Airlines doesn't use a hub-based system of flights, but does direct flights between cities. Many flights are thus 'direct' but not 'non-stop'. They're also pretty cheap. Don't factor the cheapness into your analogies.
Spielberg directed Indiana Jones, he didn't create it. Lucas has writing credits on all three Indiana Jones films and exercises creative control of the character. If you want to get really picky, then quit blaming Lucas for the Star Wars movies. He didn't direct Empire Strikes Back or Return Of The Jedi, either, and people are still bitching about bad acting, poor characters, and shoddy writing. Lucas appeared for writing credits on these films as well.
Sir Alec briefly touches on it when he says, "I throw away all fan mail." The real problem here isn't that the movie was so awfully bad. It was that it was so damned popular. Hell, you could say that same thing about Godzilla and Batman & Robin. The thing is, for some reason, fans continue to flock to Star Wars. How many of you 20-30-year-old geeks went and saw Star Wars opening night, despite the bad lines and awful characters found in Return of the Jedi and the pre-release denunciations of the movie? Any other movie with acting as bad as TPM or ANH or ROTJ would've flopped, but Star Wars has a mythic stature to it that generates a market for it. Everyone bitches about how it doesn't live up to their expectations, but everyone continues to watch the movies. Why? Because it's a simple story with lightsabers.
Star Wars isn't over-hyped. The populace is over-enthusiastic. Alec isn't pissed off at Star Wars. He's pissed off at the people who raise it to a platform it shouldn't be on. Lucas is perfectly capable of making truly excellent films (witness Indiana Jones), but Star Wars doesn't need to be. He's marketing that towards the kids and the middle-age and parents come along for the nostalgia and the excitement.
Nobody needs dumb terminals in today's workplace environment. Real computers are necessary, not slick looking terminals.
A five year commitment is too long a technology commitment in today's marketplace. Computer needs change on the order of months, not years. Even at $10/month, a company would be stupid to commit to five years.
This won't integrate very well with a Windows-centric economy.
It doesn't just involve buying a thin client. It also involves buying the server, the software, the administrators to configure it all and the technicians to train the masses
I applaud Sun's noble efforts to return to the days of the mainframe and the terminal, but they concentrate on their server-side strengths and return their creative force to the Internet and away from getting people off PCs in general.
Linux problems symptomatic of larger problems
on
On Linux Laptops
·
· Score: 3
What the article briefly touches on and then doesn't explore is the proprietary nature of laptop technology in general (and I'm not just talking about Windows laptops either). The confined spaces of a laptop have poised unique problems to computer manufacturers and the solutions have been, well, unique. IBM's MWave is only one such solution. Because you can't just plug in the components that you need, laptops tend to have funky motherboards, peripherals, and input devices. PCMCIA is one solution, but the article points out it's not elegant.
I suspect that as the size of computer components continues to shrink, we'll see laptops approaching a more standards-compliant state of being (and we'll see desktops shrink, too). That is, if Intel can figure out a way to quit making mondo processing chips.
I think the point that most authors miss about Apple is that they make computing fun, not cool or hip. When the G4 came out, countless geeks didn't say, "Ooo, I want an Apple," they said, "Ooo, I want a G4, cause I try and put Linux or something that will really take advantage of it on it." Geeks think the chip is cool, not the machine. Where Apple's success now lies (and it's evident by their marketing campaign and their product line) is in the fun of using a computer. Compare Apple's commercials to that of Microsoft or Sun. Apple uses music from the Beatles and touts ease-of-use and the funny little quirks of their machines. MS and Sun tout business applications and corporate development and how to use the computer for balancing the bank statement of a cow farm in Idaho or Wyoming or something. Which is more fun? Who are the majority of computer buyers (not Slashdotters)? And companies are noticing. They're copying the case designs, but really, that's only half of it. Apple has this image that their marketers, Katz almost points out, has created. G4s and tanks is serious stuff, but Apple says, "Hey, look, we're fun. We got a supercomputer here, but it ain't military, it's fun." And when consumers (not hard-core users) start up their new fun Apple, they find what really is a rather fun GUI to use, especially now that it's more stable.
Many people would say that having a bunch of consumers start using an Apple would be a bad thing, that they're not seeing how computing really is, but aren't they? I mean, they're hopping on the 'Net where invariably, they're going to learn about computing and general and the philosophies (open-source, closed-source, ie. alternatives) associated there-in and they'll be doing it in a comfortable environment that screams this isn't a work machine, this is a play machine, so have fun. Apple's always been good at that (I remember when my father got his first Mac in 1984), but now they have that image and the success only follows naturally.
I'm convinced that JavaScript shouldn't even be a language. The ideal is elegant enough, but due to the fact that different implementations exist, and there isn't a suitable consistency to even the most basic of ideas (try working with pull-down menus in forms for what I mean), JavaScript is a pain for even the most hardy of programming veterans to grasp.
The language isn't what's important. What's important for CS studies is the theory behind the language. Languages come and go (witness Ada, Java, etc), but the fundamentals rarely change.
Python's a good choice, but what really needs to be done is to separate the coding aspect from the theory aspect (I know, difficult to do). I went to school at Lehigh University where, among other things, I delved a little into the CS department (I was an architecture major, so it was a bit of a sidestep). I hadn't had any programming experience prior to Lehigh, and I cut my teeth on programming theory using Pascal. The programs are so basic at that level that idiosyncracies don't matter, but learning Pascal itself became the major obstacle. Since then, Lehigh's taken their curriculum and moved it over to C++, but the introductory course teaches neither C++ or Pascal. It uses a pseudocode that is very simple, so the class really becomes about theory and not about coding. Later, you learn C++ as part of coding, and you already have the background to handle the theory part. Because the theory part is so complicated and the coding so simple, they can go into different ideas that may not be available in a certain language. That, I think, is where CS studies should go.
Personally, I use Perl non-stop and it was very easy for me to pick up, even having only a Pascal background. I learned Perl reading through old source code and reading the man pages. I do think that programming should be taught by Unix admins. The best CS course I ever had at Lehigh was a course called C & Unix which was taught by Lehigh's EECS sysadmin. I learned so much about coding, and it was all stuff that the Windows-based professors didn't seem to think was important.
Yes, this is sarcasm, but every bit of sarcasm has a hint of truth on which it is based, and mine is the invariability with which Slashdot readers claim to know what works best, what needs to be changed, and how those changes should be implemented. The elitist notions that I see in many of Slashdot's posts are the main targets of this post.
Eh, I didn't really pay much attention to the Internet portion, but the mathematical implications of the different voting systems is most interesting. Unfortunately, it's not for America, and here's why.
The majority of America is stupid. I'm not talking "can't get on the Internet" stupid, I'm talking "can't look both ways before crossing the megahighway" stupid. Changing the way we vote is actually a great idea for those of us enlightened enough to understand it. The Internet is forming one of these such enlightened aristocracies and the ideas that we throw around we assume will be great for everyone. But very few people (relatively) are even on the 'Net, much less understand it enough to be considered "enlightened" and of those few enlightened members, few would truly understand the present problem with "fair" voting and realize how great it would be. The majority of American citizens can't even understand that their Presidential vote doesn't even choose the President, it just provides a general rule for other more enlightened voters to follow.
No, America is too dumb to really understand such complex voting practices, and so, the most fair way for us to vote is the one-off, guy with the first-place majority wins. Why, because a) it makes the citizen's vote that much more important and thus makes voting such an important part of democracy and b) it's so simple that even little kids can understand it (and don't we say that all the time about the Internet?).
Yes, minors have, in reality, a different set of rights than adults. But, purchasing a Batman comic book is in no way like buying a fifth of Jack Daniels. And, if the legislation causes producers of content that I use to reconsider what they publish because of labelling (and its effects on sales if nothing else) then it DIRECTLY affects me.
Your unnecessary comments aside, why isn't purchasing a Batman comic book like buying a fifth of Jack? If it's adversely affecting the psychological well-being of America's youth (which may or may not be true; I personally think it isn't, but that's not the point here), then I contend that it's just like buying alcohol. If the American public doesn't think so, they should go and tell their Congresspeople that. America, right now, is voicing the opposite view. Sometimes democracy is wrong (eg. Prohibition), but it usually manages to correct itself. That's the beauty of it all.
Government's job, btw, is not to determine for me what may or may not be harmful to me. I'm sorry you live in a one-party psychological hell, but I don't buy your dogma.
What are you talking about? That's entirely what government's job is. They set rules for emissions, they set rules for social interaction (murder, rape, public drunkeness), they set rules for what products can and can't be shipped to the consumer, the list goes on and on. All they do is determine what's harmful for you! A government that doesn't work to do this is essentially a facade of anarchy. While I'm sure that many Slashdot readers wouldn't mind a little anarchy, I kind of like the way that America looks right now. If you're really into anarchy, haul yourself over to Russia and enjoy the fruits of a lack of government control.
Eventually, the market will determine all this. The MPAA puts R-ratings on its movies and it doesn't seem to diminish the audience's turnouts for them. Yes, NC-17 turns teenagers away, but the rating system has worked well for movies and I don't see why it can't work well for other entertainment forms. The values will shift according to the values of the time and the market will determine how successful the products will be, not the ratings.
Not only is labelling being made mandatory, but if you mislabel you are fined, as I read it. But... there are no clear guidelines on how to label (what is "violent" and how violent is a given rating?). So it's at the whim of review boards or the courts to decide if you screwed up and have to pay.
As I understand it, the industry itself would be required to develop the rating system. If for some reason, the government's inplementation of the development of this rating system ("develop this or else!") is unconstitutional, well then, that's why we have courts. That's also why we have elections to put in new people who agree with us.
One must have faith in the government to work as it should. The system of checks and balances that we have have done a remarkable job of keeping the country from delving into anarchy as well as delving into a totalitarian dictatorship. The CDA was defeated in the courts. Prohibition was defeated through the people. Quit assuming that a law that isn't even on the books yet will a) make it into law and b) survive the Constitution. If these issues aren't brought up, they'll never be defined, and the government has much more control over areas that it hasn't defined.
I personally think this bill is fine. I don't see 'moral reevaluation' of a product as censorship. It's been happening without ratings and it's been happening with ratings. If you had any idea how much stuff hasn't been printed because of its content, I'm sure you would be convinced that all of America is part of some censorship conspiracy.
What freedoms are they taking away? Are they preventing the production of these products? No. Are they preventing the distribution of these products. No, not really. They're trying to prevent them from being sold to minors. Guess what, kiddies. Kids don't have the same rights as their adult comrades. You know why? They don't vote. I see this labeling idea as the same thing as alcohol restrictions. Alcohol is labeled. Minors can't buy alcohol, legally. Is anyone crying about the Constitutional right to drink alcohol at whatever age you want? No, because that's asinine. Let government do some regulation of products that may or may not be harmful to society.
Slashdot needs to get over the "Anytime the US Government passes a bill, it's taking away the freedoms of its citizens" kick that it's on. Unless you're a 16-year-old video game junkie, this isn't going to affect you in the least, and if you are a 16-year-old video game junkie, convince your parents to buy it for you. Or are you afraid that mommy and daddy won't approve of the games you play?
Do any free programs that you can think of off the top of your head actually use Unisys technology? I know there's libungif which doesn't use the same patented technology. If these programs do use the technology, what happens when a company like Redhat bundles them and then sells them? Who pays the licensing fee (if any)?
What the HELL are you talking about? Unisys 'customers' aren't going to benefitted by giving away the GIF compression scheme for free. They're going to cease being customers and start being users. Basically, Unisys loses a whole bunch of money by ending the licensing scheme, pissing off a whole lot of companies that have already paid money for the license, and gets absolutely nothing in return. Explain to me how this hurts or doesn't hurt Unisys' customers?
I, for one, and probably one of the few on Slashdot, applaud Unisys for their business model. It is not harsh to the freeware community (the GIMP can still develop using GIF LZW technology so long as they don't profit from it) and they still can make money off the $400 graphics suites like Photoshop. I can think of companies that have been less sympathetic to non-profit and not-for-profit organizations.
Quit your complaining! The entire world does not need to be free to be perfect.
Amazingly, while people in Slashdot are bitching and moaning about how their privacy is being washed down the drain by the FBI's ability to wiretap their phones, millions of Americans are actually welcoming such privacy-removing efforts. The Slashdot contention that most Americans don't know what the FBI is capable of is actually quite a bit of exaggeration. Most Americans actually choose to diminish their privacy for security in the way of home security systems (which are presided over 24/7). Even ISPs keep information on their customers, yet no one seems to mind. In fact, if you called an ISP expecting them to have logs of the time period during which malicious activity occurred to you and they didn't, I bet you'd be furious. I know I would. How is that any different? Most likely, the customer doesn't know all his data is being tracked.
People need to get used to a different kind of privacy. The world is watching everything you do. It's not just the government. Private companies, the mob, anyone with just a little bit of money and access to the resources can do a bit of tracing. Where the citizen needs to keep a watchful eye is at the usage level. FBI wiretaps should not be used in illegal manners. That's simply it. If some FBI clerk wants to tape my conversations with my girlfriend in which I spout off against the President, the NSA, and then start talking dirty. So be it. My neighbor in the room next door can hear it, too. Just don't expect to try to bend the laws to make me into a criminal for doing it. And that rests in the hands of the court.
Just because Carl Sagan was one of the founders of extra-terrestrial awareness and happened to do drugs doesn't make drug use "correct". You can hold him up as a pillar of the community and say, "See, he did it!" or you can respect the laws of whatever country you are in and abide by them while trying to change them. All this proves is that Carl Sagan was human. He had his virtues and he had his vices, just like every other human. Somehow, I don't think that when Carl Sagan was in public, giving his speeches, promoting his ideals and preaching his message that he was stoned, or that those ideas were a result of marijuana's influence. Marijuana didn't expand his concept of the universe, and the geek community shouldn't hold Sagan up as proof that marijuana can benefit society.
One of the characteristics of Art is that it challenges those who encounter it to see the world in new ways.
Since when was this a characteristic of art? The overgeneralization of what exactly 'art' refers to is what has primarily lead to the downfall of art within society over the past fifty years. It's comments and ideas such as this that have led 'artists' to put toilets under plastic bubbles and then sell it for millions of dollars as 'art'.
And I guess that kind of solidifies my opinion on the whole matter. The Open Source movement is/not/ art any more than is the process of making a half-mixed bowl of porridge. A process may be interesting and it may challenge the mind, but I dare not call it art as it cheapens the hard work and effort that design has produced over the years.
I dunno if it's just the OS movement inflating it's own ego, but I've seen the most ridiculous applications of the open-source moniker lately, and now, I'm beginning to see the most ridiculous applications of other concepts to the open-source ideal.
As I learned in a real art class, the easiest way to completely destory a concept is to try and compare it to something else rather than evaluating it on it's own ground.
Slashdot Mirror
If this person is, say, a Holocaust survivor, then maybe patenting this device is a way of preventing its use for 17 years. Or perhaps, the person is researching it as a way for people to voluntarily go through grocery lanes faster, move through toll booths immediate, etc. Not all the possibilities have to exist purely in the realm of forced control of human beings. The idea, obviously enough, has been out there far longer than this patent. All the patent does is say that this process now has a 'owner'.
Yeah, you're completely right. The Internet has tons of self-regulation of activity, but very little self-regulation of information. I'm not talking censorship-type information, but privacy-type information. This is one of those grey boundaries (where do Internet rights give way to physical-world realities), but I definitely see a problem with all the information companies 'require' for online transactions.
It always interests me to see how countries think that the Internet doesn't regulate itself. Countries have their own rules and the Internet has theirs, which are slightly more liberal, but much more universal. Take, for example, USENET, a prime example of self-regulation if there ever was one. Groups have charters. Group members take their gripes to ISPs and uplinks if problems occur. If there's too much spam coming from a site, a UDP can be put in place. None of these events happen with the help of government. For the most part, binary pictures of naked teens stay in their respective groups and news servers decide whether to carry them.
The Web has its own form of self-regulation, and it involves linking. If people deem a site of not being worthy, they don't link to it, plain and simple. Porn and violence sites are allowed under the same free speech principles which govern America, but in a much 'freer' context.
Where the conflict lies is when boundaries cross, just like when countries' rules contradict each other. Who is right where? A Canadian was convicted in Texas of murder and sentenced to death. Canada said it was unfair. Texas told the Canadians to go screw themselves? Who's right? Both? Neither? I say, it happened in Texas, let Texas take care of it. Same holds true for the Internet. If it happens there, let the self-regulation take care of it, but if it crosses boundaries (ie. bomb plans get printed and then get confiscated or porn gets saved and then gets discovered), let the parties involved take care of it.
In essence, everyone self-governs themselves in a democratic society, and the Internet is just a democracy with no central governing body.
IIRC, Linux can't support 24 processors. Linux has problems running more than two or four processors. SMP support in Linux right now is greatly behind even that of NT's. This is one of the main areas of development in the Linux kernel.
What people fail to notice in this argument is the inherent contradiction between 'labeling' and 'censorship'. Labeling involves actually providing more (albeit biased) information to the consumer so the consumer can make a decision. Censorship involves actually preventing such information from being disseminated altogether. What labeling is, rather than censorship, is an application of moral judgment to the product. People then apply those morals to their own morals to make a decisions. As powerful as the paranoia group makes the government out to be, it is explicitly denied the right to censor material, except in cases where the local community has allowed it the right to do so (eg. pornography). The 'censorship decision' rests cleanly upon the heads of the market.
So far, the market has responded to the labeling phenomena positively. Otherwise, you wouldn't see Congresspeople pushing for it. Everyone makes the assumption that the MPAA censors because the government tells it to, and as an example, gives forth Eyes Wide Shut. No one bothers to ask why the MPAA gave its rating. The MPAA is influenced by the very same industry it regulates. Releasing an uncut version of Eyes Wide Shut could potentially have harmful effects for the movie industry, especially in America which is predominantly a morally conservative country (despite what MTV would have you believe). Morally conservative people tend to boycott things that threaten their morals, of which Eyes Wide Shut might possibly have done. Boycotting things means business is lost. Boycotting things also means public outcry. Public outcry means Congress gets a stick up their panties. Sticks up panties lead to a strongly-led backlash. The movie company is ruled by the almighty dollar. Offending the moral conservatism of the country, despite your personal liberal views, does not bode well for the industry (nor the country, I might add).
Labeling, though, does offer consumers more information and more information means "better" decisions about what products to buy. Again, we live in a morally conservative country where the majority of parents don't want their children visiting potentially sociologically harmful material. PICS gives these parents more information and the ability to actually parent. So what if maybe the child can't get access to the local Gay & Lesbian organization or the Bible because certain words are spoken. Let parents parent their children. Parenting is about making certain mistakes and learning from them.
Take a look at history and how labels have truly affected sales, and how labels have adjusted to the marketplace. It used to be that any album with a swear word had a Parental Advisory sticker on it. Now, you'll be lucky if the worst rap album has that sticker. NWA threw this nation's retailers into a tizzy, but now, there's CDs with ten times more 'offensive' lyrics sitting in the same store with Neil Diamond. Why? The labels are still around. The stores are the same. What's changed is the market. The market loves the stuff. The almighty dollar rules again. But still, labeling is still used as a form of information dispersal.
The point is, government isn't driving these movements, the populace is, and the market will determine the outcome. Right now, a lot of you seem to be disagreeing with the majority of America, and the only way you're going change things are by changing popular sentiment. You shouldn't be chiding the government in this case. Chide the people. Stir up popular sentiment, not government support. Don't just write your congressperson. Write your newspaper. Speak with your local television news. If it's really that important, change the people's minds. The legislation will follow.
Actually, knowing all our script kiddie friends, they would probably be rolling along in their parents' brand-new Expedition or something and be trying this thing out. Somehow, I doubt a script kiddie would be smart enough to realize that it's going to affect their car as well.
I can see the headlines now (and they're not getting the terminology correct)!
Well, the Diamond RIO runs for quite a long time (exactly how long I don't know) on it's single 1.5V AA battery, so it can't draw *that* much power. My current CD player requires two AA's and it dies out well before the Rio.
... car trips
... the architecture studio
... the party
On average, a CD will last me about 80 miles. Get one of these, plug it in, and I could drive for over 700 miles without having to change the music. It's still not enough to get me out of Texas, but it's close.
As it is now, CDs allow the time to pass. Put in a CD, listen, work, the next thing you know an hour's gone by. Put in one of these babies, listen, work, the next thing you know, four projects are done and you're still dancin'.
As it is now, even with a 5-disc changer, my party runs out of music 5 hours into the dang thing and something's gotta be changed. Put one CD in one of these babies and voila! You've got yourself ten hours of non-stop partying. Given my current rate of being completely smashed about eight hours into such an event, and I'm all set.
Given the anticipated popularity of this device, I only hope that they a) take advance orders and b) can handle production so I have one of these for the drive home over Christmas.
The map of the Internet reminded me of a map of an airline's routing table, which, unless you fly Southwest Airlines, usually runs through a series of hubs. I'm sure that the 'Net has it's own hubs (hell, you have Yahoo and Slashdot already), but I wonder if it has many Southwests. Webrings are the only real analogy I can think of, so I wonder if anyone else could throw any more of those out.
FYI: Southwest Airlines doesn't use a hub-based system of flights, but does direct flights between cities. Many flights are thus 'direct' but not 'non-stop'. They're also pretty cheap. Don't factor the cheapness into your analogies.
Spielberg directed Indiana Jones, he didn't create it. Lucas has writing credits on all three Indiana Jones films and exercises creative control of the character. If you want to get really picky, then quit blaming Lucas for the Star Wars movies. He didn't direct Empire Strikes Back or Return Of The Jedi, either, and people are still bitching about bad acting, poor characters, and shoddy writing. Lucas appeared for writing credits on these films as well.
Sir Alec briefly touches on it when he says, "I throw away all fan mail." The real problem here isn't that the movie was so awfully bad. It was that it was so damned popular. Hell, you could say that same thing about Godzilla and Batman & Robin. The thing is, for some reason, fans continue to flock to Star Wars. How many of you 20-30-year-old geeks went and saw Star Wars opening night, despite the bad lines and awful characters found in Return of the Jedi and the pre-release denunciations of the movie? Any other movie with acting as bad as TPM or ANH or ROTJ would've flopped, but Star Wars has a mythic stature to it that generates a market for it. Everyone bitches about how it doesn't live up to their expectations, but everyone continues to watch the movies. Why? Because it's a simple story with lightsabers.
Star Wars isn't over-hyped. The populace is over-enthusiastic. Alec isn't pissed off at Star Wars. He's pissed off at the people who raise it to a platform it shouldn't be on. Lucas is perfectly capable of making truly excellent films (witness Indiana Jones), but Star Wars doesn't need to be. He's marketing that towards the kids and the middle-age and parents come along for the nostalgia and the excitement.
Sir Alec is pissed at you and me.
I applaud Sun's noble efforts to return to the days of the mainframe and the terminal, but they concentrate on their server-side strengths and return their creative force to the Internet and away from getting people off PCs in general.
What the article briefly touches on and then doesn't explore is the proprietary nature of laptop technology in general (and I'm not just talking about Windows laptops either). The confined spaces of a laptop have poised unique problems to computer manufacturers and the solutions have been, well, unique. IBM's MWave is only one such solution. Because you can't just plug in the components that you need, laptops tend to have funky motherboards, peripherals, and input devices. PCMCIA is one solution, but the article points out it's not elegant.
I suspect that as the size of computer components continues to shrink, we'll see laptops approaching a more standards-compliant state of being (and we'll see desktops shrink, too). That is, if Intel can figure out a way to quit making mondo processing chips.
I think the point that most authors miss about Apple is that they make computing fun, not cool or hip. When the G4 came out, countless geeks didn't say, "Ooo, I want an Apple," they said, "Ooo, I want a G4, cause I try and put Linux or something that will really take advantage of it on it." Geeks think the chip is cool, not the machine. Where Apple's success now lies (and it's evident by their marketing campaign and their product line) is in the fun of using a computer. Compare Apple's commercials to that of Microsoft or Sun. Apple uses music from the Beatles and touts ease-of-use and the funny little quirks of their machines. MS and Sun tout business applications and corporate development and how to use the computer for balancing the bank statement of a cow farm in Idaho or Wyoming or something. Which is more fun? Who are the majority of computer buyers (not Slashdotters)? And companies are noticing. They're copying the case designs, but really, that's only half of it. Apple has this image that their marketers, Katz almost points out, has created. G4s and tanks is serious stuff, but Apple says, "Hey, look, we're fun. We got a supercomputer here, but it ain't military, it's fun." And when consumers (not hard-core users) start up their new fun Apple, they find what really is a rather fun GUI to use, especially now that it's more stable.
Many people would say that having a bunch of consumers start using an Apple would be a bad thing, that they're not seeing how computing really is, but aren't they? I mean, they're hopping on the 'Net where invariably, they're going to learn about computing and general and the philosophies (open-source, closed-source, ie. alternatives) associated there-in and they'll be doing it in a comfortable environment that screams this isn't a work machine, this is a play machine, so have fun. Apple's always been good at that (I remember when my father got his first Mac in 1984), but now they have that image and the success only follows naturally.
I'm convinced that JavaScript shouldn't even be a language. The ideal is elegant enough, but due to the fact that different implementations exist, and there isn't a suitable consistency to even the most basic of ideas (try working with pull-down menus in forms for what I mean), JavaScript is a pain for even the most hardy of programming veterans to grasp.
The language isn't what's important. What's important for CS studies is the theory behind the language. Languages come and go (witness Ada, Java, etc), but the fundamentals rarely change.
Python's a good choice, but what really needs to be done is to separate the coding aspect from the theory aspect (I know, difficult to do). I went to school at Lehigh University where, among other things, I delved a little into the CS department (I was an architecture major, so it was a bit of a sidestep). I hadn't had any programming experience prior to Lehigh, and I cut my teeth on programming theory using Pascal. The programs are so basic at that level that idiosyncracies don't matter, but learning Pascal itself became the major obstacle. Since then, Lehigh's taken their curriculum and moved it over to C++, but the introductory course teaches neither C++ or Pascal. It uses a pseudocode that is very simple, so the class really becomes about theory and not about coding. Later, you learn C++ as part of coding, and you already have the background to handle the theory part. Because the theory part is so complicated and the coding so simple, they can go into different ideas that may not be available in a certain language. That, I think, is where CS studies should go.
Personally, I use Perl non-stop and it was very easy for me to pick up, even having only a Pascal background. I learned Perl reading through old source code and reading the man pages. I do think that programming should be taught by Unix admins. The best CS course I ever had at Lehigh was a course called C & Unix which was taught by Lehigh's EECS sysadmin. I learned so much about coding, and it was all stuff that the Windows-based professors didn't seem to think was important.
*clink* *clink*
There's my two cents.
Yes, this is sarcasm, but every bit of sarcasm has a hint of truth on which it is based, and mine is the invariability with which Slashdot readers claim to know what works best, what needs to be changed, and how those changes should be implemented. The elitist notions that I see in many of Slashdot's posts are the main targets of this post.
Eh, I didn't really pay much attention to the Internet portion, but the mathematical implications of the different voting systems is most interesting. Unfortunately, it's not for America, and here's why.
The majority of America is stupid. I'm not talking "can't get on the Internet" stupid, I'm talking "can't look both ways before crossing the megahighway" stupid. Changing the way we vote is actually a great idea for those of us enlightened enough to understand it. The Internet is forming one of these such enlightened aristocracies and the ideas that we throw around we assume will be great for everyone. But very few people (relatively) are even on the 'Net, much less understand it enough to be considered "enlightened" and of those few enlightened members, few would truly understand the present problem with "fair" voting and realize how great it would be. The majority of American citizens can't even understand that their Presidential vote doesn't even choose the President, it just provides a general rule for other more enlightened voters to follow.
No, America is too dumb to really understand such complex voting practices, and so, the most fair way for us to vote is the one-off, guy with the first-place majority wins. Why, because a) it makes the citizen's vote that much more important and thus makes voting such an important part of democracy and b) it's so simple that even little kids can understand it (and don't we say that all the time about the Internet?).
Yes, minors have, in reality, a different set of rights than adults. But, purchasing a Batman comic book is in no way like buying a fifth of Jack Daniels. And, if the legislation causes producers of content that I use to reconsider what they publish because of labelling (and its effects on sales if nothing else) then it DIRECTLY affects me.
Your unnecessary comments aside, why isn't purchasing a Batman comic book like buying a fifth of Jack? If it's adversely affecting the psychological well-being of America's youth (which may or may not be true; I personally think it isn't, but that's not the point here), then I contend that it's just like buying alcohol. If the American public doesn't think so, they should go and tell their Congresspeople that. America, right now, is voicing the opposite view. Sometimes democracy is wrong (eg. Prohibition), but it usually manages to correct itself. That's the beauty of it all.
Government's job, btw, is not to determine for me what may or may not be harmful to me. I'm sorry you live in a one-party psychological hell, but I don't buy your dogma.
What are you talking about? That's entirely what government's job is. They set rules for emissions, they set rules for social interaction (murder, rape, public drunkeness), they set rules for what products can and can't be shipped to the consumer, the list goes on and on. All they do is determine what's harmful for you! A government that doesn't work to do this is essentially a facade of anarchy. While I'm sure that many Slashdot readers wouldn't mind a little anarchy, I kind of like the way that America looks right now. If you're really into anarchy, haul yourself over to Russia and enjoy the fruits of a lack of government control.
Eventually, the market will determine all this. The MPAA puts R-ratings on its movies and it doesn't seem to diminish the audience's turnouts for them. Yes, NC-17 turns teenagers away, but the rating system has worked well for movies and I don't see why it can't work well for other entertainment forms. The values will shift according to the values of the time and the market will determine how successful the products will be, not the ratings.
Not only is labelling being made mandatory, but if you mislabel you are fined, as I read it. But... there are no clear guidelines on how to label (what is "violent" and how violent is a given rating?). So it's at the whim of review boards or the courts to decide if you screwed up and have to pay.
As I understand it, the industry itself would be required to develop the rating system. If for some reason, the government's inplementation of the development of this rating system ("develop this or else!") is unconstitutional, well then, that's why we have courts. That's also why we have elections to put in new people who agree with us.
One must have faith in the government to work as it should. The system of checks and balances that we have have done a remarkable job of keeping the country from delving into anarchy as well as delving into a totalitarian dictatorship. The CDA was defeated in the courts. Prohibition was defeated through the people. Quit assuming that a law that isn't even on the books yet will a) make it into law and b) survive the Constitution. If these issues aren't brought up, they'll never be defined, and the government has much more control over areas that it hasn't defined.
I personally think this bill is fine. I don't see 'moral reevaluation' of a product as censorship. It's been happening without ratings and it's been happening with ratings. If you had any idea how much stuff hasn't been printed because of its content, I'm sure you would be convinced that all of America is part of some censorship conspiracy.
What freedoms are they taking away? Are they preventing the production of these products? No. Are they preventing the distribution of these products. No, not really. They're trying to prevent them from being sold to minors. Guess what, kiddies. Kids don't have the same rights as their adult comrades. You know why? They don't vote. I see this labeling idea as the same thing as alcohol restrictions. Alcohol is labeled. Minors can't buy alcohol, legally. Is anyone crying about the Constitutional right to drink alcohol at whatever age you want? No, because that's asinine. Let government do some regulation of products that may or may not be harmful to society.
Slashdot needs to get over the "Anytime the US Government passes a bill, it's taking away the freedoms of its citizens" kick that it's on. Unless you're a 16-year-old video game junkie, this isn't going to affect you in the least, and if you are a 16-year-old video game junkie, convince your parents to buy it for you. Or are you afraid that mommy and daddy won't approve of the games you play?
Do any free programs that you can think of off the top of your head actually use Unisys technology? I know there's libungif which doesn't use the same patented technology. If these programs do use the technology, what happens when a company like Redhat bundles them and then sells them? Who pays the licensing fee (if any)?
What the HELL are you talking about? Unisys 'customers' aren't going to benefitted by giving away the GIF compression scheme for free. They're going to cease being customers and start being users. Basically, Unisys loses a whole bunch of money by ending the licensing scheme, pissing off a whole lot of companies that have already paid money for the license, and gets absolutely nothing in return. Explain to me how this hurts or doesn't hurt Unisys' customers?
I, for one, and probably one of the few on Slashdot, applaud Unisys for their business model. It is not harsh to the freeware community (the GIMP can still develop using GIF LZW technology so long as they don't profit from it) and they still can make money off the $400 graphics suites like Photoshop. I can think of companies that have been less sympathetic to non-profit and not-for-profit organizations.
Quit your complaining! The entire world does not need to be free to be perfect.
Amazingly, while people in Slashdot are bitching and moaning about how their privacy is being washed down the drain by the FBI's ability to wiretap their phones, millions of Americans are actually welcoming such privacy-removing efforts. The Slashdot contention that most Americans don't know what the FBI is capable of is actually quite a bit of exaggeration. Most Americans actually choose to diminish their privacy for security in the way of home security systems (which are presided over 24/7). Even ISPs keep information on their customers, yet no one seems to mind. In fact, if you called an ISP expecting them to have logs of the time period during which malicious activity occurred to you and they didn't, I bet you'd be furious. I know I would. How is that any different? Most likely, the customer doesn't know all his data is being tracked.
People need to get used to a different kind of privacy. The world is watching everything you do. It's not just the government. Private companies, the mob, anyone with just a little bit of money and access to the resources can do a bit of tracing. Where the citizen needs to keep a watchful eye is at the usage level. FBI wiretaps should not be used in illegal manners. That's simply it. If some FBI clerk wants to tape my conversations with my girlfriend in which I spout off against the President, the NSA, and then start talking dirty. So be it. My neighbor in the room next door can hear it, too. Just don't expect to try to bend the laws to make me into a criminal for doing it. And that rests in the hands of the court.
Just because Carl Sagan was one of the founders of extra-terrestrial awareness and happened to do drugs doesn't make drug use "correct". You can hold him up as a pillar of the community and say, "See, he did it!" or you can respect the laws of whatever country you are in and abide by them while trying to change them. All this proves is that Carl Sagan was human. He had his virtues and he had his vices, just like every other human. Somehow, I don't think that when Carl Sagan was in public, giving his speeches, promoting his ideals and preaching his message that he was stoned, or that those ideas were a result of marijuana's influence. Marijuana didn't expand his concept of the universe, and the geek community shouldn't hold Sagan up as proof that marijuana can benefit society.
One of the characteristics of Art is that it challenges those who encounter it to see the world in new ways.
/not/ art any more than is the process of making a half-mixed bowl of porridge. A process may be interesting and it may challenge the mind, but I dare not call it art as it cheapens the hard work and effort that design has produced over the years.
Since when was this a characteristic of art? The overgeneralization of what exactly 'art' refers to is what has primarily lead to the downfall of art within society over the past fifty years. It's comments and ideas such as this that have led 'artists' to put toilets under plastic bubbles and then sell it for millions of dollars as 'art'.
And I guess that kind of solidifies my opinion on the whole matter. The Open Source movement is
I dunno if it's just the OS movement inflating it's own ego, but I've seen the most ridiculous applications of the open-source moniker lately, and now, I'm beginning to see the most ridiculous applications of other concepts to the open-source ideal.
As I learned in a real art class, the easiest way to completely destory a concept is to try and compare it to something else rather than evaluating it on it's own ground.