Interesting. I'd never thought of this... comparing (a) a $20,000 investment put into a financial instrument(s) vs. (b) an annuity based on the savings of electrical power. The general rule about the accumulationg from such things being greater the bigger the initial principal is would seem to indicate that (a) would win out.
Of course, that leaves aside the complexity of calculating costs to the environment and taxing of resources. That's the problem with these things... we can shove costs onto the commons, and we get all sorts of problems...
BRUCE: I'm going to violate the DMCA on stage HP: Please don't. It would sortof reflect badly on us, and could cause trouble. BRUCE: Well... OK.
HP: We're going to sue the pants off of anyone who reveals Tru64 vulnerabilities using the DMCA! BRUCE: Please don't. This reflects badly on us, and could cause all sorts of trouble. HP: Well... OK.
The following principles are the basis on which congress is making laws like this. Anyone got any stats, articles, papers that can refute them?
Congress finds that--
(1) American innovation, and the protection of that innovation by the government, has been a critical component of the economic growth of this Nation throughout the history of the Nation;
(2) copyright-based industries represent one of the most valuable economic assets of this country, contributing over 5 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States and creating significant job growth and tax revenues;
(3) the American intellectual property sector employs approximately 4,300,000 people, representing over 3 percent of total United States employment;
(4) the proliferation of organized criminal counterfeiting enterprises threatens the economic growth of United States copyright industries;
(5) the American intellectual property sector has invested millions of dollars to develop highly sophisticated authentication features that assist consumers and law enforcement in distinguishing genuine intellectual property products and packaging from counterfeits;
(6) in order to thwart these industry efforts, counterfeiters traffic in, and tamper with, genuine authentication features, for example, by obtaining genuine authentication features through illicit means and then commingling these features with counterfeit software or packaging;
(7) Federal law does not provide adequate civil and criminal remedies to combat tampering activities that directly facilitate counterfeiting crimes; and
(8) in order to strengthen Federal enforcement against counterfeiting of copyrighted works, Congress must enact legislation that--
(A) prohibits trafficking in, and tampering with, authentication features of copyrighted works; and
(B) permits aggrieved parties an appropriate civil cause of action.
.I really wish people would quit pretending that only "Those Evil Republicans(tm)" are owned and operated by Big Business.
In me, this idea comes from the fact that most of the republicans and other people I know on the rightish side of the political continuum tend to beleive that markets will solve most (if not all) problems. This ideology tends to favor those with lots of market power, ie, big business.
Assuming this means they have been bought is a classic logical error, of course.... a => b does not mean b => a. In this case, just because someone acts in the interest of big business, it does not mean they have been bought, despite the fact that those bought by big business will act in its interest.
(It's sortof like the Turing Test, and this is one of the big problems I have with the Turing Test. a (a consciousness with the ability to communicate) => b (ability to convince another consciousness of its consciousness), but that doesn't mean b => a ).
Wouldn't it be interesting to see what an agrarian society comes up with when given information technology? They might go through industrialization to a service-based economy. They might do something we've never seen before.
Class Construction in C and C++ by Roger Sessions was the book that showed me that OOP was as much (or more) a design philosophy than a language feature. You learn to write your OO code first in plain C, and only then do you start getting any introduction to C++'s language feature. An excellent approach.
Since a lot of the discussion here is on the technical/coolness/usability merits of OS X, I think most of you may have missed the point of the article: the insightful analysis about how for Windows/x86 systems, the OS cost is becoming more and more of the total cost of the system. And more than that: how this kind of report is exactly the kind of thing that gets attention of managers, because it's a cost/benefit analysis. Not only that, but it's a big-picture, trend-based analysis. It gives some indication of what to expect in the future, it gives some indication of how to save now, and finally, since it's slightly non-obvious, it flatters those who understand it.
We need to get better at our advocacy. This is a prime example of how. That's the cool thing about this article.
Totally grid-free telecom. Say goodbye to dependency on large central organizations for communications.
No, I don't honestly think that the hand crank is good enough. But combine solar, human (on an exercise device, perhaps), and efficiency gains, and something like this might be possible.
Of course, no gain will probably power Central Air Conditioning, which seems an awful lot like an essential of life at the moment.... : |
There are a couple of local artists in Utah that seem to be doin' just fine for themselves. Peter Breinholt is the quintessential example.... he played a ton of shows, built up a following, produced his own records (from $3200 to $10,000 for the recordings), and sold them (at $10-$15 a pop). Since he's sold well over 10,000 copies on each of 4 almbums, he's not doing half bad. Certainly better than the musicians discussed by Steve Albini and Courtney Love. This leaves aside the 1,000-2,000+ seat venues that he consistently packs.
He testified at a field senate hearing a while back. He was pretty pro-P2P.... because he figures it's a high tech version of the same sort of word-of-mouth which won him local fame.
"So far," stated Breinholt, "my music has been a cottage industry. I paid for CDs to be made, found people to distribute them, designed covers, booked concert halls, took out ads in the paper... So I've stayed independant. That's not to say I'm anti-label...there's a lot a label could do to make my music available to more people. And if a fair deal came along, I might do it. I've just never seen a deal that would be fair to both parties." He spent some time delving into math of record deals, comparing his self-produced work (which makes $7-9 per CD sold) with that of a friend who went the label route (and makes $1 per CD sold, after all the record label's costs are covered, and doesn't own the rights to the CD anymore).
"It's a lot of work, but I like doing it. Not only that, but I think I understand my audience, and I get to be protective of them. I like being able to decide ticket prices for shows, who is goign to open for us, what the next CD will sound like, or how aggressively I'm willing to advertise," Breinholt said.
So there's your business model. Play and write like a maniac, keep the rights to your recordings so that when you sell copies, you actually see a couple of bucks.
Incidentally, Breinholt is not the only doing this. recently turned down a $250,000 recording contract because the terms sucked, but they seem to do just fine. Ryan Shupe and the Rubberband have won lots of attention at SXSW, and similarly sell out 1000+ venues on a regular basis, and have a couple of good recordings that people buy (even though they're really a jam band and mostly worth listening to live).
Or when have they ever claimed intellectual property in any other open (*cough* GL *cough*) standard? Or the GPL in general?
MS and Apple are different beasts, and concerned about different things... though they both do stupid things frequently, they both have an element of control-freak culture. The difference is that Apple's is balanced with taste, innovation, and an actual desire to satisfy the consumers in their market. Microsoft's is balanced with.... um.... give me a minute here..... nothing?
For some reason, whenver I try to CPAN anything else, the shell INSISTS on trying to update perl for me. I don't want perl updated. I just want my modules....
I can only of anecdotal evidence, but I know that several of my letters -- mostly emailed, a few typed -- have come to the attention of one of my Senators. I found this out when I later became acquainted with one of his staffers and he recognized my name from the correspondence (and if there's anything I've learned from that, it's to tone down any incensed fervor you have -- you're writing to human beings, remember, despite how easy it is to believe the contrary).
The other senator... well, he responds with a form letters, of course. Terribly appropriate. : )
Unleashing Perl on the newbie? This may not be the best idea.
I honestly don't know if there is really "a better way" (though of course there's more than one way to do it), but I just spent two days in utter frustration with various Perl problems. One of which I never actually got to the bottom of, and ended up coding around. I am now officially thinking of giving up Perl for Python or Ruby or Java or LISP or something.
I am not a perl newbie. I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I've been using perl and doing web development (C,C++,Java,Perl, PHP, and once, on a crazy night, even Prolog) since 1996, and developing software since 1994. And yet almost every time I use perl for anything more than 30 lines or so -- especially if it involves OO and packages -- I get caught by some gotcha or another.
Take this, for example. Did you know that LWP::UserAgent traps non-HTTP errors and then gives you a Code 500? So if, like me, you didn't have HTML::HeadParser installed on your machine, rather than simply telling you this is the problem, you might spend two hours trying to figure out why in the world you're getting a server 500 error when looking up http://www.google.com fails with LWP::UserAgent when the rest of your browsers can load it just fine.
That's the one I figured out. The one I couldn't figure out is why URI::URL worked just fine when I used it in the "main" namespace, but when I tried to use it inside a package I wrote myself (called from the "main" namespace, subclassing HTML::Parser), it kept telling me it couldn't find the ->host() method. After about 5 hours of scanning documentation, changing various @INC-related and other things, I decided it would be easier to just write my own URL package that did the subset of things I needed it to do (very glad Gisle Aas included that very nice regexp at the end of the perldoc documentation for URI that helped out, but still....). It was.
Too many hours spent trying to figure out why the straightforward behavior you expect isn't the behavior you get. That's the problem with Perl. The semantics of Perl are built to be easy in a few cases, and very expressive indeed if you know exactly what you're doing, but horribly full of traps for even the wary. Is there a language with the flexibility of Perl, and a greater clarity of expression? I don't know. But I'm looking. And in the meanwhile, I'm going to hold off suggesting perl to those I know who are looking to cross from content to code.
If you a member of a Linux Users Group, you really ought to print up some flyers and take a jaunt down to your local Wal-Mart (or Wal-Marts-- there are THREE within 15 miles of me for some strange reason) and speak with the manager of the computing/electronics department. Letting people know what kind of help/support is out there might be a good thing to do.
Of course, this assumes that not all members of your LUG are scary beyond all reason....
Also, just noted while perusing my "Library" directory that there's a directory called "Caches" and within that directory, a directory known as "Software Update Cache".... would this be where things were kept?
1) If you download a package, and for some reason, it doesn't install right off (any kind of error, or even if you're just not ready yet), Software Update FORGETS IT HAS DOWNLOADED IT. This is particularly frustrating when you have just downloaded an 18 MB package over your modem, and you have to do it again.
2) If you download part of a package, of course, it doesn't use any kind of smart downloading process to pick up where it left off. Arg.
3) What is this with everything requiring 300 MB to install 20 MB pieces of software? Sure, that's sneezing space for those of you with 40 GB drives, but some of us are still running mere 5 Gig machines.
The big problem with DRM is the dichotomy between trust and freedom.... if we're going to have signed code and signed media, there's going to have to be some barrier to getting signed. This signing, however, reduces the freedom to release code or media... in effect, restricting ALL expression, not just expression of copyrighted works or viruses.
And if history is any indication, what will the signatory barrier be? Just a "reasonable" fee...
The trust/freedom dichotomy is the biggie. If there were a way to resolve that -- perhaps the "2600 can sign things" idea mentioned -- letting DRM come is not a big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignore time value of money?
Interesting. I'd never thought of this... comparing (a) a $20,000 investment put into a financial instrument(s) vs. (b) an annuity based on the savings of electrical power. The general rule about the accumulationg from such things being greater the bigger the initial principal is would seem to indicate that (a) would win out.
Of course, that leaves aside the complexity of calculating costs to the environment and taxing of resources. That's the problem with these things... we can shove costs onto the commons, and we get all sorts of problems...
BRUCE: I'm going to violate the DMCA on stage
:)
HP: Please don't. It would sortof reflect badly on us, and could cause trouble.
BRUCE: Well... OK.
HP: We're going to sue the pants off of anyone who reveals Tru64 vulnerabilities using the DMCA!
BRUCE: Please don't. This reflects badly on us, and could cause all sorts of trouble.
HP: Well... OK.
Good to know everyone's getting along.
.I really wish people would quit pretending that only "Those Evil Republicans(tm)" are owned and operated by Big Business.
In me, this idea comes from the fact that most of the republicans and other people I know on the rightish side of the political continuum tend to beleive that markets will solve most (if not all) problems. This ideology tends to favor those with lots of market power, ie, big business.
Assuming this means they have been bought is a classic logical error, of course.... a => b does not mean b => a. In this case, just because someone acts in the interest of big business, it does not mean they have been bought, despite the fact that those bought by big business will act in its interest.
(It's sortof like the Turing Test, and this is one of the big problems I have with the Turing Test. a (a consciousness with the ability to communicate) => b (ability to convince another consciousness of its consciousness), but that doesn't mean b => a ).
Wouldn't it be interesting to see what an agrarian society comes up with when given information technology? They might go through industrialization to a service-based economy. They might do something we've never seen before.
What I want to know is when someone is going to write a book like "Python for Perl Programmers".
(Or, for the flamebait oriented folks, "Python for Perl Refugees".)
Maybe someone should coin Ianezz's law... RAM required for a computer gets 3 orders of magnitude every 2 decades.....
Class Construction in C and C++ by Roger Sessions was the book that showed me that OOP was as much (or more) a design philosophy than a language feature. You learn to write your OO code first in plain C, and only then do you start getting any introduction to C++'s language feature. An excellent approach.
Since a lot of the discussion here is on the technical/coolness/usability merits of OS X, I think most of you may have missed the point of the article: the insightful analysis about how for Windows/x86 systems, the OS cost is becoming more and more of the total cost of the system. And more than that: how this kind of report is exactly the kind of thing that gets attention of managers, because it's a cost/benefit analysis. Not only that, but it's a big-picture, trend-based analysis. It gives some indication of what to expect in the future, it gives some indication of how to save now, and finally, since it's slightly non-obvious, it flatters those who understand it.
We need to get better at our advocacy. This is a prime example of how. That's the cool thing about this article.
I don't believe the 84 Million figure is salary... more likely, it's performance or securities related.
Totally grid-free telecom. Say goodbye to dependency on large central organizations for communications.
No, I don't honestly think that the hand crank is good enough. But combine solar, human (on an exercise device, perhaps), and efficiency gains, and something like this might be possible.
Of course, no gain will probably power Central Air Conditioning, which seems an awful lot like an essential of life at the moment.... : |
There are a couple of local artists in Utah that seem to be doin' just fine for themselves. Peter Breinholt is the quintessential example.... he played a ton of shows, built up a following, produced his own records (from $3200 to $10,000 for the recordings), and sold them (at $10-$15 a pop). Since he's sold well over 10,000 copies on each of 4 almbums, he's not doing half bad. Certainly better than the musicians discussed by Steve Albini and Courtney Love. This leaves aside the 1,000-2,000+ seat venues that he consistently packs.
He testified at a field senate hearing a while back. He was pretty pro-P2P
Incidentally, Breinholt is not the only doing this. recently turned down a $250,000 recording contract because the terms sucked, but they seem to do just fine. Ryan Shupe and the Rubberband have won lots of attention at SXSW, and similarly sell out 1000+ venues on a regular basis, and have a couple of good recordings that people buy (even though they're really a jam band and mostly worth listening to live).
Pfffff. Don't you get it? We could make millions.... the real question is going to be if I can take the PRC's version and sell it for $2 per CD here.
Or when have they ever claimed intellectual property in any other open (*cough* GL *cough*) standard? Or the GPL in general?
MS and Apple are different beasts, and concerned about different things... though they both do stupid things frequently, they both have an element of control-freak culture. The difference is that Apple's is balanced with taste, innovation, and an actual desire to satisfy the consumers in their market. Microsoft's is balanced with.... um.... give me a minute here..... nothing?
I don't know. The headline I saw for the article series was called "The Cult of Linux."
Sounds like a half-decent handle on what slashdot is like anyway. : )
For some reason, whenver I try to CPAN anything else, the shell INSISTS on trying to update perl for me. I don't want perl updated. I just want my modules....
Any way to supress this?
If the patent has existed since 1986, doesn't it expire at the end of 2003?
I can only of anecdotal evidence, but I know that several of my letters -- mostly emailed, a few typed -- have come to the attention of one of my Senators. I found this out when I later became acquainted with one of his staffers and he recognized my name from the correspondence (and if there's anything I've learned from that, it's to tone down any incensed fervor you have -- you're writing to human beings, remember, despite how easy it is to believe the contrary).
The other senator... well, he responds with a form letters, of course. Terribly appropriate. : )
Unleashing Perl on the newbie? This may not be the best idea.
I honestly don't know if there is really "a better way" (though of course there's more than one way to do it), but I just spent two days in utter frustration with various Perl problems. One of which I never actually got to the bottom of, and ended up coding around. I am now officially thinking of giving up Perl for Python or Ruby or Java or LISP or something.
I am not a perl newbie. I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I've been using perl and doing web development (C,C++,Java,Perl, PHP, and once, on a crazy night, even Prolog) since 1996, and developing software since 1994. And yet almost every time I use perl for anything more than 30 lines or so -- especially if it involves OO and packages -- I get caught by some gotcha or another.
Take this, for example. Did you know that LWP::UserAgent traps non-HTTP errors and then gives you a Code 500? So if, like me, you didn't have HTML::HeadParser installed on your machine, rather than simply telling you this is the problem, you might spend two hours trying to figure out why in the world you're getting a server 500 error when looking up http://www.google.com fails with LWP::UserAgent when the rest of your browsers can load it just fine.
That's the one I figured out. The one I couldn't figure out is why URI::URL worked just fine when I used it in the "main" namespace, but when I tried to use it inside a package I wrote myself (called from the "main" namespace, subclassing HTML::Parser), it kept telling me it couldn't find the ->host() method. After about 5 hours of scanning documentation, changing various @INC-related and other things, I decided it would be easier to just write my own URL package that did the subset of things I needed it to do (very glad Gisle Aas included that very nice regexp at the end of the perldoc documentation for URI that helped out, but still....). It was.
Too many hours spent trying to figure out why the straightforward behavior you expect isn't the behavior you get. That's the problem with Perl. The semantics of Perl are built to be easy in a few cases, and very expressive indeed if you know exactly what you're doing, but horribly full of traps for even the wary. Is there a language with the flexibility of Perl, and a greater clarity of expression? I don't know. But I'm looking. And in the meanwhile, I'm going to hold off suggesting perl to those I know who are looking to cross from content to code.
If you a member of a Linux Users Group, you really ought to print up some flyers and take a jaunt down to your local Wal-Mart (or Wal-Marts-- there are THREE within 15 miles of me for some strange reason) and speak with the manager of the computing/electronics department. Letting people know what kind of help/support is out there might be a good thing to do.
Of course, this assumes that not all members of your LUG are scary beyond all reason....
Thank you!
Also, just noted while perusing my "Library" directory that there's a directory called "Caches" and within that directory, a directory known as "Software Update Cache".... would this be where things were kept?
1) If you download a package, and for some reason, it doesn't install right off (any kind of error, or even if you're just not ready yet), Software Update FORGETS IT HAS DOWNLOADED IT. This is particularly frustrating when you have just downloaded an 18 MB package over your modem, and you have to do it again.
2) If you download part of a package, of course, it doesn't use any kind of smart downloading process to pick up where it left off. Arg.
3) What is this with everything requiring 300 MB to install 20 MB pieces of software? Sure, that's sneezing space for those of you with 40 GB drives, but some of us are still running mere 5 Gig machines.
The big problem with DRM is the dichotomy between trust and freedom.... if we're going to have signed code and signed media, there's going to have to be some barrier to getting signed. This signing, however, reduces the freedom to release code or media... in effect, restricting ALL expression, not just expression of copyrighted works or viruses.
And if history is any indication, what will the signatory barrier be? Just a "reasonable" fee...
The trust/freedom dichotomy is the biggie. If there were a way to resolve that -- perhaps the "2600 can sign things" idea mentioned -- letting DRM come is not a big deal.
Damn, guess I'll never get back to the 2030's...
No, you'll just have to travel at 60 minutes/hour like the rest of us.
Besides, I hear society is going to collapse when the unix time type runs out in 2037 anyway....