So why do you support a Republican bill that stifles competition, in favor of giving ISPs more control over the content they deliver?
Probably the same reason you keep beating your wife.
I don't support a "Republican bill that stifles competition", I supported Republicans stifling a Democrat amendment that would have done more harm than good, and did nothing about competition. The amendment would not have created a single ISP, indeed it would probably - by making it more difficult to create enhanced services that benefit both content producers and end users - have helped throw a few more to the wall.
We need more competition. That means reversing the FCC's withdrawl of some open access policies for ILECs. It means creating similar provisions for cable networks, especially where those cable networks benefit from monopoly-imposing local government franchise agreements. It means encouraging 3G. And it means creating minimum standards of service that make it possible for end users to compare ISPs and not get bitten by hidden gotchas.
It's hard to see how an amendment that effectively limits ISPs ability to provide enhanced services without charging customers an arm and a leg helps competition. I'd say it's positively idiotic.
Well, this bill was to support the idea that "no external entity should suffer discrimination when trying to get their packets to me"
Correct.
This law had nothing to do with providers charging more for a T3 over a T1 for a web-service company.
Correct, and irrelevent.
That would be brain dead to argue against.
Nobody even raised the issue.
This was about network neutrality: that *infrastructure* companies can pick-and-choose what content you can get to and what content you cant (and what content is so damn slow you won't ever use it).
Erm, nope. It's about getting packets, it had nothing to do with content.
And it prevents ISPs from offering enhanced bandwidth services to third parties who want to pay more. If I pay for a 1.5Mbps connection, and my ISP effectively turns it into a 5Mbps connection every time Apple wants to stream me a movie, then clearly the ISP is engaging in "discrimination" in that other third parties aren't getting that kind of bandwidth. I fail to see what would be wrong with such a situation. Yet NN proponents want it banned.
There's no evidence that that's the case. All they want, right now, is a business model that allows them to get revenues from both content providers and consumers. Right now, they have to claw back pretty much all revenues from consumers. All bandwidth upgrades have to be paid for, directly, by consumers, who are given an arbitrary number that somehow relates to the performance of the connection, but only slightly, and just know that they occasionally need a faster connection.
We're essentially using a worse model of the Internet that telephony had before the 1970s. The "800" number doesn't exist. Whereas some telephony services were metered before the 1970s allowing some degree of accountability to customers to ensure their usage wasn't excessive, we don't even have that with DSL and cable. The worst thing that could happen right now are traffic charges or service caps, and proponents of "network neutrality" are moving us in that direction.
Those arguing for network neutrality are going too far. It's not that I object to the principle that, if the user pays for a service of quality X, they should get X across the board; I absolutely agree with that, and that's why I argued for minimum service levels. Laws proposing restrictions on the ability of ISPs to offer enhanced bandwidth services of every type to third parties do not gel with getting minimum service levels, they fight against it.
Naive. That's not how it works. Your internet connection is not getting any faster because of Apple (or whoever) paying.
I have absolutely no idea why you've been modded up. I propose a service, and you say my service isn't "how it works"? How what works?
My proposed service works exactly the way I proposed it. By definition. And like I said, if you propose bans against what we don't want, it's hard to get services like the one I proposed, which is something I do want, to comply with such a law.
It's not about MY 1.5MBps on the cable that runs to my home, it's about the unknown amount of bandwidth I am sharing with an unknown number of other subscribers, on a bigger cable somewhere downstream.
No, it really is about your 1.5MBps. There's no way of formulating a law to target the abuses you're suggesting might happen without it also banning outright the kinds of services I'm proposing. This is why I'm proposing the government's legitimate role should be to propose minimum levels of service. That way, yes, you get your 1.5MBps at 1:10 (or whatever) contention. But you don't prevent ISPs from offering improved bandwidth services to service providers.
I'm not saying that abuses of network access aren't on the horizon. Far from it. It just strikes me that many of the proponents of "network neutrality" are taking the principle too far, aren't looking at the potential benefits of third parties being able to pay for enhanced access, and aren't necessarily that concerned about more important issues fixed first.
It is absolutely right that if I pay for a 1.5Mbps connection to my home, that no external entity should suffer discrimination when trying to get their packets to me (assuming that's my choice - and in some cases, I should be made to make an explicit choice, about letting people access all my ports, for instance. I have no problems with an ISP, by default (but only while the subscriber consents) blocking ports commonly used for hacking.
But at the same time, I don't necessarily see a problem with external entities being able to pay my ISP for better access. If when Apple wants to send me a file, they're able to pay Earthlink such that the data they send isn't part of the 1.5Mbps, but counts as additional bandwidth, then that works to both of our advantages. I can still communicate with Wikipedia, Google, et al, at 1.5Mbps while my family watches a streamed movie from the iTunes Movie Store in the living room. That's not bad at all.
But it's not "network neutrality", or more importantly, it's hard to word a network neutrality law that would allow this kind of flexibility.If you allow this kind of flexibility, then what stops an ISP offering only a basic 256kbps service in an area, without offering better packages, knowing full well this is "fast enough" for basic web browsing, and that it immediately confers an advantage on those third parties that pay the ISP for better access? This would infuriate the network neutrality people, yet neatly bypass the laws that would allow the scenario I gave.
Right now we need better standards and more competition. I would much rather see government pass laws proposing minimum levels of service than try to force ISPs to not provide services that in many cases are in the best interests of everyone.
I haven't ever really understood what the RIAA hopes to achieve from all their lawsuits and extortion rackets,
Just "lawsuits". The only "extortion" they're doing is going around people who are guilty of copyright infringment against their members, and negotiating relatively cheap (compared to the fines you'd suffer if they took you to court) out of court settlements. This is usual, "out of court" is generally not refered to as "extortion" outside of the lunatic pro-piracy fringe, it's actually pretty usual and beneficial to both parties.
I mean all they are doing is alienating their core market the way they have been going recently I can't wait for someone to make a stand against them in court.
The RIAA's core market consists of the music publishers who are concerned about copyright infringement and the negative affects it has on their business. By initiating lawsuits against those who willfully, without the consent of the copyright holders, infringe copyrights, it's hard to see how they're "alienating their core market". They might possibly alienate the core market of their customers/members, only those whining about these lawsuits have been very careful to blame the RIAA for them, not, say, "Sony's representatives" or even "Metallica's publisher and its representatives".
And it would be questionable even if they did. The RIAA is acting like a private police force, in some senses, only with relatively little power. Suppose it was the real police, the FBI perhaps, responding to complaints of copyright infringement. Then what? Would Metallica or Sony suddenly get the blame?
If we use a more clear example of an unfair law: suppose a landlord tells the cops he doesn't want his residents smoking dope any more. Does the landlord get the blame for the bust? Rarely, it's generally the cops and the government who do.
I download music from the internet quite frequently, if I like the song I have downloaded I will usually buy the album if I don't like it I delete it, does this mean I am commiting a crime?
Possibly, and it strikes me as likely, unless you're vetting your downloads, that you're guilty of copyright infringement which can be a crime, but is more often a civil matter. The key is that the copyright holders haven't given consent for this. You may feel you're doing them a favour, but they either don't feel the same way, or feel that the net effect of the consequences of you being allowed to do what you do is negative for them. That is, the infrastructure you're contributing to may result in you buying more CDs, but it may be that the existance of the infrastructure means a lot of people don't, and that, overall, more people will end up buying less than can be made up for by people buying more. Who are you to say they're wrong? Or to force them to engage in your particular choice of marketing scheme simply because you happen to buy CDs.
In the end, if a copyright holder wants to use free MP3s as a marketing system, they have that ability anyway. Look at most major band websites, and a great many have free downloads available. Hell, I recall going through most of Garbage's *videos* only a few months ago - free for viewing and listening to on their website.
The current law says "If you create something new and wonderful, we'll give you limited control over how its copied and distributed so you have a chance to make money from it to cover the costs of making it." Nothing forces anyone to buy into that law. Listeners can act like works that rely upon the law were never invented and never listen to them. Music creators can always put music into the public domain, or else make use of the myriad of distribution systems available today, should they chose. There's little excuse for copyright infringement of the type we're talking about today. And, quite honesty, in 2006, if you're being sued for distributing someone else's work on a network that makes them available to millions of anonymous strangers, then you only have yourself to blame.
Because your bottomless cup of coffee doesn't run many games, and Folgers does?
Because sometimes people send you attachments containing stuff you need in formats only readable by stuff that requires Folgers?
Because you use Folgers at work, and have to take your work home occasionally, and the bottomless cup of coffee is actually incompatable with that? (Actually, I find that an advantage, people don't generally make me work from home, but not all employers are so, ah, "reasonable")
The FSF boycott of them ended years ago; while they continue to file patents, they're not using them aggressively (presumably, like many other companies, they're filing them for defensive purposes.) If they start up again trying to enforce the patents against companies that aren't trying similar tactics against them, then yeah, we should treat them as scum, but right now I'd see it as buying a book on security from a bookshop owned by a former thief.
Regular stores are pretty good too. Usually new CDs are around the $10-15 range. I'm sure the three-CD Best Of Pink Floyd album costs a little over $20, but it's the exception.
DVDs aren't that expensive either. As long as you don't buy them the day they come out, you can usually get recent releases in that range, and almost everything else for less than $10. That said, DVDs should cost less given the money to pay for the production of the movies is made at the box office in 99% of cases, whereas CDs not only have to pay for the production costs, but they rarely even cover that.
Mod me down, -6 Flamebait but actually right, you know you want to.
The state is as much a governing entity as the federal government
That doesn't change the point. The government serves people, not states. The fact a state is a governing entity does not make it "people".
They both serve the needs of the people.
That underlines the point. The Federal government, as with the state, is supposed to serve the people. They both need to be answerable to the people. By biasing the representation so that the views of those in less populous states are more important than those in larger states, the Federal government is not representing "the people", it's representing the land.
Some federal functions require equal representation for each state rather than by population.
It's hard to come up with a legitimate set of circumstances in which equal representation per state is required for a state to receive legitimate support from the Federal government.
Remember, the United States of America is a Union of States, not a Union of Individuals.
Nonetheless, the Federal Government is a government that passes law that affect people. The governed, the people, should have an equal say in what those laws are.
It doesn't have to do with the land. It has to do with the states which are political constructs.
Last time I looked, States have borders. In any case, the comment that somehow it's more legitimate to represent theoretical structures (political constructs) than people is just as bad as representing land.
The Electoral College is intended to give more power to smaller states in order to ensure that their interests are represented. Otherwise, the entire nation would bow to New York's interests. It was designed that way.
Why would the entire nation bow to *New York's* interests?
Unless you're under the illusion that New York (or some similar state) contains 51% of the population?
And if it did, what of it? If more people, that is, the actual entities affected by the law, live in one area, then why exactly, pray, should their votes be devalued? Is land sentient? Is the purpose of government to work for the people it governs, or for the ground they live upon?
Oh hush now. If there were any problems with DRM, we'd have seen them with DVDs which are controlled using CSS, a version of DRM, and Hollywood would be releasing "online" versions of movies to counter massive file trading, for example. Fortunately, that reality doesn't exist. CSS was never cracked, and you can't download movies via P2P networks.
with a name like "Pirate Party". Certainly it does no harm whatsoever to the cause of copyright reform internationally to associate everyone who wants copyright law liberalized a little with wanton copyright infringers.
(The word "sarcasm" appears in this sentence for the 20% of Slashdotters who never recognize it when it appears.)
I read Britannica's "response" and must admit I nearly stopped reading after the following:
Anyone who read the article with even a modicum of care would have noticed a discrepancy between the headline and the data themselves. While the heading proclaimed that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries," the numbers buried deep in the body of the article said precisely the opposite: Wikipedia in fact had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica.
This is changing the subject. Instead of measuring accuracies, as the headline does, Britannica finds a way of slanting the information, by using "inaccuracies", a figure that is a smaller percentage, to make it look like Wikipedia is awful in comparison. This, to me, undermines Britannica's credibility far more than anything Nature may or may not have "proven". It suggests they can't even fact check their own responses to comments about accuracy, or else are deliberately trying to mislead.
For those who are looking at the above wondering "Huh?", remember that if one person has three errors, and the other has four, then the other has "a third more errors" than the first. That means the difference between 96% and 97% accurate is "a third more errors" - but most people would look at the two figures and, rightly, say they're very close. In Nature's case, the headline appears to be accurate, and Britannica, in suggesting otherwise on this basis, is engaging in sophistry.
Britannica then goes on to claim many of the facts Nature depended upon were false. That may be true, but claims like the above suggest Britannica itself is more than willing to massage the facts, and for an organization that's dependent upon its own credibility, that's actually devastating.
Some Cellphone companies are worse than Apple or MSFT when it comes to vendor lock-in. The two services you mentioned come from Verizon Wireless, not Cingular. Cingular isn't a completely liberal company, but it's a hell of a lot better than Verizon Wireless who've been known to ask for firmware changes that force customization of phones to be done over the cellular network (=$ airtime revenue for Verizon), amongst other things.
I'm 90% sure that if they put a radio in the iPod, they wouldn't disable the MP3 playing functionality or force the radio to play at the same time as the music you select. So you'd still not "have to listen to the radio".
Personally I think he's wrong but not for the reasons you mention. What's needed is a "managed" language, not a "modern" language. Managed languages have existed almost since high level languages were invented, indeed, for the most part, we did a bad (if necessary at the time) thing during the late sixties to the mid-nineties when languages started to allow us to do unmanaged things.
Examples of managed languages include Java and C#, Pascal and the Modula series of languages (and Oberon, I guess), not to mention a great many interpreted languages like Python (as you mentioned), BASIC, LISP and its derivatives, SmallTalk, et al.
The first group of languages has performance comparable to C, C++, and Objective C. Some are cruder than others ("classic" Pascal is a PITA to work with, mainstream 1980s versions had to massively extend it to get it to work, frequently ending up discarding management along the way), others, like Java, currently suffer from the way they're currently packaged (but see GCJ), but all essentially prevent you from making basic mistakes and provide a level of code security that, arguably, makes hardware memory protection obsolete.
I'm not going to argue they're perfect. Java suffers from its designers obsessions with discouraging the use of native APIs in the name of half-arsed "portability", and both it and C# require substantial run-times for much the same reason. At the same time, when you use either, the level of security you get is much, much, better, with it being much more difficult for a bug in one piece of code to corrupt another in an exploitable way.
I love C, I really do. I've programmed it since the late eighties. I've amazed myself with some of the stuff I've done. But, with hindsight, while we probably couldn't have gotten here today without the experimentation and lack of restrictions it did for us, it's also the case we've had to end up with vastly inefficient computer and operating system designs and our current problems with security are manifested in our decisions to base our entire computer infrastructures on that language. Much as I hated it at University, with hindsight I think Modula 2 and its object oriented successors would have been a better choice. And now that Java and C# have momentum, it's time to jump on board with both feet.
You think this is bad? Microsoft says Vista will need a "modern" CPU. That means it should run on a Power Macintosh G5 right? Well, if you click on that link you get to this, which in turn gives you links to Intel, AMD, and VIA CPU thingies. And what are these CPUs that, say, Intel (I think it says "Intel inside" on my Dell, but doesn't that mean I have a Dell CPU?) has? Well, on "Desktop" platforms (another link) it says I need a "Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 600 sequence with HT Technology and Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology."
I don't know about you but all this stuff about HT Technology and stuff is very confusing. Do I have that?
This just proves that Vista is unready for the desktop. I guess that's why they cancelled it. Har har! Har har. Har, har. *sigh*
Seriously, what exactly is DesktopBSD's website supposed to say? The thing you quote seems reasonable to me, anyone who doesn't understand it is unlikely to find any way of wording it useful anyway, unless it was worded in such a way that'd make it useless to an actual computer professional.
It's not like they'll be installing it. They'll be asking us to do it, as usual.
Maybe the fact IE users have to click extra to make the flash movie play will convince them to stop using IE?
Sorry, but how so?
It looks to me like this change has next to no downsides. This is what's only available as an extention (Flashblock) in Mozilla/Firefox, and then only for Flash. This change will make IE more usable, not less.
I would suggest Rhapsody to Mac OS X 10.2 is probably a better comparison.
The GUI is completely overhauled, implementing proper hardware-based 3D at a basic user interface level. (similar to the introduction of Quartz/QE)
They're implementing completely new APIs such as XAML/Avalon (similar to the introduction of Carbon into Mac OS X)
It took Apple something like five years to get to that point. Vista's pretty ambitious, I don't think Microsoft ever realised how much. The surprise, in some ways, is that it's only being delayed by a couple of months, especially, as I understand it, Vista is actually more of a decendent of NT 5.0 (W2000) than NT5.1 (XP) so there's a degree of re-inventing the wheel that's going on too.
The median is just the middle number of the series (not middle number of the unique possible numbers.) So in the series:
0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 is the median. Because it's the number directly in the middle.
(Otherwise the median would be kind of useless. It would end up being biased towards the end of the number range that has the largest number of variances.)
No, he's refering to the operating system "A" combined with the "C" kernel. It's pretty logical to be honest, and it avoids insult to the thousands of developers of A whose work would be forgotten if it was all named after some crappy programming language that happened to write a kernel of its own.
You do know that the fact US law says one thing doesn't mean UK law says the opposite, right?
Under UK law, yes, you do have to take action to protect a trademark. This is why Private Eye regularly gets (and publishes) letters from lawyers about uses of terms like "Biro", "Hoover", and "Filofax" as generics. Even Whole Earth sent them such a letter.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't support a "Republican bill that stifles competition", I supported Republicans stifling a Democrat amendment that would have done more harm than good, and did nothing about competition. The amendment would not have created a single ISP, indeed it would probably - by making it more difficult to create enhanced services that benefit both content producers and end users - have helped throw a few more to the wall.
We need more competition. That means reversing the FCC's withdrawl of some open access policies for ILECs. It means creating similar provisions for cable networks, especially where those cable networks benefit from monopoly-imposing local government franchise agreements. It means encouraging 3G. And it means creating minimum standards of service that make it possible for end users to compare ISPs and not get bitten by hidden gotchas.
It's hard to see how an amendment that effectively limits ISPs ability to provide enhanced services without charging customers an arm and a leg helps competition. I'd say it's positively idiotic.
And it prevents ISPs from offering enhanced bandwidth services to third parties who want to pay more. If I pay for a 1.5Mbps connection, and my ISP effectively turns it into a 5Mbps connection every time Apple wants to stream me a movie, then clearly the ISP is engaging in "discrimination" in that other third parties aren't getting that kind of bandwidth. I fail to see what would be wrong with such a situation. Yet NN proponents want it banned.
We're essentially using a worse model of the Internet that telephony had before the 1970s. The "800" number doesn't exist. Whereas some telephony services were metered before the 1970s allowing some degree of accountability to customers to ensure their usage wasn't excessive, we don't even have that with DSL and cable. The worst thing that could happen right now are traffic charges or service caps, and proponents of "network neutrality" are moving us in that direction.
Those arguing for network neutrality are going too far. It's not that I object to the principle that, if the user pays for a service of quality X, they should get X across the board; I absolutely agree with that, and that's why I argued for minimum service levels. Laws proposing restrictions on the ability of ISPs to offer enhanced bandwidth services of every type to third parties do not gel with getting minimum service levels, they fight against it.
My proposed service works exactly the way I proposed it. By definition. And like I said, if you propose bans against what we don't want, it's hard to get services like the one I proposed, which is something I do want, to comply with such a law.
No, it really is about your 1.5MBps. There's no way of formulating a law to target the abuses you're suggesting might happen without it also banning outright the kinds of services I'm proposing. This is why I'm proposing the government's legitimate role should be to propose minimum levels of service. That way, yes, you get your 1.5MBps at 1:10 (or whatever) contention. But you don't prevent ISPs from offering improved bandwidth services to service providers.I'm not saying that abuses of network access aren't on the horizon. Far from it. It just strikes me that many of the proponents of "network neutrality" are taking the principle too far, aren't looking at the potential benefits of third parties being able to pay for enhanced access, and aren't necessarily that concerned about more important issues fixed first.
It is absolutely right that if I pay for a 1.5Mbps connection to my home, that no external entity should suffer discrimination when trying to get their packets to me (assuming that's my choice - and in some cases, I should be made to make an explicit choice, about letting people access all my ports, for instance. I have no problems with an ISP, by default (but only while the subscriber consents) blocking ports commonly used for hacking.
But at the same time, I don't necessarily see a problem with external entities being able to pay my ISP for better access. If when Apple wants to send me a file, they're able to pay Earthlink such that the data they send isn't part of the 1.5Mbps, but counts as additional bandwidth, then that works to both of our advantages. I can still communicate with Wikipedia, Google, et al, at 1.5Mbps while my family watches a streamed movie from the iTunes Movie Store in the living room. That's not bad at all.
But it's not "network neutrality", or more importantly, it's hard to word a network neutrality law that would allow this kind of flexibility.If you allow this kind of flexibility, then what stops an ISP offering only a basic 256kbps service in an area, without offering better packages, knowing full well this is "fast enough" for basic web browsing, and that it immediately confers an advantage on those third parties that pay the ISP for better access? This would infuriate the network neutrality people, yet neatly bypass the laws that would allow the scenario I gave.
Right now we need better standards and more competition. I would much rather see government pass laws proposing minimum levels of service than try to force ISPs to not provide services that in many cases are in the best interests of everyone.
And it would be questionable even if they did. The RIAA is acting like a private police force, in some senses, only with relatively little power. Suppose it was the real police, the FBI perhaps, responding to complaints of copyright infringement. Then what? Would Metallica or Sony suddenly get the blame?
If we use a more clear example of an unfair law: suppose a landlord tells the cops he doesn't want his residents smoking dope any more. Does the landlord get the blame for the bust? Rarely, it's generally the cops and the government who do.
Possibly, and it strikes me as likely, unless you're vetting your downloads, that you're guilty of copyright infringement which can be a crime, but is more often a civil matter. The key is that the copyright holders haven't given consent for this. You may feel you're doing them a favour, but they either don't feel the same way, or feel that the net effect of the consequences of you being allowed to do what you do is negative for them. That is, the infrastructure you're contributing to may result in you buying more CDs, but it may be that the existance of the infrastructure means a lot of people don't, and that, overall, more people will end up buying less than can be made up for by people buying more. Who are you to say they're wrong? Or to force them to engage in your particular choice of marketing scheme simply because you happen to buy CDs.In the end, if a copyright holder wants to use free MP3s as a marketing system, they have that ability anyway. Look at most major band websites, and a great many have free downloads available. Hell, I recall going through most of Garbage's *videos* only a few months ago - free for viewing and listening to on their website.
The current law says "If you create something new and wonderful, we'll give you limited control over how its copied and distributed so you have a chance to make money from it to cover the costs of making it." Nothing forces anyone to buy into that law. Listeners can act like works that rely upon the law were never invented and never listen to them. Music creators can always put music into the public domain, or else make use of the myriad of distribution systems available today, should they chose. There's little excuse for copyright infringement of the type we're talking about today. And, quite honesty, in 2006, if you're being sued for distributing someone else's work on a network that makes them available to millions of anonymous strangers, then you only have yourself to blame.
Because sometimes people send you attachments containing stuff you need in formats only readable by stuff that requires Folgers?
Because you use Folgers at work, and have to take your work home occasionally, and the bottomless cup of coffee is actually incompatable with that? (Actually, I find that an advantage, people don't generally make me work from home, but not all employers are so, ah, "reasonable")
The FSF boycott of them ended years ago; while they continue to file patents, they're not using them aggressively (presumably, like many other companies, they're filing them for defensive purposes.) If they start up again trying to enforce the patents against companies that aren't trying similar tactics against them, then yeah, we should treat them as scum, but right now I'd see it as buying a book on security from a bookshop owned by a former thief.
DVDs aren't that expensive either. As long as you don't buy them the day they come out, you can usually get recent releases in that range, and almost everything else for less than $10. That said, DVDs should cost less given the money to pay for the production of the movies is made at the box office in 99% of cases, whereas CDs not only have to pay for the production costs, but they rarely even cover that.
Mod me down, -6 Flamebait but actually right, you know you want to.
Which is what representing States is.
Unless you're under the illusion that New York (or some similar state) contains 51% of the population?
And if it did, what of it? If more people, that is, the actual entities affected by the law, live in one area, then why exactly, pray, should their votes be devalued? Is land sentient? Is the purpose of government to work for the people it governs, or for the ground they live upon?
Oh hush now. If there were any problems with DRM, we'd have seen them with DVDs which are controlled using CSS, a version of DRM, and Hollywood would be releasing "online" versions of movies to counter massive file trading, for example. Fortunately, that reality doesn't exist. CSS was never cracked, and you can't download movies via P2P networks.
(The word "sarcasm" appears in this sentence for the 20% of Slashdotters who never recognize it when it appears.)
For those who are looking at the above wondering "Huh?", remember that if one person has three errors, and the other has four, then the other has "a third more errors" than the first. That means the difference between 96% and 97% accurate is "a third more errors" - but most people would look at the two figures and, rightly, say they're very close. In Nature's case, the headline appears to be accurate, and Britannica, in suggesting otherwise on this basis, is engaging in sophistry.
Britannica then goes on to claim many of the facts Nature depended upon were false. That may be true, but claims like the above suggest Britannica itself is more than willing to massage the facts, and for an organization that's dependent upon its own credibility, that's actually devastating.
I wish I had mod-points today. That's an absolutely excellent comparison.
Some Cellphone companies are worse than Apple or MSFT when it comes to vendor lock-in. The two services you mentioned come from Verizon Wireless, not Cingular. Cingular isn't a completely liberal company, but it's a hell of a lot better than Verizon Wireless who've been known to ask for firmware changes that force customization of phones to be done over the cellular network (=$ airtime revenue for Verizon), amongst other things.
I'm 90% sure that if they put a radio in the iPod, they wouldn't disable the MP3 playing functionality or force the radio to play at the same time as the music you select. So you'd still not "have to listen to the radio".
Personally I think he's wrong but not for the reasons you mention. What's needed is a "managed" language, not a "modern" language. Managed languages have existed almost since high level languages were invented, indeed, for the most part, we did a bad (if necessary at the time) thing during the late sixties to the mid-nineties when languages started to allow us to do unmanaged things.
Examples of managed languages include Java and C#, Pascal and the Modula series of languages (and Oberon, I guess), not to mention a great many interpreted languages like Python (as you mentioned), BASIC, LISP and its derivatives, SmallTalk, et al.
The first group of languages has performance comparable to C, C++, and Objective C. Some are cruder than others ("classic" Pascal is a PITA to work with, mainstream 1980s versions had to massively extend it to get it to work, frequently ending up discarding management along the way), others, like Java, currently suffer from the way they're currently packaged (but see GCJ), but all essentially prevent you from making basic mistakes and provide a level of code security that, arguably, makes hardware memory protection obsolete.
I'm not going to argue they're perfect. Java suffers from its designers obsessions with discouraging the use of native APIs in the name of half-arsed "portability", and both it and C# require substantial run-times for much the same reason. At the same time, when you use either, the level of security you get is much, much, better, with it being much more difficult for a bug in one piece of code to corrupt another in an exploitable way.
I love C, I really do. I've programmed it since the late eighties. I've amazed myself with some of the stuff I've done. But, with hindsight, while we probably couldn't have gotten here today without the experimentation and lack of restrictions it did for us, it's also the case we've had to end up with vastly inefficient computer and operating system designs and our current problems with security are manifested in our decisions to base our entire computer infrastructures on that language. Much as I hated it at University, with hindsight I think Modula 2 and its object oriented successors would have been a better choice. And now that Java and C# have momentum, it's time to jump on board with both feet.
I don't know about you but all this stuff about HT Technology and stuff is very confusing. Do I have that?
This just proves that Vista is unready for the desktop. I guess that's why they cancelled it. Har har! Har har. Har, har. *sigh*
Seriously, what exactly is DesktopBSD's website supposed to say? The thing you quote seems reasonable to me, anyone who doesn't understand it is unlikely to find any way of wording it useful anyway, unless it was worded in such a way that'd make it useless to an actual computer professional.
It's not like they'll be installing it. They'll be asking us to do it, as usual.
It looks to me like this change has next to no downsides. This is what's only available as an extention (Flashblock) in Mozilla/Firefox, and then only for Flash. This change will make IE more usable, not less.
The GUI is completely overhauled, implementing proper hardware-based 3D at a basic user interface level. (similar to the introduction of Quartz/QE)
They're implementing completely new APIs such as XAML/Avalon (similar to the introduction of Carbon into Mac OS X)
It took Apple something like five years to get to that point. Vista's pretty ambitious, I don't think Microsoft ever realised how much. The surprise, in some ways, is that it's only being delayed by a couple of months, especially, as I understand it, Vista is actually more of a decendent of NT 5.0 (W2000) than NT5.1 (XP) so there's a degree of re-inventing the wheel that's going on too.
The median is just the middle number of the series (not middle number of the unique possible numbers.) So in the series:
0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 is the median. Because it's the number directly in the middle.
(Otherwise the median would be kind of useless. It would end up being biased towards the end of the number range that has the largest number of variances.)
Confused? Not as much as me.
Under UK law, yes, you do have to take action to protect a trademark. This is why Private Eye regularly gets (and publishes) letters from lawyers about uses of terms like "Biro", "Hoover", and "Filofax" as generics. Even Whole Earth sent them such a letter.