You could compile it to machine code and run it native, or you could compile it into any number of intermediate languages and run it with an interpreter.
Why would you do the latter? For what advantage?
C isn't dead, C++ isn't dying..NET is the systems thats really stuggling.
"Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar, says that senior executives at the software giant had telephoned him about two months before the investment. "
Doesn't it sound like he's trying to explain away telephone call logs between Baystar and Microsoft?
"will need to demonstrate....that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed"
Not true, this was one of the things I didn't like. Its worded loosely here:
", in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm right holder, OR where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed"
Note the 'OR', its enough to show that a delay is likely to cause irreparable harm. They don't have to show there is a risk of evidence being destroyed.
It's not capitalism, capitalism is companies competing in an open marketplace.
The stuff they're passing is pure protectism, locking out competitors using Patents, Copyrights and DMCA extended trade secrets.
I'm not opposed to companies protecting their ideas by patents, but I do object when it's common knowlegde they patent!
I'm not opposed to protecting software with copyright and trade secret, but I object when its protected by copyright, trade secret, DMCA AND patents, all at the same time, even though patents and trade secrets are mutually exclusive!
I'm not opposed to record companies copyrighting their music, but FOR F*** SAKE, my kids will be dead by the time Britneys songs go out of copyright. Victorian lute music would still be under copyright if these bozos were in power in 1900.
You have to keep batting this drivel back.
Re:You don't need a totally unique ID for that
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
"If it isn't per instance, they might have problems identifying how many items."
Good point, but I was thinking in terms of groceries, where many items are not tagged (e.g. vegetables since they have to be weighed), so items would still have to be fed past a scanner rather than taken as a whole.
I can't help think all you need here is a privacy law to stop the shop collecting/saving/mining and selling all this info.
Contrived argument, doesn't stand up to analysis.
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
"...Our criminal then returns to the store, places the label on a 21" flat screen computer monitor that retails for $995 and proceed to the checkout counter."
The product name flashes up on the till, thats how the cashier knows you bought a flat screen TV and not a normal one.
As for the detergent, the barcode IS PART OF THE BOX not stuck on afterwards. So as soon as they reach for the box they know you stuck your own barcode on it.
"Consumer privacy advocates are concerned that the technology could be abused by retailers to track products from the store shelf to the individual's home. I say that the concerns voiced by the privacy advocates are unwarranted. "
The stores could have all the benefits simply by having the RFID identify the product TYPE and not each individual instance of the product without all the privacy problems.
You could also get the same benefits by implmenting a law protecting privacy to stop shops mining all this new found info they have.
Remember that the NYT article has a registration because NYT found it valuable to have information on its readers. Information has value, if you make information available to the shops, they will sell it. Do you want that?
Re:Knee-jerk Alarmists
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
You should have laws that stop shops linking the ID of the products to the ID of the customer. Its an unreasobable invasion of privacy.
If I stuck a tracking device on your car and sold the information to anyone who asked would you accept that? But its the same thing.
There's simply no reason the consumer should tolerate the down side of this thing, since there's no upside for them.
No it won't let you go through the checkout faster, because not everything in your basket will have a tag (Lettuce?, how many kilos of Apples?), so your groceries will always have to be checked anyway.
Its nothing to do with tin foil and paranoia, customer profiling will always work against the customer, since the shops are in business to milk the maximum amount of money out of you.
They can do that by identifying what you MUST buy, and charging the maximum you are able to pay, for that they need customer profiling.
You don't need a totally unique ID for that
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"But How does it benifit the end user, oh wait I don't have to "
For that all you need is an ID thats unique PER PRODUCT, not PER INSTANCE OF THE PRODUCT.
Its the individually unique ID thats the problem here, if it was like barcodes (identifying the product) it wouldn't be such a problem.
Guys, look, do you really think sysadmins report successful & unsuccessful breaches to this little one man and his dog company in London?
Of course not.
Or do you imagine that this guy has a magic crystal ball that can count attacks both successful and not?
Of course not.
Then do you think he has any way of assesing the cost that the breach does for systems he can't possibly verify as breached for companies he doesn't know?
Of course not.
Its just a scam, this guy wants publicity, if he says Linux is less secure than Windows he's hoping it will be used as a counterpoint the next time another Windows worm appears and he gets his company mentioned.
Its pretty obvious. It replaces an agreed balance COPYRIGHT LAWS with a piece of code completely under the control of the copyright holder.
If the copyright holder decides that today, you have RIGHTS = RIGHTS/2, then you have lost half your rights. No law enforces your fair use rights.
Flip that question on its head:
Why should companies be able to force DRM on people BY LAW, when those customers wouldn't buy it VOLUNTARILY?
Why should it be made compulsary for me to take DRM?
Its not P2P piracy that killed DIVX (the DRM'd DVD) because it didn't exist then. People didn't want DIVX, so they didn't buy it.
Nothing is stopping copyright holders offering DRM'd product now. If it works, go on, do it. I won't buy it, and I won't back any law that requires me to buy it.
Broad band stakeholders group is a sub-lobby group from a group called Intelect. Broadband stakeholders pushes the telecoms interests.
Here's their member list, it doesn't identify which ones are interested in this topic, but you can take a guess:
http://www.intellectuk.org/databases/member_db/a to z.asp
Lots of names, including plenty of the usual suspects:
Microsoft, Microsoft Great Plains, a lot of MS integration consultancy companies , Digimarc ID Systems, a major firm of Solicitors: Nabarro Nathanson (whose hiding behind these people?) , and quite a few Cable and DSL equipment manufacturers.
Looks like that is really the consensus opinion of that faction.
Didn't anyone tell them DRM doesn't work? How can something that doesn't work help broadband takeup?
Thats not a good thing to do, you have a network cross between major components in your system.
"DO NOT deploy everything onto one machine"
A memory pipe has latency measured in Nano seconds, a network has latency measured in milliseconds. Any benefit you gained by optimizing each machine for DB, Server etc, you lost many many times over in the communications between these two boxes.
SOAP,.NET, MSMQ are all done for the ease of the programmer & for marketing (using CPU time to make programmers life easier). All are wastefuly as a result.
But you need something simpler, CGI! It still works, CGIs written in compiled C++ dish up the pages faster and you can choose your database etc.
MSMQ Why? you only have 1 box, use memory based mechanism, e.g. pipes. You're using C++ now!
Database, for what? I bet like most systems the bulk of your tables are read only configuration tables (e.g. Widget X in Blue), not written.
Read those into memory and index them in memory. Saves you 1 cross process sync call per query and a sh*t load of other work that the DB would do. Specific targetted memory structures smoke generic database software every time also. (See google for details!).
Triggers? Why? If you have 1 process running the database, and memory pipes into that process, then that 1 process doesn't need triggers! That process knows when it changes the data, it can just do a straight call to 'MyTriggerCode1'. Better still your trigger code is then written in C++ and hence faster than a store procedure.
The numbers you're talking about are ridiculously small, we used to dish up 400-500 connections on a 200Mhz Pentium box on very complicated custom C-S systems, so I'm damn sure you can dish up 150 on a 2Ghz multiprocessor box!
This is *very* achieveable. Even.NET could probably be tweaked to do this.
Cute how its dressed up, but its telling that its the big players that want to lock themselves in with Patents who are backing this.
We had the most innovative time when there were no patents and lockins. Now the software market is dead, because the OS vendor locks the market down. Giving them more lock down tools in the form of patents is death for applications software.
No applications are developed, nothing new is in the market and it has nothing to do with patents, and everything to do with market lock.
Don't allow copyright to be used when DRM protection is used. Its as simple as that.
There are parallels to patents and trade secrets.
If I choose to make my idea a trade secret then its protected forever unless someone breaks it, but if I want to use patent protection, then I have to disclose it publicly. Public disclosure, in exchange for legal protection.
The same should be applied to DRM & Copyright. if I choose to DRM my protect, fine, good, but then its not in the public domain, so it can't be protected by copyright.
You want copyright protection, then you have to give *your* side of the bargain too, and put it in an unprotected format, so that it is available when the copyright expires. How can I know if you will be around next year, let alone in 120 years when your copyright expires? I can't, so if you won't put it into public domain, then you can't get copyright protection.
"Someone needs to explain to me how the EU can enforce American companies to collect a tax for the EU."
Its no different from duty and other taxes for goods shipped to the EU. A lot of US companies pre-pay the duty tax on physical sales into the EU. This is no different.
As for how they enforce it, you pay by credit card, thats cleared from EU citizens, so either they pay or the tax will be pre-deducted from the outgoing payments.
US companies don't have to pay EU taxes, only if they want to sell into the EU and its no different from physical sales from the EU into the US.
What I find strange is that US allows tax free sales in the US via the internet, so offshore internet sales are undercutting your own box-software sales that pay the sales tax. Why? You're undercutting your own US companies that way?
"So long as you can persuade people that they don't need the sales and marketing that big labels can get you..."
Actually the *money* is the important thing, if old style radio promotion and in-store promotion produces the money for the artists then great.
But if those labels don't know how to market to the Internet crowd, or they make money but don't pass it on to the artists, then the artists is better looking elsewhere.
The Dinosaurs were big and dominated the earth and THEY DIED OUT.
"I hope not. It is well known that the fundamental problem with P2P systems is the inability to trust the client. What does palladium offer? - an ability to trust the client. duh"
No it doesn't. You don't know who the client is, whether they have a Palladium token or not.
A P2P pirate similarly has no way of knowing if the 'person' has changed, but the 'computer' is the same. Because Palladium identifies the computer not the person.
"Specifically, regarding your questions, if the sub didn't have the music you wanted, then where did this existing collection come from?"
New music comes, if the service carries it you can buy it, if it doesn't you can only choose from what they carry. Do you switch yes/no? Do you subscribe to two? Or buy your music and keep subscribing to get the old stuff?
"Look at pay-as-you-go cellphones, too. People pay *extra* to use these in order to avoid a contract."
Exactly, they pay a fixed fee for X minutes, not a monthly contract. Pay as you go is closer to a purchase than monthly rental is. If only those damn minutes didn't expire after a year they'd be a proper purchase rather than a subscription.
"Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want"
And if this subscripton doesn't have the music you want? What are you supposed to do - SWITCH and lose your existing collection.
And when the price doubles what do you do then? Lose your collection or continue paying!
and how about 5 times? How much can Gates raise the price before you give up your collection?
What happens when the choice is crap and your paying just to play your existing music?
"MS and Disney represent a large body of people. These people depend on Office and Mickey to provide them with a paycheck."
MS & Disney fill a market demand, if they didn't do it someone else would.
Bigger corporations benefit by economies of scale, i.e. for every sale they use less people and they can afford a HR dept in India and China to move those jobs to the cheapest world location. Smaller companies can't do this, they don't have international HR depts and don't benefit from those economies of scale. Employing more people to do the same thing.
So a more diverse set of suppliers would result in more jobs. What Disney, MS etc are doing is trying to create more value from their EXISTING works. It still takes the same amount of programmers/cartoonists to make, but they get more profit from the same work, expanding the economy of scale.
Nothing has really changed here, piracy hasn't soared, their markets haven't collapsed, only a lot of extreme laws and extreme lobbying has happened.
All this is irrelevent, the customer is always right, if they want balance in their IP laws, then thats what they want and you better damn well give it to them. Apple succeeded, Pressplay failed, Apple can afford to employ people, Pressplay can't. Both operate under the same laws, just one gave the consumer what the consumer wants.
Slashdot Mirror
You could compile it to machine code and run it native, or you could compile it into any number of intermediate languages and run it with an interpreter.
.NET is the systems thats really stuggling.
Why would you do the latter? For what advantage?
C isn't dead, C++ isn't dying.
Read this:
"Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar, says that senior executives at the software giant had telephoned him about two months before the investment. "
Doesn't it sound like he's trying to explain away telephone call logs between Baystar and Microsoft?
Next the money....
"will need to demonstrate ....that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed"
Not true, this was one of the things I didn't like. Its worded loosely here:
", in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm right holder, OR where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed"
Note the 'OR', its enough to show that a delay is likely to cause irreparable harm. They don't have to show there is a risk of evidence being destroyed.
It's not capitalism, capitalism is companies competing in an open marketplace.
The stuff they're passing is pure protectism, locking out competitors using Patents, Copyrights and DMCA extended trade secrets.
I'm not opposed to companies protecting their ideas by patents, but I do object when it's common knowlegde they patent!
I'm not opposed to protecting software with copyright and trade secret, but I object when its protected by copyright, trade secret, DMCA AND patents, all at the same time, even though patents and trade secrets are mutually exclusive!
I'm not opposed to record companies copyrighting their music, but FOR F*** SAKE, my kids will be dead by the time Britneys songs go out of copyright. Victorian lute music would still be under copyright if these bozos were in power in 1900.
You have to keep batting this drivel back.
"If it isn't per instance, they might have problems identifying how many items."
Good point, but I was thinking in terms of groceries, where many items are not tagged (e.g. vegetables since they have to be weighed), so items would still have to be fed past a scanner rather than taken as a whole.
I can't help think all you need here is a privacy law to stop the shop collecting/saving/mining and selling all this info.
"...Our criminal then returns to the store, places the label on a 21" flat screen computer monitor that retails for $995 and proceed to the checkout counter."
The product name flashes up on the till, thats how the cashier knows you bought a flat screen TV and not a normal one.
As for the detergent, the barcode IS PART OF THE BOX not stuck on afterwards. So as soon as they reach for the box they know you stuck your own barcode on it.
"Consumer privacy advocates are concerned that the technology could be abused by retailers to track products from the store shelf to the individual's home. I say that the concerns voiced by the privacy advocates are unwarranted. "
The stores could have all the benefits simply by having the RFID identify the product TYPE and not each individual instance of the product without all the privacy problems.
You could also get the same benefits by implmenting a law protecting privacy to stop shops mining all this new found info they have.
Remember that the NYT article has a registration because NYT found it valuable to have information on its readers. Information has value, if you make information available to the shops, they will sell it. Do you want that?
You should have laws that stop shops linking the ID of the products to the ID of the customer. Its an unreasobable invasion of privacy.
If I stuck a tracking device on your car and sold the information to anyone who asked would you accept that? But its the same thing.
There's simply no reason the consumer should tolerate the down side of this thing, since there's no upside for them.
No it won't let you go through the checkout faster, because not everything in your basket will have a tag (Lettuce?, how many kilos of Apples?), so your groceries will always have to be checked anyway.
Its nothing to do with tin foil and paranoia, customer profiling will always work against the customer, since the shops are in business to milk the maximum amount of money out of you.
They can do that by identifying what you MUST buy, and charging the maximum you are able to pay, for that they need customer profiling.
"But How does it benifit the end user, oh wait I don't have to "
For that all you need is an ID thats unique PER PRODUCT, not PER INSTANCE OF THE PRODUCT.
Its the individually unique ID thats the problem here, if it was like barcodes (identifying the product) it wouldn't be such a problem.
"Anyhow, we have only 2 choices. "
No, you have many, you are only presenting two.
Minor training of unemployed US programmers to fill the missing roles would have been the best option.
You're ignoring all the out of work US programmers.
Guys, look, do you really think sysadmins report successful & unsuccessful breaches to this little one man and his dog company in London?
Of course not.
Or do you imagine that this guy has a magic crystal ball that can count attacks both successful and not?
Of course not.
Then do you think he has any way of assesing the cost that the breach does for systems he can't possibly verify as breached for companies he doesn't know?
Of course not.
Its just a scam, this guy wants publicity, if he says Linux is less secure than Windows he's hoping it will be used as a counterpoint the next time another Windows worm appears and he gets his company mentioned.
"Why don't you like DRM?"
Its pretty obvious. It replaces an agreed balance COPYRIGHT LAWS with a piece of code completely under the control of the copyright holder.
If the copyright holder decides that today, you have RIGHTS = RIGHTS/2, then you have lost half your rights. No law enforces your fair use rights.
Flip that question on its head:
Why should companies be able to force DRM on people BY LAW, when those customers wouldn't buy it VOLUNTARILY?
Why should it be made compulsary for me to take DRM?
Its not P2P piracy that killed DIVX (the DRM'd DVD) because it didn't exist then. People didn't want DIVX, so they didn't buy it.
Nothing is stopping copyright holders offering DRM'd product now. If it works, go on, do it.
I won't buy it, and I won't back any law that requires me to buy it.
Why should I?
Broad band stakeholders group is a sub-lobby group from a group called Intelect. Broadband stakeholders pushes the telecoms interests.
a to z.asp
Here's their member list, it doesn't identify which ones are interested in this topic, but you can take a guess:
http://www.intellectuk.org/databases/member_db/
Lots of names, including plenty of the usual suspects:
Microsoft, Microsoft Great Plains, a lot of MS integration consultancy companies , Digimarc ID Systems, a major firm of Solicitors: Nabarro Nathanson (whose hiding behind these people?) , and quite a few Cable and DSL equipment manufacturers.
Looks like that is really the consensus opinion of that faction.
Didn't anyone tell them DRM doesn't work? How can something that doesn't work help broadband takeup?
Thats not a good thing to do, you have a network cross between major components in your system.
"DO NOT deploy everything onto one machine"
A memory pipe has latency measured in Nano seconds, a network has latency measured in milliseconds. Any benefit you gained by optimizing each machine for DB, Server etc, you lost many many times over in the communications between these two boxes.
SOAP, .NET, MSMQ are all done for the ease of the programmer & for marketing (using CPU time to make programmers life easier). All are wastefuly as a result.
.NET could probably be tweaked to do this.
But you need something simpler, CGI! It still works, CGIs written in compiled C++ dish up the pages faster and you can choose your database etc.
MSMQ Why? you only have 1 box, use memory based mechanism, e.g. pipes. You're using C++ now!
Database, for what? I bet like most systems the bulk of your tables are read only configuration tables (e.g. Widget X in Blue), not written.
Read those into memory and index them in memory. Saves you 1 cross process sync call per query and a sh*t load of other work that the DB would do.
Specific targetted memory structures smoke generic database software every time also. (See google for details!).
Triggers? Why? If you have 1 process running the database, and memory pipes into that process, then that 1 process doesn't need triggers! That process knows when it changes the data, it can just do a straight call to 'MyTriggerCode1'. Better still your trigger code is then written in C++ and hence faster than a store procedure.
The numbers you're talking about are ridiculously small, we used to dish up 400-500 connections on a 200Mhz Pentium box on very complicated custom C-S systems, so I'm damn sure you can dish up 150 on a 2Ghz multiprocessor box!
This is *very* achieveable. Even
There the proof then, competition is good for jobs because more people work on competing products.
50 Netscape codes go, but no more people are needed to work on IE.
So if you want more jobs, make sure there's more competition, not more retrictive copyright laws.
Simple.
Cute how its dressed up, but its telling that its the big players that want to lock themselves in with Patents who are backing this.
We had the most innovative time when there were no patents and lockins. Now the software market is dead, because the OS vendor locks the market down. Giving them more lock down tools in the form of patents is death for applications software.
No applications are developed, nothing new is in the market and it has nothing to do with patents, and everything to do with market lock.
Don't allow copyright to be used when DRM protection is used. Its as simple as that.
There are parallels to patents and trade secrets.
If I choose to make my idea a trade secret then its protected forever unless someone breaks it, but if I want to use patent protection, then I have to disclose it publicly.
Public disclosure, in exchange for legal protection.
The same should be applied to DRM & Copyright. if I choose to DRM my protect, fine, good, but then its not in the public domain, so it can't be protected by copyright.
You want copyright protection, then you have to give *your* side of the bargain too, and put it in an unprotected format, so that it is available when the copyright expires. How can I know if you will be around next year, let alone in 120 years when your copyright expires? I can't, so if you won't put it into public domain, then you can't get copyright protection.
Thats the solution.
"Someone needs to explain to me how the EU can enforce American companies to collect a tax for the EU."
Its no different from duty and other taxes for goods shipped to the EU. A lot of US companies pre-pay the duty tax on physical sales into the EU. This is no different.
As for how they enforce it, you pay by credit card, thats cleared from EU citizens, so either they pay or the tax will be pre-deducted from the outgoing payments.
US companies don't have to pay EU taxes, only if they want to sell into the EU and its no different from physical sales from the EU into the US.
What I find strange is that US allows tax free sales in the US via the internet, so offshore internet sales are undercutting your own box-software sales that pay the sales tax. Why? You're undercutting your own US companies that way?
All the more reason not to trust closed source voting machines to be fair.
"So long as you can persuade people that they don't need the sales and marketing that big labels can get you..."
Actually the *money* is the important thing, if old style radio promotion and in-store promotion produces the money for the artists then great.
But if those labels don't know how to market to the Internet crowd, or they make money but don't pass it on to the artists, then the artists is better looking elsewhere.
The Dinosaurs were big and dominated the earth and THEY DIED OUT.
"I hope not. It is well known that the fundamental problem with P2P systems is the inability to trust the client. What does palladium offer? - an ability to trust the client. duh"
No it doesn't.
You don't know who the client is, whether they have a Palladium token or not.
A P2P pirate similarly has no way of knowing if the 'person' has changed, but the 'computer' is the same. Because Palladium identifies the computer not the person.
"Specifically, regarding your questions, if the sub didn't have the music you wanted, then where did this existing collection come from?"
New music comes, if the service carries it you can buy it, if it doesn't you can only choose from what they carry. Do you switch yes/no? Do you subscribe to two? Or buy your music and keep subscribing to get the old stuff?
"Look at pay-as-you-go cellphones, too. People pay *extra* to use these in order to avoid a contract."
Exactly, they pay a fixed fee for X minutes, not a monthly contract. Pay as you go is closer to a purchase than monthly rental is. If only those damn minutes didn't expire after a year they'd be a proper purchase rather than a subscription.
"Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want"
And if this subscripton doesn't have the music you want? What are you supposed to do - SWITCH and lose your existing collection.
And when the price doubles what do you do then? Lose your collection or continue paying!
and how about 5 times? How much can Gates raise the price before you give up your collection?
What happens when the choice is crap and your paying just to play your existing music?
Retail Price Maintenance is not legal in the UK, (except Books and some drugs).
You can't refuse to sell through easyCinema just because they want to sell it on at a lower price.
"MS and Disney represent a large body of people. These people depend on Office and Mickey to provide them with a paycheck."
MS & Disney fill a market demand, if they didn't do it someone else would.
Bigger corporations benefit by economies of scale, i.e. for every sale they use less people and they can afford a HR dept in India and China to move those jobs to the cheapest world location. Smaller companies can't do this, they don't have international HR depts and don't benefit from those economies of scale. Employing more people to do the same thing.
So a more diverse set of suppliers would result in more jobs.
What Disney, MS etc are doing is trying to create more value from their EXISTING works. It still takes the same amount of programmers/cartoonists to make, but they get more profit from the same work, expanding the economy of scale.
Nothing has really changed here, piracy hasn't soared, their markets haven't collapsed, only a lot of extreme laws and extreme lobbying has happened.
All this is irrelevent, the customer is always right, if they want balance in their IP laws, then thats what they want and you better damn well give it to them. Apple succeeded, Pressplay failed, Apple can afford to employ people, Pressplay can't. Both operate under the same laws, just one gave the consumer what the consumer wants.