20/20 memory? That might not be as good as you think.
I'd ask you to think of something you'd forgotten and were glad to have forgotten, but that'd be kind of pointless. However, we all have stuff like that. Things which we're better off not really remembering.
While we're at it, I'd add that 20/20 memory would mean memorizing much more sensory input than our brains are equipped to handle normally. The result: probalby something on the order of madness, paralysis, or even death the instant you tried to remember any event.
The way I'd like to see something like this run would be a "memory unit." Kind of like a Zip drive for the brain. Mmmm... downloading class notes just before the final...
This does scare me a bit, however. After all, if the brain is a computer, that means it can be programmed. And if it can be programmed, you know a virus can be written. Or worse, Billy will decide to port Windows to the brain.
This isn't likely to be legal. Consider that it's similar to Misrocoft's exclusive licensing practices; you can use SDMI, but you can't use a competitor's format (or rather, you can use it until SDMI comes out then you must kill off your support for the competition).
In other words, not the Justice Department will have something to do when they're through ripping M$ apart. It looks like the government just might be good for something after all:)
I'm just going to keep trying to upgrade until I find a kernel that'll even compile on my machine; the last one that even built was 2.2.6, and I only managed that once.
Kernel video driver crashes -> whole system falls over.
Yes. However, this wasn't the video driver crashing. It was one app. A properly-written driver can handle one app crashing, just as the kernel itself can.
However, I think we're beginning to talk different things here. What I am advocating is that the kernel support graphics primitives. The video driver can still reside outside the kernel; the kernel "graphics layer" simply provides a common graphics API which accesses these drivers. Something basic enough to build an X server on is all that's really needed (though I am intrigued by Berlin).
Just because something is hard to do doesn't mean it should not be done. It just means that it has to be monitored and done very carefully. It'd probably take an entire devel tree cycle to get it done properly. But I believe the benefits are worth it.
Occasionally, very rarely, and not even once since Xfree 3.3, there have been a few occasions where Netscape grabbed control of the keyboard and mouse and not let go...and a reboot was required. BUT THAT IS *NOT* A CRASH! The linux kernel was still functioning properly.
Um, actually, that is a crash. It's an application crash (as opposed to a system crash).
Look, here's the thing I see about putting graphics in the kernel: for security reasons, it is a Good Thing. There should (ideally) be no program that ever has to run suid-root; it's simply a security risk. But put in as little of the graphics code as possible (I haven't taken much of a look at the framebuffer, but even that might be enough).
Hell, GGI as a library is quite nice. And being able to run the same app from the command-line or X and have it come up with a GUI is a Good Thing too.
So yeah, I think minimal graphics support should be in the kernel; just enough to keep things like X-servers from having to be run suid-root (that goes for Xwrapper as well). But it should be kept to a minimum, at least until they're rock-solid (and don't start with the "graphics ruin stability" bit; bad or lazy programming ruins stability, not graphics). And that support might be there already; I'm not well-versed enough in the framebuffer to be certain of that.
Don't copy code from GPLd programs, don't link against any GPL'd libraries (I can only think of two: GNU readline and libgtop; any others out there) and dynamically link against any LGPL'd libraries you use.
There you go; proprietary Linux software.
And get it through your skull: Open-Source and commercial are not opposites by any means. You're confusing "commercial" with "proprietary." There's plenty of proprietary software that's available for free (anything the author calls "freeware" counts as this), and there's some Open-Source software which is sold.
But I am afraid I must disagree. In reality, though, I think it's only a difference in perception. The way the author of the article sees it, the GPL forces people to accept the Open-Source model. He states that this isn't the spirit of Open-Source.
I, on the other hand, see BSD's nonrestrictiveness as a loophole. Yes, people can use my code fairly. Most do that. Hell, even Apple, the supposed "kind of closed" is doing it. However, it also means that MS could rip off my code just by making minor changes to it (note that I define "use" and "rip off" differently, the main difference being that "ripped-off" code is closed up, and the one who rips it off attempts to profit from it without even acknowledging of the original author).
In the end I think I'm probably being too cynical while the author of this article is being overly naive. The truth is likely somewhere between the two.
What is the difference between Chine and Cuba? To explain that, I'll relate a story I heard once. Someone asked the owner of a company that makes deodorant what China meant to him.
His answer: "Two billion armpits."
In other words, simply put, China's such a lucrative business opportunity that the US is willing to go against its own ideals for it.
True enough, except for one little detail: Linus doesn't like in Finland anymore. True, I don't think he's a citizen at this point (has he even lived in the US long enough to be eligible?) but all of the code he's written since moving here was written on American soil, therefore it'd be considered American by our paranoid government. They'd probably try to say that the code he wrote before then is too, citing some obscure law or another.
Sad to say, Linux probably isn't exportable. Neither will most of the GNU stuff, since even though GNU is not comprised solely of Americans it is an American organization and holds the copyrights on almost all of the code, if not all of it (I'll have to check their policy on that again).
Again, however, you could do what the PGP writers did, though that'd take a long time.
I had one of those (original model, not 2000). Still do, actually, but the battery's long gone; I let the thing go so long without a recharge that I can't even recharge it anymore. I wonder where (or even if) I could find another battery for it...
You're speaking of different thnigs. There's hard evidence that cigarettes cause cancer. It's been around for years now.
Cell phones haven't even been around long enough that such data can be reliably collected. It'll be several more years before anything truly conclusive can be drawn up.
By the way, the same theory which says that cell phones cause cancer also works for power lines, hair dryers, and other such nasties. Face it; being born inevitably leads to death.
Consider this: Linux has ben ported to PowerPC. Not only that, but I believe I heard somewhere that Linux has also been ported to N64. With these in mind, I'd consider a Linux port to this new system (N2000?) not only likely, but probable.
Technically. However, seeing as this is the first one, I wouldn't be surprised if it were identical to 2.2.8, just re-numbered to be used as a reference point from which the development kernels start.
So, what's on the horizon for the 2.3 tree, anyway?
OSX will be moving to Mach 3; the first developer release (available now, and apparently for free if I hear correctly, and no it's not Darwin) is already there.
Interestingly enough, this is the same Mach which MkLinux uses. This could mean some significant advances for that platform...
However, as I understand it, OSX doesn't use PEF (or rather it can, but can read others as well). I expect that we'll see PEF gradually phased out; Apple seems to be moving away from proprietary stuff as of late (before you flame me, notice that I said seems to be and that I didn't say it had moved away completely yet.)
Adobe GoLive is tbe best, hands-down. However, since I think it's currently Mac-only, it won't work for you (you specified cross-platform, right?)
This said, GUI editors are a tool, not a crutch. Do your basic layout in them and get the content put in the pages, but when you're done with that don't forget to go back over them with a text editor. GUI editors are getting to the point where they can write very good code, but they aren't perfect (then again, the same can be said of any compiler; that's why people still use assembly to try and squeeze every last optimization out of their stuff).
For a text editor I'd recommend BBEdit by Bare Bones Software, but once again I think that might be Mac-only. Nonetheless, it's a very good tool for this sort of thing, and comes with many features specifically developed for working with HTML.
At least, I hope not. There are several major things which need to be done first.
The biggest, of course, if getting rid of these silly export laws. It'll take the Supreme Court to do that; the appeals court was a major victory for our side but the fight's not over yet.
Second, SSL needs to become more and more widespread. It's getting there, certainly. I'm hoping that the end to these export restrictions, couple with the freeing of RSA (which I believe is coming soon; doesn't the patent expire sometime next year?) should do that one. Of course, the ultimate goal is to have all servers use SSL, but that'll take time.
Once those two are in place, then we'll be ready for something like this. But not before. There are simply too many poential problems to do this just yet. I'd like to see this as much as anyone, but the Net is not yet ready.
Assembly, however, is readable. It is, after all, just another programming language (though the compiler-like programs you must run it through to make it executable are called "assemblers"). It is, in fact, made so that humandcan analyze and understand it; it just doesn't do that job very well.
'Course, I'd rather have both - I won't deny that Altivec is cool, I just think that higher clock speeds would be better overall.
Why? Clock speed, when you think about it, isn't much more than a number. You can't compare across architectures, and you can't even really compare across chips within the same general architecture. Quality, not quantity, is what's important.
I'll grant, most people are very dense when it comes to measuring chip speeds based on clockrate; they think a MHz is a MHz is a MHz, no matter the chip (therefore, a 300-MHz Celeron would be as fast as a 300-MHz PIII, if such a thing existed, and we all know that's not true). I see this as nothing but proof that clockrate is an inappropriate mesaure of speed.
Not all patents are in language. In fact, except for software, no patents are in "language." Example: a book. It's certainly in a language. But you can't patent a book. Now, let's try some new chip. Is it in a language? No. The plans for it and the documentation are both in a language, but those can't be patented (copyrighted, yes, patented, no).
Now, here's the interesting thing: you cannot patent source code, anywhere. You can naturally copyright it, in fact you're expected to (even the FSF does it). But it's a representation, a language. So you can't patent it.
What you can, unfortunately, patent is the concept behind the code. To give you an example, let's take LZW compression (most commonly used in GIF's), the patent for which is held by Unisys. Now, Unisys has source code, of course. That isn't patented. However, the patent on the compression means that you are not allowed to write any code using that algorithm, even is your code is completely different from the code Unisys has. In effect, it's patenting an idea (which, if I'm not mistaken, the Constitution forbids, but the government either hasn't seen that or has been lobbied by the industry not to look). Other patented ideas: the use of XOR to move a mouse pointer across the screen, the RSA encryption algorithm, color-matching technology (if you believe Imatec's latest claim, which I don't), and so on. There is no patented code for any of these; in fact the RSA encryption algorithm can be found in any discrete mathematics textbook (it's a popular example exercise). But, no one else can use these, even though they're doing their own work, not stealing that of the patent owners.
This is my major gripe with the patent system. The software industry has twisted it to a use for which it was never intended.
Timeouts? I haven't had Slashdot time out on me at all in the past six months, on either my Mac or Linux machine. The Solaris boxes in the computer labs here never have trouble with it either. Perhaps it's you who should try something different.
Meaningless? Meaningless? Contrary to your own myopic delusions, this is not over. It likely won't be for quite some time yet. Yes, we're starting to make a difference, but the fact remains that the Geek Profiling Katz is describing is still running rampant through American schools. This is not over, and will not be until the profiling ends.
Believe me, I know what geek profiling is. I put forth a claim to be the first profiled geek, literally years before the Littleton massacre even happened. Combine an apathetic assistant principal, a principal who refused to get involved, and a racist counselor and you get absolute hell, and that's not even counting the other students. I went through abuse of the worst kind. I was in numerous fights, and yet even though both sides acknowledged I acted only in self-defense, six times in one year I was suspended while the aggressor went free. When I tried to appeal the decision, I was met with vicious insults from the counselor of all people. They managed to even gloss it over enough that my parents couldn't see what was going on until the counselor told my mom he didn't have time for "smart little white boys," and yes, that's a direct quote.
As for profiling, they even went so far as to demand I see an outside psychologist. The reason, as stated by the counselor: "I can't help but notice your son smiling when he eats; I wonder what he could be thinking..." (for the record, I didn't even know I smiled when I ate; it was probably just because the food was good). Then there was the time I got suspended because rumors were circulating that I had hit the assistant principal. Of course I hadn't, and the assistant principal even acknowledged that I hadn't, but she suspended me anyway "to save face."
And let's not even go into the gang that started following me home from school every day, even though the administration knew and did nothing to stop it.
No, this isn't over, and it's certainly not meaningless. It's people like you, thinking the fallout from this can be eradicated in one week, who ensure that it won't be over for quite some time.
Slashdot Mirror
20/20 memory? That might not be as good as you think.
I'd ask you to think of something you'd forgotten and were glad to have forgotten, but that'd be kind of pointless. However, we all have stuff like that. Things which we're better off not really remembering.
While we're at it, I'd add that 20/20 memory would mean memorizing much more sensory input than our brains are equipped to handle normally. The result: probalby something on the order of madness, paralysis, or even death the instant you tried to remember any event.
The way I'd like to see something like this run would be a "memory unit." Kind of like a Zip drive for the brain. Mmmm... downloading class notes just before the final...
This does scare me a bit, however. After all, if the brain is a computer, that means it can be programmed. And if it can be programmed, you know a virus can be written. Or worse, Billy will decide to port Windows to the brain.
This isn't likely to be legal. Consider that it's similar to Misrocoft's exclusive licensing practices; you can use SDMI, but you can't use a competitor's format (or rather, you can use it until SDMI comes out then you must kill off your support for the competition).
:)
In other words, not the Justice Department will have something to do when they're through ripping M$ apart. It looks like the government just might be good for something after all
GPL is one thing, but I still think RMS is going to throw a fit when he hears about this one.
Nonetheless, I like it. I hope there'll be some nicer-looking clients out soon, but the code's open enough that doing that is a possibility.
I'm just going to keep trying to upgrade until I find a kernel that'll even compile on my machine; the last one that even built was 2.2.6, and I only managed that once.
Kernel video driver crashes -> whole system falls over.
Yes. However, this wasn't the video driver crashing. It was one app. A properly-written driver can handle one app crashing, just as the kernel itself can.
However, I think we're beginning to talk different things here. What I am advocating is that the kernel support graphics primitives. The video driver can still reside outside the kernel; the kernel "graphics layer" simply provides a common graphics API which accesses these drivers. Something basic enough to build an X server on is all that's really needed (though I am intrigued by Berlin).
Just because something is hard to do doesn't mean it should not be done. It just means that it has to be monitored and done very carefully. It'd probably take an entire devel tree cycle to get it done properly. But I believe the benefits are worth it.
Occasionally, very rarely, and not even once since Xfree 3.3, there have been a few occasions where Netscape grabbed control of the keyboard and mouse and not let go...and a reboot was required. BUT THAT IS *NOT* A CRASH! The linux kernel was still functioning properly.
Um, actually, that is a crash. It's an application crash (as opposed to a system crash).
Look, here's the thing I see about putting graphics in the kernel: for security reasons, it is a Good Thing. There should (ideally) be no program that ever has to run suid-root; it's simply a security risk. But put in as little of the graphics code as possible (I haven't taken much of a look at the framebuffer, but even that might be enough).
Hell, GGI as a library is quite nice. And being able to run the same app from the command-line or X and have it come up with a GUI is a Good Thing too.
So yeah, I think minimal graphics support should be in the kernel; just enough to keep things like X-servers from having to be run suid-root (that goes for Xwrapper as well). But it should be kept to a minimum, at least until they're rock-solid (and don't start with the "graphics ruin stability" bit; bad or lazy programming ruins stability, not graphics). And that support might be there already; I'm not well-versed enough in the framebuffer to be certain of that.
Don't copy code from GPLd programs, don't link against any GPL'd libraries (I can only think of two: GNU readline and libgtop; any others out there) and dynamically link against any LGPL'd libraries you use.
There you go; proprietary Linux software.
And get it through your skull: Open-Source and commercial are not opposites by any means. You're confusing "commercial" with "proprietary." There's plenty of proprietary software that's available for free (anything the author calls "freeware" counts as this), and there's some Open-Source software which is sold.
But I am afraid I must disagree. In reality, though, I think it's only a difference in perception. The way the author of the article sees it, the GPL forces people to accept the Open-Source model. He states that this isn't the spirit of Open-Source.
I, on the other hand, see BSD's nonrestrictiveness as a loophole. Yes, people can use my code fairly. Most do that. Hell, even Apple, the supposed "kind of closed" is doing it. However, it also means that MS could rip off my code just by making minor changes to it (note that I define "use" and "rip off" differently, the main difference being that "ripped-off" code is closed up, and the one who rips it off attempts to profit from it without even acknowledging of the original author).
In the end I think I'm probably being too cynical while the author of this article is being overly naive. The truth is likely somewhere between the two.
What is the difference between Chine and Cuba? To explain that, I'll relate a story I heard once. Someone asked the owner of a company that makes deodorant what China meant to him.
His answer: "Two billion armpits."
In other words, simply put, China's such a lucrative business opportunity that the US is willing to go against its own ideals for it.
True enough, except for one little detail: Linus doesn't like in Finland anymore. True, I don't think he's a citizen at this point (has he even lived in the US long enough to be eligible?) but all of the code he's written since moving here was written on American soil, therefore it'd be considered American by our paranoid government. They'd probably try to say that the code he wrote before then is too, citing some obscure law or another.
Sad to say, Linux probably isn't exportable. Neither will most of the GNU stuff, since even though GNU is not comprised solely of Americans it is an American organization and holds the copyrights on almost all of the code, if not all of it (I'll have to check their policy on that again).
Again, however, you could do what the PGP writers did, though that'd take a long time.
I had one of those (original model, not 2000). Still do, actually, but the battery's long gone; I let the thing go so long without a recharge that I can't even recharge it anymore. I wonder where (or even if) I could find another battery for it...
You're speaking of different thnigs. There's hard evidence that cigarettes cause cancer. It's been around for years now.
Cell phones haven't even been around long enough that such data can be reliably collected. It'll be several more years before anything truly conclusive can be drawn up.
By the way, the same theory which says that cell phones cause cancer also works for power lines, hair dryers, and other such nasties. Face it; being born inevitably leads to death.
Someone alert the media.
Consider this: Linux has ben ported to PowerPC. Not only that, but I believe I heard somewhere that Linux has also been ported to N64. With these in mind, I'd consider a Linux port to this new system (N2000?) not only likely, but probable.
Technically. However, seeing as this is the first one, I wouldn't be surprised if it were identical to 2.2.8, just re-numbered to be used as a reference point from which the development kernels start.
So, what's on the horizon for the 2.3 tree, anyway?
OSX will be moving to Mach 3; the first developer release (available now, and apparently for free if I hear correctly, and no it's not Darwin) is already there.
Interestingly enough, this is the same Mach which MkLinux uses. This could mean some significant advances for that platform...
Apple does indeed have a patent for PEF.
However, as I understand it, OSX doesn't use PEF (or rather it can, but can read others as well). I expect that we'll see PEF gradually phased out; Apple seems to be moving away from proprietary stuff as of late (before you flame me, notice that I said seems to be and that I didn't say it had moved away completely yet.)
I can answer the first part at least: HTTP was never designed to be used with large files. As such, it can get a bit flaky.
As for the TLS/SSL bit... well, there you've got me. Secure transfers are indeed a must on the Net today.
Adobe GoLive is tbe best, hands-down. However, since I think it's currently Mac-only, it won't work for you (you specified cross-platform, right?)
This said, GUI editors are a tool, not a crutch. Do your basic layout in them and get the content put in the pages, but when you're done with that don't forget to go back over them with a text editor. GUI editors are getting to the point where they can write very good code, but they aren't perfect (then again, the same can be said of any compiler; that's why people still use assembly to try and squeeze every last optimization out of their stuff).
For a text editor I'd recommend BBEdit by Bare Bones Software, but once again I think that might be Mac-only. Nonetheless, it's a very good tool for this sort of thing, and comes with many features specifically developed for working with HTML.
At least, I hope not. There are several major things which need to be done first.
The biggest, of course, if getting rid of these silly export laws. It'll take the Supreme Court to do that; the appeals court was a major victory for our side but the fight's not over yet.
Second, SSL needs to become more and more widespread. It's getting there, certainly. I'm hoping that the end to these export restrictions, couple with the freeing of RSA (which I believe is coming soon; doesn't the patent expire sometime next year?) should do that one. Of course, the ultimate goal is to have all servers use SSL, but that'll take time.
Once those two are in place, then we'll be ready for something like this. But not before. There are simply too many poential problems to do this just yet. I'd like to see this as much as anyone, but the Net is not yet ready.
Assembly, however, is readable. It is, after all, just another programming language (though the compiler-like programs you must run it through to make it executable are called "assemblers"). It is, in fact, made so that humandcan analyze and understand it; it just doesn't do that job very well.
Assembly language, yes.
Compiled/assembled code, no.
'Course, I'd rather have both - I won't deny that Altivec is cool, I just think that higher clock speeds would be better overall.
Why? Clock speed, when you think about it, isn't much more than a number. You can't compare across architectures, and you can't even really compare across chips within the same general architecture. Quality, not quantity, is what's important.
I'll grant, most people are very dense when it comes to measuring chip speeds based on clockrate; they think a MHz is a MHz is a MHz, no matter the chip (therefore, a 300-MHz Celeron would be as fast as a 300-MHz PIII, if such a thing existed, and we all know that's not true). I see this as nothing but proof that clockrate is an inappropriate mesaure of speed.
Not all patents are in language. In fact, except for software, no patents are in "language." Example: a book. It's certainly in a language. But you can't patent a book. Now, let's try some new chip. Is it in a language? No. The plans for it and the documentation are both in a language, but those can't be patented (copyrighted, yes, patented, no).
Now, here's the interesting thing: you cannot patent source code, anywhere. You can naturally copyright it, in fact you're expected to (even the FSF does it). But it's a representation, a language. So you can't patent it.
What you can, unfortunately, patent is the concept behind the code. To give you an example, let's take LZW compression (most commonly used in GIF's), the patent for which is held by Unisys. Now, Unisys has source code, of course. That isn't patented. However, the patent on the compression means that you are not allowed to write any code using that algorithm, even is your code is completely different from the code Unisys has. In effect, it's patenting an idea (which, if I'm not mistaken, the Constitution forbids, but the government either hasn't seen that or has been lobbied by the industry not to look). Other patented ideas: the use of XOR to move a mouse pointer across the screen, the RSA encryption algorithm, color-matching technology (if you believe Imatec's latest claim, which I don't), and so on. There is no patented code for any of these; in fact the RSA encryption algorithm can be found in any discrete mathematics textbook (it's a popular example exercise). But, no one else can use these, even though they're doing their own work, not stealing that of the patent owners.
This is my major gripe with the patent system. The software industry has twisted it to a use for which it was never intended.
Timeouts? I haven't had Slashdot time out on me at all in the past six months, on either my Mac or Linux machine. The Solaris boxes in the computer labs here never have trouble with it either. Perhaps it's you who should try something different.
Meaningless? Meaningless? Contrary to your own myopic delusions, this is not over. It likely won't be for quite some time yet. Yes, we're starting to make a difference, but the fact remains that the Geek Profiling Katz is describing is still running rampant through American schools. This is not over, and will not be until the profiling ends.
Believe me, I know what geek profiling is. I put forth a claim to be the first profiled geek, literally years before the Littleton massacre even happened. Combine an apathetic assistant principal, a principal who refused to get involved, and a racist counselor and you get absolute hell, and that's not even counting the other students. I went through abuse of the worst kind. I was in numerous fights, and yet even though both sides acknowledged I acted only in self-defense, six times in one year I was suspended while the aggressor went free. When I tried to appeal the decision, I was met with vicious insults from the counselor of all people. They managed to even gloss it over enough that my parents couldn't see what was going on until the counselor told my mom he didn't have time for "smart little white boys," and yes, that's a direct quote.
As for profiling, they even went so far as to demand I see an outside psychologist. The reason, as stated by the counselor: "I can't help but notice your son smiling when he eats; I wonder what he could be thinking..." (for the record, I didn't even know I smiled when I ate; it was probably just because the food was good). Then there was the time I got suspended because rumors were circulating that I had hit the assistant principal. Of course I hadn't, and the assistant principal even acknowledged that I hadn't, but she suspended me anyway "to save face."
And let's not even go into the gang that started following me home from school every day, even though the administration knew and did nothing to stop it.
No, this isn't over, and it's certainly not meaningless. It's people like you, thinking the fallout from this can be eradicated in one week, who ensure that it won't be over for quite some time.