I think you understood the opposite of what I was trying to say - exactly because you cannot predict all the future uses a software unit will have, you cannot perform a statistical analysis of when, if at all, it'll break.
It'll definitely break, you can't know when or how until it happens.
Sorry my tone came off more impolite than intended. The subject line is the slogan of the "Mtv Cribs" program.
Software, of the other hand, is a digital entity, so its function doesn't change with time. If it was broken on the 10,000th time around, it was broken all along. Whether anyone noticed it was broken is completely another issue.
Extrapolating the future from the current situation will get you in trouble. Reality changes. No software can take into account all future input. Look up "misfeature" in the jargon file.
On a somewhat related note, GEB is indeed Gödel, Escher, Bach.
Check it: HTML Character Entities
Until solve the grand "context problem", you can't have creativity.
It's obvious that we need a way to describe the output. XML is the answer.
If you use the hair tag inside the kitsch tag, then the program goes to get hair renderings from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Let's not forget the all-important self-referential (a slfref) tag. Or the critical distance tag (a refref), which is different from the META tag. ArtML allows the artist to transmit his intent as well as the formal aspects of his art (which are contained in separate stylesheets).
In the future, all artist's intent will be searchable on the net. For instance, a search using the sheep,anatomy,warhol, and plastic tags could turn up Damian Hirst. Thanks to Boolean logic and the descriptive tags of XML, we'll be able to find art that appeals to us while avoiding art that does not. This will also allow programs such as Aaron to understand context and create new art. Will this make Aaron a follower? No, Aaron will have some success in predicting new trends and styles by using a similar algorithm to PubGene.
Context problem solved. You could even subscribe to a selection of artist programs through.NET.
...If Sony and Phillips don't make it, the 2nd tier players will fill up the space.
I don't see how the MPAA or RIAA can use software tactis in their industries when it is so easy to "just press play" to use their wares.
You're operating under the common slashdot misconception that music labels are different from hardware and infrastructure providers. Put yourself in their shoes. There's only one reasonable business solution: sell the hardware (infrastructure) and the software. All of these companies are going to resemble Sony or AOL/Time Warner.
The nice thing about that corporate structure is that license agreements are not needed. They can build compliance right into the hardware. They already sell DVDs with version encoding. Make no mistake, it costs a lot of money to deliver the production value that consumers expect these days, and mega media conglomerates are one of the only ways to deliver it. What you'll likely see is a situation where you can play by their rules or spend your time sifting through piles of "independent" crap. And no harping on about DV equipment and computers getting cheaper. The most expensive part of delivering production value is people. Talented media producers and techs are expensive.
I would not go near there with a 10-foot pole. There is really no way you can pull that off without generating a lot of ill will for your company from at least one of the parties involved. I also don't see how that will convince them to switch to your company immediately, no matter how right you are.
This is the right way to go about it. It would probably be better to work on your sales pitch. You need to mention the hidden costs of running ASP/NT as well as the security holes. If you're losing bids to people pitching this stuff, think about what they're saying: regurgitated M$ P.R.
Think pre-emptive strike.
Don't be afraid to whip up a PowerPoint presentation that refutes these claims. And give them lots of literature to keep. Preferrably this would be in a form that lends itself to re-use. What I mean is give them a list of "hard" questions about ASP/NT solutions that they can use against your competitors. How open about your intent you want to be is up to you. The very least you can do is structure your pitch in a way that encourages potential clients to ask your questions to all bidders. This will go a long way towards eliminating competitors with less expertise. It's possible, but not probable, that an ASP/NT type could set this stuff up better if they were good. After all, there are lucrative support contracts for M$ products:)
This is why game consoles are still as popular as they are. There was a time when game consoles were themost advanced and highly customized platforms for video game entertainment. With the advent of extremely high quality video cards, sound cards, and control devices for PCs over the past decade, it would be reasonable to assume that customers might choose to purchase a PC (which can now be priced competitively wihth some game consoles - as amazing as that is, in and of itself), which is more flexible, and by every reasonable measure, more useful, but, alas! - game consoles are still extremely popular. I maintain that this is because the gaming customer seeks simplicity and ease of use that (as much as it pains me to say) linux doesn't yet provide at this point, even with the great efforts of Ximian, and the Gnome Project, among others
Console games are extremely popular because the games are better, for most types of games. The games are better because developers have to spend very little time working out hardware compatibility bugs. The very flexibility that you value makes games harder to develop for PCs. Ease of use and flexibility are trade-offs. You can't have both.
These artifacts come from things moving in between shots, or slightly different angles. Note that this process is quite similar to what is used in modern color films. There are two critical steps that led to what we have now: panchromatic film and dye-coupling. For a complete history of color photography, look at this.
One problem that this approach led to was chromatic abberation. This happens because different wavelengths of light focus differently.
What's interesting to me about this exhibition is the application of new technology on old records. We are learning from them in a way we never expected. We get to see the past through current media technology.
Who the hell made the Movie and Song industries the people who get to choose how I use things for which I've already paid for?? Hell, never mind about the content that I've paid for, who the hell made them the arbitrers of how HARDWARE that I purchased - PURCHASED! - functions?
Sorry d00d,
The "Movie and Song" companies and "HARDWARE" firms are often one in the same. Free and open markets did make this decision. They can setup their product line any way they want to, and you can buy it or not. Consumers who collectively engage in expensive theft every day made this happen. These industries know that their products are valuable, and will take steps to insure that they're paid for.
The problem here is that Americans have a big problem accepting collective responsibility. Thus any tax on media or bandwidth is seen as unfair. The problem here is that when you insist on paying for your actions only, you get a system with a large amount of information about you. Wouldn't want anything unfair to occur. Get used to collective responsibility, it goes great with a collective medium(the Net).
Like it or not, producing entertainment costs a lot of money. The demand for these services is also high.
"The concept of free and open markets making decisions on what products live or die" is alive and well. If the same company makes monitors and produces movies, and they decide they only want their movies playable on their monitors, they can do that. They have a right to produce whatever they want. To require anything else is an abridgement of their rights to free speech. You can buy it or not. That's where your rights come in.
Re:tempest in a teapot
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 1
Conversely, well-run UNIX servers only run those services that they need to run, giving them the same protection as a stripped down pre-MacOS X machine.
Yeah, and many of those services run in user mode processes. Here's an old BSD-related chestnut.
buffer overruns... The possibilities are endless, and the lack of process based security makes pre-MacOS X machines more vulnerable than UNIX boxes.
Bzzt. When you do that to a *nix network daemon you often gain root shell access, no need to get into machine code. Just go look for examples of macintosh buffer overrun exploits. There aren't many. Searching for examples of *nix buffer overrun exploits results in a deluge of examples.
So, if you are to reply again, explain why there are so many more of these exploits for *nix. Consider the possibility it has something to with remote logins and multi-user setups, things MacOS classic lacks.
Re:tempest in a teapot
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 1
Machines get broken into not because they are "UNIX-like" or because they are "Windows-like" but because their network services have bugs. Most of the time, those are bugs in server code, not in the kernel...Reasoning that goes like "MacOS X is UNIX-like, therefore MacOS X will be susceptible to UNIX-like security problems" is simply not very informed.
hey d00d,
How do you "break into" a machine that doesn't allow remote logins, e.g. any previous MacOS. But don't take it from me, take it from the W3C.
Yes, you are missing something. You're absolutely right that you can get all the reference material you need on the web. That's what it does best.
However, when you're trying to *learn* a new language, it's better to have your editor, a couple console windows, and a book open. That speeds up the write/compile/run cycle. No flipping back and forth from the browser.
You learn faster.
If you're unsure of paying for a pre-fab solution, you could use Un-CGI. It's free and it takes care of all the really boring de-URLencoding stuff. Then can use scripts in whatever language you want-- shell, Python, C, whatever.
You get credit at the Iomega store. You also have some rights with respect to accepting the settlement. IANAL, but for those who are, there's a big section on "excluding yourself from the class action lawsuit", in case you want to litigate your own terms.
Me? I'll see if I can use my rebate to by iomega brand CD-Rs. My zip drive hasn't been plugged into the SCSI bus since I got a burner and broadband.
Art At Home
Here I quote from one of the excellent articles on OS X at Ars Technica.
Most modern desktop and server operating systems (including Windows 2000) use what is often called a "modified microkernel" architecture. Mac OS X does this as well. Instead of running as a user-level process on top of Mach, Mac OS X's BSD subsystem runs in kernel mode in the same address space as Mach itself. Most message passing between Mach and BSD is eliminated in this situation; the BSD subsystem can interact with Mach via normal function calls.
It's important to note that Mach's native kernel interfaces have not been broken by this "incorporation" of the BSD subsystem. They remain just as accessible to other subsystems as they would be in a pure microkernel implementation. This is important in Mac OS X because of the wide variety of subsystems implemented on top of Mach (and, by extension, on top of BSD): Cocoa, Carbon, the Java Virtual Machine, and even Classic.
From what I understand, this design is necessary to provide the best possible performance and hardware compatibility for Classic applications.
Also, if you take a look at your own link, you 'll see that OS X is has Mach as its primary ancestor, and OS X Server had NeXTStep (and BSD by extension). Art Ar Home
Actually, exactly the reverse is true. Look at the FSF's GNU utilities -- including their make, tar, man, etc. -- and what you'll see is copies of the standard UNIX/Posix utilities, extended with their own proprietary command line switches and minor changes that create incompatibilities.
Yeah, but you're free to modify the code... chump. How are you locked in? Guess who came up with the term Posix? RMS.
Troll? The logic in the parent post is so flawed that it seems intentional, but I'll refute it anyway.
Proprietary software is software which is incompatible with other offerings (regardless of whether these offerings are open source or not). Microsoft's incompatible extension of Kerberos is a good example.
Wrong. "Proprietary" means it is owned. Proprietary software may be fully standards-compliant and completely compatible with other offerings. A good example is Microsoft's IE5 for Macintosh, which is the most standards-compliant browser I know of, especially when it comes to ECMAscript/HTML 4.0/CSS. It's also proprietary, and the proprietor is evil Bill himself.
The phenomenon you're after is "embrace and extend." The GPL is designed to prevent it. It prevents people from using communtity generated source code to create proprietary (closed-source) products that leech off the open source community. Or, put another way:
The GPL is, by the way, a key element in the recent woes of Red Hat and other "Linux companies." It prevents them from adding unique value to their products while at the same time undercutting their sales and destroying their markets.
"Adding unique value" is why proprietary software is evil, a good example is Microsoft's extension to Kerberos:) .
People who do good creative work that benefits many people ought to be rewarded for it.
People who do good work are rewarded by other people hiring them to solve their problems.
Bottom Line: If you are not encrypting work to which you own the copyright then the DMCA does not apply to you.
How do you know the content is copyrighted before you decrypt it? When is it encryption and when is it a "copyright protection system"? What if I decrypt a file called "ithay emay abybay neoay oremay imetay" and it turns out to be "hit me baby one more time", by Britney Spears? Must I delete the file immediately? Is there some sort of ten-second rule for copyright violations?
Apple's stock is near it's 52-week low, but so are a lot of companies since the bubble hath burst. It's better to take a longer view.
Preliminary indications are that Apple users are not particularly interested in the complexity and sluggishness of Apple's latest operating system.
When are "users" ever interested in an OS? Pretty much the only time that ever happened was with Windows 95, and that was because of the press sucking of the teets of M$'s PR flacks.
Alternative architectures and software are killing Apple on features, price, and performance.
What you really mean is that generic boxen are killing apple on price. True. Features and performance, that's really, um, apples and oranges.
There are legions of corporations and individuals who have been disrespected by Apple...
This is true about any company, especially one that doesn't incorporate legacy hardware.
The main provider of Apple's microprocessor, Motorola, is hurting and hopes to leave the desktop processor business. Motorola announced 10000 layoffs so far this year, 2/3 in their fabs.
Most of Motorola's layoffs are in the cell phone hand-set sector. Secondly, it's hard to peg problems on Motorola's "Semiconductor Products Segment", because they provide parts to many other Motorola divisions (Iridium comes to mind). Also, remember that Motorola has about 130,000 employees.
Everyone does GUI and mice nowadays. Apple is left marketing decor. The most reasonable solution would be for Apple to open up. Open up its hardware specs and software so that where now exists little more than a corporate cult, there might exist a vibrant autonomous industry of developers, hackers, and hardware vendors.
You mean a vibrant, autonomous, industry like this one? Guess what? There are plenty of developers and hardware vendors for Macintosh, and almost everything they make works. Apple has already "opened up" where it counts, in Darwin.
Slashdot Mirror
my point was merely that mean time between failure is meaningless in both hardware and software.
Art At Home
It'll definitely break, you can't know when or how until it happens.
Art At Home
On a somewhat related note, GEB is indeed Gödel, Escher, Bach.
Check it: HTML Character Entities
Art At Home
Art At Home
DisGracenote?
Art At Home
It's obvious that we need a way to describe the output. XML is the answer.
If you use the hair tag inside the kitsch tag, then the program goes to get hair renderings from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Let's not forget the all-important self-referential (a slfref) tag. Or the critical distance tag (a refref), which is different from the META tag. ArtML allows the artist to transmit his intent as well as the formal aspects of his art (which are contained in separate stylesheets).
In the future, all artist's intent will be searchable on the net. For instance, a search using the sheep,anatomy,warhol, and plastic tags could turn up Damian Hirst. Thanks to Boolean logic and the descriptive tags of XML, we'll be able to find art that appeals to us while avoiding art that does not. This will also allow programs such as Aaron to understand context and create new art. Will this make Aaron a follower? No, Aaron will have some success in predicting new trends and styles by using a similar algorithm to PubGene.
Context problem solved. You could even subscribe to a selection of artist programs through .NET.
Art At Home
The nice thing about that corporate structure is that license agreements are not needed. They can build compliance right into the hardware. They already sell DVDs with version encoding. Make no mistake, it costs a lot of money to deliver the production value that consumers expect these days, and mega media conglomerates are one of the only ways to deliver it. What you'll likely see is a situation where you can play by their rules or spend your time sifting through piles of "independent" crap. And no harping on about DV equipment and computers getting cheaper. The most expensive part of delivering production value is people. Talented media producers and techs are expensive.
Art At Home
You could also try the M$ solution:
SharePoint
Art At Home
This is the right way to go about it. It would probably be better to work on your sales pitch. You need to mention the hidden costs of running ASP/NT as well as the security holes. If you're losing bids to people pitching this stuff, think about what they're saying: regurgitated M$ P.R.
Think pre-emptive strike. :)
Don't be afraid to whip up a PowerPoint presentation that refutes these claims. And give them lots of literature to keep. Preferrably this would be in a form that lends itself to re-use. What I mean is give them a list of "hard" questions about ASP/NT solutions that they can use against your competitors. How open about your intent you want to be is up to you. The very least you can do is structure your pitch in a way that encourages potential clients to ask your questions to all bidders. This will go a long way towards eliminating competitors with less expertise. It's possible, but not probable, that an ASP/NT type could set this stuff up better if they were good. After all, there are lucrative support contracts for M$ products
Art At Home
Console games are extremely popular because the games are better, for most types of games. The games are better because developers have to spend very little time working out hardware compatibility bugs. The very flexibility that you value makes games harder to develop for PCs. Ease of use and flexibility are trade-offs. You can't have both.
Art At Home
One problem that this approach led to was chromatic abberation. This happens because different wavelengths of light focus differently.
What's interesting to me about this exhibition is the application of new technology on old records. We are learning from them in a way we never expected. We get to see the past through current media technology.
Art At Home
Sorry d00d,
The "Movie and Song" companies and "HARDWARE" firms are often one in the same. Free and open markets did make this decision. They can setup their product line any way they want to, and you can buy it or not. Consumers who collectively engage in expensive theft every day made this happen. These industries know that their products are valuable, and will take steps to insure that they're paid for.
The problem here is that Americans have a big problem accepting collective responsibility. Thus any tax on media or bandwidth is seen as unfair. The problem here is that when you insist on paying for your actions only, you get a system with a large amount of information about you. Wouldn't want anything unfair to occur. Get used to collective responsibility, it goes great with a collective medium(the Net).
Like it or not, producing entertainment costs a lot of money. The demand for these services is also high.
"The concept of free and open markets making decisions on what products live or die" is alive and well. If the same company makes monitors and produces movies, and they decide they only want their movies playable on their monitors, they can do that. They have a right to produce whatever they want. To require anything else is an abridgement of their rights to free speech. You can buy it or not. That's where your rights come in.
Art At Home
So, if you are to reply again, explain why there are so many more of these exploits for *nix. Consider the possibility it has something to with remote logins and multi-user setups, things MacOS classic lacks.
Art At Home
How do you "break into" a machine that doesn't allow remote logins, e.g. any previous MacOS. But don't take it from me, take it from the W3C.
Art At Home
Yes, you are missing something. You're absolutely right that you can get all the reference material you need on the web. That's what it does best. However, when you're trying to *learn* a new language, it's better to have your editor, a couple console windows, and a book open. That speeds up the write/compile/run cycle. No flipping back and forth from the browser. You learn faster.
Art At Home
If you're unsure of paying for a pre-fab solution, you could use Un-CGI. It's free and it takes care of all the really boring de-URLencoding stuff. Then can use scripts in whatever language you want-- shell, Python, C, whatever.
Art At Home
Rinaldi Class Action Settlement
You get credit at the Iomega store. You also have some rights with respect to accepting the settlement. IANAL, but for those who are, there's a big section on "excluding yourself from the class action lawsuit", in case you want to litigate your own terms.
Me? I'll see if I can use my rebate to by iomega brand CD-Rs. My zip drive hasn't been plugged into the SCSI bus since I got a burner and broadband.
Art At Home
Wouldn't more *VRAM* help this?
Art Ar Home
Also, if you take a look at your own link, you 'll see that OS X is has Mach as its primary ancestor, and OS X Server had NeXTStep (and BSD by extension).
Art Ar Home
Besides NORAD, there's the Denver Federal Center
What's real footage if there's nothing to measure in feet, just a CCD?
The phenomenon you're after is "embrace and extend." The GPL is designed to prevent it. It prevents people from using communtity generated source code to create proprietary (closed-source) products that leech off the open source community. Or, put another way:
"Adding unique value" is why proprietary software is evil, a good example is Microsoft's extension to Kerberos:) . People who do good work are rewarded by other people hiring them to solve their problems.Apple's stock is near it's 52-week low, but so are a lot of companies since the bubble hath burst. It's better to take a longer view.
Preliminary indications are that Apple users are not particularly interested in the complexity and sluggishness of Apple's latest operating system.
When are "users" ever interested in an OS? Pretty much the only time that ever happened was with Windows 95, and that was because of the press sucking of the teets of M$'s PR flacks.
Processor speed is stuck at 500 MHz.
Wrong.
Alternative architectures and software are killing Apple on features, price, and performance.
What you really mean is that generic boxen are killing apple on price. True. Features and performance, that's really, um, apples and oranges.
There are legions of corporations and individuals who have been disrespected by Apple...
This is true about any company, especially one that doesn't incorporate legacy hardware.
The main provider of Apple's microprocessor, Motorola, is hurting and hopes to leave the desktop processor business. Motorola announced 10000 layoffs so far this year, 2/3 in their fabs.
Most of Motorola's layoffs are in the cell phone hand-set sector. Secondly, it's hard to peg problems on Motorola's "Semiconductor Products Segment", because they provide parts to many other Motorola divisions (Iridium comes to mind). Also, remember that Motorola has about 130,000 employees.
Everyone does GUI and mice nowadays. Apple is left marketing decor. The most reasonable solution would be for Apple to open up. Open up its hardware specs and software so that where now exists little more than a corporate cult, there might exist a vibrant autonomous industry of developers, hackers, and hardware vendors.
You mean a vibrant, autonomous, industry like this one? Guess what? There are plenty of developers and hardware vendors for Macintosh, and almost everything they make works. Apple has already "opened up" where it counts, in Darwin.