The question is, though, does this significantly alter the viewer's perception of the film? I can't see why this could have been done otherwise (ruling out simple incompetence) but why? I mean, it still looked pretty incriminating last time I saw it, but the framing rather suggests that it couldn't get much worse.
It doesn't seem to work as an idea. Cigarette advertising can't appear on TV in Britain, but that doesn't mean we've blanked out the logos of all these cars for the last few years. It just means that when the cars are within our jurisdiction - as in the British GP - the cars run with different branding. Winfield became Williams, Mild Seven became Moto Sport, West once memorably became East:)
The different markets justification I can certainly see, but the cigarette advertising one doens't seem to hold water. And this is VERY expensive...
Not saying I don't believe you by ANY stretch of the imagination, but this isn't one I've heard before and, though I'm not an image manipulation expert and haven't watched the footage in detail, it's always looked about right to me, with nothing jumping out. After all, the footage has been known for a fair while now so any doctoring would have had to be done a LONG time ago when standards were rather lower...
How does this one get through, potentially? They bring out small kids who lost small siblings to speeding drivers. End of story. That's the way the British public's been trained to react by the media.
The problem is that we've got a heavily tabloid culture and not that high civil liberties respect. Our Labour Home Secretary (Jack Straw) has been putting out illiberal legislation for most of his term in office, but most people just don't notice.
This is horrible, short-sighted and probably trying to drum up publicity for the department at Leeds University who did the research. I really hope it doesn't get through, but I don't hold out much hope.
To stop (some of) the flames, why do I think I should be allowed to speed? Several things. Firstly, let's imagine I'm overtaking someone on a single carriageway road. Is this safer if I do it more slowly? No. It's safer (up to a point) at higher speed because I spend more time on the right side of the road and not on a collision course. Speeding briefly makes it a far safer maneuver. And if I don't pass, I'm potentially helping build a tailback - so causing air and noise pollution and frustration, so more accidents.
Next, look at how this works. It cuts off the fuel. Imagine what happens if it fails - the car dies, and there may well be nothing you can do to fix it short of calling out a repair technician. One more thing that I can't fix but that can strand me is dangerous.
Next, it perpetuates the myth that speed is the only problem. Police research shows speed is the primary cause in under 5% of accidents. But if there's a limiter, I'm safe, right? As it's speed that kills.
Now look at Japan. All cars are limited to 112, in theory. So, backstreet tuners hack the limiters away, with varying degrees of finesse. Some do a good job, sure. But is it really a good idea to encourage people to reprogram their cars? Because that's just what people will do to get round this, but it potentially introduces new bugs. Not pretty.
Finally, there's the fairly obvious civil liberties thing - not that I should be permitted to speed, as I'm happy with sensible law enforcement. It's more that this makes vehecile tracking extremely easy and, regardless of how legal my movements are, they're my business. I know they can be tracked to a fair degree via CCTV, but this would make it trivial.
What would I do? Jaguar have a new Adaptive Cruise Control system. Basically, there's an ultrasound system in the front bumper so that the cruise control system can keep you a sensible distance from the car in front. Build that into every car, linked to the speedo to determine sensible gaps, and I wouldn't complain. But this system is a very bad idea, which deserves to be fought.
Look, I know we're all getting fed up with the problems at Amiga, the missed promises, the bad feeling. So am I.
BUT...
Gateway bought Amiga to strip the patents, then got a lot of people asking what they planned to do with regard to new Amigas. Hence the delays, the confusion and the rather half-hearted approach. It wasn't what they really wanted to do, and it showed.
I don't know Bill McEwen, but I DO know Fleecy Moss reasonably well and I'd trust him. I can think of almost no-one with more drive, more ideas, more enthusiasm. He loves the Amiga and wants to do something with it. And I'd say he's got as much chance as anyone of pulling this one off.
Maybe nothing will happen, just like before. Maybe I'm a dreamer. But this gives the Amiga the best chance it's had for years, as it's controlled by people who know and love it.
Give this one a chance please, guys. Don't be cynical until this bunch have proved themselves worthy of only cynicism. If they fail, I'll join you in the moaning. But they don't deserve that yet.
Yes, if you want to split hairs, you can make money from GPL'd programs, but it's extremely difficult and doubtful whether it's sustainable in the long-term.
Oh, how I wish I had moderator points right now. And for this to turn up in my meta moderation.
Speaking of which, a thought. I've complained about the quality of moderation before and while there are blatant problems (like this) around, the main problem is that there are plenty of viewpoints out there which care perfectly valid and supportable but never get moderated. So, they never show up in meta moderation for comment.
Why not expand meta moderation so that we did a standard moderation on 10 comments, but that only went into a moderation database? The extent to which moderators were agreed with could be tracked more easily, but unmoderated comments could be included without it being a problem.
The comment this AC was replying to was reprehensible. I agree absolutely with the sentiments expressed by our anonymous friend. But this is slashdot and so comments against the prevailing current are always harder to get noticed. And by swearing he'll probably get marked as flamebait or a troll. For saying something which many people really could do with hearing...
As a programmer (not a very active programmer, but a programmer nonetheless) I can see the attraction of the GPL for my code. It stops anyone from taking it and then releasing a modified version without crediting or reimbursing me, or even providing me with the opportunity to do the same to their program. That's a real attraction, and pretty much what the GPL offers to programmers.
The BSD license, OTOH, is very little away from being PD - it's little more than a 'do what you want' license. As such, if you've BSD'd your code, I can treat it as a very useful resource. It gives me library code I can use with basically no strings attached. That it EXTREMELY useful.
There's no double-standards in that by any means. I'm merely stating the ideals for many.
Personally?
I'm not a total free software enthusiast. It has its place, but I also feel I have a right to determine what to do with my work and to gain financial reward for my effort. I don't think a service & support business model is viable in the long-term, so I'm not trying that one out.
So, if and when I produce something big it gets released as closed-source. It might ultimately get a source release, but that's not going to be instant.
Silly little stuff which I write to fulfil a silly little need of my own gets thrown out as free as a bird. It's cost me next to nothing and I'm happier for having a copy.
But what free license? BSD, every time. That way I'm contributing to the general library of code for all other programmers to use as they see fit. If I GPL it, I'm only doing that for GPL coders and I'd prefer to benefit the many once I've said I have no further use for a product.
That is spectacularly unfair. ACs certainly seem to generate more than their fair share of the rubbish, but there are plenty of inteligent posters who post AC for whatever reason. Sometimes it's so they can post information without fear of comeback - a service for which we're all grateful - and sometimers it's just that they prefer anonymity for whatever reason. Bottom line, though - there are plenty of good AC comments. Scroll through any article out there and you'll find them.
I would _hate_ having to use the net on a current PalmOS machine. Horrible little things - and yes, I had a Palm III for 6 months or so.
That screen is tiny - far too small to use for the web and really too small for e-mail as you can't fit 72 characters per line onto it.
Graffiti is really, really inaccurate and slow IMO - after all that time I still found I was only getting 80ish% accuracy. If it can't get into the high 90s it really isn't good enough. Maybe I just wasn't any good with it but seriously, this is with practice and real attempts to get better. I just found their topology seriously suspect - e's and s's got interchanges with alarming regularity. I actually spent a while experimenting with the training tool (so it'd render the character onto the screen) and was horrified to see what results it was coming up with. Also, that silkscreen design is just cheap 'n' nasty I'm afraid. Even if the screen area was permanently dedicated to input, making it rendered rather than fixed would help as you could use the keyboard without penalty, or get on-screen feedback as to your attempts. Seriously, having the system draw your characters under the pen helps. Try a WinCE machine to see what I mean.
I've currently got a Psion 5, which I love. A screen big enough to work on (640*240) and a keyboard I can use at nearly the same speed as a normal desktop. Yes, it's larger, heavier and more expensive. But it still fits in my jacket pocket (always felt a little silly with a Palm in a shirt pocket), doesn't noticeably weigh me down and, in all honesty, was worth the extra money. It's a better machine which allows me to do far more. For example, I've regularly taken live meeting notes on this. I tried on the Palm - just wasn't possible. With the Psion, works beautifully. I've written fairly long documents on it before then printed them off via the host PC and the sync cable - no conversion needed.
I'd have to say my honest opinion is that Palm succeded mostly by being just good enough and still relatively cheap. Good enough to make people at least try one without rejecting it from the spec sheet, cheap enough for people not to have to consider the purchase too hard and just buy the things. It's really not up to it, though, and I honestly can't see myself ever going back to a PalmOS box now I've had a play with a Psion. Got colleagues thinking about making the switch, too...
Try a Psion, then see if you can go back to the Visor.
Reminds me of a story from an old teacher of mine. He was sitting around, bored, in a university computer lab. They'd got a 6800 (IIRC) sitting in front of them, and had noticed it's instruction map was incomplete, so decided to manually load in the holes and see what happened...
One instruction quickly got nicknamed HCF - Halt and Catch Fire:)
The OS is the one part that *must* be open source. If it's not, the whole house of cards might as well be built on prime Florida landfill.
Come on, this is opinion, not fact.
If you say that you never want to work on a closed source OS again, that's your business. If you say that you don't ever want to use a closed source OS again, ditto. But to say that it's entirely impractical to develop a closed-source OS is ludicrous.
Whatever your philosophical objections may be to closed source, if the system and interfaces are properly documented then there's very little (if any) potential gain from having access to the source. Or, to put it the other way round, giving access to the source doesn't excuse a lack of documentation as it requires that a programmer read through and comprehend the relvant source modules to code, rather than simply being able to look it up an a reference manual. With the many millions of lines of code a modern OS contains, that just isn't sensible.
And, why do we need another OS?
You seriously believe that what we have now is as good as it can ever get?
If you want to improve the art of computing, you need to start somewhere. You could sit on your work until you've got something that can beat everything else and so will clearly win out, but that's not very sensible. A better idea is to release your developments periodically to help attract interest and developers. That way, you stand a far beter chance of ending up with something good down the line.
Whether anything will eventualy come of this is entirely open to debate. But I commend them for trying and the world would be a poorer place if no-one tried this sort of thing.
The V2 was a rocket, no problem. The V1 was far closer to a cruise missile in princinple - basically, a pilotless plane - and was powered by a pulsejet IIRC. Could be defended against to some degree, partly as you could shoot it down more easily than with a rocket but partly because you could fly a big, fast plane alongside it and tip its wing to make it spin off to the side.
This actually occurred to me last time I had moderator points and I'd be delighted if the moderation guidelines could be changed to take account of this.
What I decided was the fairest solution was for me to view in nested mode so I could follow the threads easily, but with it set to newest first. That way I wasn't seeing all that much taht had already been moderated, but saw plenty of good stuff.
Alternatively, view at lowest score first. That way you'll find the AC comments which start off at 0 (something else I'd change) and can moderate them sensibly.
I accept I did this at first, but moderating while viewing at highest score first just doesn't make a lot of sense.
If you're on a loose surface (such as sand or gravel) then a locked wheel will build up a wedge of material in front of it, which helps slow it down. ABS stops this happening, which is mostly why rally cars don't get fitted with ABS even though it's legal.
The train company are being truly nasty on this one and I'd do my best to publicise what they've done if I were you, but they are right that ABS (marginally) increases stopping distances on loose surfaces. It's so much better on any solid surface that it's still something you should look out for on your next car, though.
I see (reasonably) regular reports of crippling security holes in IE (or more specifically the HTML engine, so Outlook too...), NT and occasionally Office. They tend to release fixes fairly soon but they don't exactly shout about them so I'm guessing that there's a fair number of users entirely unprotected.
I don't follow the security community by any means, but when I see this many holes getting reported, I get worried. So what if they plug them in the end? They let them through in the first place, which they shouldn't have done. And stuff like Word/Excel macros and ActiveX seem to have been disasters waiting to happen.
If someone wants to tell me that they just get publicised because it's MS then I'll be happy and go away. But I don't recall hearing of this sort of quantity of security holes found in Netscape or Solaris...
Maybe - there's lots of things that could be done here, though somethign like that would quickly get unmanageable I suspect.
The point, though, is that Microsoft's actions are clearly illegal yet their investors are allowed to profit. This does not seem right and, while it may not currently be legal for the US government to do so, I would be delighted if it were decided that their IP assets transferred to a regulatory agency and then licensed to maybe 2 or 3 companies per package on, say, 10-year deals. This then removes Microsoft from the equation (Very Good Thing IMHO) and, if you want, provides a pool of money which could be used to partlially compensate Microsoft shareholders - say, give them 10% of the current market value of their shares back.
Disclaimer again - I'm still British and haven't qualified as a lawyer since yesterday. I accept that I'm arguing about the law in a foreign jurisdiction which, while in this case affects me, isn't really any of my business. If you want to flame me about this, feel free (to clarify and avoid what happened two posts ago...)
But there's no doubt that the gains are illegal and that they've profited from them hugely, is there? So why are they allowed to keep them? I wouldn't be if I was running an illegal moneymaking operation.
Perhaps my original post was a trifle extreme, but I see no reason whatsoever to reward either Microsoft or their shareholders for their actions - indeed, Microsoft should be punished and the shareholders shouldn't have a right to the proceeds of an illegal operation. And the suggested remedies seem to all actually increase Microsoft's (or whatever they become) value. I cannot see how that can conceivably be just.
I'm fully aware of how much Microsoft stock is out there. And I know it isn't all owned by Microsoft people. But (to use an excessive example, I admit) would you expect to have your return protected if you invested in the mafia? No. And there's no doubt that Microsoft have got to their position through illegal acts - I mean, this isn't the first time they've been up before the DoJ and they blatantly dirsegarded them before. So it's been established for some time that their actions were illegal, yet people are allowed to profit from them.
I agree that the effect on the economy from such a move would be huge, but it just doesn't seem right that they should be rewarded financially for illegality. That would send the message out to other companies that the best way to reward their shareholders would be to abuse anti-trust law wherever possible to develop an illegal monopoly. After all, that seems to be maximising returns on investment, which is their obligation is it not?
I'm not anti-capitalist by any means but profiting from this seems totally against natural justice to me.
As an aside, how on earth did my original post get marked as a flamebait for goodness' sakes?
... Which then brings in the question of whether anti-trust violation should be a civil or criminal offence.
Looking back at Microsoft's history I see very few redeeming features and would be perfectly happy if they were dismantled, their assets licensed to the three highest bidders for each item (or whatever) and Microsoft shares declared null and void. They've made enough of a mess of computing that I would happily see them removed from the equation.
However, with anti-trust law as it stands it's not possible to do this as the company can't have assets removed. Why, though? And why should the shareholders be allowed to profit from a company that's behaved illegally? Because it's been said many times that a breakup would almost certainly lead to substantial financial benefit to the shareholders. I would consider their behaviour no better than theft or fraud so why should they not be treated as a thief and a fraudster?
Disclaimer: I'm British and not a lawyer. Flame me if you want.
Free software cant be threatened by whatever marketing tactics as it doesnt have to make profits, which is a good thing.
I see what you mean, but I'm really not sure I agree.
What keeps free software viable? Mindshare. Why's Linux growing so fast right now? Because people are annoyed with the mainstream - specifically, Windows 98 and NT4 - and so want an alternative. Linux seems to many to be the most viable and can be tried for next-to-no monetary cost, so it's worth giving it a spin. Now, a percentage of those who try it will be programmers and will decide to help with one (or more) projects that make up the Linux-based OS that they use. So the development is enriched and perpetuated.
Imagine a world where NT was actually good, though. Big step I know, but try it:) Would people still be moving to Linux? Some, sure. There are always going to be people who will go for it on ideological grounds, or who find it better for their needs. But there's still that corporate fear of the GPL and open, community-based development so, without the technical advantage that Linux currently offers in some areas, how many would try it? Lots less. So you get less new programmers joining, less visibility because you don't have all this news about it and potentially lose programmers who get fed up with the perceived invisibility of the product. Eventually, this can kill the project.
OSS development can't go bankrupt but it can lose mindshare, which is just as fatal. It's a lot harder but it's perfectly possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, thanks.
The question is, though, does this significantly alter the viewer's perception of the film? I can't see why this could have been done otherwise (ruling out simple incompetence) but why? I mean, it still looked pretty incriminating last time I saw it, but the framing rather suggests that it couldn't get much worse.
Or am I being naive here?
Greg
Speaking as an F1 fan I can imagine this, but...
:)
It doesn't seem to work as an idea. Cigarette advertising can't appear on TV in Britain, but that doesn't mean we've blanked out the logos of all these cars for the last few years. It just means that when the cars are within our jurisdiction - as in the British GP - the cars run with different branding. Winfield became Williams, Mild Seven became Moto Sport, West once memorably became East
The different markets justification I can certainly see, but the cigarette advertising one doens't seem to hold water. And this is VERY expensive...
Greg
OK...
Not saying I don't believe you by ANY stretch of the imagination, but this isn't one I've heard before and, though I'm not an image manipulation expert and haven't watched the footage in detail, it's always looked about right to me, with nothing jumping out. After all, the footage has been known for a fair while now so any doctoring would have had to be done a LONG time ago when standards were rather lower...
Does someone wish to explain this one to me?
Greg
But I wouldn't be too sure.
How does this one get through, potentially? They bring out small kids who lost small siblings to speeding drivers. End of story. That's the way the British public's been trained to react by the media.
The problem is that we've got a heavily tabloid culture and not that high civil liberties respect. Our Labour Home Secretary (Jack Straw) has been putting out illiberal legislation for most of his term in office, but most people just don't notice.
This is horrible, short-sighted and probably trying to drum up publicity for the department at Leeds University who did the research. I really hope it doesn't get through, but I don't hold out much hope.
To stop (some of) the flames, why do I think I should be allowed to speed? Several things. Firstly, let's imagine I'm overtaking someone on a single carriageway road. Is this safer if I do it more slowly? No. It's safer (up to a point) at higher speed because I spend more time on the right side of the road and not on a collision course. Speeding briefly makes it a far safer maneuver. And if I don't pass, I'm potentially helping build a tailback - so causing air and noise pollution and frustration, so more accidents.
Next, look at how this works. It cuts off the fuel. Imagine what happens if it fails - the car dies, and there may well be nothing you can do to fix it short of calling out a repair technician. One more thing that I can't fix but that can strand me is dangerous.
Next, it perpetuates the myth that speed is the only problem. Police research shows speed is the primary cause in under 5% of accidents. But if there's a limiter, I'm safe, right? As it's speed that kills.
Now look at Japan. All cars are limited to 112, in theory. So, backstreet tuners hack the limiters away, with varying degrees of finesse. Some do a good job, sure. But is it really a good idea to encourage people to reprogram their cars? Because that's just what people will do to get round this, but it potentially introduces new bugs. Not pretty.
Finally, there's the fairly obvious civil liberties thing - not that I should be permitted to speed, as I'm happy with sensible law enforcement. It's more that this makes vehecile tracking extremely easy and, regardless of how legal my movements are, they're my business. I know they can be tracked to a fair degree via CCTV, but this would make it trivial.
What would I do? Jaguar have a new Adaptive Cruise Control system. Basically, there's an ultrasound system in the front bumper so that the cruise control system can keep you a sensible distance from the car in front. Build that into every car, linked to the speedo to determine sensible gaps, and I wouldn't complain. But this system is a very bad idea, which deserves to be fought.
Greg
Look, I know we're all getting fed up with the problems at Amiga, the missed promises, the bad feeling. So am I.
BUT...
Gateway bought Amiga to strip the patents, then got a lot of people asking what they planned to do with regard to new Amigas. Hence the delays, the confusion and the rather half-hearted approach. It wasn't what they really wanted to do, and it showed.
I don't know Bill McEwen, but I DO know Fleecy Moss reasonably well and I'd trust him. I can think of almost no-one with more drive, more ideas, more enthusiasm. He loves the Amiga and wants to do something with it. And I'd say he's got as much chance as anyone of pulling this one off.
Maybe nothing will happen, just like before. Maybe I'm a dreamer. But this gives the Amiga the best chance it's had for years, as it's controlled by people who know and love it.
Give this one a chance please, guys. Don't be cynical until this bunch have proved themselves worthy of only cynicism. If they fail, I'll join you in the moaning. But they don't deserve that yet.
Greg
We could all do well to remember this as a general principle when talking about licensing.
Greg
But I'm guessing Gnu Public Virus?
A little emotive, but I can see what they mean. Especially as the infectious aspect is my major complaint and the least defensible section.
Greg
THIS is insightful? Ouch.
Yes, if you want to split hairs, you can make money from GPL'd programs, but it's extremely difficult and doubtful whether it's sustainable in the long-term.
Oh, how I wish I had moderator points right now. And for this to turn up in my meta moderation.
Speaking of which, a thought. I've complained about the quality of moderation before and while there are blatant problems (like this) around, the main problem is that there are plenty of viewpoints out there which care perfectly valid and supportable but never get moderated. So, they never show up in meta moderation for comment.
Why not expand meta moderation so that we did a standard moderation on 10 comments, but that only went into a moderation database? The extent to which moderators were agreed with could be tracked more easily, but unmoderated comments could be included without it being a problem.
Greg
Why, oh why, was the language necessary?
The comment this AC was replying to was reprehensible. I agree absolutely with the sentiments expressed by our anonymous friend. But this is slashdot and so comments against the prevailing current are always harder to get noticed. And by swearing he'll probably get marked as flamebait or a troll. For saying something which many people really could do with hearing...
Oh well.
Greg
Oh, no, that's unfair.
As a programmer (not a very active programmer, but a programmer nonetheless) I can see the attraction of the GPL for my code. It stops anyone from taking it and then releasing a modified version without crediting or reimbursing me, or even providing me with the opportunity to do the same to their program. That's a real attraction, and pretty much what the GPL offers to programmers.
The BSD license, OTOH, is very little away from being PD - it's little more than a 'do what you want' license. As such, if you've BSD'd your code, I can treat it as a very useful resource. It gives me library code I can use with basically no strings attached. That it EXTREMELY useful.
There's no double-standards in that by any means. I'm merely stating the ideals for many.
Personally?
I'm not a total free software enthusiast. It has its place, but I also feel I have a right to determine what to do with my work and to gain financial reward for my effort. I don't think a service & support business model is viable in the long-term, so I'm not trying that one out.
So, if and when I produce something big it gets released as closed-source. It might ultimately get a source release, but that's not going to be instant.
Silly little stuff which I write to fulfil a silly little need of my own gets thrown out as free as a bird. It's cost me next to nothing and I'm happier for having a copy.
But what free license? BSD, every time. That way I'm contributing to the general library of code for all other programmers to use as they see fit. If I GPL it, I'm only doing that for GPL coders and I'd prefer to benefit the many once I've said I have no further use for a product.
Greg
Firstly, for the lazy (duck)
:)
Vapor
Secondly, they make Internet software.
Thirdly, yes they have released it and not just announced it
Greg
Oh, no.
That is spectacularly unfair. ACs certainly seem to generate more than their fair share of the rubbish, but there are plenty of inteligent posters who post AC for whatever reason. Sometimes it's so they can post information without fear of comeback - a service for which we're all grateful - and sometimers it's just that they prefer anonymity for whatever reason. Bottom line, though - there are plenty of good AC comments. Scroll through any article out there and you'll find them.
Greg
I would _hate_ having to use the net on a current PalmOS machine. Horrible little things - and yes, I had a Palm III for 6 months or so.
That screen is tiny - far too small to use for the web and really too small for e-mail as you can't fit 72 characters per line onto it.
Graffiti is really, really inaccurate and slow IMO - after all that time I still found I was only getting 80ish% accuracy. If it can't get into the high 90s it really isn't good enough. Maybe I just wasn't any good with it but seriously, this is with practice and real attempts to get better. I just found their topology seriously suspect - e's and s's got interchanges with alarming regularity. I actually spent a while experimenting with the training tool (so it'd render the character onto the screen) and was horrified to see what results it was coming up with. Also, that silkscreen design is just cheap 'n' nasty I'm afraid. Even if the screen area was permanently dedicated to input, making it rendered rather than fixed would help as you could use the keyboard without penalty, or get on-screen feedback as to your attempts. Seriously, having the system draw your characters under the pen helps. Try a WinCE machine to see what I mean.
I've currently got a Psion 5, which I love. A screen big enough to work on (640*240) and a keyboard I can use at nearly the same speed as a normal desktop. Yes, it's larger, heavier and more expensive. But it still fits in my jacket pocket (always felt a little silly with a Palm in a shirt pocket), doesn't noticeably weigh me down and, in all honesty, was worth the extra money. It's a better machine which allows me to do far more. For example, I've regularly taken live meeting notes on this. I tried on the Palm - just wasn't possible. With the Psion, works beautifully. I've written fairly long documents on it before then printed them off via the host PC and the sync cable - no conversion needed.
I'd have to say my honest opinion is that Palm succeded mostly by being just good enough and still relatively cheap. Good enough to make people at least try one without rejecting it from the spec sheet, cheap enough for people not to have to consider the purchase too hard and just buy the things. It's really not up to it, though, and I honestly can't see myself ever going back to a PalmOS box now I've had a play with a Psion. Got colleagues thinking about making the switch, too...
Try a Psion, then see if you can go back to the Visor.
Reminds me of a story from an old teacher of mine. He was sitting around, bored, in a university computer lab. They'd got a 6800 (IIRC) sitting in front of them, and had noticed it's instruction map was incomplete, so decided to manually load in the holes and see what happened...
:)
One instruction quickly got nicknamed HCF - Halt and Catch Fire
Greg
If you say that you never want to work on a closed source OS again, that's your business. If you say that you don't ever want to use a closed source OS again, ditto. But to say that it's entirely impractical to develop a closed-source OS is ludicrous.
Whatever your philosophical objections may be to closed source, if the system and interfaces are properly documented then there's very little (if any) potential gain from having access to the source. Or, to put it the other way round, giving access to the source doesn't excuse a lack of documentation as it requires that a programmer read through and comprehend the relvant source modules to code, rather than simply being able to look it up an a reference manual. With the many millions of lines of code a modern OS contains, that just isn't sensible.
You seriously believe that what we have now is as good as it can ever get?
If you want to improve the art of computing, you need to start somewhere. You could sit on your work until you've got something that can beat everything else and so will clearly win out, but that's not very sensible. A better idea is to release your developments periodically to help attract interest and developers. That way, you stand a far beter chance of ending up with something good down the line.
Whether anything will eventualy come of this is entirely open to debate. But I commend them for trying and the world would be a poorer place if no-one tried this sort of thing.
Greg
Erm...
The V2 was a rocket, no problem. The V1 was far closer to a cruise missile in princinple - basically, a pilotless plane - and was powered by a pulsejet IIRC. Could be defended against to some degree, partly as you could shoot it down more easily than with a rocket but partly because you could fly a big, fast plane alongside it and tip its wing to make it spin off to the side.
Greg
This actually occurred to me last time I had moderator points and I'd be delighted if the moderation guidelines could be changed to take account of this.
What I decided was the fairest solution was for me to view in nested mode so I could follow the threads easily, but with it set to newest first. That way I wasn't seeing all that much taht had already been moderated, but saw plenty of good stuff.
Alternatively, view at lowest score first. That way you'll find the AC comments which start off at 0 (something else I'd change) and can moderate them sensibly.
I accept I did this at first, but moderating while viewing at highest score first just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Greg
If you're on a loose surface (such as sand or gravel) then a locked wheel will build up a wedge of material in front of it, which helps slow it down. ABS stops this happening, which is mostly why rally cars don't get fitted with ABS even though it's legal.
The train company are being truly nasty on this one and I'd do my best to publicise what they've done if I were you, but they are right that ABS (marginally) increases stopping distances on loose surfaces. It's so much better on any solid surface that it's still something you should look out for on your next car, though.
Greg
I admit to not being an expert, but...
I see (reasonably) regular reports of crippling security holes in IE (or more specifically the HTML engine, so Outlook too...), NT and occasionally Office. They tend to release fixes fairly soon but they don't exactly shout about them so I'm guessing that there's a fair number of users entirely unprotected.
I don't follow the security community by any means, but when I see this many holes getting reported, I get worried. So what if they plug them in the end? They let them through in the first place, which they shouldn't have done. And stuff like Word/Excel macros and ActiveX seem to have been disasters waiting to happen.
If someone wants to tell me that they just get publicised because it's MS then I'll be happy and go away. But I don't recall hearing of this sort of quantity of security holes found in Netscape or Solaris...
Greg
Maybe - there's lots of things that could be done here, though somethign like that would quickly get unmanageable I suspect.
The point, though, is that Microsoft's actions are clearly illegal yet their investors are allowed to profit. This does not seem right and, while it may not currently be legal for the US government to do so, I would be delighted if it were decided that their IP assets transferred to a regulatory agency and then licensed to maybe 2 or 3 companies per package on, say, 10-year deals. This then removes Microsoft from the equation (Very Good Thing IMHO) and, if you want, provides a pool of money which could be used to partlially compensate Microsoft shareholders - say, give them 10% of the current market value of their shares back.
Disclaimer again - I'm still British and haven't qualified as a lawyer since yesterday. I accept that I'm arguing about the law in a foreign jurisdiction which, while in this case affects me, isn't really any of my business. If you want to flame me about this, feel free (to clarify and avoid what happened two posts ago...)
Greg
But there's no doubt that the gains are illegal and that they've profited from them hugely, is there? So why are they allowed to keep them? I wouldn't be if I was running an illegal moneymaking operation.
Perhaps my original post was a trifle extreme, but I see no reason whatsoever to reward either Microsoft or their shareholders for their actions - indeed, Microsoft should be punished and the shareholders shouldn't have a right to the proceeds of an illegal operation. And the suggested remedies seem to all actually increase Microsoft's (or whatever they become) value. I cannot see how that can conceivably be just.
Greg
I'm fully aware of how much Microsoft stock is out there. And I know it isn't all owned by Microsoft people. But (to use an excessive example, I admit) would you expect to have your return protected if you invested in the mafia? No. And there's no doubt that Microsoft have got to their position through illegal acts - I mean, this isn't the first time they've been up before the DoJ and they blatantly dirsegarded them before. So it's been established for some time that their actions were illegal, yet people are allowed to profit from them.
I agree that the effect on the economy from such a move would be huge, but it just doesn't seem right that they should be rewarded financially for illegality. That would send the message out to other companies that the best way to reward their shareholders would be to abuse anti-trust law wherever possible to develop an illegal monopoly. After all, that seems to be maximising returns on investment, which is their obligation is it not?
I'm not anti-capitalist by any means but profiting from this seems totally against natural justice to me.
As an aside, how on earth did my original post get marked as a flamebait for goodness' sakes?
Greg
Which was my point, basically. If NT was better Linux wouldn't be getting as much attention.
Thanks for someone confirming that!
Greg
... Which then brings in the question of whether anti-trust violation should be a civil or criminal offence.
Looking back at Microsoft's history I see very few redeeming features and would be perfectly happy if they were dismantled, their assets licensed to the three highest bidders for each item (or whatever) and Microsoft shares declared null and void. They've made enough of a mess of computing that I would happily see them removed from the equation.
However, with anti-trust law as it stands it's not possible to do this as the company can't have assets removed. Why, though? And why should the shareholders be allowed to profit from a company that's behaved illegally? Because it's been said many times that a breakup would almost certainly lead to substantial financial benefit to the shareholders. I would consider their behaviour no better than theft or fraud so why should they not be treated as a thief and a fraudster?
Disclaimer: I'm British and not a lawyer. Flame me if you want.
Greg
What keeps free software viable? Mindshare. Why's Linux growing so fast right now? Because people are annoyed with the mainstream - specifically, Windows 98 and NT4 - and so want an alternative. Linux seems to many to be the most viable and can be tried for next-to-no monetary cost, so it's worth giving it a spin. Now, a percentage of those who try it will be programmers and will decide to help with one (or more) projects that make up the Linux-based OS that they use. So the development is enriched and perpetuated.
Imagine a world where NT was actually good, though. Big step I know, but try it
OSS development can't go bankrupt but it can lose mindshare, which is just as fatal. It's a lot harder but it's perfectly possible.
Greg