The process of shattering DNA strands, sequencing them, and tacking the whole thing together with a computer is one hell of an innovation. We may not be able to live without it yet, but plenty of people say that about the web. Certainly doesn't mean there's no innovation going on. Or are we limiting our discussion to the internet world?
Regarding the card slot, Secure Digital is an open standard for memory cards, it's not particularly popular yet.
I'm confused. What if I wanted to build an SD-compatible card that didn't include security features? Would someone come after me with a lawsuit? Hard to call it an open standard when you're not free to do with it what you want. Or maybe those security features aren't a requirement, but then how could they make sure nobody makes security-crippled cards? One would gather that there's some pretty tight control being exerted. Yuck. This is a great reason to avoid Palms.
From Panasonic:
The SD format, compliant with SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) requirements, rewards the creative process of all artists by providing high-level security to their files. With the advent of SD, top-name artists are more likely to create new material for electronic media distribution, since they know their work is secure.
I've had trouble with Equifax certificates, and their customer service is pretty lousy. Not to mention how much I dislike doing business with a company built upon the scam of consumer reporting.
Not authorized, better to say 'endorsed' by the major browsers. They include a default list of CA roots, which includes Verisign at al. If you buy your CAs somewhere else you subject your users to the slightly intimidating "Do you wish to trust content signed by..." dialog series. Web sites will pay a lot to avoid that.
Form what I've seen, it's not at all hard to get a bogus cert. You're basically paying for a rubber stamp. The primary reason certs are used is simply to convince the browser to open an ssl session without popping open 6 dialog boxes worth of FUD.
Actually, it's something of a hassle just to get a legitimate cert. You must, for instance, have a Dun & Bradstreet listing (among some of Verisign's irritating requirements.) Of course, it's possible to fake your way into it, but these companies provide a fairly decent level of identity verification.
What is really needed is various levels of cert from self generated ones that simply allow encryped connections all the way up to one that represents careful auditing and controls to surely verify the identity of the server on the other end.
The problem is that it's hard to explain to a browsing user exactly what level of authentication they're using. I mean, most people are just learning to look for that little padlock in the corner of the window. Imagine trying to explain the difference between a simple encrypted link and a fully authenticated connection in an unconfusing manner?
But your posting is exactly the sort of thinking that, as an educator, I have to work out of many people with prior programming experience. Your "from the ground up" approach puts an emphasis on implementation instead of interface.
Having taken the "ground-up" version of an introductory CS class, only to TA in the "top-down" version a few years later, I can honestly say that I witnessed more confusion in the latter. The whole notion of objects is very difficult to people who are having enough problems understanding what the heck a function call is. And yes, it's terrible for people to think that an object is an independent little program, because... well, they're not. It leads to the mistaken belief (which can be quietly harbored for months) that an object runs independently (ie, it's like a thread.)
This yields a tendency to discuss pieces of "how" before knowing all of the "what" or "why"
When I was younger and first learning to program (in my case, on a Mac), I encountered some difficulty understanding the concept of multiple inderection (pointers to pointers.) Of course, you can go round and round trying to explain that a pointer is a reference to a data structure, but what's that mean? Until I actually understood the basics of how memory was arranged, and realized that a pointer was just a piece of memory containing the address of another piece of memory (this may sound more complicated, but it really is much easier to visualize than the abstract concepts in the textbook explanation), I had a great deal of trouble making sense of these concepts. Dealing with students in the later class, I saw the same thing. This ignores the rather confusing issue that in Java there are no pointers, or maybe everything's a pointer (not to mention that whole String/StringBuffer thing kludge.)
Learning from the ground up may require slightly more work, but the problems can be spoon fed. Learning about OO front-loads the process, putting a huge burden of comprehension on intro students. The ones that get through it do it largely on faith, with less understanding of what's going on. They then have great difficulty understanding non-OO languages, which they will inevitably have to deal with. And finally, making them learn with Java lets them ignore little things like memory management, things that you really need to be concerned with in most real-world applications-- and upon inevitably being exposed to a lower-level language, learning these things is hard to do quickly.
Perhaps I don't understand the concept, but would this basically give the record companies the right to pretend that they're end-users? In other words, when I play a record in a coffee-shop, I'm an end user and I pay a negligible fee to the copyright holder. So this would allow the record companies to get away with paying the same negligible fees, rather than negotiating a real contract with the artists the way they do today?
I have to agree. Object oriented programming just doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you understand what's going on behind it. Teaching people about abstract data types in C is simple. Showing people how you can implement them using data structures and function calls is simple. Making the final step and showing them that an object oriented language is nothing more than a prettier way to do this is just the icing on the cake.
The problem is, when people learn about objects from the start, some of them actually tend to think too literally. Often times, they will believe that each object is like an independent little program, not that it's just a data structure with some functions for accessing it. These are things you have to learn about from the ground up, without chancing the misunderstandings you'll run into going the other direction.
I must also point out the disadvantage of using Java as a first language, particularly because issues like Memory Management are so completely buried. That's great if you believe your students are never going to have to use a lower-level language in their careers, but when and if they do, they're forced to learn concepts they should have known far earlier. Concepts upon which a much deeper understanding of computer architecture rests.
The greatest thing about computers today is that any undergrad or high-school student can easily get involved with a project that does have real-world implications. If you have even reasonable programming chops, just head over to SourceForge or come up with some pet project of your own. It's not like say, architecture, where you pretty much have to wade through years of education and apprenticeship before you get to see the foundation laid for your first project.
I went to a small college that was busy trying to 'improve' their CS curriculum. Among other things, their particular approach was to put most of the introductory classes (first two years) onto the web, and switch all coding from C into Java, with an emphasis on newer technology. They even got a major grant from the government to try this 'experiment'.
I can only describe the result as an unmitigated disaster. The best aspects of my school's CS department had formerly been its focus on the fundamentals of CS; lacking a huge, monied department, we were taught how things work rather than how the latest database software interfaced (and this had produced generations of very successful graduates.) This curriculum had evolved over a period of years; naturally, there were newer classes, and we weren't still coding in Fortran, but the curriculum had been tested and slowly improved over time. The spate of sudden 'improvements' wrought by these changes have irrevocably changed the nature of our department. Aside from the fact that we have a generation of majors who don't know what a pointer is, much more effort is expended teaching the latest software or OS, to the detriment of the fundamental cross-language, cross-OS education that I enjoyed. So the point of all of this is that sudden, untested changes in a CS cirriculum can cause as much harm as good.
Their legal fees will be nicely taken care of by those companies that cave and pay licensing fees. There are at least two mentioned in the article, with more to come, I'm sure.
The only thing worse than the extortionists are the companies that quietly accept the extortion. In fact-- while it probably isn't the case with this particular patent-- many companies come to cross-licensing agreements (or agreements in which a nominal licensing fee is paid) in order to help each other shore up their own patent claims. This is the sort of anti-competitive behavior that pure capitalists are supposed to abhor, as it involves banding together to convince the gov't to do your work, rather than competing to better meet the needs of the market. But I'm sure you don't see too many investment bankers complaining (as libertarian as they become when deregulation or income tax cuts are at issue.) Sorry if that last bit got a little rantish.
Why do you want multitasking on a device with a 320x320 screen and a 33mhz processor?
Ever gotten sick of waiting for a web page to load on your PC and flipped over to another app to occupy yourself during the wait? Can't do that on a Palm, and you really wish that wasn't so, especially when you're using a slow-as-death CDPD modem. But that only begins to scratch the surface.
Of course, a lot of your feelings do stem from the fact that it's somewhat underpowered; this was OK with me back in the days of AAA batteries, but now that I have to plug the darn thing in every couple nights to charge its batteries, they might as well give me a decently powerful processor.
The truth is, we just don't know. There are a bunch of companies who adopted standards that were ratified by a standards organization that Rambus belonged to. The rules of the organization stated specifically that members could not include (or allow to be included) concepts for which they owned the patents, at least not without saying something. Nobody knows for sure, but Rambus appears to have violated these rules; furthermore, there are emails between company officials that seem to indicate that Rambus did this knowingly, and expected that it would be in their business interests (today's stock meltdown is a good indication of how much it matters.) This is all aside from the fraud charges, which are murky.
Of course, there are people who will disagree and say that Rambus didn't actually violate the rules of the organization (rules are subjective, after all). But the only people who can really speak to Rambus' state of mind are the people who are accused of these actions, and they're not going to talk. I'd venture to say that beyond the litigants, only the courts really know the whole story. If they do end up issuing a final ruling against Rambus, it'll mean that there was a pretty clear cut case.
I remember seeing the arguement made that online businesses should be treated the same as mail order businesses the last time this debate came around.
And why in god's name shouldn't they be? An Internet retailer is just a mail-order business with a different ordering system (web page as opposed to 800 number or snail mail order form.) Considering that traditional 800-number mail-order sales still far exceed internet transactions, why exactly are we passing laws that affect one but not the other? Could it be that the mail order businesses have a stronger lobby in Congress?
Just as you have the right to speak, others have the right to react to your speech.
Wouldn't it be nice if others just reacted with their own words, rather than screwing up your life? I realize there's no legal reason for them to do so, but at least it would have been the ethical thing to do. I would hope that the people I entrust to educate my children would have the guts to do that.
Damn; maybe this downturn will be a good thing. The second people see the economy going south and threatening them, we'll finally see them paying attention to some of the more outragous abuses by large corporations
Yeah, or maybe we'll just see more corporate consolidation and an increase in the gap between rich and poor (with an attendant middle-east conflict to distract people from the reality.)
Slashdot Mirror
How is the Ricochet? What's the reception like, and how long do your batteries last?
The process of shattering DNA strands, sequencing them, and tacking the whole thing together with a computer is one hell of an innovation. We may not be able to live without it yet, but plenty of people say that about the web. Certainly doesn't mean there's no innovation going on. Or are we limiting our discussion to the internet world?
I'm confused. What if I wanted to build an SD-compatible card that didn't include security features? Would someone come after me with a lawsuit? Hard to call it an open standard when you're not free to do with it what you want. Or maybe those security features aren't a requirement, but then how could they make sure nobody makes security-crippled cards? One would gather that there's some pretty tight control being exerted. Yuck. This is a great reason to avoid Palms.
From Panasonic:
The SD format, compliant with SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) requirements, rewards the creative process of all artists by providing high-level security to their files. With the advent of SD, top-name artists are more likely to create new material for electronic media distribution, since they know their work is secure.
It's not so gimmicky if your PocketPC has a high-speed network connection.
I've had trouble with Equifax certificates, and their customer service is pretty lousy. Not to mention how much I dislike doing business with a company built upon the scam of consumer reporting.
Not authorized, better to say 'endorsed' by the major browsers. They include a default list of CA roots, which includes Verisign at al. If you buy your CAs somewhere else you subject your users to the slightly intimidating "Do you wish to trust content signed by..." dialog series. Web sites will pay a lot to avoid that.
No, but they do include fraud insurance with their certificates. I'm not sure how much this covers, of course.
Actually, it's something of a hassle just to get a legitimate cert. You must, for instance, have a Dun & Bradstreet listing (among some of Verisign's irritating requirements.) Of course, it's possible to fake your way into it, but these companies provide a fairly decent level of identity verification.
What is really needed is various levels of cert from self generated ones that simply allow encryped connections all the way up to one that represents careful auditing and controls to surely verify the identity of the server on the other end.
The problem is that it's hard to explain to a browsing user exactly what level of authentication they're using. I mean, most people are just learning to look for that little padlock in the corner of the window. Imagine trying to explain the difference between a simple encrypted link and a fully authenticated connection in an unconfusing manner?
Was this story based on the book "War of the Rats", or is that just another treatment of the 'legend'?
Having taken the "ground-up" version of an introductory CS class, only to TA in the "top-down" version a few years later, I can honestly say that I witnessed more confusion in the latter. The whole notion of objects is very difficult to people who are having enough problems understanding what the heck a function call is. And yes, it's terrible for people to think that an object is an independent little program, because... well, they're not. It leads to the mistaken belief (which can be quietly harbored for months) that an object runs independently (ie, it's like a thread.)
This yields a tendency to discuss pieces of "how" before knowing all of the "what" or "why"
When I was younger and first learning to program (in my case, on a Mac), I encountered some difficulty understanding the concept of multiple inderection (pointers to pointers.) Of course, you can go round and round trying to explain that a pointer is a reference to a data structure, but what's that mean? Until I actually understood the basics of how memory was arranged, and realized that a pointer was just a piece of memory containing the address of another piece of memory (this may sound more complicated, but it really is much easier to visualize than the abstract concepts in the textbook explanation), I had a great deal of trouble making sense of these concepts. Dealing with students in the later class, I saw the same thing. This ignores the rather confusing issue that in Java there are no pointers, or maybe everything's a pointer (not to mention that whole String/StringBuffer thing kludge.)
Learning from the ground up may require slightly more work, but the problems can be spoon fed. Learning about OO front-loads the process, putting a huge burden of comprehension on intro students. The ones that get through it do it largely on faith, with less understanding of what's going on. They then have great difficulty understanding non-OO languages, which they will inevitably have to deal with. And finally, making them learn with Java lets them ignore little things like memory management, things that you really need to be concerned with in most real-world applications-- and upon inevitably being exposed to a lower-level language, learning these things is hard to do quickly.
Perhaps I don't understand the concept, but would this basically give the record companies the right to pretend that they're end-users? In other words, when I play a record in a coffee-shop, I'm an end user and I pay a negligible fee to the copyright holder. So this would allow the record companies to get away with paying the same negligible fees, rather than negotiating a real contract with the artists the way they do today?
With the sentiment of the original poster that is... I should really use that Preview button more.
The problem is, when people learn about objects from the start, some of them actually tend to think too literally. Often times, they will believe that each object is like an independent little program, not that it's just a data structure with some functions for accessing it. These are things you have to learn about from the ground up, without chancing the misunderstandings you'll run into going the other direction.
I must also point out the disadvantage of using Java as a first language, particularly because issues like Memory Management are so completely buried. That's great if you believe your students are never going to have to use a lower-level language in their careers, but when and if they do, they're forced to learn concepts they should have known far earlier. Concepts upon which a much deeper understanding of computer architecture rests.
The greatest thing about computers today is that any undergrad or high-school student can easily get involved with a project that does have real-world implications. If you have even reasonable programming chops, just head over to SourceForge or come up with some pet project of your own. It's not like say, architecture, where you pretty much have to wade through years of education and apprenticeship before you get to see the foundation laid for your first project.
I can only describe the result as an unmitigated disaster. The best aspects of my school's CS department had formerly been its focus on the fundamentals of CS; lacking a huge, monied department, we were taught how things work rather than how the latest database software interfaced (and this had produced generations of very successful graduates.) This curriculum had evolved over a period of years; naturally, there were newer classes, and we weren't still coding in Fortran, but the curriculum had been tested and slowly improved over time. The spate of sudden 'improvements' wrought by these changes have irrevocably changed the nature of our department. Aside from the fact that we have a generation of majors who don't know what a pointer is, much more effort is expended teaching the latest software or OS, to the detriment of the fundamental cross-language, cross-OS education that I enjoyed. So the point of all of this is that sudden, untested changes in a CS cirriculum can cause as much harm as good.
The only thing worse than the extortionists are the companies that quietly accept the extortion. In fact-- while it probably isn't the case with this particular patent-- many companies come to cross-licensing agreements (or agreements in which a nominal licensing fee is paid) in order to help each other shore up their own patent claims. This is the sort of anti-competitive behavior that pure capitalists are supposed to abhor, as it involves banding together to convince the gov't to do your work, rather than competing to better meet the needs of the market. But I'm sure you don't see too many investment bankers complaining (as libertarian as they become when deregulation or income tax cuts are at issue.) Sorry if that last bit got a little rantish.
You'll get a few from addonam, too.
Well, I guess I just answered my own question... Crowded House isn't being filtered. Phew.
Ever gotten sick of waiting for a web page to load on your PC and flipped over to another app to occupy yourself during the wait? Can't do that on a Palm, and you really wish that wasn't so, especially when you're using a slow-as-death CDPD modem. But that only begins to scratch the surface.
Of course, a lot of your feelings do stem from the fact that it's somewhat underpowered; this was OK with me back in the days of AAA batteries, but now that I have to plug the darn thing in every couple nights to charge its batteries, they might as well give me a decently powerful processor.
Of course, there are people who will disagree and say that Rambus didn't actually violate the rules of the organization (rules are subjective, after all). But the only people who can really speak to Rambus' state of mind are the people who are accused of these actions, and they're not going to talk. I'd venture to say that beyond the litigants, only the courts really know the whole story. If they do end up issuing a final ruling against Rambus, it'll mean that there was a pretty clear cut case.
But it's still not a real multitasking OS, is it? I hate WinCE, but currently PalmOS is at the level of MacOS 6. Of course, there is Linux.
And why in god's name shouldn't they be? An Internet retailer is just a mail-order business with a different ordering system (web page as opposed to 800 number or snail mail order form.) Considering that traditional 800-number mail-order sales still far exceed internet transactions, why exactly are we passing laws that affect one but not the other? Could it be that the mail order businesses have a stronger lobby in Congress?
Wouldn't it be nice if others just reacted with their own words, rather than screwing up your life? I realize there's no legal reason for them to do so, but at least it would have been the ethical thing to do. I would hope that the people I entrust to educate my children would have the guts to do that.
On the other hand, if the school is taking any federal funding, it can be held accountable the same way a public institution can.
Yeah, or maybe we'll just see more corporate consolidation and an increase in the gap between rich and poor (with an attendant middle-east conflict to distract people from the reality.)