Of course, as with any act of government, such regulation has the potential to be more harmful than good, but it also has the potential to be more good than harmful
Your words are prophetic.
We here all know that Microsoft releases swiss cheese software. They put the blame on 'hackers' and the sheeple eat it up. But they now have the answer with their phone-home software. The will now start claiming that security holes all come from unofficial software.
Look for M$ to start lobbying for all software to be government regulated. This will basically wipe out Open Source, shareware, and the small time coders, all in one fell swoop.
Years ago, scientist were attempting to dampen the power of hurricanes by dropping dry-ice from the back of planes. Again, the idea was to make it rain and thereby take some of the oomph out of the storm.
They were stopped because of protest from other countries who did not appreciate the US fiddling with the global climate.
Say record company A produces a record that becomes hugely popular. I'd like to dissect exactly how it becomes popular.
Part of that increase in popularity comes from using public airwaves to broadcast the song on radio. Part of the increase comes from me telling my friends what a great song it is. Part of it is just from the general sheep mentality of the population.
My question to/.:
How much of the value of a popular work is derived from no effort of the publisher and should be returned to the public at large, and how long after a work becomes part of our culture (like the Happy Birthday song) must we continue to be indebted to someone?
However, the real prick bastards of the world will tend to congragate where the rules of conduct allow them to excersize there own brand of morality and justice.
As I replied to another poster, you can't always get your way directly and honestly. Sometimes you have to manipulate people. In this case, that means modifying the 'real prick bastards' idea of morality and justice. Just because they're prick bastards does not mean that:
1) They want to see their country owned by Adobe, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, et.al.
2) They want to be pawns of Adobe, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, et.al.
3) They want to do anything more that uphold the law (as they see it).
You are right. I'm not disagreeing that law enforcement agencies are full of prick bastards (hence my comment: if not sometimes misguided). That just means that the impetus in on us to show them that we are on the moral and just side of things.
News film of young black boys being attacked by police dogs and mowed down with firehoses for walking down the street didn't change things?! All those protests in the '60s didn't change anyone's attitudes about the 'police action' in Vietnam?
I'll have you know that I'm 35. Neither young nor feeble. Changing the world is not accomplished within sanctum of the courtroom. First you have to wake the sleeping giant, that great body of apathy we call the public. After you shake them to a groggy state of consciousness, you have to inform them that there is a big demon ready to pounce on them and eat their children. Then the giant will awake, and woe be to those who stand in its sight.
Protest are part of the waking process. Seeing the citizens of other countries burning our flag is part of the waking process. I know this doesn't have anything to do with dishonoring Russian culture, just as well as you, but such a story will STILL get hours of playtime on talk radio and 'Rivera Live'. That will help to shake the giant awake.
In this case, the politicians will see the giant waking and tell RIAA, MPAA, et.al. that their baby is dead and kill DMCA.
My suggestion is a political move to get others on our side in order to help shake the sleepy giant. If you try to do everything honestly and directly, you will never get anywhere.
Think about it. I have an MP3 player, but I don't have all this high-end equipment you describe. I buy a new 'Backstreet Brittany' CD, but can't rip it. So I take it to my buddy, A, who rips it for me. A, who has been found pleasuring himself while listening to Backstreet Brittany, hasn't had a chance to get to the store to pick up the CD, but why should he now that he has a copy of yours on his HD. Later on, buddy B, who's also enamored of Backstreet Brittany, comes by and gets A to make him a copy of the MP3 (he promises of course that he was on his way to buy the CD).
I guess that it boils down to RIAA making the use of their product more inconvient. People will find a way around the incovience, and that way will not include a stop off to tithe RIAA.
A smart FBI would pursue the punishment of Dmitry to the bitter end. All the while crying, "It's not our fault. Adobe set us up the bomb. All our bases are belong to Adobe. Congress made the law, Bill Clinton signed it, and we must enforce it until Congress tells us otherwise." (Note: the reference to Clinton is important to overturn the law. Bush can say, "See! I'm fixing that Clinton guy's mistakes!" True or not, we don't care.)
While the execs may enjoy the fruits of their selling out labor (Congress in this case), the rank and file of most organizations tend to have some honor and respect for their positions. I truly believe that most FBI agents are honorable, if not sometimes misguided, hard working people who want to 'do the right thing' by their country.
This law (DMCA) is a travesty, and nothing will happen to it as long as the big guys are allowed to us it to quietly stuff little guys in holes. We need to use Dmitry as a martyr (that's what he gets for selling his software instead of releasing it open source 8*). He'll most likely end up much better than when he started (free publicity and all), and we need someone to show the public how the big guys have a tool to shut down anyone they like (we USians abhor a bully--unless it's us). Adobe must not be allowed to simply walk away and say, "Ahh, we were only kiddin'."
We need some people in Russia protesting outside of the US embassy. Have them burn some flags and call Bush stupid and evil. Have some USians from Russians descent complain how this law and the prosecution of Dmitry is an attack on Russian culture. Hell, protest outside of the Russian embassy in Washington. Turn this whole damn thing into an international incident that Bush will have to be involved with personnally.
I'm still watching crap, but at least it's clear, crisp crap!!!
Really now. This guy needs to get a life and go buy a ticket to a play, or a book. Then he could get real resolution and could really feel like he was there. Where the hell does a non-executive get $12,100 to spend on a TV and some bookshelves?
My opinion is that this is a fluff, 'consumer education' piece. Not education in the 'here's something you need to know' sense, but in the 'this is what you should believe' sense. Consumers must be re-educated to believe that they need to spend $(N x 1000 + 100(M x num_months)) just to watch the crap the mega corporations spew at us.
Hey, buddy. I only spent $600 on my 36in TV, and it came with a stand. I didn't have to buy an extra 'decoder', and for the few shows I like to watch (the few with character deeper than a sheet of cardboard), I don't even notice the small amount of snow from the broadcast. Hell, the snow would disappear if I'd spend $50 on a decent antennae, but why would I? Me and my woman can have a lot more fun with that $50 in 90 minutes than you will have watching that preview station 8*)
Ooh, what an idea. And with any luck we could convine them to make the edges with little holes that a tractor feed can pick up and guarantee that the paper goes through with getting twisted. Man, that would be great.
Unfortunately, all the manufacturers think that the only thing that anyone wants is 8.5x11 sheets (it's actually a hack to use 8.5x14 on my HP930C). If I want to use tractor fed, fanfold paper, I have to revert to a house-shaking dot-matrix. Ugh!
But Spielberg's haunting and provocative movie A.I.
Didn't Katz say it was a POS last week? Heh, Katz reread last weeks column before writing this weeks!
And to answer your question.
Intersections used to have a policeman to direct traffic. Now we have automated lights. Ever tried to get around a big city when the lights go out? It's tough, but he policemen on the corners try to keep things going.
Oh, and what do people do after a hurricane? They cook on grills, and live in tents.
My point? People adjust to the point of least resistance. We rely on machines and automation because it is easier. If/when the machines die, we go back to doing the old/hard way. It sucks for a while until we get used to it, but such is life. I feel an undertone of "we'll all die out after the machines are gone" in your column. Let me reply simply, "No, we'll just adapt and start inventing new machines."
I don't think it covers all file retrieval. It appears to be more targetted to the download of software requiring an unlock code. This unlock code is transferred upon their receipt of an authentic request. From what I've read, this transfer seems to be done electronically.
Nor does it appear that this patent applies to software protected using electronic licenses (i.e. copy protection or feature limiting licenses).
And, to me at least, there lies the whole problem. It appears. It seems. What kind of judicial system allows laws and documentation that require advanced degrees to even understand? If ignorance of the law is no excuse, shouldn't law have to be written in understandable language. And don't give me any bullshit about $10 words being required in order to make the law more specific, 'cause that is complete bunk. I've seen enought technical documentation to know that it is possible to be clear, conscise and understandable all at the same time. All the bullshit rhetoric in patent applications and on the lawbooks are there simply to confuse the masses and make them hire lawyers.
Why can't we elect some judges that will let people off because the law isn't in English (or other native language as it may apply) instead of some twisted, latinesque, lawyerese? For instance, this judge should simply rule that noone can infringe on this patent, because an average person would need weeks to understand what the fuck it means.
Sorry for the rant, but the previous post was clear, concise and contained not noticeable misspelling. In short, Ronin Developer is literate in English, yet he can't decipher a document that purports to limit his activity. What kind of justice is that!?!
I don't like to program on the computer screen. I like to print my code on legal sized paper (8.5x14in) in very small type, tape the sheets end to end, and work on it with a pen. Why?
The single long continuous printout makes it easier for me to visualize the flow of the code, how the seperate parts relate to one another. I get a snapshot of the flow by looking a single long printout that I just can't get from a scolling window with a max of about 80 lines. The pen allows me to quickly make annotations and draw relationship lines with a speed and simplicity that is impossible on the screen. In short, the printout contains more data per square inch than my brain can pick out immediately, but being able to see the whole picture in one shot allows me to see relationships and flows that I would otherwise miss. I'm then able to immediately zoom in on important sections while ignoring the rest.
I would assume that these scientist are aiming for the same effect. Being able to have any single piece of the information immediately availble while looking at the whole picture. The point is to quickly draw out what might be important in the whole picture without being distracted by the mechanics of zooming into a detailed section. Instead of saying, "Computer, zoom into grid section E5", the scientist just has to look more closely.
The catch is that an audio player reads bits off a disk and dumps them into a DAC. No attempt is made to correct any of the data under the premise that if a couple bits are wrong, no one will ever be able to tell.
When the drives switches to data mode, a single bit can kill a program. In this case, heavy ECC is called for. CD rippers work by reading an audio CD in data mode. The 'burst of sound' are designed to confuse the ECC algorithms. The answer is new firmware or a driver that will disable the ECC routines of the drive.
Lotus is a very MicroSoft centered company, and (at least they used to) are very jealous of their Lotus (vs IBM) identity. Their port to OS/2 was a buggy POS. Several companies followed the same pattern:
-the community cries out for a port
-the company make a half-assed attempt at a port to 'gauge the community interest'
-the community balks at the crash prone POS
-the company ignores the complaints, only looking at the bottom line instead, decides that there really isn't any interest from the purchasing part of the community, and shitcans the project
Consider that a Windows->OS/2 port is a much simpler affair than Windows->Linux, since the former are decendants of the same bloodline. I predict that any Note's port from Lotus will be a sham designed to convince upper management that noone in the Linux community is willing to pay for Lotus' software; thereby, relieving them of the burden to having to make software that runs on more than one platform.
Not the best of plans, IMHO, seeing how MS Outlook continues to eat their lunch and will continue to do so as long as MS dictates the OS. But, heh, I'm just a guy watching it all happen. What do I know?
Internet access has become more and more of a commodity. In a commodity market, the most important element of a business is 'what does this business add to the product that no one else does?'
Will this be what is used in the future to differentiate AT&T Worlnet from Sprint from MSN from AOL from the local mom&pop shop? Will free access to the Wall Street Journal be attractive enough to cause the average Joe to switch providers when the information in the WSJ is available at so many other places? (I'm assuming that hobbyist pages will not fall under this type of agreement.)
Why would sea levels rise? I keep hearing this, but I don't believe it. Do an experiment. Put some ice in a glass of water and mark the level. Now, wait for the ice to melt and mark the level again. See any difference?
Climate is changing? Yes, let's say it is. But is that necessarily an evil? Some lands may become desertified (is that a real word?), but would other lands be opened to agriculture? Wouldn't a longer growing season in milder climates allow for bumper crops?
I'm sorry to question your religion, but the "its-getting-warmer, its-man's-fault, therefore, its-bad" theory just doesn't stand up.
You don't need to store the energy because the biggest energy consumers are still manufacturing facilities which tend to operate during the day. Nearly every power plant experiences a daytime spike from manufacturing facilities starting up. And guess what? It just so happens that these facilities start up at about the same time that the sun comes up. Futher more, all the grids in the US are interconnected. California can be feeding excess solar energy to North Carolina in the evening, and the energy would move back in the mornings.
But even the talk of excess solar energy is a little silly and unecessary. Energy planners don't plan for average usage. The have to plan and build plants for PEAK usage. What's more, there isn't a guy sitting at a meter giving the generator more gas when he sees a spike coming. The generator have to be fired up and ready beforehand (hence the planning).
If every home in the US was covered with solar cells we would STILL need power plants. It's just that the usage spikes would be much lower and possibly reversed (ie, they would not need to produce as much, but they would need to produce more at night when everyones sp went offline).
Microsoft appears to be actively trying to work over the home consumer for more money.
Microsoft appears to be actively trying to work over the business consumer for more money.
Microsoft appears to be actively trying to work over other businesses who have made products for the Windows platform in order to move into another market.
Microsoft is scrambling to throw mud at a competitor that they can't buy.
Microsoft has recently been investigated by the SEC for manipulating their earnings reports in order to keep their stock price growing.
It's a well known fact that one of the biggest draws of working for Microsoft is the phenomenal growth in stock options.
Let's see? Is there a pattern here? I submit that Microsoft is running scared. Their company is a house of cards. They have to sell more liscenses to keep the stock price growing, which is what keeps their developers in house, which is what enables them to develope products that need to sell to keep their stock price growing...
Unfortunately, the basic computer that most people need got cheap a year or two ago, and they don't see a need for another one. The PC craze has died down. VERY few people actually by WinXX. For most it comes pre-installed, and they never change it. Even businesses are saying, "What the hell do we need a FASTER PC to act as a glorified typewriter for?!"
Face it. The curtain has opened and the Wizard has been exposed as a sham. The little boy has snickered and now everyone admits that the emporer has no clothes. Microsoft is quickly falling from its pedastal as the golden boy of the information age. The execs surely realize that their current moves are tarnishing their PR, but what else can they do? The stock price has to keep going up, else the bubble will burst. Their tell themselves, in extreme arrogance, that they are the golden boy and that they are above reproach. No other company could get away with this, but We are Microsoft, the World depends on us.
It makes watching their downfall that much more interesting.
PS-Yes, I know. The company is setting on tons of cash. But 1)how much of it is real, and 2)how long will it last after revenue drains to practically zero when the hardware guys find that they can pre-install Linux/FreeBSD without paying the M$ tax and without customers revolting. (or when they find that they MUST install Linux/FreeBSD because their competitors are doing it and selling hardware for 10% less!!)
In this limited space we cannot do justice to the complex chemistry occuring during roasting and brewing but can supply a simplified primer and encourage the interested reader to delve further into the subject.
[...]Clearly, the cellulosic components (hemicellulose, celullose and lignin) are little effected by the roasting process as are the ash (mineral) and fat components (fatty acids, trigylcerides, waxs) since the roasting temperatures are low relative to their decomposition temperatures. Whereas the sugars, organic acids and proteins are dramatically reduced upon roasting. So it is apparent that the rich aroma and pigmentation occurs because of chemistry occuring to and between these components, the sugars, proteins and organic acids (chlorogenic acid). Indeed non-enzymatic browning reactions, called Maillard reactions involve interactions of amino groups of amino acids of proteins and other compounds and reducing sugars to form glycosamines(2,4,5). These condensation reactions with subsequent fission produces aliphatic and aromatic volatiles comprising the aroma. Much of the distinctive aroma arises due to the presence of sulfur and oxygen bearing aromatic (heterocyclic) compounds such as furans, furfurylthiol or furfurylmethyl sulphides and a host of other similar compounds. As of 1985, some 660 separate compounds in the aroma of a roasted coffee have been identified by gas chromotography and mass spectrometry.
[...] the heavier molecular weight components possess varying degreees of extended conjugation [...]. These components which have a molecular weight distribution from 5000-25,000 (1) or greater have energetically closely spaced highest occupied and lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (HOMO-LUMO) which leads to a myriad of optical transitions spanning the uv-visible range into the near infrared. As a result of the great multiplicity and heterogeneity of the associated compounds the optical absorption spectrum of a brewed coffee is smooth and monotonically decreasing from the far ultraviolet (uv) to the near infrared wavelengths.
Isn't unecessarily complex language one of the signs of a bad patent?
Excuse the long quote, but my intent was to pick out a few sentences that uniquely illustrated that the author is obviously trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by distracting them with big words. Unfortunately, the whole "simplified primer" is such an exercise in 10$ words for 10cent concepts that I had a hard time choosing just one or two examples.
Read the WHOLE story with a little history in mind. Microsoft sent up a trial balloon that got shot down by a powerful corporation. We've seen throughout this particular round of betas all sorts of ridiculous action where Windows defaults to behaviour that forces competitors out of the market. Another poster even goes so far to say that this shouldn't even have been posted because it OLD NEWS. Unfortunately, it's obvious that Microsoft will dominate a lot of new markets unless each and every case is shouted down one-by-one. So, they changed this one anti-trust law breaking, monopoly extending behaviour. How many more mines have they sewn into the OS to blow up your desktop when you install a competitors product?
Like it or not, Windows is a defacto standard, and a lot of companies must interact with it if they want to stay in business. If we don't want the entire country to be owned by Bill Gates, then we must make sure that the computing environment is open to all. My advice to companies that choose compete with Microsoft on Microsoft's turf would be to die quietly, except that Microsoft controls nearly all the farmable turf.
They produce good software right up to the point where they can force competitors out. Remember, the first edition of Gate's book barely mentioned the Internet. Then they saw how the WWW could be used as a platform to deliver applications. All of a sudden, they become the 'Internet Company', and then steal someone else's browser until they can throw enough monopoly-generated money at developers to create their own.
For all the hoopla M$ gets, I would just appreciate an intelligent, system-level application of my third mouse button, maybe having it paste highlighted text, for instance. That way I would have to go searching through menus or those damn, real-estate eating icons that they like to line their applications with.
So will Kodak now start looking to expand their software onto other platforms? Someone should inform their execs that when you lay with the devil you often get burned.
Seriously, I predict an increasing groundswell of support for Linux over the next few years. Kodak making their software for Windows actually helps Microsoft. Microsoft needs Kodak to make their software for Windows, as much as Kodak needs to make their software for Windows. But as Microsoft burns one partner after another, their behavior will begin to show up in corporate spreadsheets as a risk factor. A neutral playing field will start looking much better.
Right now, Microsoft has the market lead and so companies feel that they have to support the platform. Microsoft's executives feel secure that they can use their market lead to crush competitors and partners alike. Eventually companies will start to quietly support Linux (the 'up-and-coming' platform). The overbearing hubris that the companies top executives have always displayed will not let them change their behavior, since they believe they own the PC market, and so more and more companies will look to support other platforms. As the network effect dies out, Windows will have less of a stranglehold on the market, and, in the end, it will be the world against Microsoft.
There is no evidence that power lines or cell phones cause cancer. EMR is permeates you constantly. The people who scream, "IT'LL KILL ALL THE LITTLE KIDDIES IN THE SCHOOLYARD", are alarmist idiots looking for attention. Hence, it is funny that what these people see as being so dangerous will enable a lot of people to have a much better life.
How can doctors do this to heart patients. Charging the heart's battery with a coil. Don't they know that electro-magnetic radiation causes cancer?! Or is that only when it is produce by big, powerful corporations or forced upon us through cell phones?
He said the company's Shared Source initiative goes so far as to allow developers to examine the example of C# and CLI code, and then build similar structures on the platforms of their choice.
OMG, Microsoft will let people use sample code? You mean to say that I can copy that HelloWorld.C# from your documentation without being dragged off to IP Court? I can copy the syntax for the ridiculous way you decided to do database access without fear of having my app confiscated? Well, halelujah!!
What company would publish a new language without providing source examples, and what company would inhibit the free dissemination of those examples? How else would people learn the damn language? It doesn't sound like they're releasing the implementation of C#, only calling some example code 'open source'. So, score them -2. That's -1 for releasing another closed source language, and -1 for confusing the marketplace with their lies about releasing source code.
PS - I don't know how C# accesses databases. It just sounded good.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, as with any act of government, such regulation has the potential to be more harmful than good, but it also has the potential to be more good than harmful
Your words are prophetic.
We here all know that Microsoft releases swiss cheese software. They put the blame on 'hackers' and the sheeple eat it up. But they now have the answer with their phone-home software. The will now start claiming that security holes all come from unofficial software.
Look for M$ to start lobbying for all software to be government regulated. This will basically wipe out Open Source, shareware, and the small time coders, all in one fell swoop.
Years ago, scientist were attempting to dampen the power of hurricanes by dropping dry-ice from the back of planes. Again, the idea was to make it rain and thereby take some of the oomph out of the storm.
They were stopped because of protest from other countries who did not appreciate the US fiddling with the global climate.
Not likely to be much different this time around.
Go with me for just a second here.
/.:
Say record company A produces a record that becomes hugely popular. I'd like to dissect exactly how it becomes popular.
Part of that increase in popularity comes from using public airwaves to broadcast the song on radio. Part of the increase comes from me telling my friends what a great song it is. Part of it is just from the general sheep mentality of the population.
My question to
How much of the value of a popular work is derived from no effort of the publisher and should be returned to the public at large, and how long after a work becomes part of our culture (like the Happy Birthday song) must we continue to be indebted to someone?
However, the real prick bastards of the world will tend to congragate where the rules of conduct allow them to excersize there own brand of morality and justice.
As I replied to another poster, you can't always get your way directly and honestly. Sometimes you have to manipulate people. In this case, that means modifying the 'real prick bastards' idea of morality and justice. Just because they're prick bastards does not mean that:
1) They want to see their country owned by Adobe, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, et.al.
2) They want to be pawns of Adobe, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, et.al.
3) They want to do anything more that uphold the law (as they see it).
You are right. I'm not disagreeing that law enforcement agencies are full of prick bastards (hence my comment: if not sometimes misguided). That just means that the impetus in on us to show them that we are on the moral and just side of things.
News film of young black boys being attacked by police dogs and mowed down with firehoses for walking down the street didn't change things?! All those protests in the '60s didn't change anyone's attitudes about the 'police action' in Vietnam?
I'll have you know that I'm 35. Neither young nor feeble. Changing the world is not accomplished within sanctum of the courtroom. First you have to wake the sleeping giant, that great body of apathy we call the public. After you shake them to a groggy state of consciousness, you have to inform them that there is a big demon ready to pounce on them and eat their children. Then the giant will awake, and woe be to those who stand in its sight.
Protest are part of the waking process. Seeing the citizens of other countries burning our flag is part of the waking process. I know this doesn't have anything to do with dishonoring Russian culture, just as well as you, but such a story will STILL get hours of playtime on talk radio and 'Rivera Live'. That will help to shake the giant awake.
In this case, the politicians will see the giant waking and tell RIAA, MPAA, et.al. that their baby is dead and kill DMCA.
My suggestion is a political move to get others on our side in order to help shake the sleepy giant. If you try to do everything honestly and directly, you will never get anywhere.
Reading your post just made me realize something.
This 'protection' will increase casual sharing.
Think about it. I have an MP3 player, but I don't have all this high-end equipment you describe. I buy a new 'Backstreet Brittany' CD, but can't rip it. So I take it to my buddy, A, who rips it for me. A, who has been found pleasuring himself while listening to Backstreet Brittany, hasn't had a chance to get to the store to pick up the CD, but why should he now that he has a copy of yours on his HD. Later on, buddy B, who's also enamored of Backstreet Brittany, comes by and gets A to make him a copy of the MP3 (he promises of course that he was on his way to buy the CD).
I guess that it boils down to RIAA making the use of their product more inconvient. People will find a way around the incovience, and that way will not include a stop off to tithe RIAA.
No. I disagree.
A smart FBI would pursue the punishment of Dmitry to the bitter end. All the while crying, "It's not our fault. Adobe set us up the bomb. All our bases are belong to Adobe. Congress made the law, Bill Clinton signed it, and we must enforce it until Congress tells us otherwise." (Note: the reference to Clinton is important to overturn the law. Bush can say, "See! I'm fixing that Clinton guy's mistakes!" True or not, we don't care.)
While the execs may enjoy the fruits of their selling out labor (Congress in this case), the rank and file of most organizations tend to have some honor and respect for their positions. I truly believe that most FBI agents are honorable, if not sometimes misguided, hard working people who want to 'do the right thing' by their country.
This law (DMCA) is a travesty, and nothing will happen to it as long as the big guys are allowed to us it to quietly stuff little guys in holes. We need to use Dmitry as a martyr (that's what he gets for selling his software instead of releasing it open source 8*). He'll most likely end up much better than when he started (free publicity and all), and we need someone to show the public how the big guys have a tool to shut down anyone they like (we USians abhor a bully--unless it's us). Adobe must not be allowed to simply walk away and say, "Ahh, we were only kiddin'."
We need some people in Russia protesting outside of the US embassy. Have them burn some flags and call Bush stupid and evil. Have some USians from Russians descent complain how this law and the prosecution of Dmitry is an attack on Russian culture. Hell, protest outside of the Russian embassy in Washington. Turn this whole damn thing into an international incident that Bush will have to be involved with personnally.
Then watch how quickly the law gets struck down.
I'm still watching crap, but at least it's clear, crisp crap!!!
Really now. This guy needs to get a life and go buy a ticket to a play, or a book. Then he could get real resolution and could really feel like he was there. Where the hell does a non-executive get $12,100 to spend on a TV and some bookshelves?
My opinion is that this is a fluff, 'consumer education' piece. Not education in the 'here's something you need to know' sense, but in the 'this is what you should believe' sense. Consumers must be re-educated to believe that they need to spend $(N x 1000 + 100(M x num_months)) just to watch the crap the mega corporations spew at us.
Hey, buddy. I only spent $600 on my 36in TV, and it came with a stand. I didn't have to buy an extra 'decoder', and for the few shows I like to watch (the few with character deeper than a sheet of cardboard), I don't even notice the small amount of snow from the broadcast. Hell, the snow would disappear if I'd spend $50 on a decent antennae, but why would I? Me and my woman can have a lot more fun with that $50 in 90 minutes than you will have watching that preview station 8*)
Ooh, what an idea. And with any luck we could convine them to make the edges with little holes that a tractor feed can pick up and guarantee that the paper goes through with getting twisted. Man, that would be great.
Unfortunately, all the manufacturers think that the only thing that anyone wants is 8.5x11 sheets (it's actually a hack to use 8.5x14 on my HP930C). If I want to use tractor fed, fanfold paper, I have to revert to a house-shaking dot-matrix. Ugh!
But Spielberg's haunting and provocative movie A.I.
Didn't Katz say it was a POS last week? Heh, Katz reread last weeks column before writing this weeks!
And to answer your question.
Intersections used to have a policeman to direct traffic. Now we have automated lights. Ever tried to get around a big city when the lights go out? It's tough, but he policemen on the corners try to keep things going.
Oh, and what do people do after a hurricane? They cook on grills, and live in tents.
My point? People adjust to the point of least resistance. We rely on machines and automation because it is easier. If/when the machines die, we go back to doing the old/hard way. It sucks for a while until we get used to it, but such is life. I feel an undertone of "we'll all die out after the machines are gone" in your column. Let me reply simply, "No, we'll just adapt and start inventing new machines."
I don't think it covers all file retrieval. It appears to be more targetted to the download of software requiring an unlock code. This unlock code is transferred upon their receipt of an authentic request. From what I've read, this transfer seems to be done electronically.
Nor does it appear that this patent applies to software protected using electronic licenses (i.e. copy protection or feature limiting licenses).
And, to me at least, there lies the whole problem. It appears. It seems. What kind of judicial system allows laws and documentation that require advanced degrees to even understand? If ignorance of the law is no excuse, shouldn't law have to be written in understandable language. And don't give me any bullshit about $10 words being required in order to make the law more specific, 'cause that is complete bunk. I've seen enought technical documentation to know that it is possible to be clear, conscise and understandable all at the same time. All the bullshit rhetoric in patent applications and on the lawbooks are there simply to confuse the masses and make them hire lawyers.
Why can't we elect some judges that will let people off because the law isn't in English (or other native language as it may apply) instead of some twisted, latinesque, lawyerese? For instance, this judge should simply rule that noone can infringe on this patent, because an average person would need weeks to understand what the fuck it means.
Sorry for the rant, but the previous post was clear, concise and contained not noticeable misspelling. In short, Ronin Developer is literate in English, yet he can't decipher a document that purports to limit his activity. What kind of justice is that!?!
I don't like to program on the computer screen. I like to print my code on legal sized paper (8.5x14in) in very small type, tape the sheets end to end, and work on it with a pen. Why?
The single long continuous printout makes it easier for me to visualize the flow of the code, how the seperate parts relate to one another. I get a snapshot of the flow by looking a single long printout that I just can't get from a scolling window with a max of about 80 lines. The pen allows me to quickly make annotations and draw relationship lines with a speed and simplicity that is impossible on the screen. In short, the printout contains more data per square inch than my brain can pick out immediately, but being able to see the whole picture in one shot allows me to see relationships and flows that I would otherwise miss. I'm then able to immediately zoom in on important sections while ignoring the rest.
I would assume that these scientist are aiming for the same effect. Being able to have any single piece of the information immediately availble while looking at the whole picture. The point is to quickly draw out what might be important in the whole picture without being distracted by the mechanics of zooming into a detailed section. Instead of saying, "Computer, zoom into grid section E5", the scientist just has to look more closely.
The catch is that an audio player reads bits off a disk and dumps them into a DAC. No attempt is made to correct any of the data under the premise that if a couple bits are wrong, no one will ever be able to tell.
When the drives switches to data mode, a single bit can kill a program. In this case, heavy ECC is called for. CD rippers work by reading an audio CD in data mode. The 'burst of sound' are designed to confuse the ECC algorithms. The answer is new firmware or a driver that will disable the ECC routines of the drive.
I used OS/2 and its SmartSuite port.
You know not what you asketh.
Lotus is a very MicroSoft centered company, and (at least they used to) are very jealous of their Lotus (vs IBM) identity. Their port to OS/2 was a buggy POS. Several companies followed the same pattern:
-the community cries out for a port
-the company make a half-assed attempt at a port to 'gauge the community interest'
-the community balks at the crash prone POS
-the company ignores the complaints, only looking at the bottom line instead, decides that there really isn't any interest from the purchasing part of the community, and shitcans the project
Consider that a Windows->OS/2 port is a much simpler affair than Windows->Linux, since the former are decendants of the same bloodline. I predict that any Note's port from Lotus will be a sham designed to convince upper management that noone in the Linux community is willing to pay for Lotus' software; thereby, relieving them of the burden to having to make software that runs on more than one platform.
Not the best of plans, IMHO, seeing how MS Outlook continues to eat their lunch and will continue to do so as long as MS dictates the OS. But, heh, I'm just a guy watching it all happen. What do I know?
Internet access has become more and more of a commodity. In a commodity market, the most important element of a business is 'what does this business add to the product that no one else does?'
Will this be what is used in the future to differentiate AT&T Worlnet from Sprint from MSN from AOL from the local mom&pop shop? Will free access to the Wall Street Journal be attractive enough to cause the average Joe to switch providers when the information in the WSJ is available at so many other places? (I'm assuming that hobbyist pages will not fall under this type of agreement.)
Why would sea levels rise? I keep hearing this, but I don't believe it. Do an experiment. Put some ice in a glass of water and mark the level. Now, wait for the ice to melt and mark the level again. See any difference?
Climate is changing? Yes, let's say it is. But is that necessarily an evil? Some lands may become desertified (is that a real word?), but would other lands be opened to agriculture? Wouldn't a longer growing season in milder climates allow for bumper crops?
I'm sorry to question your religion, but the "its-getting-warmer, its-man's-fault, therefore, its-bad" theory just doesn't stand up.
You don't need to store the energy because the biggest energy consumers are still manufacturing facilities which tend to operate during the day. Nearly every power plant experiences a daytime spike from manufacturing facilities starting up. And guess what? It just so happens that these facilities start up at about the same time that the sun comes up. Futher more, all the grids in the US are interconnected. California can be feeding excess solar energy to North Carolina in the evening, and the energy would move back in the mornings.
But even the talk of excess solar energy is a little silly and unecessary. Energy planners don't plan for average usage. The have to plan and build plants for PEAK usage. What's more, there isn't a guy sitting at a meter giving the generator more gas when he sees a spike coming. The generator have to be fired up and ready beforehand (hence the planning).
If every home in the US was covered with solar cells we would STILL need power plants. It's just that the usage spikes would be much lower and possibly reversed (ie, they would not need to produce as much, but they would need to produce more at night when everyones sp went offline).
Microsoft appears to be actively trying to work over the home consumer for more money.
Microsoft appears to be actively trying to work over the business consumer for more money.
Microsoft appears to be actively trying to work over other businesses who have made products for the Windows platform in order to move into another market.
Microsoft is scrambling to throw mud at a competitor that they can't buy.
Microsoft has recently been investigated by the SEC for manipulating their earnings reports in order to keep their stock price growing.
It's a well known fact that one of the biggest draws of working for Microsoft is the phenomenal growth in stock options.
Let's see? Is there a pattern here? I submit that Microsoft is running scared. Their company is a house of cards. They have to sell more liscenses to keep the stock price growing, which is what keeps their developers in house, which is what enables them to develope products that need to sell to keep their stock price growing...
Unfortunately, the basic computer that most people need got cheap a year or two ago, and they don't see a need for another one. The PC craze has died down. VERY few people actually by WinXX. For most it comes pre-installed, and they never change it. Even businesses are saying, "What the hell do we need a FASTER PC to act as a glorified typewriter for?!"
Face it. The curtain has opened and the Wizard has been exposed as a sham. The little boy has snickered and now everyone admits that the emporer has no clothes. Microsoft is quickly falling from its pedastal as the golden boy of the information age. The execs surely realize that their current moves are tarnishing their PR, but what else can they do? The stock price has to keep going up, else the bubble will burst. Their tell themselves, in extreme arrogance, that they are the golden boy and that they are above reproach. No other company could get away with this, but We are Microsoft, the World depends on us.
It makes watching their downfall that much more interesting.
PS-Yes, I know. The company is setting on tons of cash. But 1)how much of it is real, and 2)how long will it last after revenue drains to practically zero when the hardware guys find that they can pre-install Linux/FreeBSD without paying the M$ tax and without customers revolting. (or when they find that they MUST install Linux/FreeBSD because their competitors are doing it and selling hardware for 10% less!!)
In this limited space we cannot do justice to the complex chemistry occuring during roasting and brewing but can supply a simplified primer and encourage the interested reader to delve further into the subject.
[...]Clearly, the cellulosic components (hemicellulose, celullose and lignin) are little effected by the roasting process as are the ash (mineral) and fat components (fatty acids, trigylcerides, waxs) since the roasting temperatures are low relative to their decomposition temperatures. Whereas the sugars, organic acids and proteins are dramatically reduced upon roasting. So it is apparent that the rich aroma and pigmentation occurs because of chemistry occuring to and between these components, the sugars, proteins and organic acids (chlorogenic acid). Indeed non-enzymatic browning reactions, called Maillard reactions involve interactions of amino groups of amino acids of proteins and other compounds and reducing sugars to form glycosamines(2,4,5). These condensation reactions with subsequent fission produces aliphatic and aromatic volatiles comprising the aroma. Much of the distinctive aroma arises due to the presence of sulfur and oxygen bearing aromatic (heterocyclic) compounds such as furans, furfurylthiol or furfurylmethyl sulphides and a host of other similar compounds. As of 1985, some 660 separate compounds in the aroma of a roasted coffee have been identified by gas chromotography and mass spectrometry.
[...] the heavier molecular weight components possess varying degreees of extended conjugation [...]. These components which have a molecular weight distribution from 5000-25,000 (1) or greater have energetically closely spaced highest occupied and lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (HOMO-LUMO) which leads to a myriad of optical transitions spanning the uv-visible range into the near infrared. As a result of the great multiplicity and heterogeneity of the associated compounds the optical absorption spectrum of a brewed coffee is smooth and monotonically decreasing from the far ultraviolet (uv) to the near infrared wavelengths.
Isn't unecessarily complex language one of the signs of a bad patent?
Excuse the long quote, but my intent was to pick out a few sentences that uniquely illustrated that the author is obviously trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by distracting them with big words. Unfortunately, the whole "simplified primer" is such an exercise in 10$ words for 10cent concepts that I had a hard time choosing just one or two examples.
Read the WHOLE story with a little history in mind. Microsoft sent up a trial balloon that got shot down by a powerful corporation. We've seen throughout this particular round of betas all sorts of ridiculous action where Windows defaults to behaviour that forces competitors out of the market. Another poster even goes so far to say that this shouldn't even have been posted because it OLD NEWS. Unfortunately, it's obvious that Microsoft will dominate a lot of new markets unless each and every case is shouted down one-by-one. So, they changed this one anti-trust law breaking, monopoly extending behaviour. How many more mines have they sewn into the OS to blow up your desktop when you install a competitors product?
Like it or not, Windows is a defacto standard, and a lot of companies must interact with it if they want to stay in business. If we don't want the entire country to be owned by Bill Gates, then we must make sure that the computing environment is open to all. My advice to companies that choose compete with Microsoft on Microsoft's turf would be to die quietly, except that Microsoft controls nearly all the farmable turf.
They produce good software right up to the point where they can force competitors out. Remember, the first edition of Gate's book barely mentioned the Internet. Then they saw how the WWW could be used as a platform to deliver applications. All of a sudden, they become the 'Internet Company', and then steal someone else's browser until they can throw enough monopoly-generated money at developers to create their own.
For all the hoopla M$ gets, I would just appreciate an intelligent, system-level application of my third mouse button, maybe having it paste highlighted text, for instance. That way I would have to go searching through menus or those damn, real-estate eating icons that they like to line their applications with.
So will Kodak now start looking to expand their software onto other platforms? Someone should inform their execs that when you lay with the devil you often get burned.
Seriously, I predict an increasing groundswell of support for Linux over the next few years. Kodak making their software for Windows actually helps Microsoft. Microsoft needs Kodak to make their software for Windows, as much as Kodak needs to make their software for Windows. But as Microsoft burns one partner after another, their behavior will begin to show up in corporate spreadsheets as a risk factor. A neutral playing field will start looking much better.
Right now, Microsoft has the market lead and so companies feel that they have to support the platform. Microsoft's executives feel secure that they can use their market lead to crush competitors and partners alike. Eventually companies will start to quietly support Linux (the 'up-and-coming' platform). The overbearing hubris that the companies top executives have always displayed will not let them change their behavior, since they believe they own the PC market, and so more and more companies will look to support other platforms. As the network effect dies out, Windows will have less of a stranglehold on the market, and, in the end, it will be the world against Microsoft.
I'm siding with the world.
Humor. Sarcasm. Laugh. HA!HA!
Geesh!
There is no evidence that power lines or cell phones cause cancer. EMR is permeates you constantly. The people who scream, "IT'LL KILL ALL THE LITTLE KIDDIES IN THE SCHOOLYARD", are alarmist idiots looking for attention. Hence, it is funny that what these people see as being so dangerous will enable a lot of people to have a much better life.
So LAUGH, damn-it!!
How can doctors do this to heart patients. Charging the heart's battery with a coil. Don't they know that electro-magnetic radiation causes cancer?! Or is that only when it is produce by big, powerful corporations or forced upon us through cell phones?
I get so confused sometimes.
He said the company's Shared Source initiative goes so far as to allow developers to examine the example of C# and CLI code, and then build similar structures on the platforms of their choice.
OMG, Microsoft will let people use sample code? You mean to say that I can copy that HelloWorld.C# from your documentation without being dragged off to IP Court? I can copy the syntax for the ridiculous way you decided to do database access without fear of having my app confiscated? Well, halelujah!!
What company would publish a new language without providing source examples, and what company would inhibit the free dissemination of those examples? How else would people learn the damn language? It doesn't sound like they're releasing the implementation of C#, only calling some example code 'open source'. So, score them -2. That's -1 for releasing another closed source language, and -1 for confusing the marketplace with their lies about releasing source code.
PS - I don't know how C# accesses databases. It just sounded good.