Yes, that's wonderful, but most systems still draw between 3W and 7W in standby mode. Some can go as high as 24W just to keep the DRAM refreshed (especially in DDR systems).
Did he return your volley by asking you if you were willing to pay the electricity bills until you moved out if you're leaving the computer on all the time?
At least OOo's XML is compressed in a zip file. Everything I've seen is that good sized documents are decently small in OOo. Compare the same document content in a Word file to an OOo file.
I say this because I fear some may get the impression that OOo's document format is inefficient based on the parent post.
How much effort is it to zip Word's XML output up?
Also, don't forget that most people if saving as XML won't want to send around a zip file in email as their primary use of such a file format. They're more likely to do something else with the XML data instead. Which means that with OO, you have to unzip it to use it.
Sony Computer Entertainment Australia MD, Michael Ephraim: No. Generally the manufacturer takes the losses on the cuts. If you look at a lot of reports, manufacturers of console games machines lose money. It's the razors and blades game. If a person buys the razors, they keep buying the blades. The company that owns the format is the one that has to ensure that it's a viable business model long term, when you consider the sales of software.
Merrill Lynch has reported that our competitor was losing AU$100 per machine prior to their price cut, about the same as we were losing per machine when we launched PlayStation 2.
Actually, in this case I think perhaps it works very nicely. If you bought DSL with an advertised rate/capability of Y, but you are capped down at X, you should be able to modify your own hardware.
Yes, and find an ISP which caps you below the advertized rate, and you've got a class action lawsuit in the making.
However, more commonly, modifying your own hardware in this case is done to avoid the caps and get the full bandwidth of the channel above and beyond what was advertized, and what they're selling you -- which affects other users of the system.
So no, it doesn't work nicely. (Or rather, it doesn't support your argument).
How about if somebody covertly "patched" your DSL/cable modem, and suddenly it prevented your from doing slashdot, or something that depending on it it operating in a certain way.
That already happens with DOCSIS modems - they regularly get remotely updated by ISPs, in order to defeat the user's wish to circumnavigate bandwidth caps.
Perhaps you might want to try a different analogy?
Obviously, the next step is for Microsoft to start throwing the patches on the game disks -- watch for an 'update firmware' message the first time you boot the game.
They already do, and have done for at least 6 months now. Insert any XBOX Live game on a machine without XBOX Live installed, and watch.
So if a single ISP box gets hacked, they may count that as 100 linux sites hacked because of virtual hosting.
That's ok. Netcraft uses the same way of measuring sites running Linux vs. those running Windows, and you don't see people complaining about Apache's figures being too high because they counting one system as "100 linux sites" because of virtual hosting.
What's good for the goose...
(BTW: Netcraft has other problems... check out people.redhat.com and compare with charlotte.redhat.com -- same site, same IP, different sitename, counted as two separate sites by Netcraft... and there are lots of other examples of this duplication out there).
Same. Which is why my next card is probably going to be ATI -- they've ceased doing either of the above. I'd still like to see a unified driver architecture from them, but their drivers and support have been very good for the past couple years. Which also happens to coincide with them firing their entire driver team. Which also occurred at the same time as the utter lack of driver support you reference. The new team seems much better about actually doing their jobs.... unless you've got a mobile Radeon GPU (for example, in an Area 51-m laptop), in which case you're screwed. The drivers crash *all* *the* *time*.
Hashes and lossy compression are different things. They're designed for completely different purposes and implemented for the purpose they serve. That's why LAME won't compress an mp3 to less than 8kbps, much less 128 bits. It's why md5sum doesn't have a --reproduce-original switch.
For a given input and parameters, any two (independently-developed) MP3 encoders will almost certainly produce different outputs. For a given input and parameters, different md5 implementations will produce the same result.
That's because MP3 encoders are not specified by the MPEG specification. Only the decoders are. Therefore, two different independently-developed encoders will generate two different results -- because they use two different algorithms to compress the data.
On the other hand, MD5 hashing is a very different kettle of fish -- it's a defined algorithm for performing the encoding.
Sure, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, they perform two different functions. Conceptually, however, (and in terms of information theory) they're very very similar operations.
But lossily compressed things are derived works-- Otherwise the RIAA wouldn't be suing 12-year-old P2P users. I'd draw the distinction that with lossy compression, the expression isn't lost. Whereas with MD5 (and other hashes), the expression is irretrievably lost.
Only because the MD5 hash is nearly completely lossy. Once you can't retrieve any useful information, it's no longer a derived work.
For example, if you compressed an MP3 file down to 128 bits, I'm pretty certain that no-one would sue you for copyright infringement if you then spread it over a p2p network - mainly because at that point, you wouldn't have anything recognizable left. It'd be reasonably unique noise, but noise is all it would be.
Actually, the DOJ "won" the *initial* case. Then Microsoft appealed (would have appealed regardless, except in the extremely-unlikely event of a total vindication). During the appeal process the administration changed and the DOJ backed down.
However, prior to administration change, the DOJ was winding down on stamina. Remember, this had gone on for some 5 years. Once the Feds dropped off, so did the individual states (regardless of political affiliations).
Nice theory. However, the US Government happily had the stamina to sue IBM for a decade. Perhaps, just perhaps, they didn't have as strong a case as they'd hoped.
CI is the leading journal in the field. If you want to make it in the field, therefore, you play by their rules. It sucks, and it's unfair, and you do it, because that's the choice you have./shrug
People with money and power make rules. It's the way it works.
Then start your own journal in the field. Or offer them a limited time exclusive publishing agreement. That copyright clause is most likely so that they can publish it online in their archives, and so that you can't sell it to any of the other journals in the field. Which, if you think about it, makes sense.
The thing is, don't ever give anything up without negotiating on it. If they want to have exclusive access, tell them "Sure! -- BUT I'll only promise that I won't publish it in any other journal in the field. I reserve the right to publish it anywhere else, after a period of 6-9 months."
The journal in question, Critical Inquiry, won't publish unless you sign away the copyright - you retain the right to include the piece in any book you are author or editor of, but you still no longer own the piece.
Then don't publish there. And tell them why. You don't have to agree with their terms, you know. There's also a phrase you should learn: First Publishing Rights Only.
When I was a full-time journalist, I would attach a little contract to every submission. It spelled out the rights they got, and the rights I got to my material. They got the rights to publish it on the web, as part of their magazine. They got the rights to publish it in a country and/or worldwide. First time was free. Reprints, and any use outside of that magazine's scope was to be negotiated later.
My first question is what is wrong with Slashdot? I mean someone saw fit to give the parent coward "Insightful" for what she or he wrote? Someone wind the clock back before 2000 when Slashdot wasn't frequented by Microsoft apologists.
But with this low-bandwidth exploit, which I believe is actually not a new idea, since IE uses a tricky method to increase speed by leaving persistent connections until they time out that could be exploited, now a worm can potentially DoS any website, even dynamically selecting the target from the users' IE favorites and performing the attack very quickly (maybe in a matter of hours) without having to rely it on being a widespread, coordinated DDoS or what the target OS/Server is.
Pity that IE story was a complete load of bunk, easily invalidated by actually doing some research then, isn't it?
. Microsoft Outlook 2002 has an inferior interface to Mozilla Messenger.
No, it doesn't. Also, Messenger doesn't have a calendar.
2. Microsoft Outlook is riddled with security holes that are never patched because Microshaft would rather threaten so-called "hackers" under the DCMA. No, it isn't. If you believe it is, post references. 3. Microsoft Outlook has no spam filter. Wrong again. It has one built in. It's called a "junkmail filter" though. 4. Microsoft Outlook insists on using HTML and displays all images including web bugs. No, it doesn't. You can tell it whether to use RTF, HTML or plain text for emails. 5. Microsoft Outlook is closed-source. Big whoop. 6. Microsoft Outlook requires you to install Microsoft Exchange server, which costs $20,000 per license and is also closed-source. It also runs exclusively under Windows "Server," which is just Windows NT Workstation 2000 (or whatever it's called) with a different registry entry. No, it's not. And no, it doesn't. Outlook works happily with POP3 and IMAP as well as Exchange. What you get from Exchange is centralized email, centralized contacts handling, and centralized calendaring/scheduling.
7. Microsoft Outlook costs $100 per seat. Netscape Messenger costs $0 per seat.
Ok, you go that right. Kind of. IFF you buy it in a store, it will cost you $109/seat. If you get it elsewhere, it's cheaper. Especially in volume.
In short, I predict that Microsoft Outlook will be dead within 3 months.
Will you be willing to jump up and down and say "I'm an idiot" if you're wrong? Or are you going to be like every other psychic and fraud?
Funny... you claim that ideas are a dime a dozen, and that it's implementation that's hard.... and then go for the complete revocation of IP.
Clue for you: IP is NOT ideas. It's the implementation of those ideas.
A book is not an "idea". It's the implementation of the idea.
Software is not an "idea" -- "some way of typing in text and having it editable" is much different to the implementation that is a wordprocessor.
Music is not an "idea" -- there's a big difference between having all of the notes, or having this great idea for a cool ballad, and actually putting one together.
A film is not an "idea" -- compare with a book. You might have an idea for a plot, but it's much different to the work involved in creating a finished product.
In other words, good ideas may be a dime a dozen. However, the difference between an idea and IP is the whole process of putting that idea to work. And that can be very long -- anything from weeks to months to years -- very tedious, and take a hell of a lot of work, creativity and energy to deliver on that.
But hey, I've got this great idea for a piece of mail software that ties everything in your addressbook to the time it arrives, and works out when you really should get around to emailing that person who you forgot to reply to.
Now... if this is an 'idea' 'based on the environment of ideas built from what came before', then please tell me where I can download my "idea" from, so I can make use of it?
I can't, you say? I'll have to write all the software behind it?
Then it's more than just an idea. It's a shitload of work.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's wonderful, but most systems still draw between 3W and 7W in standby mode. Some can go as high as 24W just to keep the DRAM refreshed (especially in DDR systems).
Did he return your volley by asking you if you were willing to pay the electricity bills until you moved out if you're leaving the computer on all the time?
At least OOo's XML is compressed in a zip file. Everything I've seen is that good sized documents are decently small in OOo. Compare the same document content in a Word file to an OOo file.
I say this because I fear some may get the impression that OOo's document format is inefficient based on the parent post.
How much effort is it to zip Word's XML output up?
Also, don't forget that most people if saving as XML won't want to send around a zip file in email as their primary use of such a file format. They're more likely to do something else with the XML data instead. Which means that with OO, you have to unzip it to use it.
Sony is *not*, and never has, lost money on the PS1 or the PS2 in order to make up the difference on the games.
Really now?
Sony seems to differ with you on that opinion...
Sony loses AU$100 per unit
Sony Computer Entertainment Australia MD, Michael Ephraim:
No. Generally the manufacturer takes the losses on the cuts. If you look at a lot of reports, manufacturers of console games machines lose money. It's the razors and blades game. If a person buys the razors, they keep buying the blades. The company that owns the format is the one that has to ensure that it's a viable business model long term, when you consider the sales of software.
Merrill Lynch has reported that our competitor was losing AU$100 per machine prior to their price cut, about the same as we were losing per machine when we launched PlayStation 2.
Actually, in this case I think perhaps it works very nicely. If you bought DSL with an advertised rate/capability of Y, but you are capped down at X, you should be able to modify your own hardware.
Yes, and find an ISP which caps you below the advertized rate, and you've got a class action lawsuit in the making.
However, more commonly, modifying your own hardware in this case is done to avoid the caps and get the full bandwidth of the channel above and beyond what was advertized, and what they're selling you -- which affects other users of the system.
So no, it doesn't work nicely. (Or rather, it doesn't support your argument).
How about if somebody covertly "patched" your DSL/cable modem, and suddenly it prevented your from doing slashdot, or something that depending on it it operating in a certain way.
That already happens with DOCSIS modems - they regularly get remotely updated by ISPs, in order to defeat the user's wish to circumnavigate bandwidth caps.
Perhaps you might want to try a different analogy?
Obviously, the next step is for Microsoft to start throwing the patches on the game disks -- watch for an 'update firmware' message the first time you boot the game.
They already do, and have done for at least 6 months now. Insert any XBOX Live game on a machine without XBOX Live installed, and watch.
Maybe NOW it is, since Microsoft introduced the concept of loss-leading on the hardware...made up by software licensing.
Did you just get into gaming in 2001 or something?
Nintendo was the first company to follow this model. Then Sega. Then Sony. Microsoft is merely following the trend.
When the PS2 was released in Australia, Sony were losing AU$150 on every unit sold.
It's an industry standard tactic to use. It's called the razorblade model, and it works. Otherwise, you'd have to spend a lot more for your console.
So if a single ISP box gets hacked, they may count that as 100 linux sites hacked because of virtual hosting.
That's ok. Netcraft uses the same way of measuring sites running Linux vs. those running Windows, and you don't see people complaining about Apache's figures being too high because they counting one system as "100 linux sites" because of virtual hosting.
What's good for the goose...
(BTW: Netcraft has other problems... check out people.redhat.com and compare with charlotte.redhat.com -- same site, same IP, different sitename, counted as two separate sites by Netcraft... and there are lots of other examples of this duplication out there).
Same. Which is why my next card is probably going to be ATI -- they've ceased doing either of the above. I'd still like to see a unified driver architecture from them, but their drivers and support have been very good for the past couple years. Which also happens to coincide with them firing their entire driver team. Which also occurred at the same time as the utter lack of driver support you reference. The new team seems much better about actually doing their jobs. ... unless you've got a mobile Radeon GPU (for example, in an Area 51-m laptop), in which case you're screwed. The drivers crash *all* *the* *time*.
Hashes and lossy compression are different things. They're designed for completely different purposes and implemented for the purpose they serve. That's why LAME won't compress an mp3 to less than 8kbps, much less 128 bits. It's why md5sum doesn't have a --reproduce-original switch.
For a given input and parameters, any two (independently-developed) MP3 encoders will almost certainly produce different outputs. For a given input and parameters, different md5 implementations will produce the same result.
That's because MP3 encoders are not specified by the MPEG specification. Only the decoders are. Therefore, two different independently-developed encoders will generate two different results -- because they use two different algorithms to compress the data.
On the other hand, MD5 hashing is a very different kettle of fish -- it's a defined algorithm for performing the encoding.
Sure, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, they perform two different functions. Conceptually, however, (and in terms of information theory) they're very very similar operations.
But lossily compressed things are derived works-- Otherwise the RIAA wouldn't be suing 12-year-old P2P users. I'd draw the distinction that with lossy compression, the expression isn't lost. Whereas with MD5 (and other hashes), the expression is irretrievably lost.
Only because the MD5 hash is nearly completely lossy. Once you can't retrieve any useful information, it's no longer a derived work.
For example, if you compressed an MP3 file down to 128 bits, I'm pretty certain that no-one would sue you for copyright infringement if you then spread it over a p2p network - mainly because at that point, you wouldn't have anything recognizable left. It'd be reasonably unique noise, but noise is all it would be.
Would the output of comparator, MD5sums of overlapping lines of code, be considered a derivative work for copyright purposes?
Shouldn't be... after all, it's just a relatively unique identifier for the information - it doesn't actually contain any information.
Think of an MD5 sum as exceptionally lossy compression.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter. The DMCA simply makes it alot easier to harass people for alleged infringements
Not entirely the case. There have been criminal penalties for copyright infringement since 1992.
US 17, Chapter 5, Section 506.
Actually, the DOJ "won" the *initial* case. Then Microsoft appealed (would have appealed regardless, except in the extremely-unlikely event of a total vindication). During the appeal process the administration changed and the DOJ backed down.
However, prior to administration change, the DOJ was winding down on stamina. Remember, this had gone on for some 5 years. Once the Feds dropped off, so did the individual states (regardless of political affiliations).
Nice theory. However, the US Government happily had the stamina to sue IBM for a decade. Perhaps, just perhaps, they didn't have as strong a case as they'd hoped.
CI is the leading journal in the field. If you want to make it in the field, therefore, you play by their rules. It sucks, and it's unfair, and you do it, because that's the choice you have. /shrug
People with money and power make rules. It's the way it works.
Then start your own journal in the field. Or offer them a limited time exclusive publishing agreement. That copyright clause is most likely so that they can publish it online in their archives, and so that you can't sell it to any of the other journals in the field. Which, if you think about it, makes sense.
The thing is, don't ever give anything up without negotiating on it. If they want to have exclusive access, tell them "Sure! -- BUT I'll only promise that I won't publish it in any other journal in the field. I reserve the right to publish it anywhere else, after a period of 6-9 months."
The journal in question, Critical Inquiry, won't publish unless you sign away the copyright - you retain the right to include the piece in any book you are author or editor of, but you still no longer own the piece.
Then don't publish there. And tell them why. You don't have to agree with their terms, you know. There's also a phrase you should learn: First Publishing Rights Only.
When I was a full-time journalist, I would attach a little contract to every submission. It spelled out the rights they got, and the rights I got to my material. They got the rights to publish it on the web, as part of their magazine. They got the rights to publish it in a country and/or worldwide. First time was free. Reprints, and any use outside of that magazine's scope was to be negotiated later.
They agreed to this. Why? Because it makes sense.
My first question is what is wrong with Slashdot? I mean someone saw fit to give the parent coward "Insightful" for what she or he wrote? Someone wind the clock back before 2000 when Slashdot wasn't frequented by Microsoft apologists.
What are you blithering about, newb?
Simon
You might want to do float y = 1.0/2.0 * x if you want the answer to be correct. Your example of bad 'c arithmetic' is completely user error.
But with this low-bandwidth exploit, which I believe is actually not a new idea, since IE uses a tricky method to increase speed by leaving persistent connections until they time out that could be exploited, now a worm can potentially DoS any website, even dynamically selecting the target from the users' IE favorites and performing the attack very quickly (maybe in a matter of hours) without having to rely it on being a widespread, coordinated DDoS or what the target OS/Server is.
Pity that IE story was a complete load of bunk, easily invalidated by actually doing some research then, isn't it?
. Microsoft Outlook 2002 has an inferior interface to Mozilla Messenger.
No, it doesn't. Also, Messenger doesn't have a calendar.
2. Microsoft Outlook is riddled with security holes that are never patched because Microshaft would rather threaten so-called "hackers" under the DCMA.
No, it isn't. If you believe it is, post references.
3. Microsoft Outlook has no spam filter.
Wrong again. It has one built in. It's called a "junkmail filter" though.
4. Microsoft Outlook insists on using HTML and displays all images including web bugs.
No, it doesn't. You can tell it whether to use RTF, HTML or plain text for emails.
5. Microsoft Outlook is closed-source.
Big whoop.
6. Microsoft Outlook requires you to install Microsoft Exchange server, which costs $20,000 per license and is also closed-source. It also runs exclusively under Windows "Server," which is just Windows NT Workstation 2000 (or whatever it's called) with a different registry entry.
No, it's not. And no, it doesn't. Outlook works happily with POP3 and IMAP as well as Exchange. What you get from Exchange is centralized email, centralized contacts handling, and centralized calendaring/scheduling.
7. Microsoft Outlook costs $100 per seat. Netscape Messenger costs $0 per seat.
Ok, you go that right. Kind of. IFF you buy it in a store, it will cost you $109/seat. If you get it elsewhere, it's cheaper. Especially in volume.
In short, I predict that Microsoft Outlook will be dead within 3 months.
Will you be willing to jump up and down and say "I'm an idiot" if you're wrong? Or are you going to be like every other psychic and fraud?
Simon
Funny... you claim that ideas are a dime a dozen, and that it's implementation that's hard.... and then go for the complete revocation of IP.
Clue for you: IP is NOT ideas. It's the implementation of those ideas.
A book is not an "idea". It's the implementation of the idea.
Software is not an "idea" -- "some way of typing in text and having it editable" is much different to the implementation that is a wordprocessor.
Music is not an "idea" -- there's a big difference between having all of the notes, or having this great idea for a cool ballad, and actually putting one together.
A film is not an "idea" -- compare with a book. You might have an idea for a plot, but it's much different to the work involved in creating a finished product.
In other words, good ideas may be a dime a dozen. However, the difference between an idea and IP is the whole process of putting that idea to work. And that can be very long -- anything from weeks to months to years -- very tedious, and take a hell of a lot of work, creativity and energy to deliver on that.
But hey, I've got this great idea for a piece of mail software that ties everything in your addressbook to the time it arrives, and works out when you really should get around to emailing that person who you forgot to reply to.
Now... if this is an 'idea' 'based on the environment of ideas built from what came before', then please tell me where I can download my "idea" from, so I can make use of it?
I can't, you say? I'll have to write all the software behind it?
Then it's more than just an idea. It's a shitload of work.
You used to get plenty (the first AV app was on the Mac... and boy was it necessary...).
Wow... they haven't always done that; the originals were manufactured and sold by Hughes, RCA, Phillips and Sony.
Simon
TiVo don't sell their device at a loss.
They don't sell devices.
They sell service + software.
Simon