It is true that before this story broke, Microsoft had no plans on updating or offering any new fixes
Sorta sweeps under the rug the distinction between "Microsoft didn't know of any need to update" vs "Microsoft probably wouldn't have considered offering an update except for the bad press snowballing".
I'm not enough of a hardcore Star Trek fan to pull this off, but someone should set up an "Automatic Star Trek Plot Generator" page. It could be completely random, or the user could answer a few questions. I saw a similar concept for an automatic generator of sitcoms for television, which spit out concepts like these:
Three zany white girls find themselves living together in an apartment in Manhattan
Three zany black girls find themselves living together in an apartment in Manhattan
Six zany girls (three Hispanic, one Jewish, and one Italian) find themselves living together in an apartment in Manhattan
Are there (or in the future might there be) any movements striving to produce open-source chips and/or hardware systems? It would be truly useful for there to be super-easy cookbook directions that perhaps 5% of the population could use turn easily procured off-the-shelf parts into a linux-booting general purpose computer. Anything like this around?
You can always tell that a statement is meaningless when you can replace the key noun in it with a different word without changing the degree to which the statement is true. A statement that is always true, regardless of the subject, is dull and pointless.
You can always tell that a statement is profound when you can replace the key word in it with a different word without changing the degree to which the statement is true. A statement that is always true, regardless of the subject, is universal and timeless.
In the case of P2P networks, the checksumming is done by the same person you want to figure out if you can trust! As far as I know, this is an unresolvable problem.
The shortsightedness of the above is that it doesn't acknowledge that a checksum is merely a convenience, not the name of the game. If someone falsely publishes a checksum that a trusted checksum directory states is good, then it's simply a longer operation for a user to discover that the checksum is actually false... but this still leads to the blacklisting of the publisher, and not everyone needs to download the file in its entirety to discover this.
.
Re:Freedom and the USA
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
It's not that we *invented* freedom, it's just that we were first to the patent office with it. Now, a la Fraunhofer, we're just waiting for the democracy standard to catch on; once it's really rolling, we're going to spring MAJOR licensing fees on all countries that want to continue being democratic.
Did you think that a bunch of geeks wishing really, really hard and writing lots of really cool Free apps would somehow change this fact?
Honestly: yes. Is it so difficult to see a parallel with how uncontested squatting transforms ownership of land, or to imagine that there might be some legal burden on a patent holder to defend their patent to some degree or by default relenquish it to the commons? Whether this is actually the law or not is beside this particular point; the fact is, without being intimately familiar with the highly tangled collection of IP laws, it's not so outlandish to have hoped for exactly what you describe.
The boundary for the copyright should probably be at an API that is explicitly designated as an interface to separate works.
This thought is good/interesting. Comparing the linking interpretation with the above, I conceive of the scenarios this way:
(a) Linking: if you link to GPL'd code, you must release the entire source base
(b) API Boundary: if you modify code within the formally designated API boundary, you must release your modifications within that boundary
(b) seems more in the spirit of what I'd want, but it does present some problems:
1) what rules are adopted to ensure that the new API boundary remains clearly delineated within the new additional code, with no holes or ambiguities?
2) what if the person modifying the code decides to specify the API boundary at such a shallow depth into their added code that the spirit of the standard is defied, and the released code ends up getting polluted with such intentionally devious boundaries?
if ads didn't generate revenue or alter spending habits, they wouldn't be cost effective and wouldn't exist.
Ads probably work to some degree, but whether they work wonderfully or barely at all is an open question. Industries are often in the business of covering their bases "just in case"... for example, many awful ideas for dot coms got funded because the investment industry just wanted to make sure it didn't miss some kind of boat. And (I don't want to sound too conspiratorial here, but) my belief is that executives often look for ways to obfuscate their own performance, given either their lack of people management skills or their lack of comprehension of technology... and making a sacrificial lamb out of marketing is a perfect subterfuge in many circumstances.
Reminds me of a Simpsons scene where the elementary school of the future is shown. In a classroom with desks stacked on top of each other three levels deep, the children stare at Troy McClure instructing them from a monitor:
Troy: Okay, now if you have have five pepsis and drink three of them, how much more refreshed are you?
AOL Time Warner Inc. is a fully integrated... company.
What I've read suggests the contrary. Reportedly, one of the biggest problems they're facing right now is that the two cultures (AOL and TimeWarner) are clashing and refusing to mix, with managers on each side feuding and staking out territory.
Another benefit is that raytracing is parallelizable while rasterization generally isn't.
Not true... in fact, the opposite is the truth. Rasterization - which I assume is used here to refer to zbuffering - is very highly parallelizable, while raytracing is only moderately so. The fundamental reason for this is that zbuffering needs only serial access to the database of polygons, while raytracing needs unpredictable access to the polygons depending on where rays are reflected and where lights cast shadows. This means that raytracing is subject to a high degree of unpredictable memory needs and disk accesses, whereas zbuffering can be nicely predicted, pipelined, and parallelized. This is why hardware implementations of zbuffering are a dime a dozen, while the only hardware implementations I've seen of raytracing parallelizes only one very tiny portion of the rendering pipeline and has all kinds of problems that as yet are not addressed sufficiently for practical needs.
Why go public - because you need to be able to pay off the VCs and the founders (all those engineers who worked their butts off for 3 years with the hope of making it big).
I must correct this statement. The engineers who worked their butts off are NOT getting paid back. Yes, there are a few high-profile spectacular successes. But the rule is that top execs keep 75% of the stock for themselves and early investors, and something less than 15% gets distributed to EVERYONE else... including the engineers. The likelihood of the stock becoming even modestly valuable is very low, and the engineers are the last in line when stockholders line up to recoup losses in the event of a failed endeavor. And sadly, these ventures often fail specifically because the execs' desire for short-term gains prevents them from making decisions that would result in a viable long-term business.
Two things that surprised me, and for which I'd welcome any information anyone can contribute:
[data written to a well-implemented XML] format should be both smaller and faster than today's binary serialization
How could the XML version of something be smaller than the binary? On the "smaller" angle, a four-byte float can easily become a 12-byte string. On the "faster" angle, no conversion back and forth beats a conversion both directions. How is his claim possible?
Both the new and old I/O APIs still assume that the complete contents of a file can be accessed as a stream (true on Windows and Unix but false on the Mac).
What is false about the supposition that a Mac file can be accessed in its entirety as a stream?
All we need is fraunhofer to assert patent rights over mp3 the way Forgent is asserting patent rights over jpeg. This stuff DOES happen, and perhaps the mere possibility of it happening will lead to the eventual wide adoption of Vorbis.
It is not lame per se, i.e. there are situations when ignorance of the law is *not* lame. I recall one case on slashdot where the authors of a law asserted copyright over it, which was upheld (!), requiring anyone who wanted to review the law to trudge to the county courthouse. Would ignorance of this law be a lame excuse? Beyond that, how many laws do we have, vs how many one can keep in one's head? If a law is sufficiently obscure, is it still lame not to know it? Or are we disavowing the possibility of "sufficiently obscure"? What about laws that directly contradict common sense, or laws that contradict other laws? We have plenty of both in the U.S.
.
Re:Now begins the hardest part...
on
Ogg Vorbis 1.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Any piece of technology, no matter how open, free or innovative is useless unless adopted and widely used.
I don't think this is a supportable statement. True, the greater the number of people using vorbis then the greater the likelihood that people will find vorbis-encoded material on the internet... but vorbis also is useful to any number of individuals who use it for either its sound quality or its freedom from patents. I suspect that your post was intended to convey the part about the usefulness of large numbers of users, which I agree with, but to declare vorbis otherwise "useless" seems worth straightening out.
We don't NEED to gain market share. We don't NEED to singlehandedly supplant Windows
True, but I and many others will breathe easier when increased mindshare and wider-spread corporate adoptance have made it unquestionably the case that Microsoft FUD, monopoly power, and congressional payoffs are guaranteed to fail in their quest to kill Linux. Right now they stand a scary chance of succeeding. We need that to change, and that is a worthy goal.
Harry Potter and the Mysterious Centerfold Harry Potter and the Unnecessary Suppository Harry Potter and the Hookah of Fire Harry Potter and the Magic Stock Options Harry Potter and the Tryst with Oprah Harry Potter and the Special Master Harry Potter and the Brown Barking Vapor
As Microsoft has demonstrated, even the mightiest case (such as the Clinton DOJ had) can be reduced to nothing by delaying tactics and tons of cash.
Or as OJ demonstrated, by using accumulated public goodwill and tons of cash. (I wonder if there's a latent joke in here about not being able to spell "DOJ" without "OJ"?)
With regard to the following web linking policy which NPR posts at:
Linking to or framing of any material on this site without
the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. If you
would like to link to NPR from your Web site, please fill
out the link permission request form.
This policy is absurd in concept and unenforceable in practice, and is completely unbefitting a fine institution of public information such as NPR. I respectfully request that you alter this policy. To assist in making the case for this change sufficiently compelling, I will be suspending my donations to NPR until this policy is no longer in force. As I expect prompt action on this issue, I trust this will not affect NPR's funds or the satisfaction I derive from donating.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like the math got away from me there... no wait, now I remember: the hook for this particular series was that one of the girls had two heads.
.
Sorta sweeps under the rug the distinction between "Microsoft didn't know of any need to update" vs "Microsoft probably wouldn't have considered offering an update except for the bad press snowballing".
How comforting.
.
.
Are there (or in the future might there be) any movements striving to produce open-source chips and/or hardware systems? It would be truly useful for there to be super-easy cookbook directions that perhaps 5% of the population could use turn easily procured off-the-shelf parts into a linux-booting general purpose computer. Anything like this around?
.
You can always tell that a statement is profound when you can replace the key word in it with a different word without changing the degree to which the statement is true. A statement that is always true, regardless of the subject, is universal and timeless.
.
1) File patent
2) Sit back while patent is adopted
3) Sue the crap out of everyone
4) ???
5) Collect underpants!
.
.
It's not that we *invented* freedom, it's just that we were first to the patent office with it. Now, a la Fraunhofer, we're just waiting for the democracy standard to catch on; once it's really rolling, we're going to spring MAJOR licensing fees on all countries that want to continue being democratic.
.
Honestly: yes. Is it so difficult to see a parallel with how uncontested squatting transforms ownership of land, or to imagine that there might be some legal burden on a patent holder to defend their patent to some degree or by default relenquish it to the commons? Whether this is actually the law or not is beside this particular point; the fact is, without being intimately familiar with the highly tangled collection of IP laws, it's not so outlandish to have hoped for exactly what you describe.
.
This thought is good/interesting. Comparing the linking interpretation with the above, I conceive of the scenarios this way:
(b) seems more in the spirit of what I'd want, but it does present some problems:1) what rules are adopted to ensure that the new API boundary remains clearly delineated within the new additional code, with no holes or ambiguities?
2) what if the person modifying the code decides to specify the API boundary at such a shallow depth into their added code that the spirit of the standard is defied, and the released code ends up getting polluted with such intentionally devious boundaries?
.
Ads probably work to some degree, but whether they work wonderfully or barely at all is an open question. Industries are often in the business of covering their bases "just in case"... for example, many awful ideas for dot coms got funded because the investment industry just wanted to make sure it didn't miss some kind of boat. And (I don't want to sound too conspiratorial here, but) my belief is that executives often look for ways to obfuscate their own performance, given either their lack of people management skills or their lack of comprehension of technology... and making a sacrificial lamb out of marketing is a perfect subterfuge in many circumstances.
.
.
Troy: Okay, now if you have have five pepsis and drink three of them, how much more refreshed are you?
Little girl: Pepsi?
Troy: Partial credit!
.
What I've read suggests the contrary. Reportedly, one of the biggest problems they're facing right now is that the two cultures (AOL and TimeWarner) are clashing and refusing to mix, with managers on each side feuding and staking out territory.
.
Darnit, I thought I'd configured my prefs to filter out everything by Jon Katz but this article still got through! It's a conspiracy to make me crazy!
.
Not true... in fact, the opposite is the truth. Rasterization - which I assume is used here to refer to zbuffering - is very highly parallelizable, while raytracing is only moderately so. The fundamental reason for this is that zbuffering needs only serial access to the database of polygons, while raytracing needs unpredictable access to the polygons depending on where rays are reflected and where lights cast shadows. This means that raytracing is subject to a high degree of unpredictable memory needs and disk accesses, whereas zbuffering can be nicely predicted, pipelined, and parallelized. This is why hardware implementations of zbuffering are a dime a dozen, while the only hardware implementations I've seen of raytracing parallelizes only one very tiny portion of the rendering pipeline and has all kinds of problems that as yet are not addressed sufficiently for practical needs.
.
I must correct this statement. The engineers who worked their butts off are NOT getting paid back. Yes, there are a few high-profile spectacular successes. But the rule is that top execs keep 75% of the stock for themselves and early investors, and something less than 15% gets distributed to EVERYONE else... including the engineers. The likelihood of the stock becoming even modestly valuable is very low, and the engineers are the last in line when stockholders line up to recoup losses in the event of a failed endeavor. And sadly, these ventures often fail specifically because the execs' desire for short-term gains prevents them from making decisions that would result in a viable long-term business.
.
.
All we need is fraunhofer to assert patent rights over mp3 the way Forgent is asserting patent rights over jpeg. This stuff DOES happen, and perhaps the mere possibility of it happening will lead to the eventual wide adoption of Vorbis.
.
It is not lame per se, i.e. there are situations when ignorance of the law is *not* lame. I recall one case on slashdot where the authors of a law asserted copyright over it, which was upheld (!), requiring anyone who wanted to review the law to trudge to the county courthouse. Would ignorance of this law be a lame excuse? Beyond that, how many laws do we have, vs how many one can keep in one's head? If a law is sufficiently obscure, is it still lame not to know it? Or are we disavowing the possibility of "sufficiently obscure"? What about laws that directly contradict common sense, or laws that contradict other laws? We have plenty of both in the U.S.
.
.
True, but I and many others will breathe easier when increased mindshare and wider-spread corporate adoptance have made it unquestionably the case that Microsoft FUD, monopoly power, and congressional payoffs are guaranteed to fail in their quest to kill Linux. Right now they stand a scary chance of succeeding. We need that to change, and that is a worthy goal.
.
Harry Potter and the Mysterious Centerfold
Harry Potter and the Unnecessary Suppository
Harry Potter and the Hookah of Fire
Harry Potter and the Magic Stock Options
Harry Potter and the Tryst with Oprah
Harry Potter and the Special Master
Harry Potter and the Brown Barking Vapor
.
Or as OJ demonstrated, by using accumulated public goodwill and tons of cash. (I wonder if there's a latent joke in here about not being able to spell "DOJ" without "OJ"?)
Hello,
:
With regard to the following web linking policy which NPR posts at
Linking to or framing of any material on this site without
the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. If you
would like to link to NPR from your Web site, please fill
out the link permission request form.
This policy is absurd in concept and unenforceable in practice, and is completely unbefitting a fine institution of public information such as NPR. I respectfully request that you alter this policy. To assist in making the case for this change sufficiently compelling, I will be suspending my donations to NPR until this policy is no longer in force. As I expect prompt action on this issue, I trust this will not affect NPR's funds or the satisfaction I derive from donating.
Thank you for the great programming.
Sincerely,
my name
my phone