If this were so, then SCO is infringing on the copyright of all GNU/Linux contributors. Only the GPL grants them a right to distribute GPL'd software, which valid license or not, GPL'd software is still copyrighted and and thus protected.
Even if SCO is no longer distributing Linux and GPL'd utilities, then at the very least SCO will have to pay for past infringement. Let me see, if.00001% of Linux is worth $1,399, then they owe GNU/Linux contributors $139,900,000 for each copy they illegally distributed.
If SCO survives this scam intact and the executives running this con are not held personally accountable, then the Open Source community will have lost regardless of the outcome. Any time somebody chooses a proprietary solution, because they are afraid of a phantom, the Open Source community looses. And with those people turning to other solutions, consulting jobs, careers, recognition for having built or contributed to a great product, etc., all of those things are damaged. My take is, that SCO has already caused tens of millions of dollars damage, a toll that could rise into the hundreds of millions even if IBM and the Open Source community prevail.
Therefore, it is essential that the community strikes back:
-- The FSF should establish a legal fund and sue to protect the reputation and joint property of contributors to GPL based products. Since it should be possible to portray the action of SCO as fraudulent and frivolous, it should therefore also be possible to pierce the SCO corporate shield and go after the executives and directors directly.
-- All of us should petition local, state level, and federal law enforcement agencies to investigate SCO for fraud, extortion, etc. (we need a lawyer to spell out exactly what it is the government should do). SCO is claiming ownership of an entire city, when at best they own a dusty parking lot. I cannot imagine a company could get away with this sort of a thing if real estate was involved. How is intellectual property any different? The goal must be to hold the con artists in charge of this circus accountable--personally accountable!
-- Petition the Justice Department to investigate Microsoft's payment to SCO, to determine if it was intended to generate Open Source/Linux FUD in an attempt to illegally damage the competition. I know, good luck with W in charge of things );
That would be a good start, as it would show would be con artists that the Nigerian Bank Scam might be a better opportunity after all...
OK I am confused, but I thought selling things you do not own is illegal. Even if SCO can prove some infringement, they do not own the rights to 99.99999% of Linux. Which means they are trying to extort money from people by claiming ownership of something they do not own. At the same time, they are seriously damaging the reputation and business of tens of thousands of Linux contributors, companies and individuals providing Linux services, etc..
It seems to me this is the time for the FSF and Open Source community to assert its rights and sue SCO for theft, defamation, etc...
Maybe an attorney here can shed some light on this scam, and explain why the FBI is not breaking down doors in Utah?
Good News, Add Fuel to the Anti-Patent Fire
on
NCR Patents the Internet
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This sort of a patent is good news overall, because it will give anti-patent advocates yet another argument against patents, and perhaps Congress will get a wakeup call from the people they fear the most--ordinary voters motivated to cause change. The people did win the vitamin battle against well connected and rich corporations. Who says we can't win the patent battle?
Unfortunately, this type of patents is also good news for large corporations. Sure they might have to pay a few dollars here and there, but it keeps that pesky innovation from the small players at bay, and that's the biggest threat to the established order--not patents from another stagnant mega corp. So it's dumb for a big company to fight this kind of patent. For them, patent payments are just musical chairs.
That's the whole point. If WiFi stations (one or thousands) cause trouble, then the radar needs to be fixed. Nothing would be cheaper than building a couple million WiFi-like white noise transmitters and scattering them around a city. All for what, maybe five bucks a piece for the deluxe version, with parts readily available at Radio Shack. Even worse, you can knock out a single transmitter, but what about thousands or millions of them. If this is really a problem, then the military needs to stop whining and fix it.
Trying to stop the WiFi bandwagon might help us bomb Utah, but it won't work anywhere else. So why try? Well, the way I see it, there are three possibilities:
1) It really is a problem. In that case, the genius who provided the enemy with a recipe for jamming U.S. military radar should be court-martialed and sent away for good. And one can only hope that a solution will be found soon.
2) Some guy at the Dept. of Defense Office of Red Tape and Job Security read a report about some background noise coming from WiFi equipment, and in light of the general hysteria about anything security, decided to take full advantage. In that case, somebody should clue him (yes a him, women aren't that stupid, are they?) in on the fact that it's making the U.S. military look stupid, and that is not good when you want to frighten people in other countries.
3) It's a shameless attempt to knock down the pesky WiFi competition, and the Phone Company did it--or rather the politicians on their payroll.
Any other options? Maybe this should be/. poll.;-)
I can just see the spam in Sadam's mailbox. Radar jammer for under a hundred dollars.
Doesn't anybody find this totally rediculous? A low powered device that barely goes through a brick wall, that supposedly interferes with military radar that's designed to deal with jamming in the megawatt range. So are we going to ask our enemys to please not use WiFi equipment? Does that mean civilian radar works better?
Or is this Bush doing the telcoms a favor? Who wants all that competition anyway?;-)
Yes I know, totally paranoid. But WiFi interferring with military radar???
Extorting money from everybody then means the music is paid for--right? So everybody, since they already paid for the downloaded music, can then download it legally.;)
Or is this like Industrial Gas Companies charging for the oxygen they weren't able to bottle?
The question for Americans isn't if an ID card is a good idea, the question is how many ID cards everybody should have and what the "good" guys do with all the data they collect. Let's see: driver license, social security card, credit card, library card, student ID, etc...
Then the whole thing is neatly organized in commercial and government databases. All that supplemented by the nefarious census database. What else could the government possibly want to know about you, except perhaps your color preference?
ID cards are a fact of modern life; all of us already have half a dozen of them--unless you live you life as a hermit, or your one of the bad guys.
The real issue is controlling what the government and commercial entities do with all the data they collect. And in the U.S. it's pretty much anything goes. They even let convicted criminals like Poindexter play with all those databases; a guy who has already demonstrated a complete disregard for U.S. laws restricting what the government can do. Then again, he's proven himself trustworthy to his superiors, which is obviously more important.
I don't think the government wants ID cards any more than the people, because with an ID card, there'd be laws that restrict access to the information. Right now, all that information is available in a free for all--free as in access, not beer;).
I use LightWave mostly for still images and love it. I have also used trueSpace, and played with 3D Studio, but LightWave is my favorite. If I have a runner up, it's Maxon's Cinema 4D. Some of my reasons for using LW are:
-- The rendering engine is stunning. It is state-of-the-art and [relatively] fast, with caustics, radiosity, high dynamic range support etc.. Once you outgrow what it can do, there is a plug-in from Worley labs for subsurface scattering (think skin, translucent stuff) that is incredible. Did I say you don't need plug-ins?;) You don't initially, but there are plenty around.
-- LW splits the modeler/animation part into two modules which are well integrated. A single keystroke lets you jump back and forth. A lot of people gripe about this, but as far as I can tell, none of them use LightWave. A separate modeler means that you can easily isolate an object from a big scene, modify it conveniently, and drop it right back into the scene--press one key, LW does the rest. One of the benefits is speed. Once your scene grows beyond a certain point, your redraws slow down. Being able to work easily with just one object at a time means you have a fast modeler no matter how large your scene gets.
(BTW, an object can consist of many different layers which can be animated separately.)
-- LW is "easy" to learn. I put easy in quotes, because there are literally thousands of features in all of these packages. Think Photoshop x 10 or 100. In my opinion, the Maya style interface looks great in a demo. It probably meets all of the interface guidelines out there and has some innovative ideas in this area. But I find LW's simple text labels far easier to use, even with its quirky keyboard assignments.
-- LW has a very helpful on-line community. Take a look at the Newtek community site and visit some of the LW support forums. Lots of tutorials and quality advice.
-- LW is *very* inexpensive compared to the other packages. What you get in the box will keep you busy exploring for years. A lot of the other packages require lots of add-ins to get anywhere near LW functionality.
Some other things you might want to consider:
-- There are many different ways to produce smooth organic looking surfaces. For things such as modeling people and animals, subdivision modeling works well and LW does a great job in this area. For mechanical models, where you need precision, you will want something else. LW offers spline patching for this purpose, which works, although the LW version of that leaves a lot to be desired. For the ultimate in precision you probably want to look at NURBS, which LW does not support at all.
-- You need to figure out how you like to work. Everybody who does this kind of work has a different style, a different way of approaching modeling, surfacing, animation, etc., and each of these programs tends to either support that style or not. One suggestion is to watch an expert at work, using the programs you are considering. You can try them out, but because of the complexity you are likely to miss a lot.
-- Don't get too hung up on high end features. Radiosity and caustics are a case in point. Using those features you can produce stunning output. But you pay for that in rendering time. If you are creating a still image and you are well organized, then it probably does not matter all that much. But if you are producing an animation, and you rendering time jumps from 10 minutes per frame to 10 hours, then you have a choice: read up on shadow maps and rendering without even raytracing, or get yourself a nice rendering farm and a personal power plant--oh, and don't forget an air conditioner.
Great idea. Poindexter's name would probably top the list though: international arms dealer, convicted felon (http://www.hpoindexter.com/jmarlan.htm)... Just the kind of guy who you want to trust with all your secrets. Easy enough to fix:
if (guy ~= m/poindexter/i) {
score = -score; }
My little contribution to making the world a safer place. Patent Pending.
Most movie theaters have postage stamp size screens these days, with mediocre sound and uncomfortable seats. Compared to that, a $20,000 home theater wins hands down, and most days just sitting in bed watching a movie on a regular TV is a winner.
Nothing at home however can beat the experience of watching a film in Panavision on a giant screen, with bone rattling sound. So perhaps we'll see a revival of the big screen--big as in big. Good riddance to the Multiplex!
Nah, studio executives aren't that smart. Who cares what movie goers want. Maybe they can just buy an amendment to the Disney welfare act, and collect a Multiplex survival tax from all people with functioning eyeballs.
If you just want to scan some short segments, you might wamt to try a Pen scanner. There is one called IrisPen II specifically for the Mac from http://www.irislink.com/, that I saw at a local trade show. It's OS X compatible, but it required a reboot before they could demonstrate its use. Also, it is pretty bulky and works only while plugged into the computer. There are other stand-alone versions of the same idea, but I'm not sure if they're Mac compatible. Google it!
The 1% myth states that a very small number of users consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth, and thus cost a disproportionate amount of money to support.
That's probably true. But it is only half the truth, because only 1% of the users are early adopters who have figured out what to do with a relatively fat pipe. Those are the people who can show everybody else the light. Those are the people the broadband companies need, to show everybody else why they should pay $40 to 50 per month. Those are the people the broadband companies should love.
Then again, the suits crunching the numbers with their spreadsheet use the Internet for looking up stock quotes, to wander aimlessly from site to site, and perhaps a little porn. Delivering a product and service is obviously just a costly anomaly. If they could just figure out how to suck money out of the consumer without doing anything... yes, let's go talk to Congress about that. Financial stability in war time sound good?
I think that if the broadband companies took a closer look, they would discover that the 1% of high end users bring them more business than all the TV, billboard, and radio spam combined. Those 1% of the users are creating the market they so desperately need. Do the broadband suits really think people will pay $40 per month to read their e-mail, or that reading e-mail at 30Kbits/s is a good deal for $20 when you have to be home to use the service?
As for shutting down the people who offer a lot of pirated stuff by raising cost: Ms. Black obviously doesn't have a cable connection, or she would know that upstream speed is already limited--128Kbits/s is pretty typical. So how much slower would it get? Remember, modems can now reach 56Kbits/s--sort of.
All of which makes me wonder if there is a Jane Black writer for Business week. Maybe it's really Jane Doe, aka. RIAA PR drivel...;)
That's the sort of article that might have appeared in Entertainment Executive Bonus Entitlement Journal--not in a general business magazine.
What business week forgets to mention is that broadband is supposed to make all kinds of high bandwidth services available, such as streaming audio and video, all kinds of as yet to be invented multi-media entertainment, as well as on-line delivery of software and services. Apparently the business week writer confuses a 5MB MP3 with a 5GB video file. And Jane Black, the author has probably never downloaded a Linux ISO image either. Here go another 100 to 200 song files. Peer to peer will be unaffected, once better algorithms (such as free network project's) are available. Rich content would die--think the next generation of video games, with live audio and video.
If the cable providers want to lower cost, they can start by shutting down their spam portals, which offer a great collection of advertising, bland news, and a box for searching the web. As in who needs it? Too lazy to type cnn or google?
And for lowering the cost to consumer, the answer lies in competition. But Congress and U.S. regulatory agencies have pretty much outlawed and out ruled competition. Imagine broadband prices, if all the surplus fiber was put to use. Or if there was a real choice when ordering broadband access, instead of AT&T Cable or Qwest/Microsoft DSL. Or if instead of filling the airwaves and cable system with digital spam, the spectrum would be available for bridging the last mile, and the cable system would be available for Gigabit access. But seeing cereal boxes in high definition is obviously more important.
Broadband suffers from poor service and too high prices, not too much bandwidth. It's a chicken and egg problem, waiting for bandwidth and content. Kill the chicken, and the birds will eat the egg. Or something like that.
Jackpot! Help Weed Out Fraud
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It looks like somebody might have hit the jackpot. Especially the guy who got arrested. INAL, but lying to the police to get somebody arrested doesn't sound good. All that damage to his reputation, emotional distress, etc.. Talk to some attorneys--fast--and before saying another word to anyone else.
And everyone, please help prevent this sort of thing happening again by reporting your experience to the on-line rating services. Best Buy, if that's the right company has an 8.2 out of 10 rating at BizRate.COM. 2,000 angry customers can fix that. Although at Reseller Ratings they're already at 1.54 out of 10. Not much fixing needed there. For more info, take a look at:
That's great, I can already see the headline stories:
"Boy, 8 years of age, sent to prison for 30 years to life, for infringing on patent for the third time."
"Six year old girl agrees to pay two gummy bears, one red, one green, to settle patent infringement claims..."
Semantics: Globalism vs. Corporate Imperialism
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The question is not about "good" or "evil." The question is about the definition of globalism.
Corporations and the U.S. Government confuse globalism with corporate imperialism. Or perhaps they don't. It just sounds better. Corporate imperialism is what people hate, not globalism, except as the term is used by the powers that be.
To make globalism work, we need to give people control, including the power to move around the world as easily as corporations and capital. We need to respect the degree to which communities want their lifestyle altered by participating in the global community. And we need to give the people a real say in government, not Mickey Mouse elections based on sound bites and FUD, with a choice between grits and boiled pork.
Further, we need to see the exploitation of third world labor in the same light as the exploitation of mineral resources. When we ship labor overseas, to reduce cost, it must be accompanied by benefits such as education, not just the billowing bank accounts of a few dictators and corporate moguls.
Western countries and the U.S. in particular, must also start to walk the talk. All western political and corporate leaders are good at parroting free trade sound bites. But they are much less adept at letting the market work its magic. The current U.S. vs. Europe steel debacle is just one of the many examples. Take a look at all the regulations and restrictions limiting clothing imports into the U.S. You might say, that is to protect U.S. clothing manufacturers--so much for free trade. But then why not limit the export of programming jobs to India, or help television manufacturers in the U.S.? The reason, among others, is to keep third world countries in their place, and to protect the artificially inflated market of designer brands in western countries. As long as U.S. corporations are in control, everything is OK. But if it looks like control might shift to another country, then trade restrictions are imposed.
And finally, intellectual property law reform is badly needed. As it is, the IP laws are bad for the people in developed countries. But much worse, for people in developing countries they are just a further tool for indefinite enslavement, and in many cases, such as availability of drugs, they are a matter of survival.
The overwhelming hate Americans experience in many parts of the world is certainly related to these issues. As is a completely out of touch and unjust U.S. centric foreign policy, but that is the subject of another essay. Many of these people who hate the U.S. don't hate Americans, they hate what a select few Americans do to their countries and people. Remember when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire?" Well, those same Russians are still there, but obviously not so evil anymore. The current administration believes that propaganda can help sell American values to the third world. But how do you sell enslavement and exploitation to the looser? Military force, of course, mixed with plenty of FUD and a little well place cash. The promise of a future more bleak than it already is. That is the theory anyway. September 11 should have been a wake-up call to yes, defend ourselves, but also to reevaluate our view of the world.
Obviously, all of this cannot happen overnight. The world's problems are not solved by moving three or four billion poor people to the U.S. or Western Europe. But there is no reason why the government should restrict the movement of the workforce between countries with a similar economic status. There is no reason why we can't develop a "free trade" system that benefits all parties. There is no reason why social responsibility cannot be part of globalism.
In the end, the U.S. Government and U.S. corporations (if there is a difference), must learn to ask and give, not to tell and take. Then perhaps, American values will be admired. And interestingly enough, this is also the recipe for unlimited wealth, because it is giving of service and value, that creates wealth. I should think the collapse of the Roman, Spanish, British, etc.. empire has taught us that much. Perhaps it has, but it is not relevant until after the next election cycle, or the golden parachute kicks in.
Talking about the world is interesting, but the first step must be cleaning up the mess at home. Would you hire an interior decorator who lives in a dump? It may be a surprise to Americans, but even Western Europeans ridicule the U.S. legal and political system. The U.S. may spend tons of money on medical care, but its infant mortality rate is among the world's worst. Social Security? Or do you mean social insecurity? Even with all the news coverage, it is always an eye opener to see the reaction of people from Europe when they catch a glimpse of U.S. poverty. Clean up at home, and lead the world by example. Just remember how well it worked when your parents said: "Do as I tell you, not as I do."
The bottom line is: Globalism is Good. Corporate (or State) Imperialism is Bad.
How does this law apply to humans? Ultimately it is humans who make the copies, not computers. Which I guess means they'll have to shackle the whole population, so they can't make copies. You'll have to be gagged too, because you might maliciously repeat copyrighted material. Or maybe a brain implant?
Why does everybody pick on those poor politicians. They are just doing what they are being paid to do. Opensecrets.org reports that the Entertainment Industry paid $37,821,232 for the SSSCA during the 2000 election cycle. They ponied up more than $108 million over the last seven years. That's real money, even in D.C. And all of that is just the above the table money. How many more future consulting contracts, directorships and what not are there? Obviously the Entertainment Industry has a plan, and they are willing to pay for it. Are you?
Are you willing to make a difference? Are you willing to take a little of your time to write a personalized letter? Are you willing to help educate everybody you know about the assault on our freedom? Are you willing to boycott products from major enemies of the people, like Disney et al? Yes, that means no dumb movies this Summer--at least from a few select targets;-). But it also means we might beat this thing. It can be done. But we all have to take action to make it happen.
Remember, if this becomes too costly for the Entertainment Industry, they might just change their tune. Politicians just want to get reelected. Ultimately, your vote is a lot more important than those $100 million.
See my own reply on the subject and related articles. PS-2 was kicked out because CeBIT is not a consumer electronics show. And Sony did not leave, they just removed their PS-2 display.
As for rules, there is only one rule: World Domination, and it's not a Microsoft rule, although they play the game better than anyone else.
Actually I just Googled the answer to my own question, and as usual, the American Press is as Winston Churchill said, "Vulgar and Without Substance."
The following article in German from Heise.de explains that the reason for ejecting Playstations from the show was that CeBIT is a tradeshow for "Business and Professional" exhibits. You cannot display consumer electronics or games. That is why Microsoft shows the Xbox only behind glass, and Sony showing 27 PS-2 boxes to play with was against the rules.
Yes, Microsoft's whining is pretty sad, but killing the PS-2 display had little to do with hands-on vs. suits showing off.
I can't help but wonder if this is the whole story. Does anybody out there in/. land have first hand knowledge of what really happened?
Visitors not being able to touch the equipment sounds like a completely brain dead rule. The whole reason for going to the show is to see what you are buying, before you actually order it. Otherwise you might was well look at the spam the vendor mails you. If this is really true, then CEBIT is a complete waste.
I can see though why Microsoft might not want visitors playing with the Xbox--it's probably too buggy. What do you get, the black screen of death? Oh no, I forgot, it's the new friendly Microsoft and now it is the Pink Screen of Death.;-)
Anyway, another entry for my growing spin doctor dictionary:
Microsoft: Hands on Demo = Risky = Therefore Competition is Against the Rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Pegoraro has a point about users not patching their systems, but unfortunately I can understand why: the updates are causing huge problems.
;)
On one of my desktop systems, the latest Windows XP driver updates trashed my Hercules Game Theater XP setup. Lots of error messages and no sound!
On my Laptop, the latest Windows 2000 service pack blew away support for the Netgear MA401 WiFi card.
The first problem is easily dealt with. Roll back the upgrade. Sound worked before and it wasn't a critical update--just recommended.
For the laptop, I now have a choice between gaping security holes or WiFi support. Thankfully it dual boots to Linux
I wonder how many people are in the same boat. Plug and pray, or plug and pay!
If this were so, then SCO is infringing on the copyright of all GNU/Linux contributors. Only the GPL grants them a right to distribute GPL'd software, which valid license or not, GPL'd software is still copyrighted and and thus protected.
.00001% of Linux is worth $1,399, then they owe GNU/Linux contributors $139,900,000 for each copy they illegally distributed.
... ;)
Even if SCO is no longer distributing Linux and GPL'd utilities, then at the very least SCO will have to pay for past infringement. Let me see, if
Linus and RMS' share adds up to $1 trillion
If SCO survives this scam intact and the executives running this con are not held personally accountable, then the Open Source community will have lost regardless of the outcome. Any time somebody chooses a proprietary solution, because they are afraid of a phantom, the Open Source community looses. And with those people turning to other solutions, consulting jobs, careers, recognition for having built or contributed to a great product, etc., all of those things are damaged. My take is, that SCO has already caused tens of millions of dollars damage, a toll that could rise into the hundreds of millions even if IBM and the Open Source community prevail.
Therefore, it is essential that the community strikes back:
-- The FSF should establish a legal fund and sue to protect the reputation and joint property of contributors to GPL based products. Since it should be possible to portray the action of SCO as fraudulent and frivolous, it should therefore also be possible to pierce the SCO corporate shield and go after the executives and directors directly.
-- All of us should petition local, state level, and federal law enforcement agencies to investigate SCO for fraud, extortion, etc. (we need a lawyer to spell out exactly what it is the government should do). SCO is claiming ownership of an entire city, when at best they own a dusty parking lot. I cannot imagine a company could get away with this sort of a thing if real estate was involved. How is intellectual property any different? The goal must be to hold the con artists in charge of this circus accountable--personally accountable!
-- Petition the Justice Department to investigate Microsoft's payment to SCO, to determine if it was intended to generate Open Source/Linux FUD in an attempt to illegally damage the competition. I know, good luck with W in charge of things );
That would be a good start, as it would show would be con artists that the Nigerian Bank Scam might be a better opportunity after all...
OK I am confused, but I thought selling things you do not own is illegal. Even if SCO can prove some infringement, they do not own the rights to 99.99999% of Linux. Which means they are trying to extort money from people by claiming ownership of something they do not own. At the same time, they are seriously damaging the reputation and business of tens of thousands of Linux contributors, companies and individuals providing Linux services, etc..
It seems to me this is the time for the FSF and Open Source community to assert its rights and sue SCO for theft, defamation, etc...
Maybe an attorney here can shed some light on this scam, and explain why the FBI is not breaking down doors in Utah?
This sort of a patent is good news overall, because it will give anti-patent advocates yet another argument against patents, and perhaps Congress will get a wakeup call from the people they fear the most--ordinary voters motivated to cause change. The people did win the vitamin battle against well connected and rich corporations. Who says we can't win the patent battle?
Unfortunately, this type of patents is also good news for large corporations. Sure they might have to pay a few dollars here and there, but it keeps that pesky innovation from the small players at bay, and that's the biggest threat to the established order--not patents from another stagnant mega corp. So it's dumb for a big company to fight this kind of patent. For them, patent payments are just musical chairs.
That's the whole point. If WiFi stations (one or thousands) cause trouble, then the radar needs to be fixed. Nothing would be cheaper than building a couple million WiFi-like white noise transmitters and scattering them around a city. All for what, maybe five bucks a piece for the deluxe version, with parts readily available at Radio Shack. Even worse, you can knock out a single transmitter, but what about thousands or millions of them. If this is really a problem, then the military needs to stop whining and fix it.
/. poll. ;-)
Trying to stop the WiFi bandwagon might help us bomb Utah, but it won't work anywhere else. So why try? Well, the way I see it, there are three possibilities:
1) It really is a problem. In that case, the genius who provided the enemy with a recipe for jamming U.S. military radar should be court-martialed and sent away for good. And one can only hope that a solution will be found soon.
2) Some guy at the Dept. of Defense Office of Red Tape and Job Security read a report about some background noise coming from WiFi equipment, and in light of the general hysteria about anything security, decided to take full advantage. In that case, somebody should clue him (yes a him, women aren't that stupid, are they?) in on the fact that it's making the U.S. military look stupid, and that is not good when you want to frighten people in other countries.
3) It's a shameless attempt to knock down the pesky WiFi competition, and the Phone Company did it--or rather the politicians on their payroll.
Any other options? Maybe this should be
I can just see the spam in Sadam's mailbox. Radar jammer for under a hundred dollars.
;-)
Doesn't anybody find this totally rediculous? A low powered device that barely goes through a brick wall, that supposedly interferes with military radar that's designed to deal with jamming in the megawatt range. So are we going to ask our enemys to please not use WiFi equipment? Does that mean civilian radar works better?
Or is this Bush doing the telcoms a favor? Who wants all that competition anyway?
Yes I know, totally paranoid. But WiFi interferring with military radar???
Extorting money from everybody then means the music is paid for--right? So everybody, since they already paid for the downloaded music, can then download it legally. ;)
Or is this like Industrial Gas Companies charging for the oxygen they weren't able to bottle?
The question for Americans isn't if an ID card is a good idea, the question is how many ID cards everybody should have and what the "good" guys do with all the data they collect. Let's see: driver license, social security card, credit card, library card, student ID, etc...
;).
Then the whole thing is neatly organized in commercial and government databases. All that supplemented by the nefarious census database. What else could the government possibly want to know about you, except perhaps your color preference?
ID cards are a fact of modern life; all of us already have half a dozen of them--unless you live you life as a hermit, or your one of the bad guys.
The real issue is controlling what the government and commercial entities do with all the data they collect. And in the U.S. it's pretty much anything goes. They even let convicted criminals like Poindexter play with all those databases; a guy who has already demonstrated a complete disregard for U.S. laws restricting what the government can do. Then again, he's proven himself trustworthy to his superiors, which is obviously more important.
I don't think the government wants ID cards any more than the people, because with an ID card, there'd be laws that restrict access to the information. Right now, all that information is available in a free for all--free as in access, not beer
I use LightWave mostly for still images and love it. I have also used trueSpace, and played with 3D Studio, but LightWave is my favorite. If I have a runner up, it's Maxon's Cinema 4D. Some of my reasons for using LW are:
;) You don't initially, but there are plenty around.
-- The rendering engine is stunning. It is state-of-the-art and [relatively] fast, with caustics, radiosity, high dynamic range support etc.. Once you outgrow what it can do, there is a plug-in from Worley labs for subsurface scattering (think skin, translucent stuff) that is incredible. Did I say you don't need plug-ins?
-- LW splits the modeler/animation part into two modules which are well integrated. A single keystroke lets you jump back and forth. A lot of people gripe about this, but as far as I can tell, none of them use LightWave. A separate modeler means that you can easily isolate an object from a big scene, modify it conveniently, and drop it right back into the scene--press one key, LW does the rest. One of the benefits is speed. Once your scene grows beyond a certain point, your redraws slow down. Being able to work easily with just one object at a time means you have a fast modeler no matter how large your scene gets.
(BTW, an object can consist of many different layers which can be animated separately.)
-- LW is "easy" to learn. I put easy in quotes, because there are literally thousands of features in all of these packages. Think Photoshop x 10 or 100. In my opinion, the Maya style interface looks great in a demo. It probably meets all of the interface guidelines out there and has some innovative ideas in this area. But I find LW's simple text labels far easier to use, even with its quirky keyboard assignments.
-- LW has a very helpful on-line community. Take a look at the Newtek community site and visit some of the LW support forums. Lots of tutorials and quality advice.
-- LW is *very* inexpensive compared to the other packages. What you get in the box will keep you busy exploring for years. A lot of the other packages require lots of add-ins to get anywhere near LW functionality.
Some other things you might want to consider:
-- There are many different ways to produce smooth organic looking surfaces. For things such as modeling people and animals, subdivision modeling works well and LW does a great job in this area. For mechanical models, where you need precision, you will want something else. LW offers spline patching for this purpose, which works, although the LW version of that leaves a lot to be desired. For the ultimate in precision you probably want to look at NURBS, which LW does not support at all.
-- You need to figure out how you like to work. Everybody who does this kind of work has a different style, a different way of approaching modeling, surfacing, animation, etc., and each of these programs tends to either support that style or not. One suggestion is to watch an expert at work, using the programs you are considering. You can try them out, but because of the complexity you are likely to miss a lot.
-- Don't get too hung up on high end features. Radiosity and caustics are a case in point. Using those features you can produce stunning output. But you pay for that in rendering time. If you are creating a still image and you are well organized, then it probably does not matter all that much. But if you are producing an animation, and you rendering time jumps from 10 minutes per frame to 10 hours, then you have a choice: read up on shadow maps and rendering without even raytracing, or get yourself a nice rendering farm and a personal power plant--oh, and don't forget an air conditioner.
Great idea. Poindexter's name would probably top the list though: international arms dealer, convicted felon (http://www.hpoindexter.com/jmarlan.htm)... Just the kind of guy who you want to trust with all your secrets. Easy enough to fix:
if (guy ~= m/poindexter/i) {
score = -score;
}
My little contribution to making the world a safer place. Patent Pending.
Best Buy, the same people who have their customers arrested for demanding the product they were sold (Ti4600 video boards, if memory serves right)?
No thank you.
Most movie theaters have postage stamp size screens these days, with mediocre sound and uncomfortable seats. Compared to that, a $20,000 home theater wins hands down, and most days just sitting in bed watching a movie on a regular TV is a winner.
Nothing at home however can beat the experience of watching a film in Panavision on a giant screen, with bone rattling sound. So perhaps we'll see a revival of the big screen--big as in big. Good riddance to the Multiplex!
Nah, studio executives aren't that smart. Who cares what movie goers want. Maybe they can just buy an amendment to the Disney welfare act, and collect a Multiplex survival tax from all people with functioning eyeballs.
If you just want to scan some short segments, you might wamt to try a Pen scanner. There is one called IrisPen II specifically for the Mac from http://www.irislink.com/, that I saw at a local trade show. It's OS X compatible, but it required a reboot before they could demonstrate its use. Also, it is pretty bulky and works only while plugged into the computer. There are other stand-alone versions of the same idea, but I'm not sure if they're Mac compatible. Google it!
Otherwise a digital camera works pretty well.
Actually, that's old news. A lot of people have been using that technology for centuries. And you thought they were loony... ;)
The 1% myth states that a very small number of users consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth, and thus cost a disproportionate amount of money to support.
;)
That's probably true. But it is only half the truth, because only 1% of the users are early adopters who have figured out what to do with a relatively fat pipe. Those are the people who can show everybody else the light. Those are the people the broadband companies need, to show everybody else why they should pay $40 to 50 per month. Those are the people the broadband companies should love.
Then again, the suits crunching the numbers with their spreadsheet use the Internet for looking up stock quotes, to wander aimlessly from site to site, and perhaps a little porn. Delivering a product and service is obviously just a costly anomaly. If they could just figure out how to suck money out of the consumer without doing anything... yes, let's go talk to Congress about that. Financial stability in war time sound good?
I think that if the broadband companies took a closer look, they would discover that the 1% of high end users bring them more business than all the TV, billboard, and radio spam combined. Those 1% of the users are creating the market they so desperately need. Do the broadband suits really think people will pay $40 per month to read their e-mail, or that reading e-mail at 30Kbits/s is a good deal for $20 when you have to be home to use the service?
As for shutting down the people who offer a lot of pirated stuff by raising cost: Ms. Black obviously doesn't have a cable connection, or she would know that upstream speed is already limited--128Kbits/s is pretty typical. So how much slower would it get? Remember, modems can now reach 56Kbits/s--sort of.
All of which makes me wonder if there is a Jane Black writer for Business week. Maybe it's really Jane Doe, aka. RIAA PR drivel...
That's the sort of article that might have appeared in Entertainment Executive Bonus Entitlement Journal--not in a general business magazine.
What business week forgets to mention is that broadband is supposed to make all kinds of high bandwidth services available, such as streaming audio and video, all kinds of as yet to be invented multi-media entertainment, as well as on-line delivery of software and services. Apparently the business week writer confuses a 5MB MP3 with a 5GB video file. And Jane Black, the author has probably never downloaded a Linux ISO image either. Here go another 100 to 200 song files. Peer to peer will be unaffected, once better algorithms (such as free network project's) are available. Rich content would die--think the next generation of video games, with live audio and video.
If the cable providers want to lower cost, they can start by shutting down their spam portals, which offer a great collection of advertising, bland news, and a box for searching the web. As in who needs it? Too lazy to type cnn or google?
And for lowering the cost to consumer, the answer lies in competition. But Congress and U.S. regulatory agencies have pretty much outlawed and out ruled competition. Imagine broadband prices, if all the surplus fiber was put to use. Or if there was a real choice when ordering broadband access, instead of AT&T Cable or Qwest/Microsoft DSL. Or if instead of filling the airwaves and cable system with digital spam, the spectrum would be available for bridging the last mile, and the cable system would be available for Gigabit access. But seeing cereal boxes in high definition is obviously more important.
Broadband suffers from poor service and too high prices, not too much bandwidth. It's a chicken and egg problem, waiting for bandwidth and content. Kill the chicken, and the birds will eat the egg. Or something like that.
It looks like somebody might have hit the jackpot. Especially the guy who got arrested. INAL, but lying to the police to get somebody arrested doesn't sound good. All that damage to his reputation, emotional distress, etc.. Talk to some attorneys--fast--and before saying another word to anyone else.
And everyone, please help prevent this sort of thing happening again by reporting your experience to the on-line rating services. Best Buy, if that's the right company has an 8.2 out of 10 rating at BizRate.COM. 2,000 angry customers can fix that. Although at Reseller Ratings they're already at 1.54 out of 10. Not much fixing needed there. For more info, take a look at:
BizRate: Best Buy Rating 8.2
Reseller Ratings: Best Buy Rating 1.54
There are more rating services, but that's a start.
That's great, I can already see the headline stories:
"Boy, 8 years of age, sent to prison for 30 years to life, for infringing on patent for the third time."
"Six year old girl agrees to pay two gummy bears, one red, one green, to settle patent infringement claims..."
The question is not about "good" or "evil." The question is about the definition of globalism.
Corporations and the U.S. Government confuse globalism with corporate imperialism. Or perhaps they don't. It just sounds better. Corporate imperialism is what people hate, not globalism, except as the term is used by the powers that be.
To make globalism work, we need to give people control, including the power to move around the world as easily as corporations and capital. We need to respect the degree to which communities want their lifestyle altered by participating in the global community. And we need to give the people a real say in government, not Mickey Mouse elections based on sound bites and FUD, with a choice between grits and boiled pork.
Further, we need to see the exploitation of third world labor in the same light as the exploitation of mineral resources. When we ship labor overseas, to reduce cost, it must be accompanied by benefits such as education, not just the billowing bank accounts of a few dictators and corporate moguls.
Western countries and the U.S. in particular, must also start to walk the talk. All western political and corporate leaders are good at parroting free trade sound bites. But they are much less adept at letting the market work its magic. The current U.S. vs. Europe steel debacle is just one of the many examples. Take a look at all the regulations and restrictions limiting clothing imports into the U.S. You might say, that is to protect U.S. clothing manufacturers--so much for free trade. But then why not limit the export of programming jobs to India, or help television manufacturers in the U.S.? The reason, among others, is to keep third world countries in their place, and to protect the artificially inflated market of designer brands in western countries. As long as U.S. corporations are in control, everything is OK. But if it looks like control might shift to another country, then trade restrictions are imposed.
And finally, intellectual property law reform is badly needed. As it is, the IP laws are bad for the people in developed countries. But much worse, for people in developing countries they are just a further tool for indefinite enslavement, and in many cases, such as availability of drugs, they are a matter of survival.
The overwhelming hate Americans experience in many parts of the world is certainly related to these issues. As is a completely out of touch and unjust U.S. centric foreign policy, but that is the subject of another essay. Many of these people who hate the U.S. don't hate Americans, they hate what a select few Americans do to their countries and people. Remember when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire?" Well, those same Russians are still there, but obviously not so evil anymore. The current administration believes that propaganda can help sell American values to the third world. But how do you sell enslavement and exploitation to the looser? Military force, of course, mixed with plenty of FUD and a little well place cash. The promise of a future more bleak than it already is. That is the theory anyway. September 11 should have been a wake-up call to yes, defend ourselves, but also to reevaluate our view of the world.
Obviously, all of this cannot happen overnight. The world's problems are not solved by moving three or four billion poor people to the U.S. or Western Europe. But there is no reason why the government should restrict the movement of the workforce between countries with a similar economic status. There is no reason why we can't develop a "free trade" system that benefits all parties. There is no reason why social responsibility cannot be part of globalism.
In the end, the U.S. Government and U.S. corporations (if there is a difference), must learn to ask and give, not to tell and take. Then perhaps, American values will be admired. And interestingly enough, this is also the recipe for unlimited wealth, because it is giving of service and value, that creates wealth. I should think the collapse of the Roman, Spanish, British, etc.. empire has taught us that much. Perhaps it has, but it is not relevant until after the next election cycle, or the golden parachute kicks in.
Talking about the world is interesting, but the first step must be cleaning up the mess at home. Would you hire an interior decorator who lives in a dump? It may be a surprise to Americans, but even Western Europeans ridicule the U.S. legal and political system. The U.S. may spend tons of money on medical care, but its infant mortality rate is among the world's worst. Social Security? Or do you mean social insecurity? Even with all the news coverage, it is always an eye opener to see the reaction of people from Europe when they catch a glimpse of U.S. poverty. Clean up at home, and lead the world by example. Just remember how well it worked when your parents said: "Do as I tell you, not as I do."
The bottom line is: Globalism is Good. Corporate (or State) Imperialism is Bad.
How does this law apply to humans? Ultimately it is humans who make the copies, not computers. Which I guess means they'll have to shackle the whole population, so they can't make copies. You'll have to be gagged too, because you might maliciously repeat copyrighted material. Or maybe a brain implant?
Why does everybody pick on those poor politicians. They are just doing what they are being paid to do. Opensecrets.org reports that the Entertainment Industry paid $37,821,232 for the SSSCA during the 2000 election cycle. They ponied up more than $108 million over the last seven years. That's real money, even in D.C. And all of that is just the above the table money. How many more future consulting contracts, directorships and what not are there? Obviously the Entertainment Industry has a plan, and they are willing to pay for it. Are you?
;-). But it also means we might beat this thing. It can be done. But we all have to take action to make it happen.
Are you willing to make a difference? Are you willing to take a little of your time to write a personalized letter? Are you willing to help educate everybody you know about the assault on our freedom? Are you willing to boycott products from major enemies of the people, like Disney et al? Yes, that means no dumb movies this Summer--at least from a few select targets
Remember, if this becomes too costly for the Entertainment Industry, they might just change their tune. Politicians just want to get reelected. Ultimately, your vote is a lot more important than those $100 million.
See my own reply on the subject and related articles. PS-2 was kicked out because CeBIT is not a consumer electronics show. And Sony did not leave, they just removed their PS-2 display.
As for rules, there is only one rule: World Domination, and it's not a Microsoft rule, although they play the game better than anyone else.
Actually I just Googled the answer to my own question, and as usual, the American Press is as Winston Churchill said, "Vulgar and Without Substance."
The following article in German from Heise.de explains that the reason for ejecting Playstations from the show was that CeBIT is a tradeshow for "Business and Professional" exhibits. You cannot display consumer electronics or games. That is why Microsoft shows the Xbox only behind glass, and Sony showing 27 PS-2 boxes to play with was against the rules.
Yes, Microsoft's whining is pretty sad, but killing the PS-2 display had little to do with hands-on vs. suits showing off.
I can't help but wonder if this is the whole story. Does anybody out there in /. land have first hand knowledge of what really happened?
;-)
Visitors not being able to touch the equipment sounds like a completely brain dead rule. The whole reason for going to the show is to see what you are buying, before you actually order it. Otherwise you might was well look at the spam the vendor mails you. If this is really true, then CEBIT is a complete waste.
I can see though why Microsoft might not want visitors playing with the Xbox--it's probably too buggy. What do you get, the black screen of death? Oh no, I forgot, it's the new friendly Microsoft and now it is the Pink Screen of Death.
Anyway, another entry for my growing spin doctor dictionary:
Microsoft: Hands on Demo = Risky = Therefore Competition is Against the Rules.