The problem with this is that they had to "build the codebook" with source CDs. I don't think anyone has a problem with the locker concept (store your data remotely), but the problem is that prior to any person uploading any CD, MP3.com encoded 45,000 CDs, thus making illegal and unlicensed mechanical copies on behalf of individuals who might at some later point in time identify themselves to the system as owning those CDs.
A simple re-implementation that would fall under the bounds of the law would have the first person to pop a CD in automatically encode and upload the result to the server; later users would just upload the "compressed" (verification) information to gain access. Note that under this scheme everybody gets access to all of their music, unlike the "Gee, I hope they have it scheme" that is the first incarnation of my.mp3.com...
It's interesting to note that myplay (whom I've worked with) is forcing the actual upload of bits to a locker; they could transition to such a strategy as mentioned above and fall within legal bounds.
The main problem is that of the proxy. Is MP3.com allowed to make copies on behalf of customers? The service that they provide is fundamentally compelling, and IMHO not damaging to any CD owners. In this way, I believe that they fall under the bounds of the intent of the law, while failing the letter thereof.
As regards the security issue, it was brought up in the "DVD CCA vs. John Does" case that inadequate security is not an open invitation to break it, nor can it be counted as a facilitating mechanism; so that argument is moot.
If I'm not mistaken, the DMCA allows for the breaking of a protection code if it is for the purposes of interoperability. Since it's clear that transcoding RealAudio files to MP3 files would enable the song to be played in new environments (e.g., on a Rio), the creation of a transcoding tool is solidly within the realm of the DMCA's exception. I'm quite sure Streambox will win this case and collect their $1M bond from RealNetworks.
Incidentally, if this is the way things turn out, it will greatly strengthen the argument of those advocating Linux DVD solutions - it will show that the DMCA really meant what it says: it's okay to transcode for interoperability!
Is a Dilbert strip: Dilbert's dreaming of the day when small screens can be projected into his glasses and glove-keyboards can let him type into the air, making it impossible to distinguish coders from babbling idiots (did we mention voice recognition with tiny, hidden microphones?) who wave their hands about meaninglessly.
"Are you an engineer too?" "No, I'm just an idiot."
Funny, that. Because some certain "fucking silicon value mickey mouse money stock options" just paid for the rest of my Stanford education. While I didn't write the programs that ended up netting me this money for any financial incentive (or even hope of it), I am certainly rather grateful to the company that offered me these shares.
I'm going to make a bit of a leap here. I'm going to suggest that it is a good thing to make money on Open Source. It is a good thing because that means that the market sees value in it, that the market is willing to bet that Open Source will work in the long run and will indeed prove the most effective business model for most software projects. If entities A and B both write some program (say, to let you browse newsgroups) and A's program is proprietary and B's program is Open Source, if I need some piece of added functionality (the ability to view HTML messages, say), I now have 4 options:
License the source from entity A for thousands of dollars and add it myself.
Ask entity A to do it, possibly paying him a good deal of money for it.
Pay entity B to add the feature to her program.
Change B's source on my own.
To the business man, option #3 is likely to become increasingly appealing: I don't need to maintain the fix (because the changes are being examined by hundreds of other eyes) and I can probably "bribe" the developer a relatively small amount to get the feature added. Ultimately, this makes it viable to make a living off of Open Source programming.
I sincerely hope that many good programmers become very comfortably wealthy in this way. Companies get better, cheaper code, developers get to pick out the projects they want to work on on a contract-style basis, and everybody gets robust, fully-functional programs.
If Open Source really does work, then it will prove itself in our capitalist economy and will subsequently receive its economic due -- which could be staggering: we haven't even begun to see what kind of cash infusions will come to the community! The capacity to create, organize, transmit, and display information will be the primary cause of economic value in the near future; and Open Source software may lead the way...
I was reading through the user comments at Amazon.com on his book and I found the following detailed, precise, and helpful refutation of the Mills Theorem. I reprint it below.
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics Reviewer: Ulrich Gerlach from Dept of Mathematics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio December 21, 1999
There are four aspects to the theoretical underpinning of this book, (i) philosophical, (ii) theoretically physical, (iii) experimentally physical and (iv) mathematical. The theoretical underpinning for this book are the six theory sections, which are also posted by the author on several of his web pages. My review is directed at these theoretical underpinnings. For the purpose of orientation, one may note that these six sections come as pdf files. Consequently, it is natural to label their pages in consecutive order. For example, the references would be on page 33. The ensuing seven remarks are labelled according to which of the above four aspects I am talking about.
1.(iv) The expressions for the charge distribution given below Eq.(I.5), as well as those given by Eqs.(I.7) and (I.8) do not satisfy the author's wave equation, Eq.(I.6).
2.(iii) By an appropriate rotation of the laboratory, any linear combination of the angular eigenmodes having the same l-value will become independent of the azimuthal angle \phi, i.e. will become a pure m=0 mode having the same l-value. (This is a consequence of the familiar "addition theorem" for spherical harmonics.) According to the Mills theory, the oscillation frequency of the system will therefore have changed from a non-zero value to the value zero. Putting these two observations together, one has the result that, by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates.
3.(iii) The radial amplitude profiles given by Eqs.(I.25) and (I.26) are those of a hollow resonating sphere or those of empty spherically symmetric space. These profiles are not those that pertain to a system having a central charged nucleus, whose electrostatic potential U(r) is proportional to 1/r. As a consequence, vibrational frequencies (or energy levels) based on these (non-electrostatic) profiles are in conflict with the known levels of the hydrogen atom, the author's "alternative interpretation" on pages 11-13 notwithstanding.
4.(ii) The sweeping negative assessments (after Eq.(I.46) down to the middle of the next page) of (1) quantum mechanics (q.m.), of (2) the relation between Schrodinger's equation and spin and the Pauli principle, and of (3) the impuned "assumption" of q.m. visavis macroscopic objects are very strange by any standard. I am sure that if the author had read and followed, for example, Feynman's (LECTURES ON PHYSICS, Volume III) exposition of quantum mechanics (but not necessarily ALL his philosophical comments), augmented by Wheeler's (Box 25.3 in "GRAVITATION" by C. Misner, K. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler) exposition of the role of Hamilton-Jacobi theory in relating q.m. to Newtonian mechanics, then the author would have been led to a diametrically opposite assessment.
5.(iii) The author claims that the hydrogen atom has energy levels below those already measured spectroscopically. He claims (e.g. on page 21) that these levels betray their existence only through atomic collisions. If that were indeed the case, then the atomic beam physicists would have seen these energy states a long time ago with the help, among others, of the Ramsauer effect. This effect is observed when electron having the right energy exhibit resonance scattering (only for the l=0 part of the electrons' angular momentum) when they scatter off a neutral atomic beam. Furthermore, these electrons would also reveal any of the author's "hydrino" states by the energy necessary to ionize the hydrogen atoms in these states.
6.(i) Above Eq.(I.22) the author makes the physically and philosphically incorrect claim that Schrodinger's boundary condition leads to a "purely" mathematical model of the electron [emphasis via quotes are mine]. The correct statement should have been something like: "Schrodinger's boundary condition expresses (or captures) the dynamical behaviour of a bound electron". Thus, first of all, Schrodinger's boundary condition makes no statement about the structure of the electron. Secondly, and more importantly, there is no breach (as introduced by Plato and formalized by Kant) between reason and reality as is implied by the dismissive and subjective descriptor `purely mathematical model'. The phrase `purely mathematical model' or its philosophic equivalent, `purely mental construct', is an attempt to drive a wedge between theoretical physics and that which is observed or perceived in experimental physics. Such attempts should, for obvious reasons, be guarded against with vigilance. A very informative discussion of this issue can be found in L. Peikoff's article "The analytic synthetic dichotomy" in A. Rand's "INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY".
7.(i) In several places the author refers to the "interpretation" of the wave function, or the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. This is bad physics and bad epistemology. Here again some philosophic detection is necessary. The underlying premise is the erroneous assumption that these concepts, or constellation of concepts, are a matter of revelation, and that our job is merely to "interpret" what they mean. The underlying premise consists of the assumption that (a) the concept `wave function' or (b) the constellation of concepts `quantum mechanics', both products of man's consciousness, are metaphysically prior or independent of existence. In fact, the opposite is the case. All products of our consciousness, including the above, are constructed by a mental process in which our consciousness digests the data and observations obtained through our senses. The fundamental aspects of this digestive process are in fact described in the above book by A. Rand
Let me summarize this review by putting it into a wider perspective. As one can see from the issues I have pointed out, the author's work is grossly deficient from (i) the philosophical, (ii) the theoretically physical, (iii) the experimentally physical and (iv) the mathematical point of view. The author is terribly confused about all these issues and my suspicion is that he does not even realize it. I could cite additional instances, but I merely would be beating a dead horse.
Based on the observations listed above, a more accurate assessment of the author's work is that it is an example of what, for good reasons, gives mathematicians, engineers, physicists, and philosophers a bad reputation in the eyes of prospective scientists or the public in general.
I think that a good point to be made here is that a small percentage of people did appreciate those AOL coasters -- AOL now has many millions of users. This might not be a terrible fate for Linux -- wasn't our goal to take over the world? Shipping 20M motherboards w/a Linux CD could be great news. Hopefully we'll be able to please hardcore hackers and absolute newbies all with one OS, someday... David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
You want to make sure that your server can efficiently retrieve data from large individual mailspools if you're going to be dealing with large attachments. More traditional mail servers do a pretty poor job of handling mailboxes > 10Mb. You may want to look at modifying an existing MTA to utilize a database or purchasing one that is database-driven to best suit your needs. Hope this helps! David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Does this meant that it can copy an.mpg on a DVD video disk to a hard drive? I'm assuming not, but the wording on the post was pretty unclear. How is DVD video encryption done? David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Given the large number of important articles that have not been posted and the increasing quantity of junk that have shown up here, I think I'm taking my eyeballs elsewhere. It's really sad that this got posted. Time to go back to actual content sites, like news.com. David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Wow, I happen to know a number of people in the digital audio space, but this was not expected. I can tell you guys that there will be another absolutely jaw-dropping announcement in under a month, so brace yourself, because the industry is in for a ride.
The $400M seemed to be for both companies, no? I'm guessing that the vast majority of that went to Spinner.com, seeing as that A) Spinner was already traded and is a pretty considerably sized company and B) notice how Nullsoft is moving but nobody else is?
It's important to realize here that this does not mean that MP3s are going to become open. Everybody already knows about Icecast and FreeAmp, and AOL acquiring Nullsoft has (duh) nothing to do with the MP3 format as a whole. This is not about formats, it's about AOL acquiring media properties to be able to best serve its customers with a really neat, compelling multimedia experience. Go look at Wired Planet -- this is what I see AOL pulling off, but with a huge amount of music content.
I understand the anti-AOL sentiment. I, too, was there in the first part of this decade and felt the Internet shift when morons from Joe4422@AOL.COM started posting to sci.physics. But this may be part of an image shift, too. AOL isn't just a crappy service provider any more. They own a very hefty chunk of the world's software Intellectual Property now, including some very neat companies they picked up with their acquisition of Netscape. Give them some credit. They're a different company now, or are at least trying to be. And hey, I'd sure like to get bought out for a few million, vest, and then leave -- wouldn't you? David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
I guess I should point out that you listed the firms that represent over 80% of the music sales in the US. Something that you, and many others, do not understand is that the RIAA is a separate entity from its component parts. Many members do not agree with the actions that the RIAA has taken and are generally unhappy with it. To 'boycott' their music would not accomplish anything. Instead, why not take some time to write a thoughtful letter to them and/or to the RIAA giving your thoughts in a calm and rational manner. That, IMHO, would be the best way for people to make a change in the system. (Mind you, I'm practicing what I'm preaching: I'm flying down to LA on Monday to talk with Warner.) David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Yeah, like that should buy about half a router. C'mon! The equipment and infrastructure for I2 are quite expensive (IPv6 high-speed routers, gigabit ATM switches, laying fiber)...$1M is nothing more than a token contribution, mere pennies in the bucket for Microsoft. Why is everyone fawning over this?? David E. Weekly (dew)
I was not blown away by the pictures. It's quite possible that it does some really smooth, neat and dynamic things that would blow me away if I saw it "live," but the pictures, while nice, are failing to make me drool. Call me spoiled.
I believe that WebTV (owned my Microsoft) goes and class up the main server each night and tells it (among other things) what you watched, when, and for how long...there was a big uproar about this, no? Or am I just completely out of it? David E. Weekly (dew)
AMP has never been liked, especially since Brian started playing bigshot in all of this. I quote, from a writeup done a year ago:
"The AMP engine, which originally spawned the proliferation of players we see today, has fallen off the scene, as noted by the fact that the announced release of AMP 1.0 got a lukewarm response at best from the audience -- there was no substantial demo of the new player, and they made strong effort to toot their horn about having the fastest decoding engine; but with WinAMP's new Nitrane engine and the rising speed of processors out there, the contest for the fastest decoder becomes ridiculous: on my PII-233, MP3 decoding takes up ~3% of my CPU at most (that's unofficial, folks)."
People didn't like AMP then, and hate AMP now. Nullsoft had already separated out their MP3 decoding engine, calling it Nitrane, and was preparing to resell/license it. Unless Justin is a complete moron (which I don't believe), I don't think he would have walked away from AMP discussions, lied about the rewrite, and turned around and essentially tried to resell AMP's engine as Nitrane. Justin's not stupid and more importantly, Justin is a provably competent coder (duh); Justin is capable of having made Nitrane and it seems a reasonable proposition that he did. Let the courts discover the truth.
As for the future of AMP, do you think that anyone would ever want to work with Brian Litman? Do you think that anyone would want to license software from a company who sued its only potential customer? Would you want to license second-rate code? Clearly, if AMP had any future, it is gone now.
Do us all a favor and die quietly. David E. Weekly (dew)
In order for a patent to be considered valid, its owner must litigate patent infringements. Microsoft has made no move to litigate under this patent, despite the apparent existance of multiple violators. This invalidates their patent. At this point, they are legally incapable of enforcing it. Chill out, everyone. This one's not to worry about.
Oh yeah, and to that troll who said no-one would care if it wasn't Microsoft: go **** off. Everyone agrees that broad patents suck, regardless of what company files them. David E. Weekly (dew)
We didn't deface anything. We were kind and courteous. 95% of the people enjoyed us being there. Several dozen people learned what Linux was and why it was a viable alternative to Microsoft. We brought smiles to people's faces and were told that we were the sole bright spot in an otherwise bleary day. People gave us respect, and we gave people respect. We refuse to be pressured into quiet mainstream submissiveness with comments like yours. Be happy. Embrace the flow. Stand up for Linux. David E. Weekly (dew)
Thanks for the mention...and for those doubters, you CAN both upload and download with my patch to the Rio utilites: trust me, I've tested it. =) David E. Weekly (dew)
It's okay writing, but the worst part about the story is that he somehow equates "The Linux Experience" with receiving a broken computer from UPS -- he seems to think that this is all part of the esoteric Linux community; but could this very thing not have happened to, say, a Gateway with Win98 preinstalled? Really, this has nothing to do with Linux. Please don't equate bad UPS shipping with OpenSource...
BTW, always ship ocmputers FedEx: UPS is well-known for their "computer abuse" -- they've knocked a few screws loose from my computer, too... David E. Weekly (dew)
Great, so Windows is widely supported with hardware drivers, but has buggy programs, Macintosh has a clumsy OS but excellent programs, and Linux has an excellent OS with few user apps, minimal hardware support, and less-than-ideal UIs.
*sigh*...Fact is, I don't think that anyone has made anything near "the ideal computer" yet. Everything should just work, like a good toaster. Sun probably came the closest of anyone: I remember in 1991 seeing a sysadmin unpack a new Sparc, plug it into the network & power and turn it on. It found a server with its operating system on the LAN, loaded it, discovered its identity, started all of its network services, configured itself, and was ready to be logged into. Just like that, no questions asked. David E. Weekly (dew)
Slashdot Mirror
A simple re-implementation that would fall under the bounds of the law would have the first person to pop a CD in automatically encode and upload the result to the server; later users would just upload the "compressed" (verification) information to gain access. Note that under this scheme everybody gets access to all of their music, unlike the "Gee, I hope they have it scheme" that is the first incarnation of my.mp3.com...
It's interesting to note that myplay (whom I've worked with) is forcing the actual upload of bits to a locker; they could transition to such a strategy as mentioned above and fall within legal bounds.
The main problem is that of the proxy. Is MP3.com allowed to make copies on behalf of customers? The service that they provide is fundamentally compelling, and IMHO not damaging to any CD owners. In this way, I believe that they fall under the bounds of the intent of the law, while failing the letter thereof.
As regards the security issue, it was brought up in the "DVD CCA vs. John Does" case that inadequate security is not an open invitation to break it, nor can it be counted as a facilitating mechanism; so that argument is moot.
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
It doesn't look like anything really major; just a driver update here, a driver update there. Progress as usual...
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Incidentally, if this is the way things turn out, it will greatly strengthen the argument of those advocating Linux DVD solutions - it will show that the DMCA really meant what it says: it's okay to transcode for interoperability!
I think it should be clear who to cheer for.
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
"Are you an engineer too?"
"No, I'm just an idiot."
Anybody else remember this one? =)
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
I'm going to make a bit of a leap here. I'm going to suggest that it is a good thing to make money on Open Source. It is a good thing because that means that the market sees value in it, that the market is willing to bet that Open Source will work in the long run and will indeed prove the most effective business model for most software projects. If entities A and B both write some program (say, to let you browse newsgroups) and A's program is proprietary and B's program is Open Source, if I need some piece of added functionality (the ability to view HTML messages, say), I now have 4 options:
- License the source from entity A for thousands of dollars and add it myself.
- Ask entity A to do it, possibly paying him a good deal of money for it.
- Pay entity B to add the feature to her program.
- Change B's source on my own.
To the business man, option #3 is likely to become increasingly appealing: I don't need to maintain the fix (because the changes are being examined by hundreds of other eyes) and I can probably "bribe" the developer a relatively small amount to get the feature added. Ultimately, this makes it viable to make a living off of Open Source programming.I sincerely hope that many good programmers become very comfortably wealthy in this way. Companies get better, cheaper code, developers get to pick out the projects they want to work on on a contract-style basis, and everybody gets robust, fully-functional programs.
If Open Source really does work, then it will prove itself in our capitalist economy and will subsequently receive its economic due -- which could be staggering: we haven't even begun to see what kind of cash infusions will come to the community! The capacity to create, organize, transmit, and display information will be the primary cause of economic value in the near future; and Open Source software may lead the way...
Better duck, there's a bar of gold flying at you!
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics
Reviewer: Ulrich Gerlach from Dept of Mathematics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
December 21, 1999
There are four aspects to the theoretical underpinning of this book, (i) philosophical, (ii) theoretically physical, (iii) experimentally physical and (iv) mathematical. The theoretical underpinning for this book are the six theory sections, which are also posted by the author on several of his web pages. My review is directed at these theoretical underpinnings. For the purpose of orientation, one may note that these six sections come as pdf files. Consequently, it is natural to label their pages in consecutive order. For example, the references would be on page 33. The ensuing seven remarks are labelled according to which of the above four aspects I am talking about.
Let me summarize this review by putting it into a wider perspective. As one can see from the issues I have pointed out, the author's work is grossly deficient from (i) the philosophical, (ii) the theoretically physical, (iii) the experimentally physical and (iv) the mathematical point of view. The author is terribly confused about all these issues and my suspicion is that he does not even realize it. I could cite additional instances, but I merely would be beating a dead horse.Based on the observations listed above, a more accurate assessment of the author's work is that it is an example of what, for good reasons, gives mathematicians, engineers, physicists, and philosophers a bad reputation in the eyes of prospective scientists or the public in general.
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
I think that a good point to be made here is that a small percentage of people did appreciate those AOL coasters -- AOL now has many millions of users. This might not be a terrible fate for Linux -- wasn't our goal to take over the world? Shipping 20M motherboards w/a Linux CD could be great news. Hopefully we'll be able to please hardcore hackers and absolute newbies all with one OS, someday...
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
You want to make sure that your server can efficiently retrieve data from large individual mailspools if you're going to be dealing with large attachments. More traditional mail servers do a pretty poor job of handling mailboxes > 10Mb. You may want to look at modifying an existing MTA to utilize a database or purchasing one that is database-driven to best suit your needs. Hope this helps!
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Does this meant that it can copy an .mpg on a DVD video disk to a hard drive? I'm assuming not, but the wording on the post was pretty unclear. How is DVD video encryption done?
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Given the large number of important articles that have not been posted and the increasing quantity of junk that have shown up here, I think I'm taking my eyeballs elsewhere. It's really sad that this got posted. Time to go back to actual content sites, like news.com.
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
The $400M seemed to be for both companies, no? I'm guessing that the vast majority of that went to Spinner.com, seeing as that A) Spinner was already traded and is a pretty considerably sized company and B) notice how Nullsoft is moving but nobody else is?
It's important to realize here that this does not mean that MP3s are going to become open. Everybody already knows about Icecast and FreeAmp, and AOL acquiring Nullsoft has (duh) nothing to do with the MP3 format as a whole. This is not about formats, it's about AOL acquiring media properties to be able to best serve its customers with a really neat, compelling multimedia experience. Go look at Wired Planet -- this is what I see AOL pulling off, but with a huge amount of music content.
I understand the anti-AOL sentiment. I, too, was there in the first part of this decade and felt the Internet shift when morons from Joe4422@AOL.COM started posting to sci.physics. But this may be part of an image shift, too. AOL isn't just a crappy service provider any more. They own a very hefty chunk of the world's software Intellectual Property now, including some very neat companies they picked up with their acquisition of Netscape. Give them some credit. They're a different company now, or are at least trying to be. And hey, I'd sure like to get bought out for a few million, vest, and then leave -- wouldn't you?
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
I guess I should point out that you listed the firms that represent over 80% of the music sales in the US. Something that you, and many others, do not understand is that the RIAA is a separate entity from its component parts. Many members do not agree with the actions that the RIAA has taken and are generally unhappy with it. To 'boycott' their music would not accomplish anything. Instead, why not take some time to write a thoughtful letter to them and/or to the RIAA giving your thoughts in a calm and rational manner. That, IMHO, would be the best way for people to make a change in the system. (Mind you, I'm practicing what I'm preaching: I'm flying down to LA on Monday to talk with Warner.)
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Yeah, like that should buy about half a router. C'mon! The equipment and infrastructure for I2 are quite expensive (IPv6 high-speed routers, gigabit ATM switches, laying fiber)...$1M is nothing more than a token contribution, mere pennies in the bucket for Microsoft. Why is everyone fawning over this??
David E. Weekly (dew)
I was not blown away by the pictures. It's quite possible that it does some really smooth, neat and dynamic things that would blow me away if I saw it "live," but the pictures, while nice, are failing to make me drool. Call me spoiled.
David E. Weekly (dew)
http://david.weekly.org/kde/
David E. Weekly (dew)
I believe that WebTV (owned my Microsoft) goes and class up the main server each night and tells it (among other things) what you watched, when, and for how long...there was a big uproar about this, no? Or am I just completely out of it?
David E. Weekly (dew)
As for the future of AMP, do you think that anyone would ever want to work with Brian Litman? Do you think that anyone would want to license software from a company who sued its only potential customer? Would you want to license second-rate code? Clearly, if AMP had any future, it is gone now.
Do us all a favor and die quietly.
David E. Weekly (dew)
I found this In the latest Be newsletter. I nearly peed my pants reading it. Enjoy!
David E. Weekly (dew)
Oh yeah, and to that troll who said no-one would care if it wasn't Microsoft: go **** off. Everyone agrees that broad patents suck, regardless of what company files them.
David E. Weekly (dew)
Someone hod too much free time. =)
David E. Weekly (dew)
We didn't deface anything. We were kind and courteous. 95% of the people enjoyed us being there. Several dozen people learned what Linux was and why it was a viable alternative to Microsoft. We brought smiles to people's faces and were told that we were the sole bright spot in an otherwise bleary day. People gave us respect, and we gave people respect. We refuse to be pressured into quiet mainstream submissiveness with comments like yours. Be happy. Embrace the flow. Stand up for Linux.
David E. Weekly (dew)
Thanks for the mention...and for those doubters, you CAN both upload and download with my patch to the Rio utilites: trust me, I've tested it. =)
David E. Weekly (dew)
BTW, always ship ocmputers FedEx: UPS is well-known for their "computer abuse" -- they've knocked a few screws loose from my computer, too...
David E. Weekly (dew)
Very cute -- I'd seen 4D raytracers before, but never one that incorporated relativistic effects. =)
David E. Weekly (dew)
*sigh*...Fact is, I don't think that anyone has made anything near "the ideal computer" yet. Everything should just work, like a good toaster. Sun probably came the closest of anyone: I remember in 1991 seeing a sysadmin unpack a new Sparc, plug it into the network & power and turn it on. It found a server with its operating system on the LAN, loaded it, discovered its identity, started all of its network services, configured itself, and was ready to be logged into. Just like that, no questions asked.
David E. Weekly (dew)