Give Eva time. It doesn't start getting REALLY good/deep until at least halfway through - and remember - when you reach tape 13, restart at the beginning, and watch the entire thing through again before you watch the last tape. You WILL miss things that are important - and the ending WILL confuse the $#!^ out of you the first time you watch it.
Re:Scientifically inaccurate, but still entertaini
on
Review: 'Titan A.E.'
·
· Score: 2
[Obscure sci-fi RPG reference: see 'Glitter Boy', RIFTS RPG, Palladium]
Unrelated to the above reference (which is the first time I've seen a cause for an appropriate RIFTS reference on/.) - I think that the main reason we don't see mirror-defenses much is that most sci-fi flicks interchange lasers with particle beams, which don't reflect, and don't require they be held on a target for any outstanding period of time. (pulse rather than beam, etc...)
I think you mean, "This of course led to some really cool things (like tables) and some not-so-cool things (like blink, marquee, frames, and scripting, etc...)".
LOL
Actually, I do think that frames and scripting are pretty cool - they're just REALLY misused. (Frames that don't link out to the top level for outside-site links, or worse tries to hijack content -- I'm not even going to get into the evils of scripting, particularly ActiveScript (some of which are only now becoming apparent - ie: LUVbug, etc...)).
But just because these "features" are misused doesn't mean they're not cool. I tend to be anti-frames myself, but when used properly, they're not that bad. I get a bit peeved when someone overwrites the status bar with their corny message - but intelligently used mouseovers and DHTML forms that calculate order totals without a page reload (or sending any data back to the originating server) are wonderful.
Of course, without people abusing the technology, we won't see its flaws and limits very clearly - and there will be little in the way of progress, so even the misuse isn't that bad in that respect.
Still, there needs to be a balance of functionality with security - these loopholes in the code that allow scripts like LUVbug to occur are tough to justify or forgive.
It's easy under the circumstances to say that scripting is a "bad thing"(tm) because of this. It's like saying "guns are bad" because people can be shot by them, without taking into account the legitimate uses (hunting, protection, etc)
(Although [getting a bit off topic here] I'd love to see guns and artillery on the whole abandoned in favor of more personal means of combat - it's easy and takes very little skill to shoot someone - but to use a sword or axe effectively takes considerable skill, and is MUCH more personal - putting a greater emphasis on human life in general - I figure we'd have a lot less conflict if it meant going toe-to-toe with your enemy rather than just pressing a button or pulling a trigger.)
Where do you want to draw the line? Notepad is just as much an application as IE is. I'd like you to point out one good difference between the two with regards to being part of the OS - from a technical perspective.
Hmm...this raises an interesting point...
My original argument was going to be:
In the browser market, there exist two differing views, both of which have major impact on the web as we know it -- HTML(and related) standards, and browser implementations.
Anyone who's designed HTML pages for a while knows that IE and Netscape differ in how they render pages. The reason why? Early on in the "browser wars", there was a war of attrition by both sides -- basically seeing who could introduce the most (widely used) proprietary extentions to the HTML standard. This of course led to some really cool things (like tables, frames, and scripting) and some not-so-cool things (like blink, marquee, etc...)
The collary to all this nonsense is that whomever "wins" the "browser war" would essentially control how the web appeared, and to a large extent, how it grew. If MS won (and they arguably did), and they didn't like a certain tag, they could simply not implement it, and it would fall out of use. (The same could of course be said of Netscape had they "won")
If one company controls the web, they can start imposing limits on its use - who gets to implement their proprietary extentions into their products (they are, after all IP in one sense of the term), etc...
So it's important, in the interests of keeping the web "free", that no one company control how the web works. That kind of control should really fall to a standards committee like the W3C.
Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and companies tend to be rather unscrupulous -- acting only in ways that perpetuate profit rather than the "common good". (but that's a whole OTHER ball of wax)
So companies are going to do whatever is in their power to EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) any opposition to THEIR vision of the web. IE is MS's way of doing this - it renders HTML well - It does most major types of scripting fairly well - it supports (of course) every MS applet type, scripting language, and other (unnecessary) thing that MS could throw in there. (This has, of course, come to be affectionately referred to as BLOAT)
It does these things transparently - such that little to no distinction is made between MS-only code and standard code - arguably this makes it easier for coders, but it's also misleading for developers who are weaned in an MS-only environment (What do you mean it doesn't look right on your computer - it looks FINE on mine!)
By bundling this browser with the OS, MS leverages their desktop OS monopoly to gain market share for it's browser (AKA it's version of the web).
Now, let's move out of the HTML world and into the ASCII text world of Notepad.
Notepad is just a simple text editor that reads and writes ascii text. There's really no difference between looking at a text document in Notepad as opposed to looking at the same document in edit.com (under DOS), Pico (under *nix), or Simpletext (on the mac) - the text is text - spaces are spaces, tabs are tabs, etc...
Notepad doesn't try to proprietarily extend an existing standard to gain control of the medium - it simply exists to edit ascii text files.
That's the difference.
Now, however, after writing all that, I've realized something - Notepad isn't as squeaky-clean as I thought -- although it isn't directly to blame. The extention to the standard was the CRLF thing - which dates back AFAIK to the original MS-DOS (perhaps further?) -- so even the same ascii text isn't the same under Notepad as it is under, say, Emacs - due to the fact that any text file saved out of it will use a CRLF format rather than a simple CR.
Of course, this difference is nothing on the order of IE's extentions...but it still is a difference, and it sort of invalidates my pont a bit.
It took a whole company to make Netscape the great browser it once was, and I think that the same thing would benefit Internet Explorer.
The problem with this (or the best part of it, depending on your point of view) is that Microsoft has made the browser WORTHLESS. By releasing IE for free, they forced Netscape to do the same. Just desserts for MS if they DO do this? Possibly - but it's tough to imagine a company that has no product that makes $$$ having the $$$ to pay it's workers to improve a product that costs nothing.
since AOL owns Netscape.. why do they ship IE on all those free AOL disks?:)
IIRC, AOL has a contract to deliver IE (and no other 3rd party browser) for a certain period of time (however long the contract is for). In the meantime, they're developing NS6/Mozilla/Gecko into a decent browser they can embed into AOL to replace the current one.
They wouldn't have bought Netscape without the intention of incorporating it into their amalgam.
How does MS make money off of Notepad? Off of "dir"? Maybe they exist only to dominate the industry and text-editing and "dir" is part of that.
"dir" is a basic system tool to browse a filesystem (in this case FAT and/or its derivatives) - Admittedly with Windows' emphasis on GUI rather than CLI, it's deprecated (MS would probably prefer you use Explorer to browse the filesystem), but it's still an essential tool for basic use of the OS under a CLI interface (DOS).
So no problem there...it's a part of the OS - since you've paid for the OS, it's only natural that you get enough tools to effectively use it.
Notepad is a simple, no-frills text editor. It allows basic access to ascii text files, which are the de-facto standard for cross-system text data transfer (although HTML is making some inroads in this area, it's not quite there yet - and there are some other formats like RTF, etc... but none as ubiquitous as plain ascii text)
Again, this is a basic tool. Would you believe it if a user-targeted linux/*bsd distro shipped WITHOUT a text editor (vi, emacs, hell, even pico or nedit!)?
So again, this is a basic tool for effective use of the OS. No problems here - they're making $ off the OS. (Or more likely breaking even on the OS and making the big bucks with licencing fees to manufacturers and development tools to developers)
They originally released IE for free. Two reasons: One - they wanted to dominate the market by forcing Netscape out of business (pay $40 for theirs, or try ours for free!), and Two - they planned all along to add it to the OS once the market was theirs.
Splitting IE off to a company of its own isn't a smart idea - a product that is free doesn't make much money on its own - people aren't going to pay for IE - they're used to getting it for free. So there's no money to be made there.
Selling support is tricky business, and MS's support doesn't exactly have the best of reputations. In addition to this, if your only method of income is selling support, there is a real urge to release a buggy product, simply because it means more people will need support.
Selling documentation isn't going to help MS in the web browser market - the web browser should be (and in most cases is) implicitly easy to use. Click on a link. Press back to go back. etc... An argument could be made that this would give MS a new urge to break compatibility with existing standards to FORCE developers to buy their documentation - but again, without a standards-compliant browser, people aren't going to use it - so there'll be little demand.
In the even that IE is split off into a seperate entity, MS will have effectively shot itself in the foot. Sort of a "They made the browser free, now they've got to deal with the consequences." thing.
I'd expect one of two things to happen - either the IE html rendering engine to be made public (open-source), or the company that is IE to fold under its own weight. The former is probably not possible (this being MS), and the latter most likely in this instance.
Another thought while I'm rambling here - Since the IE html renderer is a DLL that can be used by (really) any app - is there a chance that during such a breakup that the library itself might be allocated to MS, while the application that is IE (which calls on the renderer) would go to the IE company and there die a quick, rather painless death, leaving us in about the same situation as if the OS company were to still have control of IE?
I think this is where the problem in perception is. Let's take a hypothetical situation:
I have a computer. I have Napster. I look on Napster, and I see a song that I sort-of like.
I don't like it enough to buy a whole CD - as I may not like all the songs on it, and I don't want to pay for things I don't want.
Let's say it's not a "popular" song from that particular CD, so it's not available on single.
So, having little other choice in how to acquire the song, I download it from Napster.
Immediately, the RIAA brands me as a criminal, saying exactly what you said - that they lost a sale. Bull. I already said that I wasn't going to pay for the entire CD. I never had any intention of paying for the entire CD. Without Napster I wouldn't have the song to begin with, unless I did something else "illegal" and taped it off the radio.
Bottom line: The RIAA lost NO money from my use of Napster - they would not have gotten my money anyway
Now - the solution could simply be one of allowing the end-user to acquire ANY song they want (and only that song, not the entire cd, not only the songs some company decides will be "popular" enough to release as singles) for a reasonable price.
By "reasonable", I mean $1-$1.50 or so. Since there's no actual MEDIA being used (no CD, tape, vinyl, etc...) there's little in the way of material costs to cover. In fact, since the transaction itself is being handled by a web app, and the download is across the 'net, there's little in the way of "shipping/handling" to be incurred.
I'd be even more amenable to this if I knew the artist was getting a decent ammount of that $1-$1.50, rather than the tiny ammounts they get from the sale of a CD today.
AFAIK, noone "censors" OOG -- unless you're calling peer-moderation censorship (which it's not). You can still see all posts by setting your threshold lower.
That was back when the courts had a silly little thing called "sanity".
Nowadays, the judges are more concerned with who's lining their pockets. The laywers are concerned about how long they can draw out the case (to get more legal fees to line their pockets), and the corporations (who have enough money to line many pockets) are stepping up to the plate and *buying* the laws they want.
It's enough to make people want to move to another country where *people* matter more than *business* -- but since most countries follow the lead of the "free" US ("free" for business -- nothing's free for the average citizen) when it comes to business-related laws, I doubt there's any place sane to move to.
Haven't they terraformed Mars yet? AARGH! I want off this rock.
"Identify new business opportunities through the funding of startups"
Sound suspiciously like:
"We don't know where to go now, but we want to be the MS of the new millenium -- so we'll throw a bunch of money at a bunch of projects, and see which ones take off -- once they become profitable, we'll "acquire" them"
Sort of like them saying (now) "Here's 10k to fund your open-source project" -- then 3-4 years down the road "Hey, remember when we gave you that 10k? We own your @$$. Join us."
Admittedly, with it being open-source, it's substantially better than MS's tactics of "let someone else come up with the good stuff, then either buy them, or make something similar, proprietary, and bundled into the OS that everyone will use instead, because we give them no choice".
$$ for open-source startups is cool - but I can't help but be skeptical when large corporations are involved. Seldom do they do things because they are "right" -- most often they do things because they are "profitable"...
I guess we'll se how it turns out - I could be completely wrong.
...which looks nothing like the iMac other than being colorful. It's not all-in-one, even the monitor looks to be one of those rather expensive LCD ones rather than a CRT. The one in the pic on that page doesn't even use translucency (that I can tell - I could be wrong).
I could see if it was all-in-one, translucent, and roughly gumdrop-shaped (like the iMac), or a tower with those gawd-awful "handles" all over it, translucent, with a drop-down motherboard tray.(like the g3/g4 series) I don't see where Apple can sue over a simply "colorful" computer design. - else we're all stuck with beige for eternity.
Using desktops is even more complicated. You need a 'lab' to use desktop machines. The classroom will be effectively useless for any non-computer based work. If the computers are to be used 'ubiquitously' for parts of all classes, every classroom would have to be a 'computer room'.
Desktops, while taking up more space (at least "traditional" desktop systems) aren't any more complicated to operate than a laptop. They're also MUCH cheaper. Add a zip drive, and give the students a zip disk, and they can take their personal info, as well as a couple/few programs with them wherever they go.
You wouldn't necessarily need a "lab" either. Just rework the conception of a classroom to include the computers.
If you're like me, your conception of a classroom is a smallish room with a blackboard/whiteboard and largeish desk on one end, and the rest filled to capacity with as many small, cheaply built chair/desk assemblages as possible. Partially, this has to do with the overcrowding problem (which really isn't what we're dealing with here, but is one of the MAJOR problems with our educational system today).
Now - let's take 1/2 that blackboard/whiteboard, and use a projector to throw a display from the teacher's computer up there. Keep the other half for written stuff/examples/static info.
Now, the chair/desk assemblages...the chair is ABSOLUTELY necessary, as is some sort of writing surface. So, let's throw a 10.5" cheap LCD (akin to the ones used in the iOpeners) under some sort of VERY durable/abuse resistant clear polymer cover, and mount this where the desk normally attaches (usually right-hand side) - the clear top serves as a writing surface, while still allowing the screen to show.
With a cheap keyboard and mouse (read: easily/cheaply replacable) attached to minimal hardware stored underneath the seat, you'd satisfy the space requirement fairly well. As I mentioned before, a zip drive would allow students to take their work from place to place without the problems associated with notebooks.
By making the hardware minimal (probably little more than what's found in an iOpener, aside from the zip drive) the costs wouldn't be all that high, compared to full-fledged laptops. There might even be enough money leftover to afford a cheap desktop unit for the student to use at home.
A classroom network will have to be wireless, I don't see a way around this.
Well, in the above circumstance, there could simply be ethernet hookups run to each of the desks. In a circumstance where there are full-fledged laptops being used, just build an ethernet port into the existing desks.
They'll need to be ruggedized, commodity machines in a very standard configuration. These things aren't yet available on the cheap, but they will be shortly.
Definitely agree with you here - although the stuff I mentioned above shouldn't run more than $400 or so per seat right now - with prices dropping all the time, in a couple years it could actually be a possibility.
Ruggedness is key though. Most of the desks I had the pleasure to use had at one point or another been gouged with knives, burned, scratched in all manner of ways, drawn on, etc...
Those things, of course, would wreck havoc with a screen...
>I think you're cutting hairs with a big pair of >shears
LOL - I never claimed I didn't bring out the industrial strength weedwhacker (to heck with the shears, I want POWER!;) )
>Napster *does* censor the types of files you >sent (namely, you can only send MP3s.)
Good point - but I wouldn't call it censorship per se - they don't check what sort of mp3s you're sharing - they DO get a list, that gets merged into the DB of the node you're on, which makes searching a bit quicker. I suppose you could say that "access" ISPs also get a "list" in the form of server logfiles. They're just as easily searchable, if you can get to them. Napster just makes it easy for ANYONE to search their DB.
>Napster can claim it is being hands-off on what >people sent back and forth all it wants, it does >aid said transfers.
It allows you to search the DB of shared files. That's part of the beauty of Napster - it lets you run a fine-toothed comb over the big mess 'o shared junk they have. In a way, so do newsgroup search engines, such as Deja and the like. Napster would be a LOT tougher to use if you couldn't search.
>Napster *does scan* peoples hard drives (for >MP3s that are uploadable).
Hmm...last time I checked, it only scanned user-defined directories - in other words you have to tell Napster where to look before it will do a scan. Point it at an empty directory, and you'll share nothing, even though you could potentially have gigabytes of MP3s laying around on your HDD.
>>(An aside, what prevents me from encoding a >binary into text, like BinHex or Stuffit etc.), >putting a MP3 wrapper on it, and sticking it >into my library for upload?
Nothing at all. I've actually done something similar to this as a test - and it worked beautifully - of course, the person on the receiving end has to know how to strip the file and decode it in order for it to be useful. Gnutella definitely has an advantage here in that they're allowing ANY type of file to be shared - so you don't have to go through all that hassle in order to share non-mp3 files.
I guess the main point is that services like ICQ, Napster, Gnutella and such _are_ service providers - they're not "access" ISPs, but by literal terms, they ARE ISPs of a sort. I do agree with you that the term ISP is VERY vague though.
Really this depends on your definition of "Service Provider".
Literally, "Service Provider" would mean "One who provides a service".
In this definition, I can see Napster as being a "Service Provider" as they _provide_ a _service_ by which many users can exchange mp3 files with one another.
ICQ _provides_ a similar _service_ by which users can send messages, chat, and transfer files to/from each other.
Neither Napster, nor ICQ do any sort of censoring on what files may or may not be transferred. They simply provide a means by which to transfer files, much like the US Post Office provides a means to transfer packages from one address to another. The US Post Office is not responsible to check each and every package to make sure that it doesn't contain "stolen" information. Neither should ICQ or Napster be required to do such checking.
This is what the provision in the DMCA allows.
Of course, according to the laywers in the article, the DMCA was never meant to protect small, non-lobbying, non-multi-billion-dollar service providers -- evidently only the megacorps deserve to use the laws of this country as they were written.
Okay - let's assume that Netpliance decides to stop all of it's EXTREMELY poor treatment of customers (ie: changing terms of sale AFTER the sale, charging customers WITHOUT their consent, bait-and-switch the gooped/maimed version for the ungooped/unmaimed version people THOUGFHT they were buying, etc...)
There are a few changes that should make an iOpener fairly attractive to the linux/geek/hacker community...
PRICE - One of the BIG reasons the iOpener became popular in the first place was the dirt-cheap price. Obviously they were being sold at a loss. For a modifiable unit with no service being sold, expect the price to rise a bit - it'd still be REALLY nice to get a barebones unit for $199 or so, as long as there aren't any service contracts, etc...
ETHERNET - Most geeks/hackers already have an ISP. More commonly, they're paying for broadband access - Cable or (in some lucky areas) DSL. Most already have a computer. We're not going to want to pay ANOTHER ISP bill for slow dialup access. Swap out the modem for an ethernet port, so we can hook them up to the cable/dsl connection we already have.
IDE - Let's face it, this was the enabler for the hacks. If you want to target people who WOULD HAVE bought the machine to hack it, include a STANDARD IDE interface. Not pinswapped, not clipped -- standard. A HDD mounting bracket would be nice, but isn't really necessary if it'd add to the price.
NO OS - Since in the process of setting the machine up, we're going to get rid of the OS anyway (to replace it with Be, Linux, 'doze, or whatever), why make us pay for it in the first place? Save those licensing fees for those who can't install their own OS.
FLASH MEMORY - Okay, this is a bit of a point of contention, I'm sure - but my view is, use cheaper, non-flash memory, and assume that a HDD will be added for storage. Save a bit of money, and lower the cost a little.
TOUCH SCREEN - This would be REALLY cool, but is probably too expensive to implement while keeping the price down.
IrDA - Again, REALLY cool, but probably too expensive to implement at the price point we'd want.
PCMCIA - Since the iOpeners are so small, it'd make sense for them to have a PCMCIA port or two, if only for upgradability/expandability. Not sure how much one or two slots would add to the price, but it'd be a nice addition.
SPEED - Ramp up the processor speed a bit. I'm not saying to run the thing at 600mhz -- just make the thing a little snappier.
If they can do most of that for $199, I know I'd buy at least 2.
What people are talking about here is a device that will play a cd of burned MP3s - so you could have 650 megs of MP3s (about 10-11 hours of music) on a single CD. This would beat the heck out of current mp3 players for capacity, and conceivably could be as small as a discman.
The concept is awesome - the only problem I can see is that discman-style players are notoriously power-hungry - and the extra processing required to decode the mp3 audio might make the battery time low enough to be a nuisance. (I get about 6-8 hours out of a set of batteries on my current player - I'd expect this to drop to 5-7 if the player has to do extra processing - a hardware decoder could help out here, but would probably make the player a bit more expensive)
I'd still buy one in a second though =)
Re:Not the sharpest tack in the corkboard, are ya?
on
'Battling Censorware'
·
· Score: 2
::shrug::
If I buy a copy of Cryptonomicon (which I have), I most certainly can chop it up into little bits. I can photocopy a page with a particularly interesting quote, blow it up very large, hilight it, and tape it to my wall. I can "edit" it by writing small notes in the margins with my ballpoint pen. I can consolodate those notes (and only those notes, possibly with select quotations to show context) into a web page, and post them for the world to see. I can review the book and publish my opinions about it anywhere that is willing to print it. If I want to, I can rewrite the story itself, the way I feel it should have been written.
So far I'm well within my rights as "fair use".
Now...that "rewrite" I mentioned...I'm pretty sure that without reference to the original work I might have a problem publishing it (IANAL, so I'm not sure exactly what is required for derivitive works).
Everything else mentioned though, is, was, and should always be "fair use".
In the case of DeCSS - I'f I've purchased the DVD, and I've purchased a "licensed" player (let's say my Creative Labs DVD drive) - I've already paid my money to the MPAA and the DVD-CCA. I *should* be able to play that DVD in that DVD drive, regardless of the operating system I run. According to the DMCA, evidently in addition to paying for the DVD, and the player, I should also have to pay for the PROGRAM I use to play the DVD (otherwise I'm in violation of the law, which says that unless I do I'm a criminal, even though were I running an "approved" OS, I could play the DVD without spending more $). Thus the DVD-CCA can regulate not only who can make DVDs, and who can make players, but also what OS the consumer can run to watch them. This is Wrong.
In the case of Censorware, if I am looking for a product to censor the web -- beit for the purpose of imposing my ethical standards on the public, or for imposing them on my children, or simply because I want to have a "clean" "web experience" -- I'm going to want to look at what each product does, and does not censor. If the company providing the censoring engine does not provide a *full* listing of the sites they block, correctly or incorrectly, I can't make that valuation of the software. Because the company saw fit to encrypt the list, I can't see it, even if I buy the product. Thus I have NO WAY to determine if the product simply fits my needs, or whether it is being overzealous, or if the company that wrote it is censoring any and all viewpoints that they do not agree with. SOme folks decide to write a piece of software that allows people to see the banned list. This gives the consumer valuable information about the product they are using, and points out more than a few "flaws". According to the DMCA, this is illegal, and in fact a criminal act. I wonder what the consumer rights groups have to say about that? The Better Business Bureau?
But, of course, this is The Law, so it must be right.::sigh:: Politicians aren't going to make the "right" choice, because they're not going to turn away the money being handed to them by the various companies involved. Companies aren't going to do anything that isn't in their own best interests. They have shareholders to think about, and the primary concern is making money, not being ethical.
It's a shame that our society has come to this.
It's a shame that companies are more valuable in the eyes of the government than the people they are supposed to represent.
Unfortunately, we may be too far gone to change anything.
Yeah, as I said, the 3c509 driver has some quirks - and they're compounded by the fact that BeOS r5 handles drivers a little differently.
I don't remember not being able to just restart networking in r4 after editing the config file - under r5, restarting actually rewrites the config file first, which undoes the changes you made - hence the need to reboot. If there was a method of restarting the networking subsystem WITHOUT rewriting the config files (such as a command-line app I may not yet be aware of) then I'm sure you could accomplish this without rebooting.
Another little issue with the 3c509 driver under r5 is that after installing the driver, opening the network prefs panel crashes the system. I don't remember this happening under r4 either (it has been a while since I installed the card in r4) - this is obviously due to 1) the driver being a little buggy, and 2) r5 handling the drivers a bit differently.
It would be nice if someone managed to write a driver for the 3c509 that didn't have these problems - but once you have the card configured, you really don't see the problems, as you really should only have to configure networking ONCE.
(On a side note, you can do all of the config from the Network conf file - including enabling the telnet and ftp servers, without needing the prefs app -- the only thing that's a bit tricky is setting a password, as it's encrypted - but the same encrypted string will pass the same password on another machine - so you can just get a buddy with a supported networking card to set his machine with your password, then copy the encrypted string to your conf file, and you're set)
If you take a look at the driver author's site (which I don't know off the top of my head - if you look for the driver over at bebits.com you'll find a link to it) you'll see that there has been a bit of an impasse with progress on the driver - some sort of disagreement with the 3c509 LINUX driver developers (he probably used some of their code) the basic point of which is that he can't release his source, and has stopped distributing the driver himself. If anyone knows more about this, feel free to add in what you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Give Eva time. It doesn't start getting REALLY good/deep until at least halfway through - and remember - when you reach tape 13, restart at the beginning, and watch the entire thing through again before you watch the last tape. You WILL miss things that are important - and the ending WILL confuse the $#!^ out of you the first time you watch it.
[Obscure sci-fi RPG reference: see 'Glitter Boy', RIFTS RPG, Palladium]
/.) - I think that the main reason we don't see mirror-defenses much is that most sci-fi flicks interchange lasers with particle beams, which don't reflect, and don't require they be held on a target for any outstanding period of time. (pulse rather than beam, etc...)
Unrelated to the above reference (which is the first time I've seen a cause for an appropriate RIFTS reference on
Still fun to watch though.
Even better is that Cartoon Network has the rights to air it here in the US -- hopefully this fall if we're lucky.
LOL
Actually, I do think that frames and scripting are pretty cool - they're just REALLY misused. (Frames that don't link out to the top level for outside-site links, or worse tries to hijack content -- I'm not even going to get into the evils of scripting, particularly ActiveScript (some of which are only now becoming apparent - ie: LUVbug, etc...)).
But just because these "features" are misused doesn't mean they're not cool. I tend to be anti-frames myself, but when used properly, they're not that bad. I get a bit peeved when someone overwrites the status bar with their corny message - but intelligently used mouseovers and DHTML forms that calculate order totals without a page reload (or sending any data back to the originating server) are wonderful.
Of course, without people abusing the technology, we won't see its flaws and limits very clearly - and there will be little in the way of progress, so even the misuse isn't that bad in that respect.
Still, there needs to be a balance of functionality with security - these loopholes in the code that allow scripts like LUVbug to occur are tough to justify or forgive.
It's easy under the circumstances to say that scripting is a "bad thing"(tm) because of this. It's like saying "guns are bad" because people can be shot by them, without taking into account the legitimate uses (hunting, protection, etc)
(Although [getting a bit off topic here] I'd love to see guns and artillery on the whole abandoned in favor of more personal means of combat - it's easy and takes very little skill to shoot someone - but to use a sword or axe effectively takes considerable skill, and is MUCH more personal - putting a greater emphasis on human life in general - I figure we'd have a lot less conflict if it meant going toe-to-toe with your enemy rather than just pressing a button or pulling a trigger.)
I believe the correct link is http://quake3.lokigames.com
Anyone else notice the link to Loki's Q3A page actually points to a Slashdot article (Bill Joy on extinction of humans)?
Hmm...this raises an interesting point...
My original argument was going to be:
Anyone who's designed HTML pages for a while knows that IE and Netscape differ in how they render pages. The reason why? Early on in the "browser wars", there was a war of attrition by both sides -- basically seeing who could introduce the most (widely used) proprietary extentions to the HTML standard. This of course led to some really cool things (like tables, frames, and scripting) and some not-so-cool things (like blink, marquee, etc...)
The collary to all this nonsense is that whomever "wins" the "browser war" would essentially control how the web appeared, and to a large extent, how it grew. If MS won (and they arguably did), and they didn't like a certain tag, they could simply not implement it, and it would fall out of use. (The same could of course be said of Netscape had they "won")
If one company controls the web, they can start imposing limits on its use - who gets to implement their proprietary extentions into their products (they are, after all IP in one sense of the term), etc...
So it's important, in the interests of keeping the web "free", that no one company control how the web works. That kind of control should really fall to a standards committee like the W3C.
Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and companies tend to be rather unscrupulous -- acting only in ways that perpetuate profit rather than the "common good". (but that's a whole OTHER ball of wax)
So companies are going to do whatever is in their power to EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) any opposition to THEIR vision of the web. IE is MS's way of doing this - it renders HTML well - It does most major types of scripting fairly well - it supports (of course) every MS applet type, scripting language, and other (unnecessary) thing that MS could throw in there. (This has, of course, come to be affectionately referred to as BLOAT)
It does these things transparently - such that little to no distinction is made between MS-only code and standard code - arguably this makes it easier for coders, but it's also misleading for developers who are weaned in an MS-only environment (What do you mean it doesn't look right on your computer - it looks FINE on mine!)
By bundling this browser with the OS, MS leverages their desktop OS monopoly to gain market share for it's browser (AKA it's version of the web).
Now, let's move out of the HTML world and into the ASCII text world of Notepad.
Notepad is just a simple text editor that reads and writes ascii text. There's really no difference between looking at a text document in Notepad as opposed to looking at the same document in edit.com (under DOS), Pico (under *nix), or Simpletext (on the mac) - the text is text - spaces are spaces, tabs are tabs, etc...
Notepad doesn't try to proprietarily extend an existing standard to gain control of the medium - it simply exists to edit ascii text files.
That's the difference.
Now, however, after writing all that, I've realized something - Notepad isn't as squeaky-clean as I thought -- although it isn't directly to blame. The extention to the standard was the CRLF thing - which dates back AFAIK to the original MS-DOS (perhaps further?) -- so even the same ascii text isn't the same under Notepad as it is under, say, Emacs - due to the fact that any text file saved out of it will use a CRLF format rather than a simple CR.
Of course, this difference is nothing on the order of IE's extentions...but it still is a difference, and it sort of invalidates my pont a bit.
Ergo I yeild, good sir ;)
The problem with this (or the best part of it, depending on your point of view) is that Microsoft has made the browser WORTHLESS. By releasing IE for free, they forced Netscape to do the same. Just desserts for MS if they DO do this? Possibly - but it's tough to imagine a company that has no product that makes $$$ having the $$$ to pay it's workers to improve a product that costs nothing.
IIRC, AOL has a contract to deliver IE (and no other 3rd party browser) for a certain period of time (however long the contract is for). In the meantime, they're developing NS6/Mozilla/Gecko into a decent browser they can embed into AOL to replace the current one.
They wouldn't have bought Netscape without the intention of incorporating it into their amalgam.
"dir" is a basic system tool to browse a filesystem (in this case FAT and/or its derivatives) - Admittedly with Windows' emphasis on GUI rather than CLI, it's deprecated (MS would probably prefer you use Explorer to browse the filesystem), but it's still an essential tool for basic use of the OS under a CLI interface (DOS).
So no problem there...it's a part of the OS - since you've paid for the OS, it's only natural that you get enough tools to effectively use it.
Notepad is a simple, no-frills text editor. It allows basic access to ascii text files, which are the de-facto standard for cross-system text data transfer (although HTML is making some inroads in this area, it's not quite there yet - and there are some other formats like RTF, etc... but none as ubiquitous as plain ascii text)
Again, this is a basic tool. Would you believe it if a user-targeted linux/*bsd distro shipped WITHOUT a text editor (vi, emacs, hell, even pico or nedit!)?
So again, this is a basic tool for effective use of the OS. No problems here - they're making $ off the OS. (Or more likely breaking even on the OS and making the big bucks with licencing fees to manufacturers and development tools to developers)
They originally released IE for free. Two reasons: One - they wanted to dominate the market by forcing Netscape out of business (pay $40 for theirs, or try ours for free!), and Two - they planned all along to add it to the OS once the market was theirs.
Splitting IE off to a company of its own isn't a smart idea - a product that is free doesn't make much money on its own - people aren't going to pay for IE - they're used to getting it for free. So there's no money to be made there.
Selling support is tricky business, and MS's support doesn't exactly have the best of reputations. In addition to this, if your only method of income is selling support, there is a real urge to release a buggy product, simply because it means more people will need support.
Selling documentation isn't going to help MS in the web browser market - the web browser should be (and in most cases is) implicitly easy to use. Click on a link. Press back to go back. etc... An argument could be made that this would give MS a new urge to break compatibility with existing standards to FORCE developers to buy their documentation - but again, without a standards-compliant browser, people aren't going to use it - so there'll be little demand.
In the even that IE is split off into a seperate entity, MS will have effectively shot itself in the foot. Sort of a "They made the browser free, now they've got to deal with the consequences." thing.
I'd expect one of two things to happen - either the IE html rendering engine to be made public (open-source), or the company that is IE to fold under its own weight. The former is probably not possible (this being MS), and the latter most likely in this instance.
Another thought while I'm rambling here - Since the IE html renderer is a DLL that can be used by (really) any app - is there a chance that during such a breakup that the library itself might be allocated to MS, while the application that is IE (which calls on the renderer) would go to the IE company and there die a quick, rather painless death, leaving us in about the same situation as if the OS company were to still have control of IE?
Just MHO - and a little food for thought.
As always, I can be, and sometimes am wrong.
I think this is where the problem in perception is. Let's take a hypothetical situation:
I have a computer. I have Napster. I look on Napster, and I see a song that I sort-of like.
I don't like it enough to buy a whole CD - as I may not like all the songs on it, and I don't want to pay for things I don't want.
Let's say it's not a "popular" song from that particular CD, so it's not available on single.
So, having little other choice in how to acquire the song, I download it from Napster.
Immediately, the RIAA brands me as a criminal, saying exactly what you said - that they lost a sale. Bull. I already said that I wasn't going to pay for the entire CD. I never had any intention of paying for the entire CD. Without Napster I wouldn't have the song to begin with, unless I did something else "illegal" and taped it off the radio.
Bottom line: The RIAA lost NO money from my use of Napster - they would not have gotten my money anyway
Now - the solution could simply be one of allowing the end-user to acquire ANY song they want (and only that song, not the entire cd, not only the songs some company decides will be "popular" enough to release as singles) for a reasonable price.
By "reasonable", I mean $1-$1.50 or so. Since there's no actual MEDIA being used (no CD, tape, vinyl, etc...) there's little in the way of material costs to cover. In fact, since the transaction itself is being handled by a web app, and the download is across the 'net, there's little in the way of "shipping/handling" to be incurred.
I'd be even more amenable to this if I knew the artist was getting a decent ammount of that $1-$1.50, rather than the tiny ammounts they get from the sale of a CD today.
ASClock.
Does digital or analog.
Does GNOME or Windowmaker or AfterStep (or probably anything else with a dock/wharf/panel type thing except maybe KDE)
Looks damn cool.
Admittedly it can't do transparency.
I thought SATAN was a network security tool...
;P
AFAIK, noone "censors" OOG -- unless you're calling peer-moderation censorship (which it's not). You can still see all posts by setting your threshold lower.
I could be wrong.
That was back when the courts had a silly little thing called "sanity".
Nowadays, the judges are more concerned with who's lining their pockets. The laywers are concerned about how long they can draw out the case (to get more legal fees to line their pockets), and the corporations (who have enough money to line many pockets) are stepping up to the plate and *buying* the laws they want.
It's enough to make people want to move to another country where *people* matter more than *business* -- but since most countries follow the lead of the "free" US ("free" for business -- nothing's free for the average citizen) when it comes to business-related laws, I doubt there's any place sane to move to.
Haven't they terraformed Mars yet? AARGH! I want off this rock.
Is it just me, or does:
"Identify new business opportunities through the funding of startups"
Sound suspiciously like:
"We don't know where to go now, but we want to be the MS of the new millenium -- so we'll throw a bunch of money at a bunch of projects, and see which ones take off -- once they become profitable, we'll "acquire" them"
Sort of like them saying (now) "Here's 10k to fund your open-source project" -- then 3-4 years down the road "Hey, remember when we gave you that 10k? We own your @$$. Join us."
Admittedly, with it being open-source, it's substantially better than MS's tactics of "let someone else come up with the good stuff, then either buy them, or make something similar, proprietary, and bundled into the OS that everyone will use instead, because we give them no choice".
$$ for open-source startups is cool - but I can't help but be skeptical when large corporations are involved. Seldom do they do things because they are "right" -- most often they do things because they are "profitable"...
I guess we'll se how it turns out - I could be completely wrong.
...which looks nothing like the iMac other than being colorful. It's not all-in-one, even the monitor looks to be one of those rather expensive LCD ones rather than a CRT. The one in the pic on that page doesn't even use translucency (that I can tell - I could be wrong).
I could see if it was all-in-one, translucent, and roughly gumdrop-shaped (like the iMac), or a tower with those gawd-awful "handles" all over it, translucent, with a drop-down motherboard tray.(like the g3/g4 series) I don't see where Apple can sue over a simply "colorful" computer design. - else we're all stuck with beige for eternity.
Desktops, while taking up more space (at least "traditional" desktop systems) aren't any more complicated to operate than a laptop. They're also MUCH cheaper. Add a zip drive, and give the students a zip disk, and they can take their personal info, as well as a couple/few programs with them wherever they go.
You wouldn't necessarily need a "lab" either. Just rework the conception of a classroom to include the computers.
If you're like me, your conception of a classroom is a smallish room with a blackboard/whiteboard and largeish desk on one end, and the rest filled to capacity with as many small, cheaply built chair/desk assemblages as possible. Partially, this has to do with the overcrowding problem (which really isn't what we're dealing with here, but is one of the MAJOR problems with our educational system today).
Now - let's take 1/2 that blackboard/whiteboard, and use a projector to throw a display from the teacher's computer up there. Keep the other half for written stuff/examples/static info.
Now, the chair/desk assemblages...the chair is ABSOLUTELY necessary, as is some sort of writing surface. So, let's throw a 10.5" cheap LCD (akin to the ones used in the iOpeners) under some sort of VERY durable/abuse resistant clear polymer cover, and mount this where the desk normally attaches (usually right-hand side) - the clear top serves as a writing surface, while still allowing the screen to show.
With a cheap keyboard and mouse (read: easily/cheaply replacable) attached to minimal hardware stored underneath the seat, you'd satisfy the space requirement fairly well. As I mentioned before, a zip drive would allow students to take their work from place to place without the problems associated with notebooks.
By making the hardware minimal (probably little more than what's found in an iOpener, aside from the zip drive) the costs wouldn't be all that high, compared to full-fledged laptops. There might even be enough money leftover to afford a cheap desktop unit for the student to use at home.
A classroom network will have to be wireless, I don't see a way around this.
Well, in the above circumstance, there could simply be ethernet hookups run to each of the desks. In a circumstance where there are full-fledged laptops being used, just build an ethernet port into the existing desks.
They'll need to be ruggedized, commodity machines in a very standard configuration. These things aren't yet available on the cheap, but they will be shortly.
Definitely agree with you here - although the stuff I mentioned above shouldn't run more than $400 or so per seat right now - with prices dropping all the time, in a couple years it could actually be a possibility.
Ruggedness is key though. Most of the desks I had the pleasure to use had at one point or another been gouged with knives, burned, scratched in all manner of ways, drawn on, etc...
Those things, of course, would wreck havoc with a screen...
>I think you're cutting hairs with a big pair of
;) )
>shears
LOL - I never claimed I didn't bring out the industrial strength weedwhacker (to heck with the shears, I want POWER!
>Napster *does* censor the types of files you
>sent (namely, you can only send MP3s.)
Good point - but I wouldn't call it censorship per se - they don't check what sort of mp3s you're sharing - they DO get a list, that gets merged into the DB of the node you're on, which makes searching a bit quicker. I suppose you could say that "access" ISPs also get a "list" in the form of server logfiles. They're just as easily searchable, if you can get to them. Napster just makes it easy for ANYONE to search their DB.
>Napster can claim it is being hands-off on what
>people sent back and forth all it wants, it does
>aid said transfers.
It allows you to search the DB of shared files. That's part of the beauty of Napster - it lets you run a fine-toothed comb over the big mess 'o shared junk they have. In a way, so do newsgroup search engines, such as Deja and the like. Napster would be a LOT tougher to use if you couldn't search.
>Napster *does scan* peoples hard drives (for
>MP3s that are uploadable).
Hmm...last time I checked, it only scanned user-defined directories - in other words you have to tell Napster where to look before it will do a scan. Point it at an empty directory, and you'll share nothing, even though you could potentially have gigabytes of MP3s laying around on your HDD.
>>(An aside, what prevents me from encoding a
>binary into text, like BinHex or Stuffit etc.),
>putting a MP3 wrapper on it, and sticking it
>into my library for upload?
Nothing at all. I've actually done something similar to this as a test - and it worked beautifully - of course, the person on the receiving end has to know how to strip the file and decode it in order for it to be useful. Gnutella definitely has an advantage here in that they're allowing ANY type of file to be shared - so you don't have to go through all that hassle in order to share non-mp3 files.
I guess the main point is that services like ICQ, Napster, Gnutella and such _are_ service providers - they're not "access" ISPs, but by literal terms, they ARE ISPs of a sort. I do agree with you that the term ISP is VERY vague though.
As I said in my post - A touchscreen would be REALLY nice, but can't be done cheaply. I realize this - that's why I said it probably wouldn't happen.
Really this depends on your definition of "Service Provider".
Literally, "Service Provider" would mean "One who provides a service".
In this definition, I can see Napster as being a "Service Provider" as they _provide_ a _service_ by which many users can exchange mp3 files with one another.
ICQ _provides_ a similar _service_ by which users can send messages, chat, and transfer files to/from each other.
Neither Napster, nor ICQ do any sort of censoring on what files may or may not be transferred. They simply provide a means by which to transfer files, much like the US Post Office provides a means to transfer packages from one address to another. The US Post Office is not responsible to check each and every package to make sure that it doesn't contain "stolen" information. Neither should ICQ or Napster be required to do such checking.
This is what the provision in the DMCA allows.
Of course, according to the laywers in the article, the DMCA was never meant to protect small, non-lobbying, non-multi-billion-dollar service providers -- evidently only the megacorps deserve to use the laws of this country as they were written.
Okay - let's assume that Netpliance decides to stop all of it's EXTREMELY poor treatment of customers (ie: changing terms of sale AFTER the sale, charging customers WITHOUT their consent, bait-and-switch the gooped/maimed version for the ungooped/unmaimed version people THOUGFHT they were buying, etc...)
There are a few changes that should make an iOpener fairly attractive to the linux/geek/hacker community...
PRICE - One of the BIG reasons the iOpener became popular in the first place was the dirt-cheap price. Obviously they were being sold at a loss. For a modifiable unit with no service being sold, expect the price to rise a bit - it'd still be REALLY nice to get a barebones unit for $199 or so, as long as there aren't any service contracts, etc...
ETHERNET - Most geeks/hackers already have an ISP. More commonly, they're paying for broadband access - Cable or (in some lucky areas) DSL. Most already have a computer. We're not going to want to pay ANOTHER ISP bill for slow dialup access. Swap out the modem for an ethernet port, so we can hook them up to the cable/dsl connection we already have.
IDE - Let's face it, this was the enabler for the hacks. If you want to target people who WOULD HAVE bought the machine to hack it, include a STANDARD IDE interface. Not pinswapped, not clipped -- standard. A HDD mounting bracket would be nice, but isn't really necessary if it'd add to the price.
NO OS - Since in the process of setting the machine up, we're going to get rid of the OS anyway (to replace it with Be, Linux, 'doze, or whatever), why make us pay for it in the first place? Save those licensing fees for those who can't install their own OS.
FLASH MEMORY - Okay, this is a bit of a point of contention, I'm sure - but my view is, use cheaper, non-flash memory, and assume that a HDD will be added for storage. Save a bit of money, and lower the cost a little.
TOUCH SCREEN - This would be REALLY cool, but is probably too expensive to implement while keeping the price down.
IrDA - Again, REALLY cool, but probably too expensive to implement at the price point we'd want.
PCMCIA - Since the iOpeners are so small, it'd make sense for them to have a PCMCIA port or two, if only for upgradability/expandability. Not sure how much one or two slots would add to the price, but it'd be a nice addition.
SPEED - Ramp up the processor speed a bit. I'm not saying to run the thing at 600mhz -- just make the thing a little snappier.
If they can do most of that for $199, I know I'd buy at least 2.
What people are talking about here is a device that will play a cd of burned MP3s - so you could have 650 megs of MP3s (about 10-11 hours of music) on a single CD. This would beat the heck out of current mp3 players for capacity, and conceivably could be as small as a discman.
The concept is awesome - the only problem I can see is that discman-style players are notoriously power-hungry - and the extra processing required to decode the mp3 audio might make the battery time low enough to be a nuisance. (I get about 6-8 hours out of a set of batteries on my current player - I'd expect this to drop to 5-7 if the player has to do extra processing - a hardware decoder could help out here, but would probably make the player a bit more expensive)
I'd still buy one in a second though =)
::shrug::
::sigh:: Politicians aren't going to make the "right" choice, because they're not going to turn away the money being handed to them by the various companies involved. Companies aren't going to do anything that isn't in their own best interests. They have shareholders to think about, and the primary concern is making money, not being ethical.
;P)
If I buy a copy of Cryptonomicon (which I have), I most certainly can chop it up into little bits. I can photocopy a page with a particularly interesting quote, blow it up very large, hilight it, and tape it to my wall. I can "edit" it by writing small notes in the margins with my ballpoint pen. I can consolodate those notes (and only those notes, possibly with select quotations to show context) into a web page, and post them for the world to see. I can review the book and publish my opinions about it anywhere that is willing to print it. If I want to, I can rewrite the story itself, the way I feel it should have been written.
So far I'm well within my rights as "fair use".
Now...that "rewrite" I mentioned...I'm pretty sure that without reference to the original work I might have a problem publishing it (IANAL, so I'm not sure exactly what is required for derivitive works).
Everything else mentioned though, is, was, and should always be "fair use".
In the case of DeCSS - I'f I've purchased the DVD, and I've purchased a "licensed" player (let's say my Creative Labs DVD drive) - I've already paid my money to the MPAA and the DVD-CCA. I *should* be able to play that DVD in that DVD drive, regardless of the operating system I run. According to the DMCA, evidently in addition to paying for the DVD, and the player, I should also have to pay for the PROGRAM I use to play the DVD (otherwise I'm in violation of the law, which says that unless I do I'm a criminal, even though were I running an "approved" OS, I could play the DVD without spending more $). Thus the DVD-CCA can regulate not only who can make DVDs, and who can make players, but also what OS the consumer can run to watch them. This is Wrong.
In the case of Censorware, if I am looking for a product to censor the web -- beit for the purpose of imposing my ethical standards on the public, or for imposing them on my children, or simply because I want to have a "clean" "web experience" -- I'm going to want to look at what each product does, and does not censor. If the company providing the censoring engine does not provide a *full* listing of the sites they block, correctly or incorrectly, I can't make that valuation of the software. Because the company saw fit to encrypt the list, I can't see it, even if I buy the product. Thus I have NO WAY to determine if the product simply fits my needs, or whether it is being overzealous, or if the company that wrote it is censoring any and all viewpoints that they do not agree with. SOme folks decide to write a piece of software that allows people to see the banned list. This gives the consumer valuable information about the product they are using, and points out more than a few "flaws". According to the DMCA, this is illegal, and in fact a criminal act. I wonder what the consumer rights groups have to say about that? The Better Business Bureau?
But, of course, this is The Law, so it must be right.
It's a shame that our society has come to this.
It's a shame that companies are more valuable in the eyes of the government than the people they are supposed to represent.
Unfortunately, we may be too far gone to change anything.
I need to get back to work...
(I also need more coffee...
Yeah, as I said, the 3c509 driver has some quirks - and they're compounded by the fact that BeOS r5 handles drivers a little differently.
I don't remember not being able to just restart networking in r4 after editing the config file - under r5, restarting actually rewrites the config file first, which undoes the changes you made - hence the need to reboot. If there was a method of restarting the networking subsystem WITHOUT rewriting the config files (such as a command-line app I may not yet be aware of) then I'm sure you could accomplish this without rebooting.
Another little issue with the 3c509 driver under r5 is that after installing the driver, opening the network prefs panel crashes the system. I don't remember this happening under r4 either (it has been a while since I installed the card in r4) - this is obviously due to 1) the driver being a little buggy, and 2) r5 handling the drivers a bit differently.
It would be nice if someone managed to write a driver for the 3c509 that didn't have these problems - but once you have the card configured, you really don't see the problems, as you really should only have to configure networking ONCE.
(On a side note, you can do all of the config from the Network conf file - including enabling the telnet and ftp servers, without needing the prefs app -- the only thing that's a bit tricky is setting a password, as it's encrypted - but the same encrypted string will pass the same password on another machine - so you can just get a buddy with a supported networking card to set his machine with your password, then copy the encrypted string to your conf file, and you're set)
If you take a look at the driver author's site (which I don't know off the top of my head - if you look for the driver over at bebits.com you'll find a link to it) you'll see that there has been a bit of an impasse with progress on the driver - some sort of disagreement with the 3c509 LINUX driver developers (he probably used some of their code) the basic point of which is that he can't release his source, and has stopped distributing the driver himself. If anyone knows more about this, feel free to add in what you know.