There is precedent for that kind of behavior. In the past companies have used the patent system to do it. For example, several printer companies filed design patents on the shape of their ink cartridges so they could have a little monopoly.
When one of these cases came to trial, the court ruled against this kind of use of design patents. Here's a link to the case. The company in the case was Epson.
I think MS would eventually lose in court if they tried to use the DMCA like that (who knows how long it could take though). Plus it would be terrible PR for MS since everyone is already screaming monopoly.
I will grant you that current evolutionary theory is not an extension of the theories of creationists. I will also grant you that these time scales are still much slower than creationists'. However, punctuated equilibrium does argue for periods of "faster" evolution for some value of "faster."
My point was that the gist of the creationists' complaint was correct. Granted, the reasoning behind their complaint was probably flawed. Their argument has been that fossils are only created during catastrophic events and that fossils cut across multiple layers of rock. Thus the fossil record represents not millions but thousands of years. Look here, for example I am not endorsing this argument - I'm just saying that they've been making it for a long time.
What I'm saying is that scientists would do well to listen to their biggest critics rather than reacting with such hostility. People with such a radically different world view can often see flaws in tenets that scientists just blindly accept.
OK, in my rush to post I made a slightly ridiculous flame to generate a response. But my point is they have often been correct in the gist of their criticism (though not necessarily in their proposed resolution). For example, they have often criticized proposed evolutionary lines of descent. For example, whales come to mind. They were correct that the accepted lineage is wrong. They are probably incorrect that the solution is the creation theory they put forward.
All the replies to my message assume that I think that the entire theory of evolution is invalid. That is not what I think nor was it my point.
My point is that the science crowd is violent towards anyone that strays too far outside accepted thinking. It happens all over the place in science.
I'm also not suggesting that irreducible complexities are necessarily irreducible. Just that it often takes a substantial leap of faith to believe that they happen by chance. Take for example the 15 steps in your bombardier beetle link. I have seen similar things before and agree that they are plausible. I'm not saying that the laws of the universe are violated. Just that when it came to the point, for example, where step 10 could happen or not, the random number generator in the universe did not necessarily act randomly.
Lastly, my experience with creationists is mostly the same as yours. They believe what they believe and they aren't out to find the truth. Still, once you wade through the BS of their position they sometimes have legitimate gripes that only arose because they have such a radically different world view.
What's interesting to me is the uniformly violent reaction of the "educated" crowd to creation scientists (e.g. read a few of the above posts). I'll admit they somewhat deserve it because of their history of intolerance and quackery but they have been correct about a number of things, many of which are still to be discovered.
Take for example the BS theories of evolution that were passed around as fact until recently. You know, the ones that said that evolution happens at a very slow rate. Creationists argued against this for years because of the nature of how fossils are created. Evolutionists finally caught on and now almost all the recent theories talk about periods of very rapid evolution.
It's true that a lot of what they're saying is shit. But its also true that traditional scientists are full of it too. All I'm asking is that before you blast it out of the water as religious ranting, consider that they probably have a much more critical view of accepted science than you. Consider whether you what to be the one defending the status quo.
You should read Dr. Brown's 20 questions for evolutionists. No true scientist can read the traditional "irreducible complexities" (like the Bombardier Beetle) without questioning current theories of evolution.
Yeah, that's how they've been doing it at sports events for quite some time - although shaped like mini blimps usually. Anyway, I have definitely seen those with video.
Obviously, 10 minutes and 1/2 mile seems kind of short for most applications. I wonder how much bigger you have to go to get, say an hour flight time.
Yeah, that was terrible. Although I have to admit it went pretty well with the rest of that piece of crap of a movie. Didn't they reuse that animation in Adam Sandler's Little Nicky?
Another of my favorite movie computer animations, was the plane at the end of Executive Decision. I swear I could have done something better with one of those 3D web plugins that were heavily used after 9/11.
"The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time."
That reminds me of our first assignment in computer vision. Although a slightly different application, the idea was to create a single composite image of the background from a video shot while moving past a fence. So the ideas was that you had to remove the fence in the foreground using optical flow to get the background scene.
The code we had to write was nasty C code that was tuned specifically for this problem. One of the professor's biggest recurring lessons in the class was that just about everything in computer vision is a really nasty ad hoc hack.
So my guess is that this code isn't particularly crappy - just typical of video processing. If you really want to get this kind of code to be anywhere near robust you need a lot of special cases.
I will grant you that it has some horrible spyware that is very persistant and difficult to uninstall. It also seems to frequently ignore or forget user preferences and settings. But (if you can get over that:) in comparing Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and Real Player on Windows, I have found Real to be the most reliable as far as working across formats and with arbitrary codecs. It also has much better keyboard controls than either of the others.
I know, its sad trying to compute:
lesser as mediaplayer for each evil in mediaplayers { lesser = min(lesser,evil) }
Well, my interpretation of prosecute was the first definition, "to initiate civil or criminal court action against." I was assuming that they were prosecuting people via civil courts. I don't think anyone has gone to jail here (yet), I think its just a matter of getting shut down - and maybe paying some restitution.
But as far as Sony running the government, I think they've had a pretty big influence via the RIAA and the MPAA. They influence the government more than a lot of other companies. And I'm sure I don't need to point out how quick the government was to listen to Adobe's "referal" in the Sklyarov case. Big copyright holders aren't running the government but they sure have a heck of a lot more influence than I'd like.
Well, according to the version on CNet, Sony "has successfully prosecuted several US operations selling PS2 mod chips".
In general, it seems that PS2 and XBox usually do a lot of threatening and their lawyers and bankbooks usually convince people to cut it out. What garage mod chip operation has enough money for a legal battle with Sony or Microsoft?
Pacemakers have been reprogrammable via audio tones for years. They've been talking about it on comp.risks for quite some time too. Here is a 1994 post that mentions it.
So why is he such a visionary if Winmodems are so bad?
Winmodems aren't necessarily bad they just have tradeoffs. For example, see this link.
I think the main reason people around here don't like them is because the companies that make them are usually pretty protective of their software drivers. So no one can write Linux drivers for them without some kind of massive reverse engineering.
Hmm, those still start at about $1K which is roughly what I can get buying the base model at Fry's or BestBuy. Or for example, Gateway and Dell have one for $999 right now. And with these I'm going to be paying for a superfluous copy of Windows.
The site you linked to gives the option of adding on Windows XP Home for $75 and XP Professional for $145. If that's average, it seems like a base model OS-less 14" 1GHz PIII 128MB 10GB HD laptop should start at about $900.
I'm sensing a lot of unchecked aggression in this thread. What is it about video games that brings out the hostility in people? Will you just take it easy?
The lame directing wouldn't be half as noticeable if it wasn't for the totally worthless screenplay. I swear Lucas must have gone to an elementary school playground to get ideas for the fight scene dialog. Remember this line (gist): "We can not settle this with the force. We must go to the light sabers."
Surely with all that money he's stolen from us, he can afford to hire a writer to remind him how people actually talk.
You're still dodging the obvious question - what does MS get out of the deal? I suppose they're doing this for philanthropic reasons, right?
The real reason this is a threat to privacy isn't as obvious in the short term. Its the same as the Oracle (tm) national ID card in the US. Only once it is an accepted standard will the true abuse begin.
Your buddy is correct about how the system is supposed to work, but wait till MS changes the EULA. Do you really trust MS not to do this? If you do, then you or your buddy works for them.
Going in drainpipes and steam tunnels is "urban spelunking" (ie. "urban speleology"). The general idea of going to industrial places where you're not supposed to is "urban exploration." Check out infiltration.org or the google directory.
Think of it as conspiracy theorists taking to action.
Slashdot Mirror
There is precedent for that kind of behavior. In the past companies have used the patent system to do it. For example, several printer companies filed design patents on the shape of their ink cartridges so they could have a little monopoly.
When one of these cases came to trial, the court ruled against this kind of use of design patents. Here's a link to the case. The company in the case was Epson.
I think MS would eventually lose in court if they tried to use the DMCA like that (who knows how long it could take though). Plus it would be terrible PR for MS since everyone is already screaming monopoly.
I will grant you that current evolutionary theory is not an extension of the theories of creationists. I will also grant you that these time scales are still much slower than creationists'. However, punctuated equilibrium does argue for periods of "faster" evolution for some value of "faster."
My point was that the gist of the creationists' complaint was correct. Granted, the reasoning behind their complaint was probably flawed. Their argument has been that fossils are only created during catastrophic events and that fossils cut across multiple layers of rock. Thus the fossil record represents not millions but thousands of years. Look here, for example I am not endorsing this argument - I'm just saying that they've been making it for a long time.
What I'm saying is that scientists would do well to listen to their biggest critics rather than reacting with such hostility. People with such a radically different world view can often see flaws in tenets that scientists just blindly accept.
OK, in my rush to post I made a slightly ridiculous flame to generate a response. But my point is they have often been correct in the gist of their criticism (though not necessarily in their proposed resolution). For example, they have often criticized proposed evolutionary lines of descent. For example, whales come to mind. They were correct that the accepted lineage is wrong. They are probably incorrect that the solution is the creation theory they put forward.
All the replies to my message assume that I think that the entire theory of evolution is invalid. That is not what I think nor was it my point.
My point is that the science crowd is violent towards anyone that strays too far outside accepted thinking. It happens all over the place in science.
I'm also not suggesting that irreducible complexities are necessarily irreducible. Just that it often takes a substantial leap of faith to believe that they happen by chance. Take for example the 15 steps in your bombardier beetle link. I have seen similar things before and agree that they are plausible. I'm not saying that the laws of the universe are violated. Just that when it came to the point, for example, where step 10 could happen or not, the random number generator in the universe did not necessarily act randomly.
Lastly, my experience with creationists is mostly the same as yours. They believe what they believe and they aren't out to find the truth. Still, once you wade through the BS of their position they sometimes have legitimate gripes that only arose because they have such a radically different world view.
What's interesting to me is the uniformly violent reaction of the "educated" crowd to creation scientists (e.g. read a few of the above posts). I'll admit they somewhat deserve it because of their history of intolerance and quackery but they have been correct about a number of things, many of which are still to be discovered.
Take for example the BS theories of evolution that were passed around as fact until recently. You know, the ones that said that evolution happens at a very slow rate. Creationists argued against this for years because of the nature of how fossils are created. Evolutionists finally caught on and now almost all the recent theories talk about periods of very rapid evolution.
It's true that a lot of what they're saying is shit. But its also true that traditional scientists are full of it too. All I'm asking is that before you blast it out of the water as religious ranting, consider that they probably have a much more critical view of accepted science than you. Consider whether you what to be the one defending the status quo.
You should read Dr. Brown's 20 questions for evolutionists. No true scientist can read the traditional "irreducible complexities" (like the Bombardier Beetle) without questioning current theories of evolution.
Yeah, that's how they've been doing it at sports events for quite some time - although shaped like mini blimps usually. Anyway, I have definitely seen those with video.
Obviously, 10 minutes and 1/2 mile seems kind of short for most applications. I wonder how much bigger you have to go to get, say an hour flight time.
Yeah, that was terrible. Although I have to admit it went pretty well with the rest of that piece of crap of a movie. Didn't they reuse that animation in Adam Sandler's Little Nicky?
Another of my favorite movie computer animations, was the plane at the end of Executive Decision. I swear I could have done something better with one of those 3D web plugins that were heavily used after 9/11.
Anyway, I was glad to finally see some exposure for the tinfoil hat brigade. Finally a movie that teaches our children the value of paranoia ;)
(RTFA or WTFTrailer)
Ahh, the mythical 90%. We all know the saying:
"The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time."
That reminds me of our first assignment in computer vision. Although a slightly different application, the idea was to create a single composite image of the background from a video shot while moving past a fence. So the ideas was that you had to remove the fence in the foreground using optical flow to get the background scene.
The code we had to write was nasty C code that was tuned specifically for this problem. One of the professor's biggest recurring lessons in the class was that just about everything in computer vision is a really nasty ad hoc hack.
So my guess is that this code isn't particularly crappy - just typical of video processing. If you really want to get this kind of code to be anywhere near robust you need a lot of special cases.
I will grant you that it has some horrible spyware that is very persistant and difficult to uninstall. It also seems to frequently ignore or forget user preferences and settings. But (if you can get over that:) in comparing Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and Real Player on Windows, I have found Real to be the most reliable as far as working across formats and with arbitrary codecs. It also has much better keyboard controls than either of the others.
I know, its sad trying to compute:
lesser as mediaplayer
for each evil in mediaplayers {
lesser = min(lesser,evil)
}
Well, my interpretation of prosecute was the first definition, "to initiate civil or criminal court action against." I was assuming that they were prosecuting people via civil courts. I don't think anyone has gone to jail here (yet), I think its just a matter of getting shut down - and maybe paying some restitution.
But as far as Sony running the government, I think they've had a pretty big influence via the RIAA and the MPAA. They influence the government more than a lot of other companies. And I'm sure I don't need to point out how quick the government was to listen to Adobe's "referal" in the Sklyarov case. Big copyright holders aren't running the government but they sure have a heck of a lot more influence than I'd like.
Well, according to the version on CNet, Sony "has successfully prosecuted several US operations selling PS2 mod chips".
In general, it seems that PS2 and XBox usually do a lot of threatening and their lawyers and bankbooks usually convince people to cut it out. What garage mod chip operation has enough money for a legal battle with Sony or Microsoft?
Pacemakers have been reprogrammable via audio tones for years. They've been talking about it on comp.risks for quite some time too. Here is a 1994 post that mentions it.
So why is he such a visionary if Winmodems are so bad?
Winmodems aren't necessarily bad they just have tradeoffs. For example, see this link.
I think the main reason people around here don't like them is because the companies that make them are usually pretty protective of their software drivers. So no one can write Linux drivers for them without some kind of massive reverse engineering.
Hmm, those still start at about $1K which is roughly what I can get buying the base model at Fry's or BestBuy. Or for example, Gateway and Dell have one for $999 right now. And with these I'm going to be paying for a superfluous copy of Windows.
The site you linked to gives the option of adding on Windows XP Home for $75 and XP Professional for $145. If that's average, it seems like a base model OS-less 14" 1GHz PIII 128MB 10GB HD laptop should start at about $900.
Doesn't anyone cater to the tightwad linux user?
Does anyone have a list of sites that sell laptops without an OS? Or at least sites that sell laptops without the Microsoft tax?
I know places to get desktops, like Walmart, but haven't found many for laptops.
I'm sensing a lot of unchecked aggression in this thread. What is it about video games that brings out the hostility in people? Will you just take it easy?
The rumor was that Lucas was the last to hear that Episode 1 was considered a failure. You know, the emperor's always the last to admit he's naked.
I hope he was at a theater on opening night for episode 2 and everyone booed when Jar Jar came on screen. That's what happened in my theater.
The lame directing wouldn't be half as noticeable if it wasn't for the totally worthless screenplay. I swear Lucas must have gone to an elementary school playground to get ideas for the fight scene dialog. Remember this line (gist): "We can not settle this with the force. We must go to the light sabers."
Surely with all that money he's stolen from us, he can afford to hire a writer to remind him how people actually talk.
Always nice to have something to fall back on when the tech industry goes south, eh?
Yeah, that's nice. When Passport becomes a monopoly, there'll be a new meaning to the "microsoft tax."
Of course, good luck taking business from the only monopoly bigger than Microsoft's.
You're still dodging the obvious question - what does MS get out of the deal? I suppose they're doing this for philanthropic reasons, right?
The real reason this is a threat to privacy isn't as obvious in the short term. Its the same as the Oracle (tm) national ID card in the US. Only once it is an accepted standard will the true abuse begin.
Your buddy is correct about how the system is supposed to work, but wait till MS changes the EULA. Do you really trust MS not to do this? If you do, then you or your buddy works for them.
Hmmm, sig seeming less witty now. I'll have to scavenge from this riemann fellow.
Going in drainpipes and steam tunnels is "urban spelunking" (ie. "urban speleology"). The general idea of going to industrial places where you're not supposed to is "urban exploration." Check out infiltration.org or the google directory.
Think of it as conspiracy theorists taking to action.