Actually, I find Palm's Graffiti an elegant solution to a difficult problem.
Let's not forget that the Newton's recognition software was notoriously inaccurate. It wasn't until much later that the accuracy improved (by how much, I don't know).
Palm's solution was to avoid having computers learn human patterns and have the user learn a familiar, yet easier to electronically identify alphabet.
I know some people hate it. I found it rather easy to pick up and with some effort, quite intuitive.
I would label this as more of a user interface issue than a language issue.
Other than the times I instinctively jot down graffiti strokes on a stickie note, I don't see too many people writing letters to each other in graffiti alphabet.
This is a very level and concise view of the issues involved with mandatiry censorware, but I fear you are preaching to the converted. The people who really count in this are the politicians desperate for a soapbox and the tabloid newspapers looking for an emotive headline.
I agree. However, I feel it might be worth mentioning a few points.
First, fear seems to one of the most effective tools in politics. The trouble is, it can backfire. Get your constituents fearfull and the campaign gets a boost. But if they are critical of your fearmongering, the campaign takes a hit.
The key is to give politicians the stick for using the net as a fear tactic.
This is where jamie's speach to the converted comes in. Its great to register your complaint to politicians and in open forumns where one may find supporters. However, an argument based on emotion and the message "you guys suck" won't reach the ears of our intended audience. Well thought out pieces such as this provides the arguments, and the thought process, we as a community should focus on.
We want to make internet censorship too dangerous to touch. Let politicians find other subjects to use as a cheap boost for their campaign.
We already have a "more self-descriptive" term - free software. There would be less of this ambiguity if we all just called a spade a spade. As you rightly point out Open source software is not necessarily the same as free (speech not beer) software.
The interesting point here is that often when the term "free software" is mentioned, the example of "speech not beer" is also tagged on. There's a reason for that. "Free" means many things. In business, its usually closer to the free beer than free speech.
Enter "open source". Good attempt. Avoids abiguity over the pricing issue. Opens up a different can of worms (as this thread has pointed out).
We need a new term.
Or maybe we need to continue playing by the business world's rules. That's what true "open" licenses do. They use the license tool business usually use to lock away code to open it up (no jihad on licenses, please). The next logical step is to define what this software is (ie: Open Source) and protect that definition with legal tools. Be that trademark or what have you.
I know, I know... its nasty work. Its something we'd rather not soil or ideology with. But we either do it or allow profiteers to muddy the waters for their own gain.
I listened to the story at: http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/19991104.atc.15.ra m
I would like to express some concern with the viewpoint taken in this piece.
The piece itself was very informative and very well done. The possible use of the DeCCS software tool for copying DVDs was well explained. However, this is akin to describing how a hammer can be used to break into a business.
If I were an uninformed member of the audience, I would wonder why nasty people would invent things like hammers, wonder how hammers could be used to break into my local business (or increase prices businesses will have to charge to cover the cost of burlgers using hammers), and fully support legal action against hammer manufactorers. NPR's piece leaves me with the same feelings towards DeCCS.
What the piece fails to explain is the reason why hammers were created and what their intended use is. DeCCS is more than a tool for piracy. It is an attempt to open up legaly purchased media to legal fair use. Furthermore, it is a necessary step in allowing users of alternative operating systems access to their media. One well known, though not exclusive, example of such operating systems is Linux.
I invite your staff to research a bit more on this issue. I think you will find much more depth than a simple case of piracy tools. If your staff are in need of some sources of information to persue this story further, I would be happy to supply them.
On the off chance that they DO contact me, anyone have some favorite links on this issue they think would be a must?
Why does anyone want non-tech types using a tech system? This is Linux's mistake, and BSD's success.
The ease of a CDRom install has nothing to do with technical merrit. One day in the near future (hopefully) we'll all have broadband connections to our homes. Then a network install will be somewhat trivial. Until then, we're stuck with a majority of people using MODEMs (lets not even get into the economic issues involved here).
Doing a network install over a slow connection requires a good deal of dedication (both to investment of time and tying up other resources). Someone who is curious about your favorite alternative OS may not be inclined to make that investment just out of curiosity. Again, going down to the store and transfering the entire OS via a payment, sneakers, and a CD is much quicker and gets them to trying out the new environment quicker. That's good.
It's great to see Linux enjoying this advantage. It'd be great to see BSD too.
Damn. My Communist Party registration card must have fallen out of my Linux box. Must remember to find it and fill it in so I can continue to use Linux.
If I were into the flame fest thing (as opposed to lame attempts at humor), I'd point out all this "red scare" stuff that comes from BSD fanatics (note the play on mascot color). Ahh well. Maybe we can herd all the Linux zealots and aim them at the BSD zealots and cancel them all out - or point the whole lot at Microsoft.:)
While I really enjoy using Linux and have no inclination to "jump" to BSD myself... I'm also of the opinion that BSD deserves some attention. Great to see it hit the shelves too.
Huh? Give me an internet connection and a floppy disk and you shall have BSD.
As it was pointed out, the same can be said for Linux. But that misses the point.
Joe newbie isn't going to set up their machine to download an OS for hours on end via their questionable MODEM connection. They want it quick and easy. A CD from a local store provides that. It also provides mindshare as they see "Linux" plastered on different shrinkwrap boxes sitting on the shelf.
Having said that, it could be argued that this kind of user isn't BSD's target. That's probably a subject for another thread.
The point is... you like FTP installs. I like FTP installs. But the person who's curiosity is piqued by alternative OS' is more likely to want the quick fix a credit card and a CD they pick up at the store can give them.
but you continue to say that these problems will soon be fixed and its no big deal, i disagree. you offer no new suggestions. bring something new to the arguement;)
Actually, the point I was making isn't that its no big deal. It is. Its a big issue with no quick fixes. Alas, I have no brilliant fix to offer right now.
However, the point as I understood it correctly, is that open source won't work in this kind of environment and closed source will. That's the point that I disagree with. As I stated, even with closed source there has already been cheats. Closed source didn't buy us any security then.
My suggestion is that open source will help lead to a fix if there is one to find. I don't have the fix. But I alone don't need to. Those who are interested in this problem will get togeather and they'll work to solve it. Open source progects have tackled some weighty problems in the past successfully. There's no proof that such an approuch has less of a chance coming up with a solution than a closed source model does.
Alow me to quote - "bring something new to the arguement;)". Now that Q1 is an open source progect, you can be involved in its development.
This is a problem with basically any opensourced game that really, to my knowledge, has yet to be addressed. The question is, how do you know whether that guy who noone can beat is really good at the game, or hacked a version that auto-aims, auto-fires, etc?
This problem has plagued the "closed" version of Q1 for years. There already exists proxies and patches that provide various methods of cheating.
Opening the source, at worse, just allowed a few more cheats to an already exploitable environment. At best, its allowed those with the desire and ability to solve these problems the tools with which to do it.
i disagree, this seems like one of those instances it wont work. jc is right, with the source open and me being able to enter as a server op "if name == mine, scale damage by 75%",
If I understand this argument correctly, you're stating that open source servers allow for cheating servers. The trouble with this argument is that so do closed source servers.
Cheats within this environment already exist for closed source clients. Thankfully, servers are often modified to detect these modifications to the client. Thus, as cheats become common, they also become a moot point.
What's to say someone willing to put forth effort to modify a client can't also put effort towards modifying a server? I'm not aware of a client that looks for a cheating server.
The point is that you will have to trust that server - open source or closed source. For now.
i think this is one instance [there are several, alot more than OSS i believe] that closed source development is preferable because of the reasons i stated in another post:
-no clear leader for development [carmack is certainly not gonna continue develepment]
-no standardation of versions, new features added break network compatability
-cheating
And this is the challenge for open source developers to pick up if they so desire. Whoever begins putting out good fixes to the issues the Q1 environment has will naturally take the lead in development as more people decide to use/support that code base. Versions will be standardized since servers will likely only support clients comeing from trusted developers. And players are likely to only support servers that help guarentee a fair game.
Cheating is one of the problems that need a solution - something I'm sure will be fixed. Open source progects have taken on other difficult tasks before and succeeded.
Of course, the origional point was that closed source environents detur cheating. Not so. Remember, client cheat hacks have shown up in the Q1 environment while the source was closed.
NFS was developed by Sun. As usual, MS was the last vendor to provide this functionality as an integral part of the system.
Right.
To clarify the point, I'm not saying MS invented NFS. The point is that they've adopted it even when it is a foreign function of a competing platform (Unix in general).
Worrying over what file systems help what "competitors" does no service to a user. Providing the ability to access data from competing systems does.
You think that's interesting? WHY would Microsoft help people to use their competition?
Ohhh... I dunno. Compatability? Wait. No. That's a user concern, not a business tactic. Nevermind.;)
Seriously though, Microsoft has released Unix compatible tools (NFS, for one) that are quite cool. Perhapse supporting other file system types will come as demand increases?
ISP names add some interesting complexity that's just not appreciated by your average non-technical boss. Case in point...
The ISP had started out as Phoenix Datanet with the domain phoenix.net. Classy. Very rarely misspelled.
The company was purchased by Charter Communications to add an ISP to its portfolio of technology. The new domain name was c-com.net. Here begins the trouble. When on the phone, one would say the domain name as "cee dash com dot net" and quite often get confusion from the customer. "What? Cee dot com... uhh... what was that again?" Thankfully, legal troubles ended that domain name.
Then the company merges with Pointe Communications. The Charter name is abandoned (there is much rejoicing). The new domain name? pointecom.net. Yes, the 'e' is silent. Once again, on the phone with the customer... you can't just say "point com dot net". That would get you "pointcom.net".
My solution? Pronounce the 'e'. "point Eee com dot net - no spaces". Its a tribute to the pointy-haired bosses who come up with these naming ideas.
The recording industry would like us to believe (falsely) that any form of copying is illegal. Their entire encryption efforts are based around this false assumption.
It might be worth stressing this point a bit more.
The RIAA does not like the concept of a customer making copies of legal material for their own personal use. The ability to buy a CD then make a tape (or now, burn a copy or burn your own CD mix) for your car irks them. This has gone to court and "fair use" was upheld. Since then, RIAA representatives have made comments that imply their dislike of "fair use" is strong today.
Enter technology.
Take a good look at SDMI. Embeded within the specifications is the groundwork to eliminate that pesky "fair use" copying. Technology will enable the industry to eliminate what the courts would not.
I would expect a simular thought process to rear its ugly head within the DVD arena.
Back in the early 80s, there was a good deal of competition for videogame programers. Companys were known to poach each other's talent. Mattel Electronics (Intellivision) attempted to avoid this by not listing the names of their developers. Instead, the group was referred to as The Blue Sky Rangers.
No company is going to break the law on purpose to get private information on you. The government will, but the private sector WON'T because the private sector is not above the law. If they get caught (and they will get caught, what with the watchful eye of the leet opensourcer always on alert) it's not pretty. And THAT'S the thing that most people don't get.
I have to strongly disagree with you here. In any arena of business, there will be companies who will intentionally break the law if they see financial reward for doing so. Getting caught is just one of the many risks of doing business.
To claim that no business will collect data illeagaly for fear of being caught is like claiming no business will break environmental laws for fear of being caught by environmental watchgroups. It happens all the time. Some are caught - even some well-known names. Many others are not.
Our only defense is to make examples of those who are caught in the hopes that fewer will be willing to risk such business practices. It won't put a utopian end to such behavior, but it might help to prevent abusing privacy from becoming a standard business practice.
As I was watching the special, the qestion that came to mind was "how did the Allies communicate?"
According to the documentary, the Axis wasn't as concerned with intel. since they were winning (though they DID compromise a US diplomatic code via old fashion espionage). Nevertheless, the Allies knew what they were doing to crack the Axis codes - did it affect the Allies' procedures?
NeoPlanet strikes me as amusing. "Wait. You're saying IE provides a method for applications to be 'web-enabled'? What if we write our own front-end to these IE hooks? We can have our own 'browser' without developing browser technology, per se!"
If I've gotta use IE for something, I use NeoPlanet. Its flashy. And it kinda makes me feel like I'm not really using IE (even though weblogs will pick it up as an IE hit).
As I stated in another thread, I think the public's opinion is shifting. More and more people are truely unhappy with Windows.
But what choice do they have?
I'm a fairly moderate fun of Linux. I use it at work and at home. I use it as primary workstations in both cases. But I also have windows machines at both locations. I would be limiting myself if I tried to completely go without Windows. Its a current fact of life. Having said that - a good 90% of what I do daily does not include Windows. But it would be impractical to go 100%.
The amusing thing is that I have some fairly cluefull friends who make their living within a Microsoft environment. They occasionally bash Microsoft too. Granted, they're a little more rational about it than your average foam-at-the-mouth Linux (or Mac) zealot. But even those who support Microsoft also criticize it.
Does this mean there's a love/hate relationship?
No. I would say its more of a relationship of practicality. The mainstream doesn't get passionate about an OS. And my tech friends? Their relationship with Microsoft is all business.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not forget that the Newton's recognition software was notoriously inaccurate. It wasn't until much later that the accuracy improved (by how much, I don't know).
Palm's solution was to avoid having computers learn human patterns and have the user learn a familiar, yet easier to electronically identify alphabet.
I know some people hate it. I found it rather easy to pick up and with some effort, quite intuitive.
Other than the times I instinctively jot down graffiti strokes on a stickie note, I don't see too many people writing letters to each other in graffiti alphabet.
First, fear seems to one of the most effective tools in politics. The trouble is, it can backfire. Get your constituents fearfull and the campaign gets a boost. But if they are critical of your fearmongering, the campaign takes a hit.
The key is to give politicians the stick for using the net as a fear tactic.
This is where jamie's speach to the converted comes in. Its great to register your complaint to politicians and in open forumns where one may find supporters. However, an argument based on emotion and the message "you guys suck" won't reach the ears of our intended audience. Well thought out pieces such as this provides the arguments, and the thought process, we as a community should focus on.
We want to make internet censorship too dangerous to touch. Let politicians find other subjects to use as a cheap boost for their campaign.
Enter "open source". Good attempt. Avoids abiguity over the pricing issue. Opens up a different can of worms (as this thread has pointed out).
We need a new term.
Or maybe we need to continue playing by the business world's rules. That's what true "open" licenses do. They use the license tool business usually use to lock away code to open it up (no jihad on licenses, please). The next logical step is to define what this software is (ie: Open Source) and protect that definition with legal tools. Be that trademark or what have you.
I know, I know... its nasty work. Its something we'd rather not soil or ideology with. But we either do it or allow profiteers to muddy the waters for their own gain.
Doing a network install over a slow connection requires a good deal of dedication (both to investment of time and tying up other resources). Someone who is curious about your favorite alternative OS may not be inclined to make that investment just out of curiosity. Again, going down to the store and transfering the entire OS via a payment, sneakers, and a CD is much quicker and gets them to trying out the new environment quicker. That's good.
It's great to see Linux enjoying this advantage. It'd be great to see BSD too.
If I were into the flame fest thing (as opposed to lame attempts at humor), I'd point out all this "red scare" stuff that comes from BSD fanatics (note the play on mascot color). Ahh well. Maybe we can herd all the Linux zealots and aim them at the BSD zealots and cancel them all out - or point the whole lot at Microsoft. :)
While I really enjoy using Linux and have no inclination to "jump" to BSD myself... I'm also of the opinion that BSD deserves some attention. Great to see it hit the shelves too.
Of course - you have to wonder about the state of affairs when an amazingly bad site like that is being praised as a "skillful" creation. :)
Joe newbie isn't going to set up their machine to download an OS for hours on end via their questionable MODEM connection. They want it quick and easy. A CD from a local store provides that. It also provides mindshare as they see "Linux" plastered on different shrinkwrap boxes sitting on the shelf.
Having said that, it could be argued that this kind of user isn't BSD's target. That's probably a subject for another thread.
The point is... you like FTP installs. I like FTP installs. But the person who's curiosity is piqued by alternative OS' is more likely to want the quick fix a credit card and a CD they pick up at the store can give them.
Heh. No flame bait to be found here either. :P
However, the point as I understood it correctly, is that open source won't work in this kind of environment and closed source will. That's the point that I disagree with. As I stated, even with closed source there has already been cheats. Closed source didn't buy us any security then.
My suggestion is that open source will help lead to a fix if there is one to find. I don't have the fix. But I alone don't need to. Those who are interested in this problem will get togeather and they'll work to solve it. Open source progects have tackled some weighty problems in the past successfully. There's no proof that such an approuch has less of a chance coming up with a solution than a closed source model does.
Alow me to quote - "bring something new to the arguement ;)". Now that Q1 is an open source progect, you can be involved in its development.
Opening the source, at worse, just allowed a few more cheats to an already exploitable environment. At best, its allowed those with the desire and ability to solve these problems the tools with which to do it.
Time will tell.
Cheats within this environment already exist for closed source clients. Thankfully, servers are often modified to detect these modifications to the client. Thus, as cheats become common, they also become a moot point.
What's to say someone willing to put forth effort to modify a client can't also put effort towards modifying a server? I'm not aware of a client that looks for a cheating server.
The point is that you will have to trust that server - open source or closed source. For now.
And this is the challenge for open source developers to pick up if they so desire. Whoever begins putting out good fixes to the issues the Q1 environment has will naturally take the lead in development as more people decide to use/support that code base. Versions will be standardized since servers will likely only support clients comeing from trusted developers. And players are likely to only support servers that help guarentee a fair game.Cheating is one of the problems that need a solution - something I'm sure will be fixed. Open source progects have taken on other difficult tasks before and succeeded.
Of course, the origional point was that closed source environents detur cheating. Not so. Remember, client cheat hacks have shown up in the Q1 environment while the source was closed.
To clarify the point, I'm not saying MS invented NFS. The point is that they've adopted it even when it is a foreign function of a competing platform (Unix in general).
Worrying over what file systems help what "competitors" does no service to a user. Providing the ability to access data from competing systems does.
Seriously though, Microsoft has released Unix compatible tools (NFS, for one) that are quite cool. Perhapse supporting other file system types will come as demand increases?
The ISP had started out as Phoenix Datanet with the domain phoenix.net. Classy. Very rarely misspelled.
The company was purchased by Charter Communications to add an ISP to its portfolio of technology. The new domain name was c-com.net. Here begins the trouble. When on the phone, one would say the domain name as "cee dash com dot net" and quite often get confusion from the customer. "What? Cee dot com... uhh... what was that again?" Thankfully, legal troubles ended that domain name.
Then the company merges with Pointe Communications. The Charter name is abandoned (there is much rejoicing). The new domain name? pointecom.net. Yes, the 'e' is silent. Once again, on the phone with the customer... you can't just say "point com dot net". That would get you "pointcom.net".
My solution? Pronounce the 'e'. "point Eee com dot net - no spaces". Its a tribute to the pointy-haired bosses who come up with these naming ideas.
The RIAA does not like the concept of a customer making copies of legal material for their own personal use. The ability to buy a CD then make a tape (or now, burn a copy or burn your own CD mix) for your car irks them. This has gone to court and "fair use" was upheld. Since then, RIAA representatives have made comments that imply their dislike of "fair use" is strong today.
Enter technology.
Take a good look at SDMI. Embeded within the specifications is the groundwork to eliminate that pesky "fair use" copying. Technology will enable the industry to eliminate what the courts would not.
I would expect a simular thought process to rear its ugly head within the DVD arena.
Back in the early 80s, there was a good deal of competition for videogame programers. Companys were known to poach each other's talent. Mattel Electronics (Intellivision) attempted to avoid this by not listing the names of their developers. Instead, the group was referred to as The Blue Sky Rangers.
To claim that no business will collect data illeagaly for fear of being caught is like claiming no business will break environmental laws for fear of being caught by environmental watchgroups. It happens all the time. Some are caught - even some well-known names. Many others are not.
Our only defense is to make examples of those who are caught in the hopes that fewer will be willing to risk such business practices. It won't put a utopian end to such behavior, but it might help to prevent abusing privacy from becoming a standard business practice.
According to the documentary, the Axis wasn't as concerned with intel. since they were winning (though they DID compromise a US diplomatic code via old fashion espionage). Nevertheless, the Allies knew what they were doing to crack the Axis codes - did it affect the Allies' procedures?
If I've gotta use IE for something, I use NeoPlanet. Its flashy. And it kinda makes me feel like I'm not really using IE (even though weblogs will pick it up as an IE hit).
But what choice do they have?
I'm a fairly moderate fun of Linux. I use it at work and at home. I use it as primary workstations in both cases. But I also have windows machines at both locations. I would be limiting myself if I tried to completely go without Windows. Its a current fact of life. Having said that - a good 90% of what I do daily does not include Windows. But it would be impractical to go 100%.
The amusing thing is that I have some fairly cluefull friends who make their living within a Microsoft environment. They occasionally bash Microsoft too. Granted, they're a little more rational about it than your average foam-at-the-mouth Linux (or Mac) zealot. But even those who support Microsoft also criticize it.
Does this mean there's a love/hate relationship?
No. I would say its more of a relationship of practicality. The mainstream doesn't get passionate about an OS. And my tech friends? Their relationship with Microsoft is all business.