As a Microsoft employee, you would be in a position to enlighten the rest of us on another point: Will Microsoft as a company be able to change as Mr. Stutz says they need to?
This statement from the author indicates he doesn't understand the JVM versus a JIT:
"Perhaps Java's Just-in-Time compiler could be enhanced to perform processor-specific run-time optimizations; on the other hand, doing so would require different JVMs (Java Virtual Machines) for different architectures, or a single bloated JVM with run-time architecture detection."
The Java compiler produces byte-code, and the JVM interprets the byte-codes. A JIT *is* platform specific, and tied to a specific OS and hardware architecture. That's why I think the author was not using a JIT.
Microsoft courted STAC, then killed them. Microsoft courted Netscape, then killed them. Micorsoft courted... (fill in your own favorite now defunct company), then killed them.
Microsoft has never in it's history courted a competitor without either destroying the company through monopolistic practices or by suing them into oblivion.
The only survivor of a Microsoft attempt at technology murder is Java. And that was a close call.
Maybe that should read "Jabber is, simply put, a universal IM server." The fact that the client implementations are separate from what "legacy" IM services the server can connect to make the protocol that much more appealing.
I have read several posts from people residing in other countries. It seems that, for the most, part all have national ID systems in place. Most have also claimed that this is a workable system and not an invasion of privacy.
My question would be how of these countries have strict laws prohibiting the sale or release of the national ID system information? Most of my concern over a national ID is not with the identification per se, but what could be done with the information later.
The US has had many, many historical abuses of privacy and private information (McCarthy-ism, Hoover's FBI) that raises concerns to the public. These abuses are not long in the past for the US, and make US citizens think twice about the government holding all that information.
And when a Senator is "puchased" by a rich lobby, how long will it be before the information is "for sale" because of legislation?
"It took 10 years for e-mail to become interoperable," says Jeff Pulver, an Internet communications analyst and publisher of pulver.com. But if SIMPLE systems can become fully developed by next year, as Pulver predicts, "People are going to wonder how they lived without it," he says.
Be precise: It took ten years for everyone to dump their proprietary e-mail systems and adhere to the RFC standards. So, SIMPLE will be simple in 2012.
Repackaged and preprocessed, the sequel to "Hailstorm: All Your Info are Belong to Us" is proving to be another attempt to control every users personal information by leveraging a desktop monopoly.
At least one can hope this one is as transparent as the first.
Why is it that "WebSideStory" is the web browser authority? Because web site owners allow their sites to be counted? Does anyone have any idea if "real," high volume sites like Yahoo, CNN, and, perhaps, the New York Times contribute to their statistics?
Web sites with HitBox counters (used by WebSideStory to generate their stats) are small, niche, and nothing like the mainstream. I tired of these self-appointed experts dictating who uses what browser.
When AOL moves away from IE, then the battle will begin. The release Mozilla 1.0 is only the opening salvo. Mozilla (and all the Gecko based browsers) will need to achieve a critical mass before real changes will occur.
The battleground will be the Web Developers. When they realize that Moz and Moz based browsers command the largest collection of suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H consumers on the Internet, then they will change their sites to make the pages look "good". When they change their sites, others will move to the browser that displays the pages best.
And the browsers that are W3 compliant, and render pages correctly, will move back into a position of competition.
... when you are a subscriber of a Cable ISP. Get over it. Whether or not the TOS states explicitly that information is being gathered, there is no implied privacy when using a data network. A recent case has upheld this. (I'm sorry, but the exact case escapes me... however, it appeared on these very pages.)
That being said, there are NO Federal laws governing data passing over a cable TV connection. The FCC (and most state) regulations govern only the television signals that pass over the cable. The cable company is granted, in most cases, a exclusive contract to provide this service to a community. The contracts were mostly written prior to the internet's popularity, and hence have no conditions or obligations in them pertaining to data.
The RIAA is suing again, because they have won every case so far. So, while the legal system is on their side, why go after all the "pirate" networks and software companies?
However, the RIAA's (and the MPAA's) legal blitzkrieg will come to a halt when either someone with sufficient money or power fights back, or every P2P network is invisible. I hope it it the former, as a good legal slapdown would help all the cases that follow.
I hope that when the RIAA runs out of P2P companies to sue, they go after Time-Warner Cable or AOL. That would be fun to watch.
"Owners of copyrighted works remain concerned that valuable digital copyrighted works are subject to infringement when distributed in American homes to analog television sets in free over-the-air terrestrial broadcasts, and in peer-to-peer online services."
I have three comments on the above statement.
The first is that valuable works are already being transmitted over-the-air via terrestrial broadcasts. And consumers in their homes can record these broadcasts already using a VCR. I cannot understand how one can differentiate between digital content and analog content when displayed by an analog television set. While placing rights management on analog television signals may look like a solution, it places the full cost burden for protecting those copyrights on the owner of that analog television set. If such a law were enacted, every television set currently in use would be unusable and have to be replaced. And anyone who owned and used their current television set would be a criminal.
In addition, the airwaves are a public resource whose use is governed by the FCC. If a law were enacted to halt free and public use of the frequency spectrum, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having that frequency spectrum be public?
The second point to be made concerns the aggregation of the public frequency spectrum and peer-to-peer networks in use over the Internet while discussing potential law. These two must be kept separate, as they fall under two very distinct categories of governance. As the frequency spectrum is regulated and licensed on behalf of the public by the FCC, the Internet has no such regulatory rule or licensing. In addition, the FCC can license only those transmitters that reside inside US borders. With the Internet, any regulation cannot be mandated by a single country.
The third point is to examine, honestly, why the current copyright laws are inadequate. In the case of analog television sets, what has changed since the advent of the VCR? Can't the VCR be used to make unlawful copies of copyrighted material? The fact that the signal is digital or the content is digital is immaterial to the violation of copyright law. Can it honestly be said that other copyrighted works, such as books, are less vunerable to having their copyrights violated? The question for the content providers to answer is why does a digital representation of a work deserve a higher standard to protect it.
In the end, the costs to the public must outweigh the needs of one industry to protect its business model. America has always been called "the land of opportunity." Rather than squelching opportunity by legislating, the US Government in all its branches should be promoting new ideas and opportunities. I would hope that the public of the US, and the potential opportunities they have, will be a more powerful ideal to uphold.
Not a bad idea, but.... it would still necessitate purchasing a new DVD, CD and/or VCR player. Maybe the public will only purchase it once, but the problem still remains. How will Jack & Hill get the person who just spent $1,500 US at Radio Wreck getting that surround sound system to purchase again?
Point is: they won't. The people who have non-crippled CDs and DVDs will keep them, and not purchase anything new. It still amazes me that the studios and record companies haven't hought this through.
Who cares? Certainly not the general public. As long as they can get their "Hollywood" fix, they're happy. And besides, the average user wouldn't even know DVDs are already regionalized and encrypted. They just don't care.
Now, on the other hand, screw with my computer? Force me to buy hardware that has been "Hollywood" approved? Sun, IBM, HPQ, and Intel will *all* buy into the "Hollywood" approved hardware? I don't think so. These companies serve a much larger market than just the end-user consumer. That will start the revolution.
P.S. - To Jack and Hilary: When you get your "Hollywood" hardware, your protected DVDs, and your protected CDs, watch what happens to your market share. The public is not going to buy new hardware to play your "anti-pirate" movies and music. Basic economics: the cost of entry will be too high.
Slashdot Mirror
Too little, too late. I'm afraid all the customers have other tax packages, and will use them next year again.
I know I will.
As a Microsoft employee, you would be in a position to enlighten the rest of us on another point: Will Microsoft as a company be able to change as Mr. Stutz says they need to?
This statement from the author indicates he doesn't understand the JVM versus a JIT:
"Perhaps Java's Just-in-Time compiler could be enhanced to perform processor-specific run-time optimizations; on the other hand, doing so would require different JVMs (Java Virtual Machines) for different architectures, or a single bloated JVM with run-time architecture detection."
The Java compiler produces byte-code, and the JVM interprets the byte-codes. A JIT *is* platform specific, and tied to a specific OS and hardware architecture. That's why I think the author was not using a JIT.
... is catching up to 1995 Linux technology! Ooooo!
Hmmm ... let's look at some history, shall we?
... (fill in your own favorite now defunct company), then killed them.
Microsoft courted STAC, then killed them.
Microsoft courted Netscape, then killed them.
Micorsoft courted
Microsoft has never in it's history courted a competitor without either destroying the company through monopolistic practices or by suing them into oblivion.
The only survivor of a Microsoft attempt at technology murder is Java. And that was a close call.
Sun wasn't a "failing company" when they brought suit against Microsoft.
And, as far as I know, Sun isn't a "failing company" today.
Or maybe I missed that memo?
Maybe the MPAA can't afford to buy them ....
As a business plan, suing everyone is not very clever. What happens when the RIAA has sued all of their customers, retailers, and distributors?
Does that mean they'll finally go away?
Maybe that should read "Jabber is, simply put, a universal IM server." The fact that the client implementations are separate from what "legacy" IM services the server can connect to make the protocol that much more appealing.
http://msn-transport.jabberstudio.org- transport.jabberstudio.orgt -2.jabberstudio.org
http://aim
http://yahoo-transpor
No one could have stated the issues better, and with more credibility.
And no one could present the statistics that torpedos the RIAA faster.
I have read several posts from people residing in other countries. It seems that, for the most, part all have national ID systems in place. Most have also claimed that this is a workable system and not an invasion of privacy.
My question would be how of these countries have strict laws prohibiting the sale or release of the national ID system information? Most of my concern over a national ID is not with the identification per se, but what could be done with the information later.
The US has had many, many historical abuses of privacy and private information (McCarthy-ism, Hoover's FBI) that raises concerns to the public. These abuses are not long in the past for the US, and make US citizens think twice about the government holding all that information.
And when a Senator is "puchased" by a rich lobby, how long will it be before the information is "for sale" because of legislation?
Be precise: It took ten years for everyone to dump their proprietary e-mail systems and adhere to the RFC standards. So, SIMPLE will be simple in 2012.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Repackaged and preprocessed, the sequel to "Hailstorm: All Your Info are Belong to Us" is proving to be another attempt to control every users personal information by leveraging a desktop monopoly.
At least one can hope this one is as transparent as the first.
After reviewing 12 months and 10 million requests on one of our sites, IE 80%, Netscape + Mozilla 20%.
Why is it that "WebSideStory" is the web browser authority? Because web site owners allow their sites to be counted? Does anyone have any idea if "real," high volume sites like Yahoo, CNN, and, perhaps, the New York Times contribute to their statistics?
Web sites with HitBox counters (used by WebSideStory to generate their stats) are small, niche, and nothing like the mainstream. I tired of these self-appointed experts dictating who uses what browser.
WebSideStory: the definition of "Self-Hype"
When AOL moves away from IE, then the battle will begin. The release Mozilla 1.0 is only the opening salvo. Mozilla (and all the Gecko based browsers) will need to achieve a critical mass before real changes will occur.
The battleground will be the Web Developers. When they realize that Moz and Moz based browsers command the largest collection of suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H consumers on the Internet, then they will change their sites to make the pages look "good". When they change their sites, others will move to the browser that displays the pages best.
And the browsers that are W3 compliant, and render pages correctly, will move back into a position of competition.
The turtles have two "r"s in the name, as in "terrapin".
... "terrapin.com"
No wonder they offered to buy my domain
Uhmmmm ..... war? As I recall my Social Studies, Congress declares war. And the last time the US Congress declared war was 1941.
... when you are a subscriber of a Cable ISP. Get over it. Whether or not the TOS states explicitly that information is being gathered, there is no implied privacy when using a data network. A recent case has upheld this. (I'm sorry, but the exact case escapes me ... however, it appeared on these very pages.)
That being said, there are NO Federal laws governing data passing over a cable TV connection. The FCC (and most state) regulations govern only the television signals that pass over the cable. The cable company is granted, in most cases, a exclusive contract to provide this service to a community. The contracts were mostly written prior to the internet's popularity, and hence have no conditions or obligations in them pertaining to data.
The RIAA is suing again, because they have won every case so far. So, while the legal system is on their side, why go after all the "pirate" networks and software companies?
However, the RIAA's (and the MPAA's) legal blitzkrieg will come to a halt when either someone with sufficient money or power fights back, or every P2P network is invisible. I hope it it the former, as a good legal slapdown would help all the cases that follow.
I hope that when the RIAA runs out of P2P companies to sue, they go after Time-Warner Cable or AOL. That would be fun to watch.
"Owners of copyrighted works remain concerned that valuable digital copyrighted works are subject to infringement when distributed in American homes to analog television sets in free over-the-air terrestrial broadcasts, and in peer-to-peer online services."
I have three comments on the above statement.
The first is that valuable works are already being transmitted over-the-air via terrestrial broadcasts. And consumers in their homes can record these broadcasts already using a VCR. I cannot understand how one can differentiate between digital content and analog content when displayed by an analog television set. While placing rights management on analog television signals may look like a solution, it places the full cost burden for protecting those copyrights on the owner of that analog television set. If such a law were enacted, every television set currently in use would be unusable and have to be replaced. And anyone who owned and used their current television set would be a criminal.
In addition, the airwaves are a public resource whose use is governed by the FCC. If a law were enacted to halt free and public use of the frequency spectrum, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having that frequency spectrum be public?
The second point to be made concerns the aggregation of the public frequency spectrum and peer-to-peer networks in use over the Internet while discussing potential law. These two must be kept separate, as they fall under two very distinct categories of governance. As the frequency spectrum is regulated and licensed on behalf of the public by the FCC, the Internet has no such regulatory rule or licensing. In addition, the FCC can license only those transmitters that reside inside US borders. With the Internet, any regulation cannot be mandated by a single country.
The third point is to examine, honestly, why the current copyright laws are inadequate. In the case of analog television sets, what has changed since the advent of the VCR? Can't the VCR be used to make unlawful copies of copyrighted material? The fact that the signal is digital or the content is digital is immaterial to the violation of copyright law. Can it honestly be said that other copyrighted works, such as books, are less vunerable to having their copyrights violated? The question for the content providers to answer is why does a digital representation of a work deserve a higher standard to protect it.
In the end, the costs to the public must outweigh the needs of one industry to protect its business model. America has always been called "the land of opportunity." Rather than squelching opportunity by legislating, the US Government in all its branches should be promoting new ideas and opportunities. I would hope that the public of the US, and the potential opportunities they have, will be a more powerful ideal to uphold.
Point is: they won't. The people who have non-crippled CDs and DVDs will keep them, and not purchase anything new. It still amazes me that the studios and record companies haven't hought this through.
Now, on the other hand, screw with my computer? Force me to buy hardware that has been "Hollywood" approved? Sun, IBM, HPQ, and Intel will *all* buy into the "Hollywood" approved hardware? I don't think so. These companies serve a much larger market than just the end-user consumer. That will start the revolution.
P.S. - To Jack and Hilary: When you get your "Hollywood" hardware, your protected DVDs, and your protected CDs, watch what happens to your market share. The public is not going to buy new hardware to play your "anti-pirate" movies and music. Basic economics: the cost of entry will be too high.