"for left paren semi colon capital pee left paren open quote back slash enn close quote right paren comma capital are minus semi colon capital pee left paren open quote binary or operator close quote right paren right paren for left paren..." (at this point the speaker and typist both die of either old age or exhaustion)
So, I figure that as one of them code-monkey sorts, I'm not gonna' figure on losing my keyboard anytime soon.
ps, the code was of course lifted from the "CREATORS ADMIT UNIX, C HOAX" joke text
Opining on the Why: Creative's issues w/ hardware.
on
3DLabs Launching New GPU
·
· Score: 2, Redundant
blockquoth the poster (evermore with emphasis added):
It won't be until Creative Labs has fully acquired 3Dlabs, and is ready to announce its P10 boards for Christmas 2002 that we will know how the P10 is going to impact the mainstream desktop and the gamer, although 3Dlabs is convinced that the Creative P10 boards will be competitive with Nvidia and ATi products on the market at that time. Knowing Creative's sales muscle and reach, a Creative graphics board needs only to be competitive, and not necessarily better, in order to be a viable alternative to the two horse race we have right now.
However, there are some concerns. Creative has tried repeatedly to establish a strong foothold in the graphics business and has been pulled in and out of the market, particularly in North America. 3Dlabs has been aiming to find a way into the mainstream with its technology for a number of years and has repeatedly fallen short of delivering a competitive product. Can this marriage work?
Now then, the emphasized bits beg the question: Why has Creative gained and lost its footholds in these areas?
For this Creative customer, the reason is and has always been (across all product lines) one, very important issue: Software.
When and where the Creative development machine manages to mate decent, uncluttered, non-glitzy, tweakable, and trouble-free software (very very seldom IMO/) to the excellent-to-amazing hardware that they are deservably famous for, the results have been very good indeed.
However, in the normal course of events, Creative's hardware ships with installation, driver, ancillary programs, updaters, bundled "features", and enough just outright useless crap to annoy any self-respecting consumer. And while I admit that this occurs largely on the Windows platforms, you should admit to yourself that that's Creative's largest area of concern. Fortunately, they haven't yet figured that they could push for inclusion of enough Creative ad-ware to sicken a telemarketer drone into the driver packages for other platforms.
So, in this reader's experience, the issue is simple. Too much software that users don't want or need, too many features that won't work without all the glitzy junk (anyone like using the LiveDrive product, it's great, but the software to make it worthwhile--remote control--is a cast-iron bitch, crashy, seldom-updated, and too tied to useless trash in the installation). Now these issues seem somewhat prevalent along Creative's product lines, and they're killers.
Fortunately, the answer is simple. Creative needs to give the people who buy their hardware good, stable, and full-featured drivers without the need for a dozen attendant Creative-logo-displaying bits of crapware. If that parts' impossible, then it'd at least be nice to be able to grab reference drivers from the chipset manufacturer (how many people don't use NVidia's Detonator drivers in favor of the card-vendor's?)
.
Failing those... license the hardware designs to vendors who'll give us good, honest, and stable software. Of course, they can always continue to lose business to the competition, afterall, it's . . . "good for the market".
*smirks* Why, just the other week, my neighbor stopped in during a game and noticed that my great new remote let me quickly change channels during TV commercials.
He of course pointed out that it was theft to do so, and that "when the revolution comes" I'd be hung for it.
*sighs* To think of it, all this time, when men get the "itchy remote finger" during commercials (don't worry, I know we all do), we're being bad little thieves. Now this, this I like. </sarcasm>
Don't worry, missing the thrust of the argument isn't necessarily a bad thing. Surely, the article speaks about nano-technology, and surely there is a debatable issue here: Is nanotechnology a "Good Thing(TM)"; however, a more important point is also made by the article.
Namely, that the US Government may be causing real and irreprable harm to the interests of the United States of America (and don't forget, the US Government is not the USA) by limiting the advancement, research, and free (as in speech damnit) discussion of a new and important area of research.
As the article points out, the US did not become a^H the world superpower by having a larger military, or government; rather, the US out-witted the competitors by being (in the words of the article) "a more vibrant, [and] faster-learning society...." This is, and should always be the key to success in a rational and grown-up world.
But, if you read the account, a bit of intellectual property made freely available by its creator is partly responsible for one success (the creator's own).
The "Big Foot" mentioned in the snip from the article below is the technology:
His solution: Big Foot, a 1,000-pound, pneumatically controlled, microprocessor-driven grape stomper. Big Foot and its three stainless feet move on a rail system above a dozen tanks, stomping each tank for about 20 minutes, two to three times a day, for about two weeks. "It's so perfect because these plunges are gentle and replicable, whether it's 7 in the morning or 10 at night," says Laurent Montalieu, the head wine maker. Lacroute won't patent Big Foot, preferring to give the specs away. The device is used in wineries in Washington, California and New Zealand.
Now that, that I like, who says you can't make money if you give away your IP. And:) Since I vote with my checkbook (especially if it involves alcohol), I'm off to buy a bottle.
Let's follow the possible argument form that Vivendi could present.
1 (arguable assumption): The CD-Key authentication as used to authenticate players of network games on servers owned by Vivendi is a protection mechanism within the definitions bounded by the DMCA
2 (provable fact): The BnetD server system does not utilize any CD-Key authentication.
3 (Conclusion 1:2): The BnetD server system circumvents a protection mechanism as defined by the DMCA
Folks, at this point, the game is over for BnetD.
The courts may return a ruling that none of the IP involved was incorrectly obtained (essentially ruling that the reverse-engineering of the protocol was cleanly done). However, unless the court finds that the DMCA violation did not take place (i.e. if the BnetD lawyers show #1 above to be false), then the court is bound to rule that the BnetD project is in fact guilty of a violation of the DMCA.
Guilt under that proposition alone would likely cause the disintigration of the BnetD project.
Now, of course, there are many courses of appeal ("The DMCA is an unjust, unconstitutional law", "The violation is in accordance with the exemptions within the DMCA") but that road is long, hard, and expensive.
As it stands, I would have to say that the case is similar to what would obtain if a company were to create (for instance) a Playstation clone capable of playing any game, from any region, (and incidently without checking to see if it was a copy). That device would then be in an approximately similar position as BnetD.
Of course . . . that's already happened, the device is a mod chip, and Sony is going hard after the creators . . . . Using the DMCA.
.
Unfair, yes. Unjust, certainly. Unconstitutional, perhaps. But the DMCA is your law, and damn if you hadn't better learn what kind of evil it is -- and fast.
If google were to add an interface to the cost-querying logic to the new Google APIs, not only would it likely end up on/. (the gods are right, must be Google time for the Taco); but, it might be entertaining to build a cost-calculating dictionary (rolling queries and freshness to stay below the access limit) that would show the cost of any given word in the lexicon.
Useless, most likely, but definitely entertaining. Plus *grins* then from the usage statistics, you see the meta-data answering the following question: What words do people wonder about the value of
*grins* Thanks Scooby, and ftr/ I absolutely agree with you that in the view of the Constitution (as a document, with living, historically placed authors, as it was conceived) the rights of man are being enumerated.
My most fundamental fear is that, in current theory (and practice) the rights once seen as given to man by their Creator. Are now seen as given to man by the Government.
In truth, I'm not sure that these rights aren't given to man by the conventions beneath which he chooses to live; however, I am certain that I don't want the Government believing that it granteth and it taketh away....
Well, damn, to start, I guess that you'd say this particular modest proposal comes on the heels of a thrilling class for a new TPS report system. Somewhere between that, and reading more, new, and improved evidence of my country's collective insanity, I think it might just be time to propose something.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really think that the proposal included herein could ever be adopted, in fact, I think that among other things, it would guarantee that the U.S. government become even more ineffectual.
Of course, I'm not sure there's anything much wrong with that.
Whereas the Congress of the United States in recent years has at times errantly passed bills (which, were of course enacted into law by the largely disinterested executive branch) which patently subvert, abuse, and remove Constitutionally granted rights; and whereas the enforcement of those selfsame laws does embarass and continually deflate the image of America itself in the global arena, I find it necessary to propose that the Judicial branch of the United States government be empowered (in a proper use of the verb "to empower" I mean, both given the responsibility for, and the authority to....) to create for Congress a special organization with the intended purpose and justification as outlined below.
1. To act as a "legal sandbox" for bills submitted.
Much akin to my beloved bounds-checker Purify ( *snickers are heard off text* . . . *a quote plays* "What do you fu^H^H !@#$!@%^*(& mean there's a memory leak . . . . Oh, it's in a Win9X system DLL? . . . . um, sure, why not"), the purpose of this "legal sandbox" would be to allow Congresscritters to "test" the legalese (and even the content) of the bill against the Constitution.
Unfortunately, of course, the much shortened interface "const bool isConstitutional(struct Bill* pb);" didnt make it into the interface of the latest MS grammar checker. This implies that real, breathing, perhaps even thinking people (or at least hypertrophied Perl scripts) will have to comb through the bills submitted and actually (wait for it)
Think.
I know this is a terrible price to pay, but the US Supreme court seems like it might (at times) be up to the task, or at least up to picking the right scripts (a little Perl, a little Sed, mix, stir with PHP and bam, "Court-In-A-Box").
2. To act as a source of informed Amicus Curare *smirks* information to all parties in future action
Hardly a difficult sort of solution (albeit somewhat final), the information gleaned from close legal study of the bills submitted would be made available to all, and directed to courts considering cases under the bills in question.
Presumably, of course, these two chartering planks would be sufficient statement of course; however, I am sure that providing a summary of the probable constitutionality and research into the related issues to the Judicial Branch would be required. In addition, I suspect that a large number of concerned citizens would request access to this information.
Of course . . . now we just have to figure out how to raise an exception in Congress, perhaps something like "std::assert(!congresscritter_instance.isCorporate Stooge());" would do the trick, though I'm pretty sure the results would be largely similar to "std::assert(false);", so, if I were scratching in some dirty test code for the "Universe 1.1a" revision, I'd pro'lly just write the second, afterall, it saves an invocation.
The game has been available for pre-order for some time now (at least from Amazon); however, if you read the interesting posts on the Bioware boards.... Snickering about Slashdot you'll undoubtably just let your pre-order rest (quite possibly past the aformentioned date in June).
I'm just afraid that someone in the US's SSSSq Agency (Super Secret Secret Squirrels of course) will realize they have a good chance of finding that some hidden terrorist types (cat/bin/laden) by randomly snatching a person, and six specific contacts (since it might be likely that Joe Blow knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy who knows where they are.
Why... The implications of this amazing research to national defense are amazing.
It's a good thing that affirming our consequents is a common practice now-days (psst... If (all persons in the world are "connected" via a small number of links) then (randomly picking a person and starting from there is a good way to "connect" to someone specific). (randomly picking a person and starting from there is--sometimes--a good way to "connect" to someone specific). Therefore (all persons in the world are "connected" via a small number of links).
This case could be the first splash on the legal scene that leads to the legitimization of non-physical economies.
Why is this important?
Imagine that at some point in the future, a corporation creates an amazingly successful MMORPG. The MMORPG is successful enough that the parent corporation spins off the division to form a new company. This new company maintains the virtual world of the MMORPG and derives all its profits therefrom.
Very possible.
If the company then made a move to allow players of the game to purchase commonly traded shares of the corporate stock for in-game currency, there is a tie between a physical-world economy and a virtual one.
At this point, it would take very little imo/ for the virtual world of the MMORPG to classify as a nation-state.
Consider. It _has_ an economy. There is an exchange rate (albeit an occluded one) between the money of the virtual and physical world. The virtual world has a defineable citizenry.
When enough people engage themselves as citizens of a virtual state, and bring enough income into that virtual state, and exchange income between that virtual state's money and the money of other states....
What happens?
Eventually, would a banking house take interest and provide an exchange rate from one economy to the other?
If so...
How long before the citizenry of the virtual world demands rights.
How long before the citizenry of the virtual world takes those demands to a world-recognized forum?
How long before the representative of Norrath addresses the UN?
*grins* Somehow, I hope that the author reads his replies.
At any rate, one of the papers (forgive me, but it's the one with the link on the right side of the page) mentions a method of runtime polymorphism (or something very much like it) that is accomplished by attaching categorized properties to an object.
The paper then implies that the categories themselves are fixed prior to runtime (showing a UML-like class-graph indicating two categories "can use" and "use").
While I believe that flexibility and utility can be served with few categories, and also believe that the categories themselves probably align well with the object model (if one "can use" something then does "use" something, or "can take" something then does "take" something... etc), I find myself wondering if any thought was given to a more general extension system where whole categories themselves could be given to an object during runtime.
I arrived at the desire to do something similar (flexible runtime polymorphism) at a high level of abstraction while considering MMORPG from a graphics-engine perspective, and looking at developing an MMORPG runtime engine based on a directed acyclic graph (just as many graphics API's use the concept of a "scene graph", an MMORPG runtime engine could use a "world graph" in the same way).
Looking at the same example as the paper presents, there is an in-game object, which is furthermore a weapon, which is wielded by one who is pure-of-heart, which has the added effect of undead slaying (my apologies, I know the paper doesn't use those terms, but it's close).
Using a "world graph", it might be worthwhile to view the object as a node, and view the property of "being a weapon" as a sub-node. From there, the "can use" set of properties would be a sub-graph rooted at the "can use" node rooted at the "being a weapon" node rooted at the object's node itself.
At this point, the idea of a "world graph" really isn't any more powerful than the categorized lists, but the framework might be (I believe) more flexible if organized as a graph, and the implicit ability to add seemingly nonsensical properties to an element of the world would _almost_certainly_ appeal to the game-designers ("...wow, I just made a door that can be wielded as a weapon once it's torn from its hinges, bet you never figured we could do that..."). And _hopefully_ the framework could do that without modification to the runtime engine.
*ponders* Yes, sorry. Long post. But in sum, I like the concepts presented in the papers, I'm just wondering if there was any specific reason to truncate it (runtime processing overhead & etc) from a more general approach to runtime polymorphism
Now, my annoyance w/ Creative is and has never had anything to do with the hardware, as only a somewhat interested sound-enthusiast, I'm mainly concerned with having a soundcard that does the IO i'm interested in. Creative's always done that without fail.
However, and it's a big however, also without fail, Creative's software has always, always, always sucked. And that wasn't just for emphasis. Under Win32, the drivers have always been at least useable, but the additional software, which is just as requisite as the drivers (for example, the creative remote center needed to use the LiveDrive!) has sucked. The installation problems noted in the review are ridiculous, and they're in my experience, par for the creative course.
For commoditized PC soundcard hardware, they're still the leaders, and probably rightly so, but if I had the chance, I'd love to sit around and zing the programming staff with rubber bands.
While no one's mentioned it, it seems likely that the new generation of WMP file formats include support for some manner of MS-Sponsored DRM.
This would be especially likely given the smaller size of the compressed video produced (given that smaller size is often viewed as lowering the barrier to copyright violation, and thus raising the need for DRM).
While it would bother me, it would not surprise me to see the inclusion of a DRM scheme that encourages the proliferation of the MS Windows OS. Additionally, as the WMP format proliferates, expect to see it incorporated quietly into other hardward devices.
At the point that the majority of installed hardware (think CD/DVD players) supports MS's WMP format and an associated DRM, expect that it won't be possible to plead "fair use" before a court for removing the DRM features and encoding to a different medium.
Your data already belong to them, it's too late, become a vinyl nut and learn to love the classics.
It's not by any means an end of entropy *fright*, but it is a solid-state heatpump (alternately, to some degree, heat->electrical transducer) with an efficiency rivalling that more efficient mechanical systems.
An earlier/. article expounded on the opposite use (for cooling ala peltier) mentioning that the new material was about as efficient at cooling (running the cycle backwards heat-electrical) as the gas-compression cooling of a standard kitchen's fridge.
While that's still not very efficient, it is good enough to use on 'recycling' waste heat. Do something economical and plate car-radiators with this material, bleeding off the heat to give back electricity and you've already won a tiny battle.
Mostly, however, it seems likely that this material will be used as a pretty efficient way to turn electricity into cold. Not as cool perhaps as recycling waste heat, but still pretty chilly....
I know, it's a little odd when you get hit with demands for factuality and proof. I mean, any of us who'd spent so much time writing opinion-based fluff would probably have a slightly hazy view of reality.
But for god's sake man.
Leaving aside the technical details already well-discussed, do us all a favor, and if it's not entirely a hoax, save whatever remains of your reputation and post the original email.
We're mostly big-boys here, post us a copy with the routing headers intact, give us the text, and then spend two or three hundred words pointing out how great it is.
We might still belive you got rooked, but at least we're less likely to attribute what prima facia appears to be a load of... um, horse-shit to you.
As someone using ACE at the moment (well, in another screen). I can say that I've never found a more well-constructed cross-platform middleware package. You can find it here. In addition, the DOC group's TAO package provides a CORBA implementation on top of ACE that works really well for... well, those CORBA things *grins*.
One drawback when using any middleware package that I've seen is that you have to buy in pretty heavily to the package, somewhat adopting the development philosophy of the package's designers. With ACE that hasn't been as much of a problem (For instance, it provides a method of dispatching QT events) mostly because the underlying design is heavily pattern based.
On other fronts, I also continually find the Boost libraries to be very useful. They can be found here.
Probably the last thing to consider is that if you vary your development platform, you are likely going to be changing your C/C++ implementation--and they are not all created equal. Personally, I've found that the cross-platform availability and easy integration of the Dinkumware C/C++ libraries are pretty much worth the middle-of-the-road costs involved. Dinkum's located here.
It's just more players... at the only game in town
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 2
Now then,
Globalization is nothing more than the results of the emergence into world-affairs of a set of new actors not previously counted as "players" at that level.
Classic theory holds that nation-states are the players at the level of world-affairs. This is a small, relatively stable set of players. Technological advances have increasingly opened that most exclusive game of international politics to a whole host of new players. And even more importantly, technological advances in combination with a hightening of personal-empowerment and a spread of democratic government, has created a set of active spectators to world-affairs that has never existed in recorded history.
While the recently-begun information revolution has added new players to the game of world-affairs, these players are still a select group. Multinational corporations and the associated bodies (governing organizations, interest groups, etc) mainly comprise this category, and while the ideological makeup of this group is both interesting and largely homogenous, the impact on the game of world-affairs is probably quite predictable.
Side note: As the most visible, and most active group to affect world-affairs during the information revolution, the group arising from multinational corporations is viewed as most threatening by non-wester societies. The predominantly western and first-world ideologies of these multinationals will eventually shift the ideological basis of the game of world-affairs. This shift is something threatening to proponents of non-western ideologies as it would decrease the effectivness of entities holding those ideologies in the game of world-affairs. Additionally, as these multinational corporations enter the game of world-affairs, the backing ideology will act to shift the playing-field (in terms of law and treaty-agreements between actors) of world-affairs to one most suitable for the western ideologies they represent. Specific instances of this are observable in various trade-treaties and resulting laws that exist today.
While the multinationals are by far the most visible of the new actors at the level of world-affairs, they are not perhaps the most numerous of new actors, and they are quite probably not responsible for the general acceptance that a process called "Globalization" is occurring.
Technological and resulting informational advances have begun to allow individual citizens of many nation-states to observe the game of world-affairs in a capacity they were not previously affoarded. Much as radio and television brought spectators into the realm of sports (and thereby increased the spectators role in shaping the world of sports) television and the internet are bringing individual citizens of participating nation-states into the realm of world-affairs.
Polls, audience-participation, and the ubiquitous internet forums (*grins* go/.) have led to a class of empowered spectators to the game of world-affairs. When these empowered spectators act to bring about changes through the spreading reach of democratic government new players are advanced into the realm of world-affairs. These types of players, citizen's groups, international interest organizations and the like provide yet more complexity to the realm of world-affairs.
In addition (see the side note above), the concentration of these empowered spectators is much higher among groups with predominantly western ideologies.
In sum, globalization is causing an increase in the number of players in world politics who advance a western ideology. This increase is fueled by technological changes and market cost-pressures. Eventually it does point to an increase in the acceptance of a western ideology.
This probably does piss off pretty much anyone who proposes a different ideology.
Now, any decent dyed-in-the-wool geek can agree that a piece of "software" is an instruction-set that executes on a turing machine. Eventually, whether the turing machine is represented in a combination of hardware (x86 machine code anyone?) or in a collection of software (I love my Perl), the result is the same: Both are software.
Now, for the second case, it's interesting to look at the "collection of software" or interpretter or virtual machine (take your pick by all means). Now this "collection of software" is obviously software (reflexive identity). So it _is_ possible to have software that is used to execute software (my Perl programs are _too_ software d@mnit).
So, when I examine the byte-structure of my *.pl files... I notice to my horror that they contain all these non-zero data between 0 and 255.
Horrifyingly enough, so do all my *.mp3 files and even the data blocks on my DVD's.
Does that mean they're software?
Does that mean that my Perl programs are content?
Yes!
Simply put: The distinction between content and software has not been drawn cohesively on a technological basis.
Does that mean that laws cannot be crafted that distinguish between the categories of products?
No!
One approach would be to categorize the product based on an intended use, my laserdisk version of Dragon's Lair is decidedly a software product, I still enjoy playing it; however, my laserdisks of the original Star Wars trilogy are decidedly not softare. Similarly, I don't anticipate that any movies I buy would be well-categorized as software due to usage.
Basically, the problem is that a cohesive, medium-orthoganal, and useful treatment of copyright materials has not been crafted by any government in a manner more consistent with usage and ethical principles than with public and lobbyist pressures.
I am indeed quite anal, or at least that's what some people say; however, it seems to me that the first implementation of DTMF most likely could provide compelling evidence that they were the original performers of the melodies that have been copyrighted. In fact, I'd be willing to believe that routine testing for telco switches includes testing with some large portion of that address space.
Of course, it seems simpler to just turn off the dial-time speaker on your phone (pardon, not using digital?). It seems kind of unlikely that a musical copyright could be held on a string of digits, even if it was granted on the musical arrangement that is 'played' by the DTMF switching.
I'd like to write a witty response to the article here. In fact, I'd very much ejoy talking about those little plastic bits that stick to each other with anyone who cares to listen... (picks a little plastic bit that just got flicked at him out of his coffee).
At the same time, since the corporation that makes them was very polite, I'd really like to do so without once using one of thier trademarks.
Unfortunately, now I'm at an impass.
the following text contains trademarks of the LEGO corporation. In all cases, it is my intent that the trademarks are used in good faith
My question to pose is thus. If one were to write software to drive the LEGO Mindstorm system, one would have to *eventually* write bits having to do with very definite parts of the technology. Perhaps there's a component "dingle_driver.o" or somesuch. Perhaps it's as simple as including readable code-documentation about the bit in question.
Now how could you do it if you couldn't use the name of the whatsit you were writing software about? Would the code be of higher quality? Would it be maintainable? Perhaps most importantly around here... Would it be hackable?
Possibly, most likely not.
Certainly it's possible to brand your product using something not confuseable with a trademark of a given corporation, at least at a high level, but I have to believe that at some point people name things because of what they are or what they do. Certainly it's pretty easy to determine that LegOS is either an OS for LEGOS or it's some kind of operating system for pedal-limbs.
Eventually I arrive at the thought that perhaps corporations who wish to encourage private development and tinkering ought to establish a set of licenseable trademarks. Certainly they could be spun to have recognition with the parent brand without significantly diluting the brand.
Slashdot Mirror
Your IDE "hears":
So, I figure that as one of them code-monkey sorts, I'm not gonna' figure on losing my keyboard anytime soon.
ps, the code was of course lifted from the "CREATORS ADMIT UNIX, C HOAX" joke text
blockquoth the poster (evermore with emphasis added):
Now then, the emphasized bits beg the question: Why has Creative gained and lost its footholds in these areas?
For this Creative customer, the reason is and has always been (across all product lines) one, very important issue: Software.
When and where the Creative development machine manages to mate decent, uncluttered, non-glitzy, tweakable, and trouble-free software (very very seldom IMO/) to the excellent-to-amazing hardware that they are deservably famous for, the results have been very good indeed.
However, in the normal course of events, Creative's hardware ships with installation, driver, ancillary programs, updaters, bundled "features", and enough just outright useless crap to annoy any self-respecting consumer. And while I admit that this occurs largely on the Windows platforms, you should admit to yourself that that's Creative's largest area of concern. Fortunately, they haven't yet figured that they could push for inclusion of enough Creative ad-ware to sicken a telemarketer drone into the driver packages for other platforms.
So, in this reader's experience, the issue is simple. Too much software that users don't want or need, too many features that won't work without all the glitzy junk (anyone like using the LiveDrive product, it's great, but the software to make it worthwhile--remote control--is a cast-iron bitch, crashy, seldom-updated, and too tied to useless trash in the installation). Now these issues seem somewhat prevalent along Creative's product lines, and they're killers.
Fortunately, the answer is simple. Creative needs to give the people who buy their hardware good, stable, and full-featured drivers without the need for a dozen attendant Creative-logo-displaying bits of crapware. If that parts' impossible, then it'd at least be nice to be able to grab reference drivers from the chipset manufacturer (how many people don't use NVidia's Detonator drivers in favor of the card-vendor's?)
.
Failing those... license the hardware designs to vendors who'll give us good, honest, and stable software. Of course, they can always continue to lose business to the competition, afterall, it's . . . "good for the market".
<sarcasm>
Well, it had to come.
*smirks* Why, just the other week, my neighbor stopped in during a game and noticed that my great new remote let me quickly change channels during TV commercials.
He of course pointed out that it was theft to do so, and that "when the revolution comes" I'd be hung for it.
Strange, I'd never noticed it before, but come to think of it, he does have an AOL email address at work.
*sighs* To think of it, all this time, when men get the "itchy remote finger" during commercials (don't worry, I know we all do), we're being bad little thieves. Now this, this I like.
</sarcasm>
*smirks*
Don't worry, missing the thrust of the argument isn't necessarily a bad thing. Surely, the article speaks about nano-technology, and surely there is a debatable issue here: Is nanotechnology a "Good Thing(TM)"; however, a more important point is also made by the article.
Namely, that the US Government may be causing real and irreprable harm to the interests of the United States of America (and don't forget, the US Government is not the USA) by limiting the advancement, research, and free (as in speech damnit) discussion of a new and important area of research.
As the article points out, the US did not become a^H the world superpower by having a larger military, or government; rather, the US out-witted the competitors by being (in the words of the article) "a more vibrant, [and] faster-learning society...." This is, and should always be the key to success in a rational and grown-up world.
But, if you read the account, a bit of intellectual property made freely available by its creator is partly responsible for one success (the creator's own).
:) Since I vote with my checkbook (especially if it involves alcohol), I'm off to buy a bottle.
The "Big Foot" mentioned in the snip from the article below is the technology:
His solution: Big Foot, a 1,000-pound, pneumatically controlled, microprocessor-driven grape stomper. Big Foot and its three stainless feet move on a rail system above a dozen tanks, stomping each tank for about 20 minutes, two to three times a day, for about two weeks. "It's so perfect because these plunges are gentle and replicable, whether it's 7 in the morning or 10 at night," says Laurent Montalieu, the head wine maker. Lacroute won't patent Big Foot, preferring to give the specs away. The device is used in wineries in Washington, California and New Zealand.
Now that, that I like, who says you can't make money if you give away your IP. And
Alright,
Let's follow the possible argument form that Vivendi could present.
1 (arguable assumption): The CD-Key authentication as used to authenticate players of network games on servers owned by Vivendi is a protection mechanism within the definitions bounded by the DMCA
2 (provable fact): The BnetD server system does not utilize any CD-Key authentication.
3 (Conclusion 1:2): The BnetD server system circumvents a protection mechanism as defined by the DMCA
Folks, at this point, the game is over for BnetD.
The courts may return a ruling that none of the IP involved was incorrectly obtained (essentially ruling that the reverse-engineering of the protocol was cleanly done). However, unless the court finds that the DMCA violation did not take place (i.e. if the BnetD lawyers show #1 above to be false), then the court is bound to rule that the BnetD project is in fact guilty of a violation of the DMCA.
Guilt under that proposition alone would likely cause the disintigration of the BnetD project.
Now, of course, there are many courses of appeal ("The DMCA is an unjust, unconstitutional law", "The violation is in accordance with the exemptions within the DMCA") but that road is long, hard, and expensive.
As it stands, I would have to say that the case is similar to what would obtain if a company were to create (for instance) a Playstation clone capable of playing any game, from any region, (and incidently without checking to see if it was a copy). That device would then be in an approximately similar position as BnetD.
Of course . . . that's already happened, the device is a mod chip, and Sony is going hard after the creators . . . . Using the DMCA.
.
Unfair, yes. Unjust, certainly. Unconstitutional, perhaps. But the DMCA is your law, and damn if you hadn't better learn what kind of evil it is -- and fast.
Because the corporate lawyers already know.
This could get entertaining:
/. (the gods are right, must be Google time for the Taco); but, it might be entertaining to build a cost-calculating dictionary (rolling queries and freshness to stay below the access limit) that would show the cost of any given word in the lexicon.
If google were to add an interface to the cost-querying logic to the new Google APIs, not only would it likely end up on
Useless, most likely, but definitely entertaining. Plus *grins* then from the usage statistics, you see the meta-data answering the following question: What words do people wonder about the value of
*grins* Thanks Scooby, and ftr/ I absolutely agree with you that in the view of the Constitution (as a document, with living, historically placed authors, as it was conceived) the rights of man are being enumerated.
My most fundamental fear is that, in current theory (and practice) the rights once seen as given to man by their Creator . Are now seen as given to man by the Government.
In truth, I'm not sure that these rights aren't given to man by the conventions beneath which he chooses to live; however, I am certain that I don't want the Government believing that it granteth and it taketh away....
*grinning*
Imagine for a moment that this isn't
Well, damn, to start, I guess that you'd say this particular modest proposal comes on the heels of a thrilling class for a new TPS report system. Somewhere between that, and reading more, new, and improved evidence of my country's collective insanity, I think it might just be time to propose something.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really think that the proposal included herein could ever be adopted, in fact, I think that among other things, it would guarantee that the U.S. government become even more ineffectual.
Of course, I'm not sure there's anything much wrong with that.
With much more adieu:
A Modest Proposal; Congress's own Sandbox
Whereas the Congress of the United States in recent years has at times errantly passed bills (which, were of course enacted into law by the largely disinterested executive branch) which patently subvert, abuse, and remove Constitutionally granted rights; and whereas the enforcement of those selfsame laws does embarass and continually deflate the image of America itself in the global arena, I find it necessary to propose that the Judicial branch of the United States government be empowered (in a proper use of the verb "to empower" I mean, both given the responsibility for, and the authority to....) to create for Congress a special organization with the intended purpose and justification as outlined below.
1. To act as a "legal sandbox" for bills submitted.
Much akin to my beloved bounds-checker Purify ( *snickers are heard off text* . . . *a quote plays* "What do you fu^H^H !@#$!@%^*(& mean there's a memory leak . . . . Oh, it's in a Win9X system DLL? . . . . um, sure, why not"), the purpose of this "legal sandbox" would be to allow Congresscritters to "test" the legalese (and even the content) of the bill against the Constitution.
Unfortunately, of course, the much shortened interface "const bool isConstitutional(struct Bill* pb);" didnt make it into the interface of the latest MS grammar checker. This implies that real, breathing, perhaps even thinking people (or at least hypertrophied Perl scripts) will have to comb through the bills submitted and actually (wait for it)
Think.
I know this is a terrible price to pay, but the US Supreme court seems like it might (at times) be up to the task, or at least up to picking the right scripts (a little Perl, a little Sed, mix, stir with PHP and bam, "Court-In-A-Box").
2. To act as a source of informed Amicus Curare *smirks* information to all parties in future action
Hardly a difficult sort of solution (albeit somewhat final), the information gleaned from close legal study of the bills submitted would be made available to all, and directed to courts considering cases under the bills in question.
Presumably, of course, these two chartering planks would be sufficient statement of course; however, I am sure that providing a summary of the probable constitutionality and research into the related issues to the Judicial Branch would be required. In addition, I suspect that a large number of concerned citizens would request access to this information.
Of course . . . now we just have to figure out how to raise an exception in Congress, perhaps something like "std::assert(!congresscritter_instance.isCorporat
Yes....
The game has been available for pre-order for some time now (at least from Amazon); however, if you read the interesting posts on the Bioware boards.... Snickering about Slashdot you'll undoubtably just let your pre-order rest (quite possibly past the aformentioned date in June).
Uhoh...
/bin/laden) by randomly snatching a person, and six specific contacts (since it might be likely that Joe Blow knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy who knows where they are.
Well, with all this thought about the whole six degrees thing.
I'm just afraid that someone in the US's SSSSq Agency (Super Secret Secret Squirrels of course) will realize they have a good chance of finding that some hidden terrorist types (cat
Why... The implications of this amazing research to national defense are amazing.
It's a good thing that affirming our consequents is a common practice now-days (psst... If (all persons in the world are "connected" via a small number of links) then (randomly picking a person and starting from there is a good way to "connect" to someone specific). (randomly picking a person and starting from there is--sometimes--a good way to "connect" to someone specific). Therefore (all persons in the world are "connected" via a small number of links).
Mmmmm fuzzy logic.
Mark this.
This case could be the first splash on the legal scene that leads to the legitimization of non-physical economies.
Why is this important?
Imagine that at some point in the future, a corporation creates an amazingly successful MMORPG. The MMORPG is successful enough that the parent corporation spins off the division to form a new company. This new company maintains the virtual world of the MMORPG and derives all its profits therefrom.
Very possible.
If the company then made a move to allow players of the game to purchase commonly traded shares of the corporate stock for in-game currency, there is a tie between a physical-world economy and a virtual one.
At this point, it would take very little imo/ for the virtual world of the MMORPG to classify as a nation-state.
Consider. It _has_ an economy. There is an exchange rate (albeit an occluded one) between the money of the virtual and physical world. The virtual world has a defineable citizenry.
When enough people engage themselves as citizens of a virtual state, and bring enough income into that virtual state, and exchange income between that virtual state's money and the money of other states....
What happens?
Eventually, would a banking house take interest and provide an exchange rate from one economy to the other?
If so...
How long before the citizenry of the virtual world demands rights.
How long before the citizenry of the virtual world takes those demands to a world-recognized forum?
How long before the representative of Norrath addresses the UN?
Interesting papers...
*grins* Somehow, I hope that the author reads his replies.
At any rate, one of the papers (forgive me, but it's the one with the link on the right side of the page) mentions a method of runtime polymorphism (or something very much like it) that is accomplished by attaching categorized properties to an object.
The paper then implies that the categories themselves are fixed prior to runtime (showing a UML-like class-graph indicating two categories "can use" and "use").
While I believe that flexibility and utility can be served with few categories, and also believe that the categories themselves probably align well with the object model (if one "can use" something then does "use" something, or "can take" something then does "take" something... etc), I find myself wondering if any thought was given to a more general extension system where whole categories themselves could be given to an object during runtime.
I arrived at the desire to do something similar (flexible runtime polymorphism) at a high level of abstraction while considering MMORPG from a graphics-engine perspective, and looking at developing an MMORPG runtime engine based on a directed acyclic graph (just as many graphics API's use the concept of a "scene graph", an MMORPG runtime engine could use a "world graph" in the same way).
Looking at the same example as the paper presents, there is an in-game object, which is furthermore a weapon, which is wielded by one who is pure-of-heart, which has the added effect of undead slaying (my apologies, I know the paper doesn't use those terms, but it's close).
Using a "world graph", it might be worthwhile to view the object as a node, and view the property of "being a weapon" as a sub-node. From there, the "can use" set of properties would be a sub-graph rooted at the "can use" node rooted at the "being a weapon" node rooted at the object's node itself.
At this point, the idea of a "world graph" really isn't any more powerful than the categorized lists, but the framework might be (I believe) more flexible if organized as a graph, and the implicit ability to add seemingly nonsensical properties to an element of the world would _almost_certainly_ appeal to the game-designers ("...wow, I just made a door that can be wielded as a weapon once it's torn from its hinges, bet you never figured we could do that..."). And _hopefully_ the framework could do that without modification to the runtime engine.
*ponders* Yes, sorry. Long post. But in sum, I like the concepts presented in the papers, I'm just wondering if there was any specific reason to truncate it (runtime processing overhead & etc) from a more general approach to runtime polymorphism
Cost... Sounds like a good enough reason not to fight for me.
Right,
Now, my annoyance w/ Creative is and has never had anything to do with the hardware, as only a somewhat interested sound-enthusiast, I'm mainly concerned with having a soundcard that does the IO i'm interested in. Creative's always done that without fail.
However, and it's a big however, also without fail, Creative's software has always, always, always sucked. And that wasn't just for emphasis. Under Win32, the drivers have always been at least useable, but the additional software, which is just as requisite as the drivers (for example, the creative remote center needed to use the LiveDrive!) has sucked . The installation problems noted in the review are ridiculous, and they're in my experience, par for the creative course.
For commoditized PC soundcard hardware, they're still the leaders, and probably rightly so, but if I had the chance, I'd love to sit around and zing the programming staff with rubber bands.
While no one's mentioned it, it seems likely that the new generation of WMP file formats include support for some manner of MS-Sponsored DRM.
This would be especially likely given the smaller size of the compressed video produced (given that smaller size is often viewed as lowering the barrier to copyright violation, and thus raising the need for DRM).
While it would bother me, it would not surprise me to see the inclusion of a DRM scheme that encourages the proliferation of the MS Windows OS. Additionally, as the WMP format proliferates, expect to see it incorporated quietly into other hardward devices.
At the point that the majority of installed hardware (think CD/DVD players) supports MS's WMP format and an associated DRM, expect that it won't be possible to plead "fair use" before a court for removing the DRM features and encoding to a different medium.
Your data already belong to them, it's too late, become a vinyl nut and learn to love the classics.
*nods*
/. article expounded on the opposite use (for cooling ala peltier) mentioning that the new material was about as efficient at cooling (running the cycle backwards heat-electrical) as the gas-compression cooling of a standard kitchen's fridge.
It's not by any means an end of entropy *fright*, but it is a solid-state heatpump (alternately, to some degree, heat->electrical transducer) with an efficiency rivalling that more efficient mechanical systems.
An earlier
While that's still not very efficient, it is good enough to use on 'recycling' waste heat. Do something economical and plate car-radiators with this material, bleeding off the heat to give back electricity and you've already won a tiny battle.
Mostly, however, it seems likely that this material will be used as a pretty efficient way to turn electricity into cold. Not as cool perhaps as recycling waste heat, but still pretty chilly....
Katz,
I know, it's a little odd when you get hit with demands for factuality and proof. I mean, any of us who'd spent so much time writing opinion-based fluff would probably have a slightly hazy view of reality.
But for god's sake man.
Leaving aside the technical details already well-discussed, do us all a favor, and if it's not entirely a hoax, save whatever remains of your reputation and post the original email.
We're mostly big-boys here, post us a copy with the routing headers intact, give us the text, and then spend two or three hundred words pointing out how great it is.
We might still belive you got rooked, but at least we're less likely to attribute what prima facia appears to be a load of... um, horse-shit to you.
The conjecture was a method presented as a partial fix for the cryptography product.
It still has admitted failures.
However, it avoids the failures that require the ability of the attacker to spoof valid credentials
Most importantly, it was presented as the underlying method that may be the implementation of another, as yet unavailable, closed standard.
Of course... they should prove that *sarcasm*.
Absolutely,
As someone using ACE at the moment (well, in another screen). I can say that I've never found a more well-constructed cross-platform middleware package. You can find it here. In addition, the DOC group's TAO package provides a CORBA implementation on top of ACE that works really well for... well, those CORBA things *grins*.
One drawback when using any middleware package that I've seen is that you have to buy in pretty heavily to the package, somewhat adopting the development philosophy of the package's designers. With ACE that hasn't been as much of a problem (For instance, it provides a method of dispatching QT events) mostly because the underlying design is heavily pattern based.
On other fronts, I also continually find the Boost libraries to be very useful. They can be found here.
Probably the last thing to consider is that if you vary your development platform, you are likely going to be changing your C/C++ implementation--and they are not all created equal. Personally, I've found that the cross-platform availability and easy integration of the Dinkumware C/C++ libraries are pretty much worth the middle-of-the-road costs involved. Dinkum's located here.
Now then,
/.) have led to a class of empowered spectators to the game of world-affairs. When these empowered spectators act to bring about changes through the spreading reach of democratic government new players are advanced into the realm of world-affairs. These types of players, citizen's groups, international interest organizations and the like provide yet more complexity to the realm of world-affairs.
Globalization is nothing more than the results of the emergence into world-affairs of a set of new actors not previously counted as "players" at that level.
Classic theory holds that nation-states are the players at the level of world-affairs. This is a small, relatively stable set of players. Technological advances have increasingly opened that most exclusive game of international politics to a whole host of new players. And even more importantly, technological advances in combination with a hightening of personal-empowerment and a spread of democratic government, has created a set of active spectators to world-affairs that has never existed in recorded history.
While the recently-begun information revolution has added new players to the game of world-affairs, these players are still a select group. Multinational corporations and the associated bodies (governing organizations, interest groups, etc) mainly comprise this category, and while the ideological makeup of this group is both interesting and largely homogenous, the impact on the game of world-affairs is probably quite predictable.
Side note: As the most visible, and most active group to affect world-affairs during the information revolution, the group arising from multinational corporations is viewed as most threatening by non-wester societies. The predominantly western and first-world ideologies of these multinationals will eventually shift the ideological basis of the game of world-affairs. This shift is something threatening to proponents of non-western ideologies as it would decrease the effectivness of entities holding those ideologies in the game of world-affairs. Additionally, as these multinational corporations enter the game of world-affairs, the backing ideology will act to shift the playing-field (in terms of law and treaty-agreements between actors) of world-affairs to one most suitable for the western ideologies they represent. Specific instances of this are observable in various trade-treaties and resulting laws that exist today.
While the multinationals are by far the most visible of the new actors at the level of world-affairs, they are not perhaps the most numerous of new actors, and they are quite probably not responsible for the general acceptance that a process called "Globalization" is occurring.
Technological and resulting informational advances have begun to allow individual citizens of many nation-states to observe the game of world-affairs in a capacity they were not previously affoarded. Much as radio and television brought spectators into the realm of sports (and thereby increased the spectators role in shaping the world of sports) television and the internet are bringing individual citizens of participating nation-states into the realm of world-affairs.
Polls, audience-participation, and the ubiquitous internet forums (*grins* go
In addition (see the side note above), the concentration of these empowered spectators is much higher among groups with predominantly western ideologies.
In sum, globalization is causing an increase in the number of players in world politics who advance a western ideology. This increase is fueled by technological changes and market cost-pressures. Eventually it does point to an increase in the acceptance of a western ideology.
This probably does piss off pretty much anyone who proposes a different ideology.
So what.
"Software"....
Now, any decent dyed-in-the-wool geek can agree that a piece of "software" is an instruction-set that executes on a turing machine. Eventually, whether the turing machine is represented in a combination of hardware (x86 machine code anyone?) or in a collection of software (I love my Perl), the result is the same: Both are software.
Now, for the second case, it's interesting to look at the "collection of software" or interpretter or virtual machine (take your pick by all means). Now this "collection of software" is obviously software (reflexive identity). So it _is_ possible to have software that is used to execute software (my Perl programs are _too_ software d@mnit).
So, when I examine the byte-structure of my *.pl files... I notice to my horror that they contain all these non-zero data between 0 and 255.
Horrifyingly enough, so do all my *.mp3 files and even the data blocks on my DVD's.
Does that mean they're software?
Does that mean that my Perl programs are content?
Yes!
Simply put: The distinction between content and software has not been drawn cohesively on a technological basis.
Does that mean that laws cannot be crafted that distinguish between the categories of products?
No!
One approach would be to categorize the product based on an intended use, my laserdisk version of Dragon's Lair is decidedly a software product, I still enjoy playing it; however, my laserdisks of the original Star Wars trilogy are decidedly not softare. Similarly, I don't anticipate that any movies I buy would be well-categorized as software due to usage.
Basically, the problem is that a cohesive, medium-orthoganal, and useful treatment of copyright materials has not been crafted by any government in a manner more consistent with usage and ethical principles than with public and lobbyist pressures.
But....
They're expensive.
Keep in mind that the answer to the question "why don't they" is almost always to be found in the finances of the question at issue.
With that in mind, go visit here for exactly what you've all been looking for.
Btw/ if anyone wants to donate me a few (say 136) of the beasties and an controller to go with them, I'd be most appreciative...
*grins*
I am indeed quite anal, or at least that's what some people say; however, it seems to me that the first implementation of DTMF most likely could provide compelling evidence that they were the original performers of the melodies that have been copyrighted. In fact, I'd be willing to believe that routine testing for telco switches includes testing with some large portion of that address space.
Of course, it seems simpler to just turn off the dial-time speaker on your phone (pardon, not using digital?). It seems kind of unlikely that a musical copyright could be held on a string of digits, even if it was granted on the musical arrangement that is 'played' by the DTMF switching.
I'd like to write a witty response to the article here. In fact, I'd very much ejoy talking about those little plastic bits that stick to each other with anyone who cares to listen... (picks a little plastic bit that just got flicked at him out of his coffee).
At the same time, since the corporation that makes them was very polite, I'd really like to do so without once using one of thier trademarks.
Unfortunately, now I'm at an impass.
the following text contains trademarks of the LEGO corporation. In all cases, it is my intent that the trademarks are used in good faith
My question to pose is thus. If one were to write software to drive the LEGO Mindstorm system, one would have to *eventually* write bits having to do with very definite parts of the technology. Perhaps there's a component "dingle_driver.o" or somesuch. Perhaps it's as simple as including readable code-documentation about the bit in question.
Now how could you do it if you couldn't use the name of the whatsit you were writing software about? Would the code be of higher quality? Would it be maintainable? Perhaps most importantly around here... Would it be hackable?
Possibly, most likely not.
Certainly it's possible to brand your product using something not confuseable with a trademark of a given corporation, at least at a high level, but I have to believe that at some point people name things because of what they are or what they do. Certainly it's pretty easy to determine that LegOS is either an OS for LEGOS or it's some kind of operating system for pedal-limbs.
Eventually I arrive at the thought that perhaps corporations who wish to encourage private development and tinkering ought to establish a set of licenseable trademarks. Certainly they could be spun to have recognition with the parent brand without significantly diluting the brand.