That said, an infinitely expanding (or "open") universe is just as likely to destroy all life as the "big crunch" at the end of a collapsing (or "closed") universe. The open universe eventually winds down as all the energy in the universe become homogenized by the 2nd law of thermodynamics in a fate that is often referred to as "heat death".
If anything, the symmetric fate of a closed universe is usually considered the more hopeful fate of the universe mirroring the more traditional cyclic cosmologies of many cultures. Not only does it allow for a sort of cosmic reincarnation but also provides insight into the origin of our own universe (plus some really interesting theories as to the nature of time).
As I see it, an open universe is going to fuel some interesting debates among proponents of the strong anthropic principle (unless they are also advocates of a mischevious "trickster" creator). At least we can take solace in the possibility that matter-energy lost from our universe is "reborn" through inflation events on the far side of black holes. Otherwise, its all seems to me to be an awfully big waste of space-time;)
The IT press has been promising us a variety of malarkey for years - Microsoft innovation, Apple going out of business, Linux on the desktop, flying cars,...
As I see it, to a large extent this is due to an over-reliance of IT journalists on industry contacts and a highly incestuous meme-pool.
Since industry contacts are driven by their own agendas to poison the meme-pool with hype and FUD, reporters typically serve only to reinforce entrenched concerns in the industry.
This is particularly troublesome given that the IT industry of uniquely reliant upon innovation which has traditionally emerged from smaller players & upstarts.
Therefore, does IT journalism really contribute positively to the industry and, if so, how?
But how thin does my air have to be? I mean, I try to keep my air in shape but it certainly isn't as thin as it used to be. Perhaps if I move to Tibet.
Well at least the communications are ultrasecure - I find that secure just isn't enough.
Okay, I see your point(s). That's not to say I am in full agreement but I think that we have more in common than not. I'd like to make a couple of additional remarks but I'll forego the point-by-point for brevity.
I think we both share the hope that the free market will naturally suppress DRM abuses - much like it did when Divx was originally rolled out (the business model, not the CODEC). Unfortunately, when dealing with (near) monopoly players like MSFT/MPAA/RIAA, the normal economic feedback cycles do not operate properly - hence the need for antitrust legislation. The not unreasonable concern is that consumers may not be able to effectively counter abuses by dominant market players leading ultimately to an effective elimination of non-DRM media platforms.
If market forces fail us, I think that we both take solace in the extreme unlikeliness that Palladium will actually be effective. However, this means that the users who are the "problem" in the first place will be essentially unaffected while the bulk of users who just want to exercise their completely reasonable right to fair use will be burdened with a unnecessary layer of nuisanceware. This only encourages the notion that all people are innately criminal and cannot be trusted.
Finally, I think we agree that improving the electronic means of distribution for digital media while protecting the rights of artists is a worthy endeavor. IMHO, Palladium is more about protecting the outmoded distribution channel that has been systematically exploiting artists for decades. There are other ideas for the future of digital media right out there fighting for mindshare and I think it is more important that we make sure that the "right" idea succeeds rather than making sure that the "wrong" idea is license fairly and equally.
> You say that Palladium "could be used to significantly reduce user's rights to access digital media," but I highly doubt this is true.
I don't think that this is a debatable point. Certainly the technology could be used for this purpose. Perhaps you could argue that you don't think it will or that it won't be effective but I think that the potential is nigh irrefutable.
> In my opinion the system will most likely have holes, and it only takes a single hole to create a copy.
Considering the quality of Microsoft's previous products, and the nature of software in general, I cannot disagree with this. However, this is probably one of the motivations for physically embedding DRM into devices where it is less vulnerable (but not immune) from tinkering. While I am sure that the MPAA would like to avoid another debacle like CSS, I share your skepticism as to whether they can pull it off. Nevertheless, I would rather not have to wrestle with yet another layer of futile but burdensome nuisanceware.
> Those who create crippled media will quickly find that they are losing sales in droves to the illegal markets.
I don't think this follows. In essence, this is the same argument the RIAA uses against online music sharing - if the potential exists, people will steal anything and everything. While this may apply to some, it certainly does not apply to all - I certainly know people who file share but the vast majority just buy their music and software. The fundamental moral of the legalization of the VCR was that you can't take away people's rights simply because something could be used criminally.
> On top of that, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing for mainstream artists to be inaccessible to the general public.
Well, that's just a matter of taste. I am coming at this as a matter of principle - but I can't say I disagree;-)
> If artists want to lock up their works and not allow me to access them the way I want to, then I'll start buying products from other artists.
While that is certainly the prerogative of the free market, conglomeration has traditionally sought to subvert this by controlling the means of distribution. This is, of course, exactly why the conglomerates fear the "Information Age" and seek to control it through technologies like Palladium.
> You might say that not enough others feel the same way, or that there is some global conspiracy among artists,...
Then again, I might not.
>... and to some extent you're right,...
I must be very clever;-)
>... that conspiracy is called the RIAA (or the MPAA, or whatever). But I'm not convinced that those coalitions are strong enough to coerce me into buying their crap.
I am sure that is true.
> I haven't bought a CD by an RIAA artist in years.
See? There you have it.
> I watch MPAA movies, and even buy DVDs, but ultimately I think it's worth the money I pay for the product I receive.
Okay, now here is the tricky bit. Would it still be worth the money if you had to buy a separate copy for each DVD player you wanted to watch it in (e.g. standalone & laptop)? How about if you wanted to lend it to a friend or relative - not for copying but just for watching? While these are not planned "features" of Palladium, they appear to be supportable by the system and are not significantly more restrictive than the planned prohibition on shifting audio CDs to MP3s. I'd hate to get on the proverbial "slippery slope" with Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA calling the shots.
> As for "viable options available to the community," I think you need to be more specific.
That is where I am at a loss. As I indicated previously, I don't see any clear options at the moment but I recognize that it is still early in the game. I am only saying that it is a reasonable precaution for people to be wary and to continue exploring alternatives as more information becomes available. I am somewhat surprised that you find this to be such a contentious position. Caution is the better part of valor.
> Palladium merely enables artists to release their works in ways that technically enforces the laws that we already have.
Actually, I don't think it does. The courts have traditionally upheld the public's right to copy legally purchased media products for the purpose of using it on another device. The DMCA tries to take this away but it has yet to be strongly challenged in the proper forum and, therefore, it remains to be seen whether it really trumps fair use. While I agree that you cannot sell the copies or distribute them to others, this brings us back to the moral of the legalization of the VCR mentioned earlier. IMHO, the MPAA/RIAA have raised the macguffin of "perfect digital copies", as opposed to earlier analog copying technologies (e.g. LP to cassette), to distract us from the fact that we have already secured the right to copy media with no stipulations on the acceptable level of "perfection". Their duplicity is only enhanced by their refusal to acknowledge that MP3 is a lossy duplication scheme to begin with and that most of the DRM schemes that have recently been rolled out for CDs corrupt the supposedly virgin recordings they are purporting to protect.
> It doesn't force artists to take options away from the user.
I would assert that the denial of fair use is taking options away from the user.
> In fact, my guess is that it will enable artists to offer more options to the user. With DRM artists can offer time-limited free trials, for instance. This could be a great opportunity for independent musicians to get their music out there without giving it away for free.
This is a very good point and, of course, I am all in favor of helping independent artists. However, I don't see a groundswell of demand for DRM in the indie community. The reality is that DRM is a tool for the very conglomerates that have systematically excluded all but the most homogenized artists from the primary means of music and film distribution throughout the world. Furthermore, the artists that are allowed access are systematically exploited to support an veritable army of middlemen who add little or nothing to the artistic process. Even very sucessful musicians earn the bulk of their income from live performances - a revenue stream neither threatened by fair use nor protected by DRM.
> It could re-establish shareware as a viable alternative to corporate products.
And here I was thinking that we live in the golden age of shareware. Just about 3 years ago I broke the barrier where I started to spend more on shareware than commercial software and the gap has been growing steadily. Do you know something I don't? I was unaware of the demise of shareware.
> The important thing is not to stop the technology, it is to put mechanisms in place to ensure that the technology will be used properly.
Well that seems fair enough. In the spirit of your challenge for me to clarify the "viable options", I am curious as to what mechanisms you feel are necessary and appropriate. After all, that was the whole point of the discussion to begin with and a pretty far cry from your original "Who cares?" cry to apathy.
>> Following the same line of reasoning, if you want to preserve you rights, digital or otherwise, you should prevent others from taking them away rather than trying to reclaim after the fact.
> How exactly does bitching on slashdot about hypothetical situations do that?
Touche. While "bitching" on Slashdot is not a solution in and of itself, its role as a forum for discussion allows interested parties to consider their options. Although the situation is, as you observe, currently hypothetical, it doesn't take much imagination to envision ways in which Palladium could be used to significantly reduce user's rights to access digital media. Given Microsoft's previous behavior, it is only prudent to be wary of their activities in this area.
That said, the most troubling aspect of the discussion so far is that there appears to be few if any viable options available to the community. Microsoft has the largest segment of the users beholden to Windows, Intel & AMD appear willing (if not eager) to play along, Apple is likely to follow because of their reliance on Microsoft for Office and on the media conglomerates to grant access rights to their users, and Linux may very well be marginalized as an "untrusted platform".
However, the lack of an obvious solution at this albeit very early stage doesn't mean we should stop looking - and it certainly doesn't mean that any discussion of the subject is in vain and worthy of derision.
> Yeah, so, I'll be dead one day, but that doesn't mean I should worry about it today.
Of course you should. Indeed you will die some day - but if you don't want it to be today (or even tomorrow), you should observe basic safety rules such as looking both ways while crossing the street and bandaging open wounds.
Following the same line of reasoning, if you want to preserve you rights, digital or otherwise, you should prevent others from taking them away rather than trying to reclaim after the fact.
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to ruminate on the following words of wisdom...
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates
if, according to you, there's "no performance problems" in OS' and GUI's
I think you have me confused with someone else as I never said that. I joined the thread late and am not the person you were originally bantering with.
That said, I'll take the bait;-)
What exactly is the purpose of all this eye-candy? I find that its mostly just annoying and a hindrance, as well as tacky. The prime use of eye-candy seems to be making good looking screen-shots to put on commercials.
That may very well be the case. After all, they are in the business of making sales and, like it or not, many people make their purchasing decisions based on appearances.
I think that what you are trying to say is that form should follow function and, if I have represented your position correctly, I agree. Unfortunately, while you and I may consider maximizing performance and efficiency as the primary function of the OS, Apple (and MS and, for that matter, RH) view the maximization of revenues as the primary function. Hence the emphasis on appearance as a tool to increase sales - even in the Linux community.
Now here's the kicker. I use OS X everyday on my desktop and laptop. I also use W2k, RH6/7 & SOL7/8 every week on a more than passing basis. I don't find the OS X GUI performance to be a significant hindrance. Frankly, I barely even notice it. What I do notice is the interface inconsistencies for X Windows applications and the general obtuseness of W2k. But hey, that's just me.
If you don't like OS X, fine - don't use it. It's not like Apple is trying to force it down the throat of world + dog like MS certainly would. But to deny it offers real value in an appealing package is somewhat disingenuous. While it may not be a open and free as Linux, it is certainly more open and free than Windows and like to become even more so. For that reason alone, Apple should be encouraged by the community rather than villified for perceived sub-optimal GUI performace (which, by the way, is one of the areas they seem to be working the hardest).
The problem is they're making my hardware solve problems that should be solved by either them coding better or eliminating code
Because, after all, software doubles in speed every 18 months or so;-)
Seriously, Apple is building a product that is going to carry the platform forward for another 10+ YEARS. What you consider a superfluous waste of processing resources now is going to be lost in the noise before you know it. Granted, they are certainly going to ladle on more eye candy as this happens but it will always be a balance between performance and appearance. If you don't agree with the mix, than you are probably outside the target market and should go back to your xterm on twm. Nothing to see here - move along.
Of particular interest is the following quote from Dewey's 1916 Democracy and Education...
"While books and conversation can do much, these agencies are usually relied upon too exclusively. Schools require for their full efficiency more opportunity for conjoint activities in which those instructed take part, so they may acquire a social sense of their own powers and the materials and appliances used."
I think it pretty clearly states Dewey's advocacy of learning by doing rather than learning by rote as was originally asserted.
It's not everyday that you hear a European argue that Americans are too free.
Thank God that someone out there is making sure that the Internet doesn't lead to excessive free speech.
I think the author is right on when he calls for Europe to "take back the Net". Those knuckle dragging Americans only mucked things up after the Europeans let them join the Net. Oh wait...
I was thinking of gnuplot which is almost always used with Octave but which, despite the "gnu" in the name, is not associated with the GNU project or the FSF and is not GPL'd.
You are absolutely correct, Octave is GPL'd. My most sincere apologies to the Octave team for my inadvertent slander.
While I certainly agree with your observation that Matlab is pricey, I don't understand your complaint that it is "inadequate as soon as it is necessary to use loops to describe a problem".
Heck, one of Matlab's greatest advantages is that every numeric variable is represented as a matrix and that many loops can be dispensed with completely with a little judicious linear algebra.
If you want to rip on Matlab, you'd be better off scorning its poor memory management or its byzantine handle graphics.
However, it does provide a nice development environment for computationally intensive problems. Scripting is a lot nicer than compile-link-debug-repeat when you're still trying to figure out the problem. Plus you can always farm out the most intensive processes to external code modules - which you can write in C/C++, Java or (gasp!) FORTRAN.
If price is the sticking point - why not take a look at GNU Octave. It is free as in beer (not GPL despite the name) and offers much of the same functionality as Matlab. Unfortunately, it shares most of the weaknesses of Matlab as well - and they are usually worse.
His holes are 10 nanometers... and about 3 billion of them fit in a punch card hole
I read the news today, oh boy 4,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancastershire And though the holes were rather small They had to count them all Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall I'd love to turn you on
To be fair, the engineer interviewed acknowledged that HTTP is the "cockroach of the internet... after the after the holocaust it will be the only protocol left standing."
Of course, that is as it should be. Even bad standards have a tendency to live much longer than anticipated and good standards are rarer than hen's teeth. As a good standard, HTTP rightly deserves a long and fruitful life.
The nefarious implication is that Microsoft is pushing their own propriety replacement for HTTP in order to lay down their infamous hammerlock on the 'net just as they have on so many other sectors of the industry.
While the engineer raises some fairly valid points regarding the applicability of HTTP to alternative networking models such as P2P, I'm sure that most people will read these comments as a thinly veiled plot to extend Redmond's Global Dominance (TM) - and I'm not sure that they would be mistaken.
Certainly, the issues mentioned regarding high latency network operations smacks of the distributed applications model of.Net and strikes me as more of a macguffin than a critical limitation of the existing infrastructure. This is just the sort of strawman Gates & co. love to use to insert new technologies whose only true purpose is to increase the public's dependence on the Microsoft MotherShip (TM).
While few would (should) argue that HTTP has room to grow, and may ultimately be supplemented or even supplanted by other standards, I am very leery of such spin coming from such a notoriously anti-standards organization.
Why is it so odd that, as the Net becomes increasingly ubiquitous, it ceases to have a well-defined "heart".
The premise of this article is like asking where the heart of the library is - the periodicals? the dictionary? The Grapes of Wrath? Or how about the heart of the phone book? The yellow pages? The residential listings? 867-5309?
The not-so-odd truth is that the internet is a medium, not a message, and therefore its heart depends on the perspective of the user.
Oh yeah, and all that stuff about AOL - just because there are more of "them" doesn't make them more (or less) relevant. Remember, for every human being on earth there are thousands of pounds of insects!
I know this may not interest many of the 1337 haXorZ on/. but I would be interested in a book on the UNIX subsystem in Mac OS X.
Although it is a fairly standard Mach-based BSD, I've discovered enough peculiarities that differ from my standard UNIX references to make me start searching for good reference.
Unfortunately, the Mac book market is mainly aimed at the "how to use your mouse" crowd. Even the Mac OS titles from that animal book publisher are decidedly on the lightweight side.
Since Mac OS X is on target to become the most widely used UNIX, such a volume would certainly prove valuable to both sage & fledgling geeks worldwide.
Slashdot Mirror
Not with a bang but a whimper
;)
That said, an infinitely expanding (or "open") universe is just as likely to destroy all life as the "big crunch" at the end of a collapsing (or "closed") universe. The open universe eventually winds down as all the energy in the universe become homogenized by the 2nd law of thermodynamics in a fate that is often referred to as "heat death".
If anything, the symmetric fate of a closed universe is usually considered the more hopeful fate of the universe mirroring the more traditional cyclic cosmologies of many cultures. Not only does it allow for a sort of cosmic reincarnation but also provides insight into the origin of our own universe (plus some really interesting theories as to the nature of time).
As I see it, an open universe is going to fuel some interesting debates among proponents of the strong anthropic principle (unless they are also advocates of a mischevious "trickster" creator). At least we can take solace in the possibility that matter-energy lost from our universe is "reborn" through inflation events on the far side of black holes. Otherwise, its all seems to me to be an awfully big waste of space-time
The New England Journal of Evil
Give me an example when "vote with your money" has ever worked
... how about Divx? (the DRM scheme, not the CODEC)
Umm
Hey Shwag!
Check out Susan Blackmore's article "The Power of Memes" which was originally published in Scientific American. She's a little out there but it will at least get you started. She is also an editor at the online Journal of Memetics.
You're welcome,
gcondon
p.s. I think Dan Gillmor's answer was a cop-out.
Shouldn't this be moderated +1, Ironic ?
Boy, a lot of people have been jumping all over the following quote from the original post ...
;-)
Sadly, it runs windows so no one will actually want to use one for real work
As many have pointed out, the majority of the world (to their eternal shame) actually does use Windows to do their work.
However, I will stand by the original poster and observe that precious few of them wanted to use Windows.
Heck, pretty few of them even wanted to do their work in the first place and using Windows is rarely a satisfying experience in and of itself.
Just because they did it, didn't mean that they wanted to
The IT press has been promising us a variety of malarkey for years - Microsoft innovation, Apple going out of business, Linux on the desktop, flying cars, ...
As I see it, to a large extent this is due to an over-reliance of IT journalists on industry contacts and a highly incestuous meme-pool.
Since industry contacts are driven by their own agendas to poison the meme-pool with hype and FUD, reporters typically serve only to reinforce entrenched concerns in the industry.
This is particularly troublesome given that the IT industry of uniquely reliant upon innovation which has traditionally emerged from smaller players & upstarts.
Therefore, does IT journalism really contribute positively to the industry and, if so, how?
Ultrasecure Quantum Communications Over Thin Air
But how thin does my air have to be? I mean, I try to keep my air in shape but it certainly isn't as thin as it used to be. Perhaps if I move to Tibet.
Well at least the communications are ultrasecure - I find that secure just isn't enough.
Okay, I see your point(s). That's not to say I am in full agreement but I think that we have more in common than not. I'd like to make a couple of additional remarks but I'll forego the point-by-point for brevity.
I think we both share the hope that the free market will naturally suppress DRM abuses - much like it did when Divx was originally rolled out (the business model, not the CODEC). Unfortunately, when dealing with (near) monopoly players like MSFT/MPAA/RIAA, the normal economic feedback cycles do not operate properly - hence the need for antitrust legislation. The not unreasonable concern is that consumers may not be able to effectively counter abuses by dominant market players leading ultimately to an effective elimination of non-DRM media platforms.
If market forces fail us, I think that we both take solace in the extreme unlikeliness that Palladium will actually be effective. However, this means that the users who are the "problem" in the first place will be essentially unaffected while the bulk of users who just want to exercise their completely reasonable right to fair use will be burdened with a unnecessary layer of nuisanceware. This only encourages the notion that all people are innately criminal and cannot be trusted.
Finally, I think we agree that improving the electronic means of distribution for digital media while protecting the rights of artists is a worthy endeavor. IMHO, Palladium is more about protecting the outmoded distribution channel that has been systematically exploiting artists for decades. There are other ideas for the future of digital media right out there fighting for mindshare and I think it is more important that we make sure that the "right" idea succeeds rather than making sure that the "wrong" idea is license fairly and equally.
> You say that Palladium "could be used to significantly reduce user's rights to access digital media," but I highly doubt this is true.
;-)
...
... and to some extent you're right, ...
;-)
... that conspiracy is called the RIAA (or the MPAA, or whatever). But I'm not convinced that those coalitions are strong enough to coerce me into buying their crap.
I don't think that this is a debatable point. Certainly the technology could be used for this purpose. Perhaps you could argue that you don't think it will or that it won't be effective but I think that the potential is nigh irrefutable.
> In my opinion the system will most likely have holes, and it only takes a single hole to create a copy.
Considering the quality of Microsoft's previous products, and the nature of software in general, I cannot disagree with this. However, this is probably one of the motivations for physically embedding DRM into devices where it is less vulnerable (but not immune) from tinkering. While I am sure that the MPAA would like to avoid another debacle like CSS, I share your skepticism as to whether they can pull it off. Nevertheless, I would rather not have to wrestle with yet another layer of futile but burdensome nuisanceware.
> Those who create crippled media will quickly find that they are losing sales in droves to the illegal markets.
I don't think this follows. In essence, this is the same argument the RIAA uses against online music sharing - if the potential exists, people will steal anything and everything. While this may apply to some, it certainly does not apply to all - I certainly know people who file share but the vast majority just buy their music and software. The fundamental moral of the legalization of the VCR was that you can't take away people's rights simply because something could be used criminally.
> On top of that, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing for mainstream artists to be inaccessible to the general public.
Well, that's just a matter of taste. I am coming at this as a matter of principle - but I can't say I disagree
> If artists want to lock up their works and not allow me to access them the way I want to, then I'll start buying products from other artists.
While that is certainly the prerogative of the free market, conglomeration has traditionally sought to subvert this by controlling the means of distribution. This is, of course, exactly why the conglomerates fear the "Information Age" and seek to control it through technologies like Palladium.
> You might say that not enough others feel the same way, or that there is some global conspiracy among artists,
Then again, I might not.
>
I must be very clever
>
I am sure that is true.
> I haven't bought a CD by an RIAA artist in years.
See? There you have it.
> I watch MPAA movies, and even buy DVDs, but ultimately I think it's worth the money I pay for the product I receive.
Okay, now here is the tricky bit. Would it still be worth the money if you had to buy a separate copy for each DVD player you wanted to watch it in (e.g. standalone & laptop)? How about if you wanted to lend it to a friend or relative - not for copying but just for watching? While these are not planned "features" of Palladium, they appear to be supportable by the system and are not significantly more restrictive than the planned prohibition on shifting audio CDs to MP3s. I'd hate to get on the proverbial "slippery slope" with Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA calling the shots.
> As for "viable options available to the community," I think you need to be more specific.
That is where I am at a loss. As I indicated previously, I don't see any clear options at the moment but I recognize that it is still early in the game. I am only saying that it is a reasonable precaution for people to be wary and to continue exploring alternatives as more information becomes available. I am somewhat surprised that you find this to be such a contentious position. Caution is the better part of valor.
> Palladium merely enables artists to release their works in ways that technically enforces the laws that we already have.
Actually, I don't think it does. The courts have traditionally upheld the public's right to copy legally purchased media products for the purpose of using it on another device. The DMCA tries to take this away but it has yet to be strongly challenged in the proper forum and, therefore, it remains to be seen whether it really trumps fair use. While I agree that you cannot sell the copies or distribute them to others, this brings us back to the moral of the legalization of the VCR mentioned earlier. IMHO, the MPAA/RIAA have raised the macguffin of "perfect digital copies", as opposed to earlier analog copying technologies (e.g. LP to cassette), to distract us from the fact that we have already secured the right to copy media with no stipulations on the acceptable level of "perfection". Their duplicity is only enhanced by their refusal to acknowledge that MP3 is a lossy duplication scheme to begin with and that most of the DRM schemes that have recently been rolled out for CDs corrupt the supposedly virgin recordings they are purporting to protect.
> It doesn't force artists to take options away from the user.
I would assert that the denial of fair use is taking options away from the user.
> In fact, my guess is that it will enable artists to offer more options to the user. With DRM artists can offer time-limited free trials, for instance. This could be a great opportunity for independent musicians to get their music out there without giving it away for free.
This is a very good point and, of course, I am all in favor of helping independent artists. However, I don't see a groundswell of demand for DRM in the indie community. The reality is that DRM is a tool for the very conglomerates that have systematically excluded all but the most homogenized artists from the primary means of music and film distribution throughout the world. Furthermore, the artists that are allowed access are systematically exploited to support an veritable army of middlemen who add little or nothing to the artistic process. Even very sucessful musicians earn the bulk of their income from live performances - a revenue stream neither threatened by fair use nor protected by DRM.
> It could re-establish shareware as a viable alternative to corporate products.
And here I was thinking that we live in the golden age of shareware. Just about 3 years ago I broke the barrier where I started to spend more on shareware than commercial software and the gap has been growing steadily. Do you know something I don't? I was unaware of the demise of shareware.
> The important thing is not to stop the technology, it is to put mechanisms in place to ensure that the technology will be used properly.
Well that seems fair enough. In the spirit of your challenge for me to clarify the "viable options", I am curious as to what mechanisms you feel are necessary and appropriate. After all, that was the whole point of the discussion to begin with and a pretty far cry from your original "Who cares?" cry to apathy.
>> Following the same line of reasoning, if you want to preserve you rights, digital or otherwise, you should prevent others from taking them away rather than trying to reclaim after the fact.
> How exactly does bitching on slashdot about hypothetical situations do that?
Touche. While "bitching" on Slashdot is not a solution in and of itself, its role as a forum for discussion allows interested parties to consider their options. Although the situation is, as you observe, currently hypothetical, it doesn't take much imagination to envision ways in which Palladium could be used to significantly reduce user's rights to access digital media. Given Microsoft's previous behavior, it is only prudent to be wary of their activities in this area.
That said, the most troubling aspect of the discussion so far is that there appears to be few if any viable options available to the community. Microsoft has the largest segment of the users beholden to Windows, Intel & AMD appear willing (if not eager) to play along, Apple is likely to follow because of their reliance on Microsoft for Office and on the media conglomerates to grant access rights to their users, and Linux may very well be marginalized as an "untrusted platform".
However, the lack of an obvious solution at this albeit very early stage doesn't mean we should stop looking - and it certainly doesn't mean that any discussion of the subject is in vain and worthy of derision.
>> Cuz by then, you're already fucked.
...
> Yeah, so, I'll be dead one day, but that doesn't mean I should worry about it today.
Of course you should. Indeed you will die some day - but if you don't want it to be today (or even tomorrow ), you should observe basic safety rules such as looking both ways while crossing the street and bandaging open wounds.
Following the same line of reasoning, if you want to preserve you rights, digital or otherwise, you should prevent others from taking them away rather than trying to reclaim after the fact.
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to ruminate on the following words of wisdom
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates
Apple iPhone Rumors Resurface
First off ...
;-)
;-)
if, according to you, there's "no performance problems" in OS' and GUI's
I think you have me confused with someone else as I never said that. I joined the thread late and am not the person you were originally bantering with.
That said, I'll take the bait
What exactly is the purpose of all this eye-candy? I find that its mostly just annoying and a hindrance, as well as tacky. The prime use of eye-candy seems to be making good looking screen-shots to put on commercials.
That may very well be the case. After all, they are in the business of making sales and, like it or not, many people make their purchasing decisions based on appearances.
I think that what you are trying to say is that form should follow function and, if I have represented your position correctly, I agree. Unfortunately, while you and I may consider maximizing performance and efficiency as the primary function of the OS, Apple (and MS and, for that matter, RH) view the maximization of revenues as the primary function. Hence the emphasis on appearance as a tool to increase sales - even in the Linux community.
Now here's the kicker. I use OS X everyday on my desktop and laptop. I also use W2k, RH6/7 & SOL7/8 every week on a more than passing basis. I don't find the OS X GUI performance to be a significant hindrance. Frankly, I barely even notice it. What I do notice is the interface inconsistencies for X Windows applications and the general obtuseness of W2k. But hey, that's just me.
If you don't like OS X, fine - don't use it. It's not like Apple is trying to force it down the throat of world + dog like MS certainly would. But to deny it offers real value in an appealing package is somewhat disingenuous. While it may not be a open and free as Linux, it is certainly more open and free than Windows and like to become even more so. For that reason alone, Apple should be encouraged by the community rather than villified for perceived sub-optimal GUI performace (which, by the way, is one of the areas they seem to be working the hardest).
And anyway, their hardware is pretty cool
The problem is they're making my hardware solve problems that should be solved by either them coding better or eliminating code
;-)
Because, after all, software doubles in speed every 18 months or so
Seriously, Apple is building a product that is going to carry the platform forward for another 10+ YEARS. What you consider a superfluous waste of processing resources now is going to be lost in the noise before you know it. Granted, they are certainly going to ladle on more eye candy as this happens but it will always be a balance between performance and appearance. If you don't agree with the mix, than you are probably outside the target market and should go back to your xterm on twm. Nothing to see here - move along.
I didn't post the original comment but, for the sake of learning ;-), I googled on "Dewey theory education". Here are a couple of choice links ...
l
y .htm
...
http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/janicke/Dewey.htm
http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/discussions/dewe
Of particular interest is the following quote from Dewey's 1916 Democracy and Education
"While books and conversation can do much, these agencies are usually relied upon too exclusively. Schools require for their full efficiency more opportunity for conjoint activities in which those instructed take part, so they may acquire a social sense of their own powers and the materials and appliances used."
I think it pretty clearly states Dewey's advocacy of learning by doing rather than learning by rote as was originally asserted.
It's not everyday that you hear a European argue that Americans are too free.
...
Thank God that someone out there is making sure that the Internet doesn't lead to excessive free speech.
I think the author is right on when he calls for Europe to "take back the Net". Those knuckle dragging Americans only mucked things up after the Europeans let them join the Net. Oh wait
I was thinking of gnuplot which is almost always used with Octave but which, despite the "gnu" in the name, is not associated with the GNU project or the FSF and is not GPL'd.
You are absolutely correct, Octave is GPL'd. My most sincere apologies to the Octave team for my inadvertent slander.
While I certainly agree with your observation that Matlab is pricey, I don't understand your complaint that it is "inadequate as soon as it is necessary to use loops to describe a problem".
Heck, one of Matlab's greatest advantages is that every numeric variable is represented as a matrix and that many loops can be dispensed with completely with a little judicious linear algebra.
If you want to rip on Matlab, you'd be better off scorning its poor memory management or its byzantine handle graphics.
However, it does provide a nice development environment for computationally intensive problems. Scripting is a lot nicer than compile-link-debug-repeat when you're still trying to figure out the problem. Plus you can always farm out the most intensive processes to external code modules - which you can write in C/C++, Java or (gasp!) FORTRAN.
If price is the sticking point - why not take a look at GNU Octave. It is free as in beer (not GPL despite the name) and offers much of the same functionality as Matlab. Unfortunately, it shares most of the weaknesses of Matlab as well - and they are usually worse.
His holes are 10 nanometers ... and about 3 billion of them fit in a punch card hole
I read the news today, oh boy
4,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancastershire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
I'd love to turn you on
Quoth the announcement:
"Malda's achievements have spanned a variety of fields from computer
programming to nuclear physics."
I must have been dozing off but what exactly was that contribution again?
To be fair, the engineer interviewed acknowledged that HTTP is the "cockroach of the internet ... after the after the holocaust it will be the only protocol left standing."
.Net and strikes me as more of a macguffin than a critical limitation of the existing infrastructure. This is just the sort of strawman Gates & co. love to use to insert new technologies whose only true purpose is to increase the public's dependence on the Microsoft MotherShip (TM).
Of course, that is as it should be. Even bad standards have a tendency to live much longer than anticipated and good standards are rarer than hen's teeth. As a good standard, HTTP rightly deserves a long and fruitful life.
The nefarious implication is that Microsoft is pushing their own propriety replacement for HTTP in order to lay down their infamous hammerlock on the 'net just as they have on so many other sectors of the industry.
While the engineer raises some fairly valid points regarding the applicability of HTTP to alternative networking models such as P2P, I'm sure that most people will read these comments as a thinly veiled plot to extend Redmond's Global Dominance (TM) - and I'm not sure that they would be mistaken.
Certainly, the issues mentioned regarding high latency network operations smacks of the distributed applications model of
While few would (should) argue that HTTP has room to grow, and may ultimately be supplemented or even supplanted by other standards, I am very leery of such spin coming from such a notoriously anti-standards organization.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Why is it so odd that, as the Net becomes increasingly ubiquitous, it ceases to have a well-defined "heart".
The premise of this article is like asking where the heart of the library is - the periodicals? the dictionary? The Grapes of Wrath? Or how about the heart of the phone book? The yellow pages? The residential listings? 867-5309?
The not-so-odd truth is that the internet is a medium, not a message, and therefore its heart depends on the perspective of the user.
Oh yeah, and all that stuff about AOL - just because there are more of "them" doesn't make them more (or less) relevant. Remember, for every human being on earth there are thousands of pounds of insects!
I know this may not interest many of the 1337 haXorZ on /. but I would be interested in a book on the UNIX subsystem in Mac OS X.
Although it is a fairly standard Mach-based BSD, I've discovered enough peculiarities that differ from my standard UNIX references to make me start searching for good reference.
Unfortunately, the Mac book market is mainly aimed at the "how to use your mouse" crowd. Even the Mac OS titles from that animal book publisher are decidedly on the lightweight side.
Since Mac OS X is on target to become the most widely used UNIX, such a volume would certainly prove valuable to both sage & fledgling geeks worldwide.
I like the concept design for the "ping" game ...
f f.com/atariart25.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/20010828031441/safestu
I think they should have arcade versions of all the standard UNIX system functions.
"d00d, I just set the new high score on grep!"