As a Computer/PC fan/freak/geek/. I've never bothered to take a closer look to things like the TiVo-thing nor do I belive I will. I'm just wondering what advantages such a device has got over a computer. Slap in a large HD, a TV-tuner-card and a graphiccard with a Composite connection and you'll have it all. Of course these things are cheaper, doesn't go out on date within the next 8 months and probably never crashes, but still modern man is separated from cows in three crucial points; opposing thumbs, speech and home-computers. Not many owns a computer today and those who don't doesn't really need a thing such as this. Some has probably never heard of the device either. But then again, what do I know? I'v never tried one.
Why do you think Microsoft is what it is? The facts are that they are admirably intelligent. They've got professional, intelligent lawyers who know when there is a chance of getting a lawsuit through. Lawsuits must also make some sense. Microsoft probably figured out that this was the most probable lawsuit. Lindows is probably - I'll say nothing for sure - not a financially strong company. And it being in the U.S. - the U.S. not being one of the cheapest countries to lose or even fight a lawsuit in - doesnt make it easier for Lindows.
(If they ever go bankrupt here's a hint: GPL-dump the code.)
1) Had his predecessors understood how huge the Internet would turn out to be, Hoskins figures, they would surely have licensed the protocols, sold the rights to a corporation and collected a royalty for the U.C. Regents on Internet usage years into the future. Does this person know how the IT market works, how people think about abstracktities like the Internet? "Isn't free, will only consider it."
2) Software for modeling global climate change, the behavior of viral epidemics and traffic patterns are among the programs researchers can't get released, he says. This kind of software not having the greatest market (how often do you wish to simulate a viral epidemic) makes it extremly expencive makeing it more probable that those who do need it makes it themself - also releasing it commercial. That makes to great pieces of code that could have been the best ever had they learnt from any of each-others mistakes (even great code has got bugs and stupidities.)
I could - and for now I will - see this as a positive thing. Imagine The UN High-council for the World Wide Web. All countries - or at least many - aggree to pass a law that would fors all website owners to control their visitors identity, check some global database with leagal jib-jab and let the visitor in or not. Most Internetters people do live in countries with full freedom of speech - I may be wrong about this - and those who don't is already shut partially out from the Internet (like those in Singapore.) One should not forget that national laws apply even when you're in front of your computer just that now you choose whether or not to be a criminal and really, nobody looks too hard into you breaking the laws. Don't think of this as borders, just as nagging high-way patrols. The UNHWWW could also in make it's member countries to apply in international territory. This can be done, ther is international laws for ships at sea.
I belive this is a good move by the U.S. First of all though getting supercomputers - from the U.S. - was under export restrictions building clusters wasn't because that wouldn't been possible. Another crusial point is that this may have slowed the developement of competanse on supercomputing and certain areas wich requires super computing. Applying the butter-fly-effect to this the U.S. may have been - unwillingly - slowed the economic and democratical development in the countries the restriction applied to. No doubt could such computers be used in design and simulation of nuclear weapons but that is only one branch in wich super computing is put to well - or ill regarding nukes - use.
The euro looks the way it looks mainly because all of its features makes it almost impossible to copy. Other contries in Europe (and probably other parts of the world) such as Sweden and Norway have also recently made bills with large silver lines in to ensure the stability of their currency. Flowing the marked with counterfeits is not good for inflation. I'd bet the US Dollar bills are simple to copy with a high quality scanner, printer and some nice looking and fealing paper. This wouldn't be grand scale but still.
This article is based upon the conclusion that someone wants to convert from a windows environment to a linux enviroment. Turbo print is not the solution. People having to buy extra software (that they can see as a part not included in the whole linux package) is not convinient, it just add's extra confusion. I would be more happy if this was a normal (open-source) kernel module or something.
well, Linux doesn't release every 2. year so of course the betas, alphas and pre-blah...blah... are buggier. And Linux keaps on keeping a steady level of bugs, but - unlike Windows - they are swiftly and thoroughly sorted out by anyone that knows how and buggy patches are also found and re-patced.
Maybe it will work. But only if they keep the Austrailian wild-life from the African. If it turns out that the kangaroo isn't "the fittest" then it would be anihalated in that area.
Here's a thought: NASA quits spending money on probes (pissing some of) and starts spending money on real manned spacecrafts (pleasing some.) And I don't mean those toy shuttles. Don't they ever watch StarTrek or something? Last year they had a budget of XXX billon dollars. They obviously know how to make them fly, so why not anywhere in the solarsystem (then I'd be pleased.) They lack the overall goal.
Said in a Homer like voice:
- Hard work is what's made this organisation what it is today, son.
... Crap
The people claiming evolution to be a process to slow for software development seems to miss out on an important point. Measurement of evolution speed cannot be carried out in years. Evolution must be measured in lifecycles. The number of lifecycles needed for a program/snippet to evolve is about 1-20 lifecycles (releases) and by multiplying this with the time it takes for one lifecycle to complete you've got an approximat value of how fast computer programs evolve.
Another important point is that in this evolution - tough on som level about "survival of the fittest" - there is a certain level of continious "trial and error". This is in fact the way most programming - and learning - is done and this is done through the lifecycle. In real life, DNA can't remember actions carried on by their owners.
... about the fact that robots programmed with algorithms created by humans should solve the human way. Since they don't know the outcome of these algorithms how did they find them? Pure luck?
Why simulate algorithms already created, when it's possible to predict it through calculations? The only reason I can think of is fun. But simulating something is just visualising something we already know.
"Since we don't know how to effectively modify these machines or create new ones just yet, the trick is to find
naturally existing machines that, when combined, can be steered to actually compute," he added.
and
Israeli scientists have built a DNA computer so tiny that a trillion of them could fit in a test tube and perform a billion operations per second with 99.8 percent accuracy.
In other words: We got lucky and hope to find something in the nature that will do the research for us. Seriously, they've got a long way to go. I currently don't belive DNA computers is the future. Chemistry is much slower than physics. I would rather have put my money - and efford - on making quantum dot - or optical computers.
The way I see it developers try to make money on games. Fast and easy API's are needed. Sure ther's OpenGL - better than DX some say - but it's just graphics. There's no wrapping. No joystick-, force feedback- or sound support and a set of Linux code will only compile on a Linux machine.
All effors Mandrake, Transgaming, Wine developers and others are putting down in emulators, ports a.s.o. should be redirected to make an atractive API for both Linux and Windows. A top-top-level api. In bottom you could put OpenGL or DX depending on personal flavour or platform. One compile for each platform. There would be only one company maintaining the libraries. Game producers could then focus on an easy top level api and make whatever game run on any supported OS.
I belive that joining effords in creating such a cross-platform api would ease up developers relationship to Linux as a gaming-platform. It can handle it.
It seems to me that AltaVista's problem is hardware and bandwith. (At least that's their excuse.)
Hardware and bandwith trouble is again related to the allmighty buck. This, again, relates to the fact that the Internet isn't new anymore - it's not...hmmm... in, it's common. This has results in a more normalised portal, search-engine etc. marked where only a few can survive on a commercial basis. The internet is just not a good place for advertisement anymore. People have learned the Internet, how to surf. I'm totally ignorying the... leatherman ad on top of slashdot and the Opera banner on my upper-right.
Advertisers are becoming more and more aware of this and companies not directly linked to the web - like car manufacturers and toaster manufacturers - just keep a page for ordering, information and support. Their Internet advertisement budget is not very large - it's cheap, that's the only reson to do it. If AltaVista or others were to highten the prices they would loose because a banner spot isn't that valuable, and others would offer it cheaper - and win.
If people finding security holes, posible exploits etc. first reported the hole to whatever company released the software subject to exposure (e.g. Microsoft.) then these holes could be filled by the people sitting on the code (not sure if that's what they are, sitting at code.) Then they would get a chanse to develop a patch. Of course, they shouldn't be able to stall the process so an ultimatum should be given. After that the source, blueprints - whatever - would be free for grabs. Anyone not applying the pach either didn't get informed of the bug - the company's responsible - or they didn't bother applying it - most likely - and deserves whatever they get.
Having said this, I'm taking a cold shower. Imagine agreeing with... well.
It's impossible to create software or hardware that prohibits copying. Any such mechanics would require cryptographic technology in an advanced fasion, hardware or software. The problem is that nomatter how good the algorithms are and nomatter how long the keys are someone will manage to crack it, not nescesarily within the first days, weeks or months but it will be cracked.
One option is for the manufacturers is to frequently change their algorithms and keys, giving the crackers no time to crack a format before there's a new to crack. This however won't be tolerated by consumers. The manufacruers can't - in fact - preserve backward compatibility at the same time as preserving cryptographic security. Buying or upgrading software or hardware every second month.
Therefor - as I see it - DRM is misson impossible. If the entertainmentindustry really want's to protect their work people must learn to respect other peoples work, and offer it cheap. As for closed format - not nessecarily cryptographic software - it should be outlawed to create proprietary formats to exchange information on. The writer is the owner, not the software creator. It might even conflict with free speach. Imagine if the alphabet was a closed format and what would happened if you violated that.
DVD manufacturers could always supply their discs with an armed guard/supervisor. Imagine that...
People lying around dying in the middle of nowhere should have brought a GPS or at least a map and if they can plae a call then they can read co-ordinates.
Slashdot Mirror
hahahahahaaaa ... haha ... hahaha
funny guy this Microsoft. Probably drives a car whose registration#'s DUH
As a Computer/PC fan/freak/geek/. I've never bothered to take a closer look to things like the TiVo-thing nor do I belive I will. I'm just wondering what advantages such a device has got over a computer. Slap in a large HD, a TV-tuner-card and a graphiccard with a Composite connection and you'll have it all. Of course these things are cheaper, doesn't go out on date within the next 8 months and probably never crashes, but still modern man is separated from cows in three crucial points; opposing thumbs, speech and home-computers. Not many owns a computer today and those who don't doesn't really need a thing such as this. Some has probably never heard of the device either. But then again, what do I know? I'v never tried one.
Why do you think Microsoft is what it is? The facts are that they are admirably intelligent. They've got professional, intelligent lawyers who know when there is a chance of getting a lawsuit through. Lawsuits must also make some sense. Microsoft probably figured out that this was the most probable lawsuit. Lindows is probably - I'll say nothing for sure - not a financially strong company. And it being in the U.S. - the U.S. not being one of the cheapest countries to lose or even fight a lawsuit in - doesnt make it easier for Lindows.
(If they ever go bankrupt here's a hint: GPL-dump the code.)
1) Had his predecessors understood how huge the Internet would turn out to be, Hoskins figures, they would surely have licensed the protocols, sold the rights to a corporation and collected a royalty for the U.C. Regents on Internet usage years into the future. Does this person know how the IT market works, how people think about abstracktities like the Internet? "Isn't free, will only consider it."
2) Software for modeling global climate change, the behavior of viral epidemics and traffic patterns are among the programs researchers can't get released, he says. This kind of software not having the greatest market (how often do you wish to simulate a viral epidemic) makes it extremly expencive makeing it more probable that those who do need it makes it themself - also releasing it commercial. That makes to great pieces of code that could have been the best ever had they learnt from any of each-others mistakes (even great code has got bugs and stupidities.)
I could - and for now I will - see this as a positive thing. Imagine The UN High-council for the World Wide Web. All countries - or at least many - aggree to pass a law that would fors all website owners to control their visitors identity, check some global database with leagal jib-jab and let the visitor in or not. Most Internetters people do live in countries with full freedom of speech - I may be wrong about this - and those who don't is already shut partially out from the Internet (like those in Singapore.) One should not forget that national laws apply even when you're in front of your computer just that now you choose whether or not to be a criminal and really, nobody looks too hard into you breaking the laws. Don't think of this as borders, just as nagging high-way patrols. The UNHWWW could also in make it's member countries to apply in international territory. This can be done, ther is international laws for ships at sea.
I belive this is a good move by the U.S. First of all though getting supercomputers - from the U.S. - was under export restrictions building clusters wasn't because that wouldn't been possible. Another crusial point is that this may have slowed the developement of competanse on supercomputing and certain areas wich requires super computing. Applying the butter-fly-effect to this the U.S. may have been - unwillingly - slowed the economic and democratical development in the countries the restriction applied to. No doubt could such computers be used in design and simulation of nuclear weapons but that is only one branch in wich super computing is put to well - or ill regarding nukes - use.
I wish I used a company such as this. That way I could end my relationship with them.
The euro looks the way it looks mainly because all of its features makes it almost impossible to copy. Other contries in Europe (and probably other parts of the world) such as Sweden and Norway have also recently made bills with large silver lines in to ensure the stability of their currency. Flowing the marked with counterfeits is not good for inflation. I'd bet the US Dollar bills are simple to copy with a high quality scanner, printer and some nice looking and fealing paper. This wouldn't be grand scale but still.
This article is based upon the conclusion that someone wants to convert from a windows environment to a linux enviroment. Turbo print is not the solution. People having to buy extra software (that they can see as a part not included in the whole linux package) is not convinient, it just add's extra confusion. I would be more happy if this was a normal (open-source) kernel module or something.
By the way: Turbo linux is here
well, Linux doesn't release every 2. year so of course the betas, alphas and pre-blah...blah... are buggier. And Linux keaps on keeping a steady level of bugs, but - unlike Windows - they are swiftly and thoroughly sorted out by anyone that knows how and buggy patches are also found and re-patced.
Maybe it will work. But only if they keep the Austrailian wild-life from the African. If it turns out that the kangaroo isn't "the fittest" then it would be anihalated in that area.
I know that prices are lower in Brick-And-Mortar stores.
Should ants have trafficlights and highways?
Here's a thought: NASA quits spending money on probes (pissing some of) and starts spending money on real manned spacecrafts (pleasing some.) And I don't mean those toy shuttles. Don't they ever watch StarTrek or something? Last year they had a budget of XXX billon dollars. They obviously know how to make them fly, so why not anywhere in the solarsystem (then I'd be pleased.) They lack the overall goal.
Said in a Homer like voice:
- Hard work is what's made this organisation what it is today, son.
... Crap
The people claiming evolution to be a process to slow for software development seems to miss out on an important point. Measurement of evolution speed cannot be carried out in years. Evolution must be measured in lifecycles. The number of lifecycles needed for a program/snippet to evolve is about 1-20 lifecycles (releases) and by multiplying this with the time it takes for one lifecycle to complete you've got an approximat value of how fast computer programs evolve.
Another important point is that in this evolution - tough on som level about "survival of the fittest" - there is a certain level of continious "trial and error". This is in fact the way most programming - and learning - is done and this is done through the lifecycle. In real life, DNA can't remember actions carried on by their owners.
... that makes me happy I don't own one of those fancy new cellular phones.
... about the fact that robots programmed with algorithms created by humans should solve the human way. Since they don't know the outcome of these algorithms how did they find them? Pure luck?
Why simulate algorithms already created, when it's possible to predict it through calculations? The only reason I can think of is fun. But simulating something is just visualising something we already know.
I don't know what to make out of this.
...
"Since we don't know how to effectively modify these machines or create new ones just yet, the trick is to find
naturally existing machines that, when combined, can be steered to actually compute," he added.
and
Israeli scientists have built a DNA computer so tiny that a trillion of them could fit in a test tube and perform a billion operations per second with 99.8 percent accuracy.
In other words: We got lucky and hope to find something in the nature that will do the research for us. Seriously, they've got a long way to go. I currently don't belive DNA computers is the future. Chemistry is much slower than physics. I would rather have put my money - and efford - on making quantum dot - or optical computers.
That's the future
The way I see it developers try to make money on games. Fast and easy API's are needed. Sure ther's OpenGL - better than DX some say - but it's just graphics. There's no wrapping. No joystick-, force feedback- or sound support and a set of Linux code will only compile on a Linux machine.
All effors Mandrake, Transgaming, Wine developers and others are putting down in emulators, ports a.s.o. should be redirected to make an atractive API for both Linux and Windows. A top-top-level api. In bottom you could put OpenGL or DX depending on personal flavour or platform. One compile for each platform. There would be only one company maintaining the libraries. Game producers could then focus on an easy top level api and make whatever game run on any supported OS.
I belive that joining effords in creating such a cross-platform api would ease up developers relationship to Linux as a gaming-platform. It can handle it.
It seems to me that AltaVista's problem is hardware and bandwith. (At least that's their excuse.)
...hmmm... in, it's common. This has results in a more normalised portal, search-engine etc. marked where only a few can survive on a commercial basis. The internet is just not a good place for advertisement anymore. People have learned the Internet, how to surf. I'm totally ignorying the ... leatherman ad on top of slashdot and the Opera banner on my upper-right.
Hardware and bandwith trouble is again related to the allmighty buck. This, again, relates to the fact that the Internet isn't new anymore - it's not
Advertisers are becoming more and more aware of this and companies not directly linked to the web - like car manufacturers and toaster manufacturers - just keep a page for ordering, information and support. Their Internet advertisement budget is not very large - it's cheap, that's the only reson to do it. If AltaVista or others were to highten the prices they would loose because a banner spot isn't that valuable, and others would offer it cheaper - and win.
Developers: Coder or Architect?
Can you be an architect without being a coder? Don't think so.
Seriously, an architect is just an upgraded coder. Fatter pay-check, fatter office and fatter slave-staff (not reffering to MacDonald coders.)
... agree, up to a sertain point.
... well.
If people finding security holes, posible exploits etc. first reported the hole to whatever company released the software subject to exposure (e.g. Microsoft.) then these holes could be filled by the people sitting on the code (not sure if that's what they are, sitting at code.) Then they would get a chanse to develop a patch. Of course, they shouldn't be able to stall the process so an ultimatum should be given. After that the source, blueprints - whatever - would be free for grabs. Anyone not applying the pach either didn't get informed of the bug - the company's responsible - or they didn't bother applying it - most likely - and deserves whatever they get.
Having said this, I'm taking a cold shower. Imagine agreeing with
Agreed, but Joe ordinary won't crack the software just use the software provided by crackers for ripping etc.
... so it's not a question that makes much sense.
...
It's impossible to create software or hardware that prohibits copying. Any such mechanics would require cryptographic technology in an advanced fasion, hardware or software. The problem is that nomatter how good the algorithms are and nomatter how long the keys are someone will manage to crack it, not nescesarily within the first days, weeks or months but it will be cracked.
One option is for the manufacturers is to frequently change their algorithms and keys, giving the crackers no time to crack a format before there's a new to crack. This however won't be tolerated by consumers. The manufacruers can't - in fact - preserve backward compatibility at the same time as preserving cryptographic security. Buying or upgrading software or hardware every second month.
Therefor - as I see it - DRM is misson impossible. If the entertainmentindustry really want's to protect their work people must learn to respect other peoples work, and offer it cheap. As for closed format - not nessecarily cryptographic software - it should be outlawed to create proprietary formats to exchange information on. The writer is the owner, not the software creator. It might even conflict with free speach. Imagine if the alphabet was a closed format and what would happened if you violated that.
DVD manufacturers could always supply their discs with an armed guard/supervisor. Imagine that
People lying around dying in the middle of nowhere should have brought a GPS or at least a map and if they can plae a call then they can read co-ordinates.