As a proud LDD touting, LWN gazing, MSc wielding geek; the Solaris kernel is a heck of a lot better coded, structured and organised than the Linux kernel. But alas, it lacks the many new features that have truly driven linux over the last decade.
Naturally my opinions lie with the ease of code readability and ease of initial development - these are not the same as a lkml hardened pro
They employ sexy-code formatting monkeys. The solaris kernel is a hack of a lot simpler to understand than the Linux kernel - I hege this on my comparison of the sources a while back.
There is still no mighty IOKit killer on the horizon tho... Apple (and libkern, the cpp runtine) wins.
I believe we need is fewer virtual ISPs leasing the BT network and actually laying their own lines down. IIRC, Telewest/NTL/Virgin/whatever had the exclusive contract to lay cables next to the the UK rail network. Lack of competition has lead to this - the only other alternative is to use BT's network; and even the "next generation" 21st Century Network - 21CN - we're going to rely on in the future is implemented and run by BT.
Wholesale costs won't fall until ISPs have unrated bandwidth themselves. Until that happens how can we have true competition?
We do, unfortunately I believe in the power of letters! As my problem is resolved, only I'm down the cost of calls/bank penalty, I'll try a letter first.
A82 is directly enforceable in the national courts. VM has a dominant position in the UK broadband market - this is an automatic presumption in the cable market as their share is 100%, and, based on the structure of the UK backbone-network, a reasonable and fair assumption regarding broadband in general.
they are acting in a manor that can only be said to be taking unfair advantage of their position to the detriment of the broadband market in general - and they are doing this independently of us the consumer: ie: we get this crap and there is absolutely nothing we can do.
whilst having a dominant market share, and being in a monopolist position is _not_ illegal - abusing this position is. VM are starting a consumer/isp war that the consumers cannot win. they are abusing the technological development of the UK's broadband system by prejudicing our use in a way we cannot avoid. an utterly artificial creation.
as VM own the cable network, there is no cross elastic supply. the consumer is lacked into contracts which generally fall foul of elastic demand the moment they abuse their position. the good news is that no VM customer is bound to their unfair contracts that stifle the advancement of uk broadband - be it traffic shaping or whatnot.
I dont have a virgin phone service. A billing "discrepancy" from last year, an offer I bartered for, was fixed last month with Virgin claiming to shoulder the costs. What actually happened is they added the XL phone package to my discounted XL TV + XL Broadband offer. I have been a customer for 18 months, and I bartered for my previous deal of £41.50/pm only to have them add the Phone package without informing me, and charge me £70.
I rang to cancel and let them know I intended to move to sky and and was offered my old £41.50 offer at a no-contract rate of £49pm (I'm not sure where I'll be living in 3 months, so I can't get a contract). Problem fixed, or so I believe. The debt collection team phone me this morning to inform me my direct debit had bounced - and it would do if it was in excess of £50 as the account is for bills only, and is credited with a standing order for the appropriate amount each month.
It transpires (I guessed it instantly), that after billing me £70 and changing it back to the negotiated rate of £49, they discounted next months direct debit by £20, so that the net 2 month charge would be equal to my negotiated rate over 2 months.
But! That doesn't mean I can pay £70 in one month for a problem they have caused, because I subject to cash flow issues. To make things worst, I have been charged by my bank for the defaulting direct debit, wasted £15 on the phone last time I called, and £10 today.
Today was awful! I was called this morning by the debt collection team who would not let me pay £49 or change my direct debit, until I settled the £70 mistake, even tho it was obvious the real amount was £49 based on the remedied discount applied to the next bill. I'm forced to pay for their mistake!?! They told me there was nothing they could do, and that I had to phone them back and fixed the issue. I got through to India twice and was told the same thing, only that the team that called me was the team that dealt with it. In the end I gave up. I asked to be put through to the cancellation team.
The cancellation team were great. The credit was applied to this month, and my outstanding balance returned to what I should pay/can pay. I've praised VM in the past, and will continue to do so in the future - but only their cancellation team, as they're the only ones with the power to resolve your problems.
I am contemplating billing VM for the saga cost me £20 in phone calls (I have a mobile phone, and no one would phone me!), and the bounced direct debit penalty stemming from their inability to resolve the problem when I called them and they called me.
For the those unaware of the British University system, you need to automatically take a popularist study from a poly-technical University with plenty of salt.
Privacy, Art 8 and 10 aside, its actually very very illegal contractually. No doubt they will find a way of avoiding the contractual obligations through a shrink wrap, but there are issues here with the laws of confidence, the duty of care bestowed on the ISP etc. Not to mention cartel practice.
No no no no. This is BAD captialism. Stop. Think. Or I will sue.
It's a consumerist gimmick with no real substance other than that gained from marketing. For instance, I applied to a law firm last month simply because they had featured in an article about Second Life and how tradition brick and mortar companies are "expanding" into them. The attraction was purely consumerist spin - a marketing ploy like advertising on my space. The real substance behind the event was an actual brick and mortar law firm with real clients making them actual money.
I've come the the conclusion that Gartner are pop-analysts, since the more coverage of their predictions I see on Slashdot, the more the turn out to be fundamentally wrong but engaging to talk about nonetheless. Ignore Gartner. Embrace Wired Magazine predictions:)
Excuse me for being a bit sceptical, but the XBox 360 is doing fantastically well, they have a market and the right games for that market... New PCs are still being shipped with MS products and MS office is entrenched into modern information systems decision making.
You have to remember that MS can afford to fix faulty XBoxes, so it ultimately becomes a moot point.
All this on a very good quarter...
I think The Motley Fool just wants good slashdot traffic myself.
On my home PC IE7, not only makes it crawl (even if it is a 2Gb dual core machine), but also breaks the Creative device explorer. Not to mention the that the poorly crafted render and input loop minces a WTS server with only a few simultaneous IE users - last month we reverted back to IE6 and saw a 100% performance increase!!
funnily enough may in an extreme case violate the EU free market laws, because, in order to sell in France, a foreign publisher is forced to a price threshold, which favours the internal market which grew up on it - the costs associated with establishing this threshold and imposing it upon publishers is nationalist not competitive
but i guess they're treating domestic and foreign books in the same way...
It's funny really. We have estates worth millions and possibly billions... In law (I am British), a trust must vest within 21 years. It's perhaps a little more complicated than that, but, that's the jist of it.
We have a society based upon individual wealth gained from Queen Victoria's economy. Yet we still limit trusts to 21 years. We limit something that can be individually benefital and commercial useful for decades to just 21 years (hint: it's difficult to leave something in trust to grand children). Trusts can be property, money etc - generally something of tangible benefit...
Now we have patent and copyright. These are not tangible assets. The maxims of equity have shaped hundreds of years of law, ever since the King left matters of natural justice to his Chancellor. We have, in all those years, maintained rules against perpetuity. Little more has shaped trust and equity than codification - statue limiting perpetuity to 21 years. No one has pushed for "big" changes for the simple reason: it's never been worth it, and the longer you wait, the chance a gift will become imperfect in nature and intent.
Now big business, for its own interest, is taking property beyond the mortal lifespan. Corporations now exist far longer than individuals; and most will remain in one form or another perpetually thanks to takeovers, mergers, acquisitions and globalisation.
Trust law would be in turmoil if we ourselves could become a company and evade rules again perpetuity by existing forever. Yet, this is exactly what companies are doing with performers' assets - they, through their commercial might, present something that only exists and benefits mankind for a limited period of time... for decades. Decades are turning into generations, and now corporate greed that views the consumer market place as a source of finite wealth grips this "property" as only to deny others from benefiting from it... or things like it.
If they want to control works of creation, and similar "properties", to truly orchestrate what we do, then the only equitable act is for us to trade and delight equally (Equity delights equally; One who seeks equity must do equity)...
In exchange for fewer freedoms, our loss of control, we should benefit sooner, rather than later. Otherwise pay me.
It amazes me how companies consistently seem to want to invade our private lives.
The creation of a company is nothing more than a legal identity granted by the will of government through statue. Companies gain reduced (often "no") individual liability for its workers.
(Admittedly the world is changing and legislation like the Companies Act in the UK has coded the quasi common law liability into something a little more structured - holding directors at risk)
but nonetheless, companies are given more protection and freedom from dealings than consumers dealing with other consumers because liberal trade relations are good for business.
in turn we ask for companies to play fair. We let them self regulate to the nth degree. Occasionally we let them have the benefit of the doubt. When they are too controlling or unfair we look to regulate - think of contracts and the Unfair Contract Terms (and Conditions) Act.
media cartels are now becoming too demanding on our personal and social life. the limited monopolies we offer them in copyright, contract and patent (the realm of so called 'ip laws' - a layman's grouping of the three. the term "ip law" does not exist in any definition of law) are encroaching and overreaching their limitations. IP is only an assurance mechanism for companies - an assurance of no competition. It is not a controlling method for the end user. In a free market the consumer picks the retailer and agrees with their terms; they should not be automatically subjected to cartel demands!
in the future we will see more restriction on the way companies operate and influence our private lives (private use of our assets!) and more oversight. Law is generally a 5 to 10 years behind the pace of technology - and the speed of adoption of technology is frightening!
i predict that sooner rather than later everyone will have a portable media device, and much like the phone, if we are too restricted on what we do with it, legislation will step and make our use permissible.
After all, we don't have to care about IP when IP is a concern for companies not our private lives.
Have a Happy Christmas Slashdot, I'm off to party:D
Your love of computing is clouding your judgement.
We have to look at India and China. They're becoming the world Math and Scientific elite. Employing an education system Britain abandoned 40 years ago in favour of modernising. Educations works.
How is this even remotely relevant? The good ol' British education system is the only thing that works? This is the real reason for India focusing on math and technology? (And China is different too. Why you didn't mention other countries... Japan? South Korea? US? France? I guess not all of these fit your nice little theory.) Because India and China adopted an education system, that since adopting, has lead them to become intellectual bulls in their own right. Japan, Korea etc didn't adopt the old British system. What I failed to mention is that the new British education system is failing at school level. It's no longer competitive with the old system. The US has been in this rut for a long time now; and it seems that many other modern, western countries are following suit. Technology seems to have a big influence. The number of undergrads I meet who can't explain very simple maths to me is distressing. The fact that almost every Chinese and Indian student I've had the pleasure of competing with over the last 5 years have beaten me and almost everyone I know in math exams is frightening.
What a developing country needs is better education and access to it, not technology to waste time. Access to a novel way of teaching novel ideas is nothing more than simply novel. They want pens and paper. Repetition and concise re-enforcement. Sponsorship is part the way there.
Do you know why the American Biotech industry is a little shaky recently? It's because after years of being behind America, India's Biotech industry is now pioneering new treatment and new drugs. Rather than copying and modifying they are now performing primary research - something unthinkable just ten years ago. China is developing a fantastic nuclear power program that we (well, Britain) can only dream of (we're still stuck with sulphur coolants - very dangerous).
What has worked before will work again.
Maybe there's a plateau every modern country eventually reaches. A time after we've accepted technology and forgotten simple maths in favour of the calculator... spelling in favour of the auto correct feature. I remember the initial claims that the web would solve all our problems, create a cyberspace where we could all get along on infinite freedom without restriction. Those idiots have finally shut up and realised that the internet and computing in general is just an abstraction over what we already have - it's not a new foundation: just presentation.
Someone said that computerised NHS records would do wonders over here. Funny I never agreed with them on that one either.
Anyway, I digress,
I met a school teacher who was paid irregularly. Often never. He was devoting *his* time and effort to teach kids about current affairs, maths and English; so that they could produce for their village. His wife was a teacher. His wife had died of TB a few years before I met him. A disease so preventable and something almost all of us receive free treatment for at school. While some might hesitate in supplying an individual with HIV drugs for their lives (pure economics alone dictate the reality of supporting everyone), how can we stand by and give laptops to kids when their parents are dying of something innocuable for less than the price of the cola you brought yesterday?
I'd like to see how you're going to help the meth addicts in the South African slums or the street kids killed by extra-judicial 'policing' in Honduras... with a computer.
Pick a cause that needs saving. One that's ascertainable.
On having been to Africa, I'm in complete agreement.
What a lot of people don't realise is that most African's are fairly happy, and fairly adapted to their way of life. A computer won't help kids. A computer only helps administrators, and typists.
One of the projects I did while in Zambia was to help renovate a school. African's would rather have more materials for their schools, working radios they can teach with, or more access to simple life saving treatment such as blood or TB vaccines.
A rural teacher who I met simply wanted bars in the windows (holes) of his Oxfam built school so kids wouldn't climb in a steal what little supplied he had. Paper and pens were far far more useful than computers.
We have to look at India and China. They're becoming the world Math and Scientific elite. Employing an education system Britain abandoned 40 years ago in favour of modernising. Educations works.
Even though I dislike most religions and the dangerous ideologies they breed, religion in many developing countries is a key focus point for community driven development - people like to pitch in where there is a support structure; but support structures need money! Even if it's just food to sustain some of the 80% unemployed in Zimbabwe so they don't take to looting, hostage taking or drugs.
There are better things to donate money to: such as anti-corruption schemes or Médecins Sans Frontières.
Take your pick, GO TO A DEVELOPING COUNTRY AND SPONSOR A VILLAGE FOR AS LITTLE AS £50/m, just don't get a piece of technology for a child who can't charge it.
I've noticed a slow decline in panorama's technological and socio-political programs (pretty much everything). Dispatches, and that program on unreported news on More4 (the name of which escapes me) are farbetter and less "pimped". It's not just mistakes I have a problem with, it's the tabloid attitude the show's taken to; frighteningly reminiscent of Fox News.
I love my BBC but when I have to step back and become objective, not because of the topic, but because of the way information is inappropriately portrayed, I'm a little sad inside.
I've done an undergraduate, masters and now i'm converting to another discipline, and this isn't new news to me.
One of the reasons most courses don't mark past 80% is that 80% is unattainable - the only way to attain it is to have a copy of the marking scheme. When a marking scheme only identifies the points necessary to make a "complete" answer, and not every possible answer (impractical) it is just as guilty as cheating in this respect.
This is why we have grade adjustment, or weighting. You adjust a score based on the "current level" - a weighting compared to peers. Should Half-life be reviewed now, it would score badly in graphics, animation and possibly sound. Game reviewers should look to creating a standardised weighting system that has regular reviews.
It's unfortunate because it seems no one cares. I'm a physics fan - I know enough to know when I'm being lied to. Movies like Die Hard 4 and Spider Man portray stupid physics, and people seem to let it go because they don't know enough to 'feel' something is wrong (I confess - DH4 was f*king stupid, but fun nonetheless)
I grew up reading Asimov and Clarke books. I also grew up reading "modern warfare" books too (E L Harry - Arc Light etc... not Clancy)... I grow up reading about the near future and far out future. Coupled with my geekism and house in the countryside with no one a similar age to me, it was natural to read, watch and learn - because there's nothing else to do!
A few years ago I dated a girl who I still hold a fantastic regard for - she was smart, successful, and beautiful. She grew up in a small town, with friends and a great family etc. We were both working at a bar together during the university summer - she studied Sociology, and I computer systems. I started talking to her about what I knew about sociology, relating it to personal needs (Manslow) and how regardless we have a brilliant scientific system where doubtful psychological methods are generally ignored; because we lack compelling proof. One thing lead to another and I introduced her to the Isaac Asimov series - Foundation.
Foundation started off as a short story for one of Asimov's earlier submissions. Later it because 2 or 3 fully fledged books. It goes a something a little like this - there exist advanced alien races who have incorporated psychology into society as we today use science. For them science is a mysterious tool that no one really understands. A danger. Eventually earth starts travelling the stars and they become scared of what we can do with 'science' - with our callous unpredictability.
I was given the compilation book back after a week. The short story was only 30 pages or so long. There was another Foundation short story towards the end. She "admitted" timidly to reading part of the story I introduced her to and not the rest. I don't believe it was for lack of time, but lack of enthusiasm. That was the first real introduction into modern education of my peers.
It seems people no one longer want to learn, want to grasp relevant theory or understand what they've been taught. People are now bullied by schools into memorising syllabus material without regard for what they're taught. Once they've done their "revision" they drift off into the txt messaging, and socializing abyss. Not for better want than to just experience a bit of fun before learning to pass the next exam.
No matter how beautiful my peers are, no matter how successful they are in their degrees; until I see people applying what they've learned I consider them an educational failure.
I take my education home with me everyday.:(
Of course, not everyone likes Asimov - so my entire rant could just be a moot point.
Far more efficient than fileman was - you could tag files and perform any operation on a tagged set at a later time.
Ran in DOS 5 all the way up to 6.2x... Until I started using drvspace/doublespace and had less need to delete parts of the OS I didnt use and apps I installed and didnt need (like WinG... and dashboard... and afterdark... and and and etc)
MC / NC are close, but still no cigar... they're not GOLD!
The capitalist model relies on there being tiers of society; and with each successive tier maximising the output of subsequent tiers. Broadly put into effect, we have a model - specially in the united states - where the capitalist interests are the substantiators (not a word) of law. Law being the rules that control the public, and method that ultimately mediates the presence of a tiered system.
The weird offshot of how this has panned out in the modern world is indifferent to what we might call "ideal". With the capability of almost unlimited travel in the modern age ("boarders haemorrhaging", we now have a system where the government no longer cares about the identity of its "multi-ethnic" citizens, it simply wants them to marry and become productive units (ahem, or 'members of society'). So where capitalism serves the interest of a nation of people, it is slowly eroding at the core and serving the nation in locality - this is directly attributable to the controlling interests of the law. (clue: big business!)
If we assume that independent success is located at the top of the capitalist pyramid model (and thus ignoring "wings of identity" given to celebrities and the like by the media - this is not a surviving success), we can also assume that those with a higher determination and informed ability (picking the right career, passing exams etc) have greater desire to and easier access to information.
My take of this whole capitalism thing is that we are naturally liberal through our the effect of our own humanity. The higher up the pyramid we get the more we realise the effect we have on others and thus the desire to do better. But this is only a desire. The higher up we traverse the pyramid, the more capitalist mechanisms ('assassinations', stock market crashes, share holders, mums) prevent use from being human (caring). So called 'Liberals' (humans) are thwarted by red tape and the autonomous desire of a capitalist entity (a business?) not to sacrifice profit - knowing that a competitor might take advantage?! We even have laws that prevent collusion between companies that might want to establish a working consensus about our future (granted these laws also stop them being greedy)
So, all in all, yay capitalism. It works. But at what price? As we mature and move to revoke controls that allow regime change (or 'regime reset'), we slowly begin to stagnate under our own rules of regime, rules of capitalism. The law needs to forget. The public needs to be empowered to create law.
The opposite of liberal? Self-serving? Self serving fits the capitalist model perfectly. I say that impressionable people are easily brainwashed in to believing the works of capitalist propagander - they do of course control the media.
I owe a lot of my weird thinking to "Learning Legal Rules" (Oxford University Press), that Zeitgeist movie (full of questionable bollocks, but still asks interesting questions about the exploitation of others) and an English documentary by Al'Jazeera about exploited workers building the gulf... Ooo not to mention the movie Syriana (its quite good!)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm missing g's and e's :(
As a proud LDD touting, LWN gazing, MSc wielding geek; the Solaris kernel is a heck of a lot better coded, structured and organised than the Linux kernel. But alas, it lacks the many new features that have truly driven linux over the last decade.
Naturally my opinions lie with the ease of code readability and ease of initial development - these are not the same as a lkml hardened pro
They employ sexy-code formatting monkeys. The solaris kernel is a hack of a lot simpler to understand than the Linux kernel - I hege this on my comparison of the sources a while back.
There is still no mighty IOKit killer on the horizon tho... Apple (and libkern, the cpp runtine) wins.
Matt
I loved Trigger, but that book was coauthored, and his successive coauthorships weren't quite as good, diminishing his name :(
I believe we need is fewer virtual ISPs leasing the BT network and actually laying their own lines down. IIRC, Telewest/NTL/Virgin/whatever had the exclusive contract to lay cables next to the the UK rail network. Lack of competition has lead to this - the only other alternative is to use BT's network; and even the "next generation" 21st Century Network - 21CN - we're going to rely on in the future is implemented and run by BT.
Wholesale costs won't fall until ISPs have unrated bandwidth themselves. Until that happens how can we have true competition?
We do, unfortunately I believe in the power of letters! As my problem is resolved, only I'm down the cost of calls/bank penalty, I'll try a letter first.
Article 82 - abuse of a dominant position.
A82 is directly enforceable in the national courts. VM has a dominant position in the UK broadband market - this is an automatic presumption in the cable market as their share is 100%, and, based on the structure of the UK backbone-network, a reasonable and fair assumption regarding broadband in general.
they are acting in a manor that can only be said to be taking unfair advantage of their position to the detriment of the broadband market in general - and they are doing this independently of us the consumer: ie: we get this crap and there is absolutely nothing we can do.
whilst having a dominant market share, and being in a monopolist position is _not_ illegal - abusing this position is. VM are starting a consumer/isp war that the consumers cannot win. they are abusing the technological development of the UK's broadband system by prejudicing our use in a way we cannot avoid. an utterly artificial creation.
as VM own the cable network, there is no cross elastic supply. the consumer is lacked into contracts which generally fall foul of elastic demand the moment they abuse their position. the good news is that no VM customer is bound to their unfair contracts that stifle the advancement of uk broadband - be it traffic shaping or whatnot.
vote with your wallets - sign up to another ISP!
I dont have a virgin phone service. A billing "discrepancy" from last year, an offer I bartered for, was fixed last month with Virgin claiming to shoulder the costs. What actually happened is they added the XL phone package to my discounted XL TV + XL Broadband offer. I have been a customer for 18 months, and I bartered for my previous deal of £41.50/pm only to have them add the Phone package without informing me, and charge me £70.
I rang to cancel and let them know I intended to move to sky and and was offered my old £41.50 offer at a no-contract rate of £49pm (I'm not sure where I'll be living in 3 months, so I can't get a contract). Problem fixed, or so I believe. The debt collection team phone me this morning to inform me my direct debit had bounced - and it would do if it was in excess of £50 as the account is for bills only, and is credited with a standing order for the appropriate amount each month.
It transpires (I guessed it instantly), that after billing me £70 and changing it back to the negotiated rate of £49, they discounted next months direct debit by £20, so that the net 2 month charge would be equal to my negotiated rate over 2 months.
But! That doesn't mean I can pay £70 in one month for a problem they have caused, because I subject to cash flow issues. To make things worst, I have been charged by my bank for the defaulting direct debit, wasted £15 on the phone last time I called, and £10 today.
Today was awful! I was called this morning by the debt collection team who would not let me pay £49 or change my direct debit, until I settled the £70 mistake, even tho it was obvious the real amount was £49 based on the remedied discount applied to the next bill. I'm forced to pay for their mistake!?! They told me there was nothing they could do, and that I had to phone them back and fixed the issue. I got through to India twice and was told the same thing, only that the team that called me was the team that dealt with it. In the end I gave up. I asked to be put through to the cancellation team.
The cancellation team were great. The credit was applied to this month, and my outstanding balance returned to what I should pay/can pay. I've praised VM in the past, and will continue to do so in the future - but only their cancellation team, as they're the only ones with the power to resolve your problems.
I am contemplating billing VM for the saga cost me £20 in phone calls (I have a mobile phone, and no one would phone me!), and the bounced direct debit penalty stemming from their inability to resolve the problem when I called them and they called me.
Matt
For the those unaware of the British University system, you need to automatically take a popularist study from a poly-technical University with plenty of salt.
Privacy, Art 8 and 10 aside, its actually very very illegal contractually. No doubt they will find a way of avoiding the contractual obligations through a shrink wrap, but there are issues here with the laws of confidence, the duty of care bestowed on the ISP etc. Not to mention cartel practice.
No no no no. This is BAD captialism. Stop. Think. Or I will sue.
It's a consumerist gimmick with no real substance other than that gained from marketing. For instance, I applied to a law firm last month simply because they had featured in an article about Second Life and how tradition brick and mortar companies are "expanding" into them. The attraction was purely consumerist spin - a marketing ploy like advertising on my space. The real substance behind the event was an actual brick and mortar law firm with real clients making them actual money.
I've come the the conclusion that Gartner are pop-analysts, since the more coverage of their predictions I see on Slashdot, the more the turn out to be fundamentally wrong but engaging to talk about nonetheless. Ignore Gartner. Embrace Wired Magazine predictions :)
Matt
Excuse me for being a bit sceptical, but the XBox 360 is doing fantastically well, they have a market and the right games for that market... New PCs are still being shipped with MS products and MS office is entrenched into modern information systems decision making.
You have to remember that MS can afford to fix faulty XBoxes, so it ultimately becomes a moot point.
All this on a very good quarter...
I think The Motley Fool just wants good slashdot traffic myself.
Argh,
On my home PC IE7, not only makes it crawl (even if it is a 2Gb dual core machine), but also breaks the Creative device explorer. Not to mention the that the poorly crafted render and input loop minces a WTS server with only a few simultaneous IE users - last month we reverted back to IE6 and saw a 100% performance increase!!
Matt
funnily enough may in an extreme case violate the EU free market laws, because, in order to sell in France, a foreign publisher is forced to a price threshold, which favours the internal market which grew up on it - the costs associated with establishing this threshold and imposing it upon publishers is nationalist not competitive
but i guess they're treating domestic and foreign books in the same way...
food for thought (and my EU lectures)
loltastic!
It's funny really. We have estates worth millions and possibly billions... In law (I am British), a trust must vest within 21 years. It's perhaps a little more complicated than that, but, that's the jist of it.
We have a society based upon individual wealth gained from Queen Victoria's economy. Yet we still limit trusts to 21 years. We limit something that can be individually benefital and commercial useful for decades to just 21 years (hint: it's difficult to leave something in trust to grand children). Trusts can be property, money etc - generally something of tangible benefit...
Now we have patent and copyright. These are not tangible assets. The maxims of equity have shaped hundreds of years of law, ever since the King left matters of natural justice to his Chancellor. We have, in all those years, maintained rules against perpetuity. Little more has shaped trust and equity than codification - statue limiting perpetuity to 21 years. No one has pushed for "big" changes for the simple reason: it's never been worth it, and the longer you wait, the chance a gift will become imperfect in nature and intent.
Now big business, for its own interest, is taking property beyond the mortal lifespan. Corporations now exist far longer than individuals; and most will remain in one form or another perpetually thanks to takeovers, mergers, acquisitions and globalisation.
Trust law would be in turmoil if we ourselves could become a company and evade rules again perpetuity by existing forever. Yet, this is exactly what companies are doing with performers' assets - they, through their commercial might, present something that only exists and benefits mankind for a limited period of time... for decades. Decades are turning into generations, and now corporate greed that views the consumer market place as a source of finite wealth grips this "property" as only to deny others from benefiting from it... or things like it.
If they want to control works of creation, and similar "properties", to truly orchestrate what we do, then the only equitable act is for us to trade and delight equally (Equity delights equally; One who seeks equity must do equity)...
In exchange for fewer freedoms, our loss of control, we should benefit sooner, rather than later. Otherwise pay me.
Matt
(its christmas day, time for a little rant!) :D
:D
It amazes me how companies consistently seem to want to invade our private lives.
The creation of a company is nothing more than a legal identity granted by the will of government through statue. Companies gain reduced (often "no") individual liability for its workers.
(Admittedly the world is changing and legislation like the Companies Act in the UK has coded the quasi common law liability into something a little more structured - holding directors at risk)
but nonetheless, companies are given more protection and freedom from dealings than consumers dealing with other consumers because liberal trade relations are good for business.
in turn we ask for companies to play fair. We let them self regulate to the nth degree. Occasionally we let them have the benefit of the doubt. When they are too controlling or unfair we look to regulate - think of contracts and the Unfair Contract Terms (and Conditions) Act.
media cartels are now becoming too demanding on our personal and social life. the limited monopolies we offer them in copyright, contract and patent (the realm of so called 'ip laws' - a layman's grouping of the three. the term "ip law" does not exist in any definition of law) are encroaching and overreaching their limitations. IP is only an assurance mechanism for companies - an assurance of no competition. It is not a controlling method for the end user. In a free market the consumer picks the retailer and agrees with their terms; they should not be automatically subjected to cartel demands!
in the future we will see more restriction on the way companies operate and influence our private lives (private use of our assets!) and more oversight. Law is generally a 5 to 10 years behind the pace of technology - and the speed of adoption of technology is frightening!
i predict that sooner rather than later everyone will have a portable media device, and much like the phone, if we are too restricted on what we do with it, legislation will step and make our use permissible.
After all, we don't have to care about IP when IP is a concern for companies not our private lives.
Have a Happy Christmas Slashdot, I'm off to party
Matt
What a developing country needs is better education and access to it, not technology to waste time. Access to a novel way of teaching novel ideas is nothing more than simply novel. They want pens and paper. Repetition and concise re-enforcement. Sponsorship is part the way there.
Do you know why the American Biotech industry is a little shaky recently? It's because after years of being behind America, India's Biotech industry is now pioneering new treatment and new drugs. Rather than copying and modifying they are now performing primary research - something unthinkable just ten years ago. China is developing a fantastic nuclear power program that we (well, Britain) can only dream of (we're still stuck with sulphur coolants - very dangerous).
What has worked before will work again.
Maybe there's a plateau every modern country eventually reaches. A time after we've accepted technology and forgotten simple maths in favour of the calculator... spelling in favour of the auto correct feature. I remember the initial claims that the web would solve all our problems, create a cyberspace where we could all get along on infinite freedom without restriction. Those idiots have finally shut up and realised that the internet and computing in general is just an abstraction over what we already have - it's not a new foundation: just presentation.
Someone said that computerised NHS records would do wonders over here. Funny I never agreed with them on that one either.
Anyway, I digress,
I met a school teacher who was paid irregularly. Often never. He was devoting *his* time and effort to teach kids about current affairs, maths and English; so that they could produce for their village. His wife was a teacher. His wife had died of TB a few years before I met him. A disease so preventable and something almost all of us receive free treatment for at school. While some might hesitate in supplying an individual with HIV drugs for their lives (pure economics alone dictate the reality of supporting everyone), how can we stand by and give laptops to kids when their parents are dying of something innocuable for less than the price of the cola you brought yesterday?
I'd like to see how you're going to help the meth addicts in the South African slums or the street kids killed by extra-judicial 'policing' in Honduras... with a computer.
Pick a cause that needs saving. One that's ascertainable.
Matt
On having been to Africa, I'm in complete agreement.
What a lot of people don't realise is that most African's are fairly happy, and fairly adapted to their way of life. A computer won't help kids. A computer only helps administrators, and typists.
One of the projects I did while in Zambia was to help renovate a school. African's would rather have more materials for their schools, working radios they can teach with, or more access to simple life saving treatment such as blood or TB vaccines.
A rural teacher who I met simply wanted bars in the windows (holes) of his Oxfam built school so kids wouldn't climb in a steal what little supplied he had. Paper and pens were far far more useful than computers.
We have to look at India and China. They're becoming the world Math and Scientific elite. Employing an education system Britain abandoned 40 years ago in favour of modernising. Educations works.
Even though I dislike most religions and the dangerous ideologies they breed, religion in many developing countries is a key focus point for community driven development - people like to pitch in where there is a support structure; but support structures need money! Even if it's just food to sustain some of the 80% unemployed in Zimbabwe so they don't take to looting, hostage taking or drugs.
There are better things to donate money to: such as anti-corruption schemes or Médecins Sans Frontières.
Take your pick, GO TO A DEVELOPING COUNTRY AND SPONSOR A VILLAGE FOR AS LITTLE AS £50/m, just don't get a piece of technology for a child who can't charge it.
Matt
I've noticed a slow decline in panorama's technological and socio-political programs (pretty much everything). Dispatches, and that program on unreported news on More4 (the name of which escapes me) are farbetter and less "pimped". It's not just mistakes I have a problem with, it's the tabloid attitude the show's taken to; frighteningly reminiscent of Fox News.
I love my BBC but when I have to step back and become objective, not because of the topic, but because of the way information is inappropriately portrayed, I'm a little sad inside.
Matt
I've done an undergraduate, masters and now i'm converting to another discipline, and this isn't new news to me.
One of the reasons most courses don't mark past 80% is that 80% is unattainable - the only way to attain it is to have a copy of the marking scheme. When a marking scheme only identifies the points necessary to make a "complete" answer, and not every possible answer (impractical) it is just as guilty as cheating in this respect.
This is why we have grade adjustment, or weighting. You adjust a score based on the "current level" - a weighting compared to peers. Should Half-life be reviewed now, it would score badly in graphics, animation and possibly sound. Game reviewers should look to creating a standardised weighting system that has regular reviews.
Matt
It's unfortunate because it seems no one cares. I'm a physics fan - I know enough to know when I'm being lied to. Movies like Die Hard 4 and Spider Man portray stupid physics, and people seem to let it go because they don't know enough to 'feel' something is wrong (I confess - DH4 was f*king stupid, but fun nonetheless)
:(
I grew up reading Asimov and Clarke books. I also grew up reading "modern warfare" books too (E L Harry - Arc Light etc... not Clancy)... I grow up reading about the near future and far out future. Coupled with my geekism and house in the countryside with no one a similar age to me, it was natural to read, watch and learn - because there's nothing else to do!
A few years ago I dated a girl who I still hold a fantastic regard for - she was smart, successful, and beautiful. She grew up in a small town, with friends and a great family etc. We were both working at a bar together during the university summer - she studied Sociology, and I computer systems. I started talking to her about what I knew about sociology, relating it to personal needs (Manslow) and how regardless we have a brilliant scientific system where doubtful psychological methods are generally ignored; because we lack compelling proof. One thing lead to another and I introduced her to the Isaac Asimov series - Foundation.
Foundation started off as a short story for one of Asimov's earlier submissions. Later it because 2 or 3 fully fledged books. It goes a something a little like this - there exist advanced alien races who have incorporated psychology into society as we today use science. For them science is a mysterious tool that no one really understands. A danger. Eventually earth starts travelling the stars and they become scared of what we can do with 'science' - with our callous unpredictability.
I was given the compilation book back after a week. The short story was only 30 pages or so long. There was another Foundation short story towards the end. She "admitted" timidly to reading part of the story I introduced her to and not the rest. I don't believe it was for lack of time, but lack of enthusiasm. That was the first real introduction into modern education of my peers.
It seems people no one longer want to learn, want to grasp relevant theory or understand what they've been taught. People are now bullied by schools into memorising syllabus material without regard for what they're taught. Once they've done their "revision" they drift off into the txt messaging, and socializing abyss. Not for better want than to just experience a bit of fun before learning to pass the next exam.
No matter how beautiful my peers are, no matter how successful they are in their degrees; until I see people applying what they've learned I consider them an educational failure.
I take my education home with me everyday.
Of course, not everyone likes Asimov - so my entire rant could just be a moot point.
Matt
http://www.xtreefanpage.org/x63clone.htm :D
Matt
Far more efficient than fileman was - you could tag files and perform any operation on a tagged set at a later time.
Ran in DOS 5 all the way up to 6.2x... Until I started using drvspace/doublespace and had less need to delete parts of the OS I didnt use and apps I installed and didnt need (like WinG... and dashboard... and afterdark... and and and etc)
MC / NC are close, but still no cigar... they're not GOLD!
Matt
(ftr, I love capitalism... it works. I'm happy!)
The capitalist model relies on there being tiers of society; and with each successive tier maximising the output of subsequent tiers. Broadly put into effect, we have a model - specially in the united states - where the capitalist interests are the substantiators (not a word) of law. Law being the rules that control the public, and method that ultimately mediates the presence of a tiered system.
The weird offshot of how this has panned out in the modern world is indifferent to what we might call "ideal". With the capability of almost unlimited travel in the modern age ("boarders haemorrhaging", we now have a system where the government no longer cares about the identity of its "multi-ethnic" citizens, it simply wants them to marry and become productive units (ahem, or 'members of society'). So where capitalism serves the interest of a nation of people, it is slowly eroding at the core and serving the nation in locality - this is directly attributable to the controlling interests of the law. (clue: big business!)
If we assume that independent success is located at the top of the capitalist pyramid model (and thus ignoring "wings of identity" given to celebrities and the like by the media - this is not a surviving success), we can also assume that those with a higher determination and informed ability (picking the right career, passing exams etc) have greater desire to and easier access to information.
My take of this whole capitalism thing is that we are naturally liberal through our the effect of our own humanity. The higher up the pyramid we get the more we realise the effect we have on others and thus the desire to do better. But this is only a desire. The higher up we traverse the pyramid, the more capitalist mechanisms ('assassinations', stock market crashes, share holders, mums) prevent use from being human (caring). So called 'Liberals' (humans) are thwarted by red tape and the autonomous desire of a capitalist entity (a business?) not to sacrifice profit - knowing that a competitor might take advantage?! We even have laws that prevent collusion between companies that might want to establish a working consensus about our future (granted these laws also stop them being greedy)
So, all in all, yay capitalism. It works. But at what price? As we mature and move to revoke controls that allow regime change (or 'regime reset'), we slowly begin to stagnate under our own rules of regime, rules of capitalism. The law needs to forget. The public needs to be empowered to create law.
The opposite of liberal? Self-serving? Self serving fits the capitalist model perfectly. I say that impressionable people are easily brainwashed in to believing the works of capitalist propagander - they do of course control the media.
I owe a lot of my weird thinking to "Learning Legal Rules" (Oxford University Press), that Zeitgeist movie (full of questionable
bollocks, but still asks interesting questions about the exploitation of others) and an English documentary by Al'Jazeera about exploited workers building the gulf... Ooo not to mention the movie Syriana (its quite good!)
Matt