Special Relativity didn't supersede Newton's laws of motion.
They superseded the classical viewpoint that momentum was speed times a constant mass, but to his credit, Newton never made this claim. His students did. In modern form, F=dp/dt still works under SR.
They also superseded the Galilean transformations by the Lorenz transformations, but that was Galileo's problem, not Newton's.
I'm being picky because I think Newton gets a bad rap and doesn't deserve it for the laws of motion. They're still good. On the other hand, GR certainly does supersede Newton's law of gravity, and in that case the criticism is valid.
A few years ago, I saw the late Douglas Adams give the keynote address at Siggraph. He was just designing Starship Titanic at the time. He said one thing that has stuck with me: "Use your limitations, before they are denied you." By that I think he meant that computing power and graphics cards would advance to the point where it would become tempting to rely on flash and adrenaline for the success of a game and neglect thought.
I think that time has come. There is a dreadful sameness to the games that are being produced today. Consider Alice. The art and texture are marvelous, as is the potential of the idea: the internal world of a madwoman. Yet the play reduces to running around and shooting, with a few Donkey Kong skills thrown in. All the big tasks consist of defeating bosses, a la Duke Nukem. A good play, no doubt, but it could have been so much more.
On the other hand, consider Deus Ex. The reasonably modern first-person graphics are very good, but it also weaves in RPG elements, interaction with characters, and a multipath plot.
Are older game designers extinct dinosaurs, useless in an age where form is king? Or are they, instead, people who remember when flashy graphics were not enough to ensure satisfactory Christmas sales? Are they, in fact, the descendents of dinosaurs: soaring birds?
I hope to see computer games emerge from the current state, which is like movies in 1910, and come into their own as a real art form. To do this, I think that we need art that does more than show off the technology. I think that the skills of the pioneers are still needed.
The responsible and ethical thing to do would be to say "Thanks so much, but
giving children laptops is not a productive use of $2k or so per student."
There are only two problems with this:
People don't think like this, with the exception of the sort who have always wanted the space program to be abandoned and the proceeds converted to food
It's a good thing they don't, because if they did, nobody would ever be inspired
Superficially, I would agree with all of the arguments. I don't think that throwing computers into schools, per se, helps education. I think it's dangerous to throw computers at poor schools, because it just makes them a target for thieves. In many instances, putting computers into schools is in effect a drain on resources for upkeep.
However, I also feel that education, in the traditional sense of that which is taught by universities as education, is not the only purpose of a school. It may even be the least important, or even counterproductive to teaching.
When I think back to my public schooling, the moments that stand out, that made me what I am today, have little or nothing to do with plodding, rote learning. I suppose I needed to learn those things, but frankly, I've learned more about history, languages, anthropology, mathematics, science, etc. through means other than primary and secondary education. Teachers need to do these things to have something to do, but the real value of teaching has nothing to do with learning but everything to do with inspiring the desire to learn. This happens not in the daily grind, but in the rare moments that work outside of the mold.
I shudder to think what would happen if every education program were to operate under maximum efficiency and best utilization of money all the time. The last thing we need are more efficiently produced drones. Education is too stultifyingly efficient as it is.
A program like this, which targets every student within a certain age range, provides a mythology, if you will, which goes like this: "Your whole life, you will be told by people that your only destiny is to become a logger or a fisherman or eke out a living in a meagre tourist trade. This is different. It is part of a world away from chain saws and the smell of rotting fish. Maybe it will inspire you to do something. Maybe not. It's up to you."
Essential to this strategy is that everyone gets one. The message is that Maine is not going to tell you you're ineligible based on where you live or how much money you have or what kind of special program you can get into. Is this efficient? Of course not. Most of the computers will go to waste. This does not matter. As Sturgeon's law says, 95% of anything is crud. 95% of all people are going to do nothing but be wage slaves no matter what you do, but it's the 5% that go out and change the world.
So, people don't write non-Sorenson codecs for QuickTime under Linux because they wouldn't be as good as Sorenson. Of course, they do write non-Sorenson codecs all the time, just not for QuickTime under Linux.
So QuickTime is bad because it can use the Sorenson codec which is better than the codecs you can use with or without QuickTime. Writing a codec without QuickTime is good, but writing a coded with QuickTime is bad, because QuickTime is bad. So if you write a codec, make sure to write it without QuickTime, because otherwise you'd be bad. Of course, you don't get any advantages from QuickTime, but that's a small price to pay for purity. Also, because you don't use QuickTime, then that means it doesn't exist for Linux.
Of course, the "you" in the preceding paragraph does not mean you personally. I'm also not questioning your description of the logic; it's just a kind of logic I don't see often outside the White House and old Beavis and Butthead reruns.
It really is not Apple's fault that Linux developers have payed so little attention to developing Linux based
solutions for Apple formats.
If the quality of responses here is representative of the Linux/Open Source community at large, and I hope it is not, then it would seem that they can't even comprehend what QuickTime is.
QuickTime is not a movie format, at least in the sense that a LOTR trailer is a movie. It is not a codec. It is not an application with a window. It is an architecture and a set of organizing principles to tie time-dependent data together that negotiates amongst an essentially unlimited number of codecs and data formats.
Now, it just so happens that one common use of QuickTime is LOTR trailers. It also just so happens that a lot of people use the Sorenson codec. It also just so happens that there's a somewhat ugly piece of software called the QuickTime Player 4 (but the previous version still works and is nicer). However, that doesn't define what QuickTime is. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the name QuickTime is used in conjunction with other words. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the word used in QuickTime is "movie," even though Apple goes to great lengths to explain that it is not necessarily a literal movie of image frames. Honestly, though, I would expect a community of hackers to be able to look under the hood.
For the people talking about MPEG4, well, it does begin to approach this level of universality, but that's because it is based on Quicktime, with Apple contributing heavily to the standard! MPEG4 is, to all extents and purposes, a new version of QuickTime with some codecs included.
There is nothing to stop you, me, or any Open Source developer from using the QuickTime architecture and file format to do anything from a movie player to controlling the geometry in a 3rd-person shooter to keeping track of thunderstorm data. However, in order to do that, it is necessary to appreciate the value of an overarching architecture rather than a tool to do a thing in a file format.
I wonder if this lack of what must be called "vision" is emblematic of Open Source. I certaintly hope it is not. However, it would be consistent with some of the problems with making a desktop acceptable to the consumer.
One doesn't need to integrate software to the point of stupidity as does Microsoft. However, to achieve synchronicity in a system of pieces, it is even more important to have architectures and organizing principles on the order of QuickTime.
I can produce an image file on the Macintosh and write drivers for QuickTime and be sure that any reasonably well written image-processing program on the Macintosh will be able to use it automatically without my having to do anything else, and that's just the beginning. Doesn't anyone think this kind of capability would be useful on an open operating system?
I've done some of this. It's really hard to make code so tight that you get better than a 5% speed improvement.
There is some value, however, when doing intricate floating-point code, especially when you can get control over the rounding conventions. It's also good for encryption code.
Don't listen to the people who tell you that this is a waste of time, or that you need someone to fab it, or whatever. Do it for fun. People who do these things for fun get smarter and make more money. They also have more fun. Don't worry about whether it's practical.
First, find a magazine store that sells Poptronics. This represents the last journal of a dying electronic hobbyist culture. Even if you don't get too many specific ideas, it will make you feel good.
For parts, there's Digikey. Also, many manufacturers will give you free engineering samples. Motorola is particularly good for this; they sent me for free the parts for my 7th grade science fair project just for my writing a letter to them. Also, don't discount Radio Shack. The selection is limited, but occasionally they have just the right thing.
Just for ideas, here is a list of cool things that I've built:
A phaser, or at least a model thereof that made the noises. This, of course, required considerable machining and plastics work as well.
A dedicated tic-tac-toe machine
A dedicated pico-foami machine
Alternate electronics for the Mattel Power Glove to get high resolution output
Robots, the old standby. (My first broken bone resulted from my dropping one on my toe.)
Some simple non-computer video games (There's a purity in weaving the game logic into the video circuitry that you just don't get by writing a program)
A "printer" for a programmable calculator that took signals from the LED display and used it to move solenoids on an electric typewriter.
Alarms and detectors for home security
Lots of various helper devices such as light controllers, joystick controllers, button boxes, etc.
(This omits the purely analog devices and digital devices built with neon bulbs, which is all I could afford at one time.)
Here's a list of cool things I never got around to building:
A model rocket telemetry setup
An electronic pill box, using LED's to show which pills needed to be taken
A "301" dart calculator
A dedicated RPG game
Alas, after I achieved "respectable" adulthood and computers seemed an easier way to do most things, I've gradually kind of gotten away from tinkering. However, I'm glad I did it once. You'll be glad, too.
Copyrights and patents do not have to be defended (remember gif, mp3, etc?). It's a good idea to defend
them along with patents, or else you can lose out big time (Frauenhoffer and mp3).
That's a bit like saying "you do not have to breath, but it's a good idea, otherwise you'll suffocate."
Personally, I wish new versions of Apple's OS were free, like they used to be, but $120 is certainly not exhorbitant, especially considering that it isn't crippled as a "home" version.
The only difference is that there is clarifying legislation about trademarks, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Since when has obligation in civil matters been limited to the letter of the law? If it were, half of the threads to Slashdot wouldn't be here.
Really, Apple had to do this. It was also legitimate. The cease-and-desist letter was so polite by the standards of lawyers that it's hard to imagine a lawyer drafting it.
Personally, I wish new Mac OS versions were free, as they were in the early days. However, $120 is certainly not exhorbitant, especially for an OS that isn't crippled as a "home" version.
I've always been a fan of usability. I kept a copy of Psychology of Everyday Things on my bedside table. However, I've noticed some unpleasant patterns over the past couple of decades:
The Macintosh was way more usable than DOS. People got DOS and called the Macintosh a toy. The Macintosh is still at least marginally more usable than Windows. People get Windows. Apple is on the ropes instead of dead because of design decisions a few years back that had everything to do with flash and style and nothing to do with usability.
The Amiga, especially with Video Toaster, was a fantastically usable machine. You can't get one any more.
The Palm is wonderfully usable, focused and appropriately designed. CE devices are clunkier but kewler. Palm is on the ropes.
Three years ago, someone tried to sell a VCR recording device with a clock dial. Nobody bought it, including Alan Cooper, who at the same time wrote a book griping about how he couldn't buy one.
If you have a telephone at work, you know that just about every button works in a different, idiosyncratic way. Somebody bought that phone and didn't buy a phone with a better design.
Go look at the new washers and driers, the expensive ones that people buy as status symbols. Show me one that is as easy to use as the old ones with dials that you turn and pull.
Count the number of doors that need to have a user manual on them, even if it just says "Pull." Watch how many people struggle for a couple of seconds or even run into them because the design is not obvious. Somebody bought those doors and didn't buy others.
Submit two software designs. One has a whole bunch of buttons, easily translatable into bullet charts. The other has a unifying concept that makes the complexity unneccessary. See which one impresses the purchaser more.
Alas, all the evidence is that, even if usability is on the list of criteria for purchasing (which it seldom is at all), it is way low on the list. It may even be a de facto negative.
Vincent Flanders asserts that web pages are different: that if people don't like it, they're gone. Well, maybe, but is there any evidence that usable commercial web pages sell better than less usable ones? Has anyone done a study? I thought the value of usability in commercial products was self-evident, too, until the evidence built up that I was flat-out wrong.
How Soon They Forget!
on
Electronic Abacus
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The operation was counter-intuitive; to alphabetize a 20 letter name field, you'd start by sorting into 26 bins on the _last_
(rightmost) letter, stack them up and sort on the next letter (which left cards differing only in the last letter in order), and
repeat for 20 times through.
This is the radix sort, which all hackers should learn while teething. When you apply certain rules that ensure that only columns that might be significant are compared, it is an extremely efficient sorting algorithm.
Worst-case, the complexity is O(l n), where l is the length of the longest string and n is the number of strings. With completely random data, l is effectively log n, so overall it goes to O(n log n). The extra rules substantially reduce the effect of lack of randomness in strings, so it's likely that the algorithm will almost always run in O(n log n)
Compare to a merge sort, which is O(n log n) worst-case, the best you can get, but that assumes that the comparison step is constant. With a string, worst-case comparison is O(l), resulting in overall performance of O(l n log n) or, with random data, O(n log^2 n). QuickSort is even worse, with a worst-case performance of O(n^2 log n), though still an average performance like the merge sort. (Too bad I can't use superscript on this board.)
Thinking about XML as equivalent to S-expressions buys you nothing, unless, of course, you count about three decades of extensive experience and solid, mathematically-proved algorithms that do way more than one could imagine, all of which exist.
If, of course, one is simply interested in declaring that XML is a Hot New Revolutionary Concept and things like LISP are Dead Languages, none of this is important.
I started programming the Macintosh in 1985, when the first native compilers started to become available. At that time, programming was difficult. There was the 3-ring binder version of Inside Macintosh, which cost $150, and that's about it. (Three of us chipped in on one copy). There were also a lot of gotchas.
To help the community, I started the Macintosh One-Liners, which eventually became two lists: one for programmers, and one for users. Each one-liner was 79 characters of text or fewer. The idea was to have a short list to read, so that people could diagnose or avoid the most common problems quickly.
When I got Usenet access, I started sending these out every couple of weeks. I encouraged people to contribute one-liners of their own. I edited these to size and included them in the list. At the end, I included my name and the names of all contributors in the order they got involved. I did not put a copyright notice on the document.
This list recieved some attention. It was published in the second volume of the now-defunct THINKin' CAP magazine. Someone at Apple wrote me that he had a copy on his wall, and it was the first thing he pointed people to when they had questions. I wrote extended explanations of each one-liner for the first USENET Macintosh Programming Guide. I maintained the list for quite a few years. I felt good about being a part of a community which I felt, at the time, was cooperative and mutually beneficial. It was one of the things I felt good about when the rest of the world looked bleak.
In the mid-1990's, I found myself doing less and less Macintosh programming, and fewer people were contributing one-liners, so the list didn't change much, but it was always available by anonymous FTP.
After a year or two, I saw a new USENET Macintosh Programming Guide. I looked for the one-liners, and sure enough, they were there. I read to the end, and my name had been removed, as well as the names of the other contributors. Instead, a list of other names had been placed there, headed by the guy who had sent the contribution to the editor.
I wrote the editor of the new Guide and asked him to put our names back. He refused. I sent all the information about prior publication. He still refused. I even offered to send him a copy of the magazine. He wasn't interested. There was nothing I could do about it, because I had never included a copyright.
Now, I had never wanted to make any money off of this list. I didn't restrict distribution in any way. I didn't make any money off the publication. All I wanted was to be a recognized, contributing member of a cooperative community.
To take somebody's name off their work, however, is a gross insult (to put it mildly). It is a betrayal and a slap in the face. It depressed me about the whole community of developers thing, and even to this day, it still burns me. I deliberately forgot the name of the asswipe who did this (he claimed that another asswipe was involved, too), to avoid unneccessary cleaning bills should I ever meet him. Now, all my memories are tainted with this gross insult.
I learned my lesson, though. The same community of people that insists that copyrights are bad and oppressive to the masses contains plenty of pigfuckers who think nothing of appropriating credit for work. I'm sure that there are plenty who wouldn't do such a thing, but there are not enough to keep the bad apples from doing this and getting away with it. Memories are short, and people are apathetic. As a result, nobody remembers, and nobody cares.
John Carmack probably isn't going to go hungry, and RMS isn't going to be forgotten, but what about the little folks, the folks who could some day do the next great thing if they don't get kicked in the huevos? Some of the abuses of copyright law are awful, but without copyright and freelance lawyers, they are simply screwed.
I think free software is a nice idea, and I hate the Microsoft EULA, but this experience changed me. I spent much of the 1990's working on an academic salary (genteel poverty, for those who have been there), producing software that I persuaded the University to give away free (including source). Now, I'm a changed man. I make lots of money writing proprietary software. Ja, dot's right. I'm a traitor.
Every once in a while I try to work on a free software project, a cross-platform cinematic adventure game editor and environment. Every time I try, a niggling voice in my head tells me that the community doesn't deserve it. From my paraphrase of Nietzsche: "To some people you should not offer your hand, but rather your fist, and it would be better if you were wearing brass knuckles."
People who want a free world and free goodies, who think copyright law is one-sided, start with the face in the mirror! Then do something about your peers. Attempt to learn a modicum of respect for someone's work. Nobody noticed that my name had been removed and brought it to my attention, let alone protested the act. I have no evidence that people are any better today.
I remember the days of the Tienenman Square massacre. I worked in an international scientific research institute at the time. Some of the people who worked with me were Chinese and spent a lot of time FAXing pictures of the massacre to their friends in China. People in China, of course, couldn't get press.
I've been hearing a lot of pretty outraged people griping about us western imperialist pigs and how we want to force things like democracy down other countries' throats. It's bothered me for a long time. However, I've heard so much of it that I no longer care.
You think other countries have the right to live in the Middle Ages? Fine. But independence means accountability. I don't want to hear a bunch of boo-hoo-hooing the next time a bunch of them kill each other or die of famine.
I think you're right. I think, however, that the presumptions (it hasn't harmed me personally; if you don't like it you must be jealous) reflect a short-term view of personal gratification.
While there is nothing wrong with this, it does not reflect the values of everyone. I did not originally get into computers to make a quick buck or simply to have fun. I got into them because I genuinely believed in the potential of computers to improve human life. There are, after all, many easier ways of making a buck, and there are plenty of ways of having fun that increase sexual status better than computers.
One aspect that I think is essential to maintain this potential is "genetic" diversity in the software business. This diversity has definitely been reduced, usually needlessly, by the practices of Microsoft.
In a way, it's a bit like the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest. One could say that it doesn't harm me, because I don't own any rain forest, and I won't lose any pets due to the elimination of species. In another way, it harms us all, because it makes the world a poorer place.
There is no way of knowing what might have come from an inventor who decided not to bother because they decided they couldn't compete with Microsoft, just as there's no way of knowing the possible direct benefits of a species that was wiped out before it was discovered, let alone studied.
One can also look at what is known to have been destroyed. There used to be a spirit of craftsmanship in software, according to which developers attempted to eliminate or prevent bugs as much as possible. Microsoft has been a primary force in encouraging an ethic whereby it is acceptable to consider whether or not to fix a bug in terms of ROI. This used only to be true of features, not bugs. I think that the industry has suffered because of this ethic.
Stallman's model seems to fit into the academic model of 10 to 15 years ago. It may not be the same as how academia works today, but I don't think it's terribly un-American. A lot of the recent success of America consists of the sequellae of the Land Grant colleges after World War II and the increased public funding for education that followed Sputnik.
Unless you're dealing with double-sided discs like DVD, the aluminum is deposited on top of the polycarbonate disc. I suppose the resin they spray on top of that to provide some nominal protection might technically be called "plastic," but it's really more like paint.
Most people don't realize that the label side is the fragile side.
Check out The Dreams our Stuff is Made Of by Theodore Sturgeon. It's a recent review of how SF has or may have influenced the world. It would be a good starting point for a central thesis.
I used to work for the Computing Center at Florida State University. The budget that the University gave us was $1 million per year, far less than the cost of providing computing services to the University. We were specifically expected to make up the remaining $6 or $7 million by providing services to people outside the University for money.
After that, I spent 13 years as a research scientist with the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute at FSU. At the end, as s senior scientist, I made 2/5 the money I am making now in industry. Academia is a life of genteel poverty. We were constantly scrambling for grants. We paid for our floor of the building, and for the first few years all the "public" University gave us was power and air-conditioning. Several years in, one University president decided to pay for 14 faculty positions (including mine) out of about 100. The next president wanted those positions back. The Institite eventually self-destructed for this reason (which is why I'm now in industry and glad of the change). Nevertheless, I released SciAn, a visualization package, as open source.
There are two periods in University history: Before Gatorade and After Gatorade. Gatorade, of course, was developed at the University of Florida. The University got not a dime from it. A lot of people decided that this shouldn't happen in the future.
In principle, I would agree with the idea that public institutions should release everything free, but the same people who want free goodies also piss and moan every time April 15 comes around and whenever there's a tuition increase. Until this changes, so-called "public" institutions are not going to be primarily publically funded.
If you want truly public institutions, then, people, you have to pay for them. There's no infinite teat o' money.
It's true on both trademarks and copyrights. It may have been a bit before your time, but Tolkien actually lost the copyright to LOTR in the U.S. because Ace stole it and published it, and Tolkien didn't pursue them vigorously enough. Tolkien had to make substantial changes to LOTR in order to get a copyright in the U.S.
Also, the first season and a half of Star Trek, under the Desilu distribution, was public domain, because it wasn't released with a copyright notice. Of course, Paramount has claimed copyright on all the re-releases and new prints, but if you can find an old print, you can do what you like with it. Ironically, this helped computer gaming, as all those Star Trek games were legal.
American copyright has been somewhat better since we signed the Berne convention. For instance, you now don't lose copyright if you fail to provide a notice, just the ability to sue for damages. But still, after the dismissal of Apple's suit of Microsoft (as well as Xerox' suit of Apple), not on the grounds that they were stupid but because they hadn't brought them earlier and vigorously enough, people are understandably cautious.
If you don't go after copyright violators, you can lose your copyright.
I know that hindsight is 20-20, but it would have been much smarter not to have gotten in touch with the company. In that case, the company might have been able to overlook the violation. As it is now, they cannot without legal risk.
The Supreme Court has long held that producing a parody or satire of a work does not violate the copyright.
Someone modified the images and sounds in Juri Munki's "Heart Quest" to make an affectionate parody called "Jerry's Guitars," which has Jerry Garcia trying to catch guitars instead of a butterfly trying to catch hearts. This would probably not be seen by the courts as an infringement, either on Munki or the estate of Jerry Garcia.
I wonder if something like this could be argued as a parody. One would have to put some humor into the translations. However, since none of the actual original work is used (the files would be patches to the original work), I don't think a copyright claim could be used in court.
As for reverse engineering, well, translating the strings in resources file hardly qualifies as reverse engineering. If the strings are in the actual code, then that might apply. Of course, Win32 resources are nowhere near as sophisticated and open as Mac resources, so this may be a gray area.
When Apple released the Macintosh in 1984, the system was heavily based on the use of resources (it still is). Apple's User Interface Guidelines pushed keeping all strings in resources to make it easier for third parties to localize the software.
Reading these at the time, I didn't experience any cognitive dissonance. I thought that, surely, nobody could object to a third-party's deliberately increasing one's market share, for free. I imagined that EULAs of the future would specify that anyone who made such modifications should submit them for approval by the original author.
Slashdot Mirror
Special Relativity didn't supersede Newton's laws of motion.
They superseded the classical viewpoint that momentum was speed times a constant mass, but to his credit, Newton never made this claim. His students did. In modern form, F=dp/dt still works under SR.
They also superseded the Galilean transformations by the Lorenz transformations, but that was Galileo's problem, not Newton's.
I'm being picky because I think Newton gets a bad rap and doesn't deserve it for the laws of motion. They're still good. On the other hand, GR certainly does supersede Newton's law of gravity, and in that case the criticism is valid.
A few years ago, I saw the late Douglas Adams give the keynote address at Siggraph. He was just designing Starship Titanic at the time. He said one thing that has stuck with me: "Use your limitations, before they are denied you." By that I think he meant that computing power and graphics cards would advance to the point where it would become tempting to rely on flash and adrenaline for the success of a game and neglect thought.
I think that time has come. There is a dreadful sameness to the games that are being produced today. Consider Alice. The art and texture are marvelous, as is the potential of the idea: the internal world of a madwoman. Yet the play reduces to running around and shooting, with a few Donkey Kong skills thrown in. All the big tasks consist of defeating bosses, a la Duke Nukem. A good play, no doubt, but it could have been so much more.
On the other hand, consider Deus Ex. The reasonably modern first-person graphics are very good, but it also weaves in RPG elements, interaction with characters, and a multipath plot.
Are older game designers extinct dinosaurs, useless in an age where form is king? Or are they, instead, people who remember when flashy graphics were not enough to ensure satisfactory Christmas sales? Are they, in fact, the descendents of dinosaurs: soaring birds?
I hope to see computer games emerge from the current state, which is like movies in 1910, and come into their own as a real art form. To do this, I think that we need art that does more than show off the technology. I think that the skills of the pioneers are still needed.
The responsible and ethical thing to do would be to say "Thanks so much, but giving children laptops is not a productive use of $2k or so per student."
There are only two problems with this:
Superficially, I would agree with all of the arguments. I don't think that throwing computers into schools, per se, helps education. I think it's dangerous to throw computers at poor schools, because it just makes them a target for thieves. In many instances, putting computers into schools is in effect a drain on resources for upkeep.
However, I also feel that education, in the traditional sense of that which is taught by universities as education, is not the only purpose of a school. It may even be the least important, or even counterproductive to teaching.
When I think back to my public schooling, the moments that stand out, that made me what I am today, have little or nothing to do with plodding, rote learning. I suppose I needed to learn those things, but frankly, I've learned more about history, languages, anthropology, mathematics, science, etc. through means other than primary and secondary education. Teachers need to do these things to have something to do, but the real value of teaching has nothing to do with learning but everything to do with inspiring the desire to learn. This happens not in the daily grind, but in the rare moments that work outside of the mold.
I shudder to think what would happen if every education program were to operate under maximum efficiency and best utilization of money all the time. The last thing we need are more efficiently produced drones. Education is too stultifyingly efficient as it is.
A program like this, which targets every student within a certain age range, provides a mythology, if you will, which goes like this: "Your whole life, you will be told by people that your only destiny is to become a logger or a fisherman or eke out a living in a meagre tourist trade. This is different. It is part of a world away from chain saws and the smell of rotting fish. Maybe it will inspire you to do something. Maybe not. It's up to you."
Essential to this strategy is that everyone gets one. The message is that Maine is not going to tell you you're ineligible based on where you live or how much money you have or what kind of special program you can get into. Is this efficient? Of course not. Most of the computers will go to waste. This does not matter. As Sturgeon's law says, 95% of anything is crud. 95% of all people are going to do nothing but be wage slaves no matter what you do, but it's the 5% that go out and change the world.
So, people don't write non-Sorenson codecs for QuickTime under Linux because they wouldn't be as good as Sorenson. Of course, they do write non-Sorenson codecs all the time, just not for QuickTime under Linux.
So QuickTime is bad because it can use the Sorenson codec which is better than the codecs you can use with or without QuickTime. Writing a codec without QuickTime is good, but writing a coded with QuickTime is bad, because QuickTime is bad. So if you write a codec, make sure to write it without QuickTime, because otherwise you'd be bad. Of course, you don't get any advantages from QuickTime, but that's a small price to pay for purity. Also, because you don't use QuickTime, then that means it doesn't exist for Linux.
Of course, the "you" in the preceding paragraph does not mean you personally. I'm also not questioning your description of the logic; it's just a kind of logic I don't see often outside the White House and old Beavis and Butthead reruns.
It really is not Apple's fault that Linux developers have payed so little attention to developing Linux based solutions for Apple formats.
If the quality of responses here is representative of the Linux/Open Source community at large, and I hope it is not, then it would seem that they can't even comprehend what QuickTime is.
QuickTime is not a movie format, at least in the sense that a LOTR trailer is a movie. It is not a codec. It is not an application with a window. It is an architecture and a set of organizing principles to tie time-dependent data together that negotiates amongst an essentially unlimited number of codecs and data formats.
Now, it just so happens that one common use of QuickTime is LOTR trailers. It also just so happens that a lot of people use the Sorenson codec. It also just so happens that there's a somewhat ugly piece of software called the QuickTime Player 4 (but the previous version still works and is nicer). However, that doesn't define what QuickTime is. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the name QuickTime is used in conjunction with other words. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the word used in QuickTime is "movie," even though Apple goes to great lengths to explain that it is not necessarily a literal movie of image frames. Honestly, though, I would expect a community of hackers to be able to look under the hood.
For the people talking about MPEG4, well, it does begin to approach this level of universality, but that's because it is based on Quicktime, with Apple contributing heavily to the standard! MPEG4 is, to all extents and purposes, a new version of QuickTime with some codecs included.
There is nothing to stop you, me, or any Open Source developer from using the QuickTime architecture and file format to do anything from a movie player to controlling the geometry in a 3rd-person shooter to keeping track of thunderstorm data. However, in order to do that, it is necessary to appreciate the value of an overarching architecture rather than a tool to do a thing in a file format.
I wonder if this lack of what must be called "vision" is emblematic of Open Source. I certaintly hope it is not. However, it would be consistent with some of the problems with making a desktop acceptable to the consumer.
One doesn't need to integrate software to the point of stupidity as does Microsoft. However, to achieve synchronicity in a system of pieces, it is even more important to have architectures and organizing principles on the order of QuickTime.
I can produce an image file on the Macintosh and write drivers for QuickTime and be sure that any reasonably well written image-processing program on the Macintosh will be able to use it automatically without my having to do anything else, and that's just the beginning. Doesn't anyone think this kind of capability would be useful on an open operating system?
I've done some of this. It's really hard to make code so tight that you get better than a 5% speed improvement.
There is some value, however, when doing intricate floating-point code, especially when you can get control over the rounding conventions. It's also good for encryption code.
Don't listen to the people who tell you that this is a waste of time, or that you need someone to fab it, or whatever. Do it for fun. People who do these things for fun get smarter and make more money. They also have more fun. Don't worry about whether it's practical.
First, find a magazine store that sells Poptronics. This represents the last journal of a dying electronic hobbyist culture. Even if you don't get too many specific ideas, it will make you feel good.
For parts, there's Digikey. Also, many manufacturers will give you free engineering samples. Motorola is particularly good for this; they sent me for free the parts for my 7th grade science fair project just for my writing a letter to them. Also, don't discount Radio Shack. The selection is limited, but occasionally they have just the right thing.
Just for ideas, here is a list of cool things that I've built:
(This omits the purely analog devices and digital devices built with neon bulbs, which is all I could afford at one time.)
Here's a list of cool things I never got around to building:
Alas, after I achieved "respectable" adulthood and computers seemed an easier way to do most things, I've gradually kind of gotten away from tinkering. However, I'm glad I did it once. You'll be glad, too.
Copyrights and patents do not have to be defended (remember gif, mp3, etc?). It's a good idea to defend them along with patents, or else you can lose out big time (Frauenhoffer and mp3).
That's a bit like saying "you do not have to breath, but it's a good idea, otherwise you'll suffocate."
Personally, I wish new versions of Apple's OS were free, like they used to be, but $120 is certainly not exhorbitant, especially considering that it isn't crippled as a "home" version.
The only difference is that there is clarifying legislation about trademarks, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Since when has obligation in civil matters been limited to the letter of the law? If it were, half of the threads to Slashdot wouldn't be here.
Really, Apple had to do this. It was also legitimate. The cease-and-desist letter was so polite by the standards of lawyers that it's hard to imagine a lawyer drafting it.
Personally, I wish new Mac OS versions were free, as they were in the early days. However, $120 is certainly not exhorbitant, especially for an OS that isn't crippled as a "home" version.
This is by far the politest "cease and desist" letter I have ever seen. Apple must give its lawyers a lot of Valium.
I've always been a fan of usability. I kept a copy of Psychology of Everyday Things on my bedside table. However, I've noticed some unpleasant patterns over the past couple of decades:
Alas, all the evidence is that, even if usability is on the list of criteria for purchasing (which it seldom is at all), it is way low on the list. It may even be a de facto negative.
Vincent Flanders asserts that web pages are different: that if people don't like it, they're gone. Well, maybe, but is there any evidence that usable commercial web pages sell better than less usable ones? Has anyone done a study? I thought the value of usability in commercial products was self-evident, too, until the evidence built up that I was flat-out wrong.
The operation was counter-intuitive; to alphabetize a 20 letter name field, you'd start by sorting into 26 bins on the _last_ (rightmost) letter, stack them up and sort on the next letter (which left cards differing only in the last letter in order), and repeat for 20 times through.
This is the radix sort, which all hackers should learn while teething. When you apply certain rules that ensure that only columns that might be significant are compared, it is an extremely efficient sorting algorithm.
Worst-case, the complexity is O(l n), where l is the length of the longest string and n is the number of strings. With completely random data, l is effectively log n, so overall it goes to O(n log n). The extra rules substantially reduce the effect of lack of randomness in strings, so it's likely that the algorithm will almost always run in O(n log n)
Compare to a merge sort, which is O(n log n) worst-case, the best you can get, but that assumes that the comparison step is constant. With a string, worst-case comparison is O(l), resulting in overall performance of O(l n log n) or, with random data, O(n log^2 n). QuickSort is even worse, with a worst-case performance of O(n^2 log n), though still an average performance like the merge sort. (Too bad I can't use superscript on this board.)
The actual syntax is relatively unimportant.
Thinking about XML as equivalent to S-expressions buys you nothing, unless, of course, you count about three decades of extensive experience and solid, mathematically-proved algorithms that do way more than one could imagine, all of which exist.
If, of course, one is simply interested in declaring that XML is a Hot New Revolutionary Concept and things like LISP are Dead Languages, none of this is important.
You are right. We need copyright.
I started programming the Macintosh in 1985, when the first native compilers started to become available. At that time, programming was difficult. There was the 3-ring binder version of Inside Macintosh, which cost $150, and that's about it. (Three of us chipped in on one copy). There were also a lot of gotchas.
To help the community, I started the Macintosh One-Liners, which eventually became two lists: one for programmers, and one for users. Each one-liner was 79 characters of text or fewer. The idea was to have a short list to read, so that people could diagnose or avoid the most common problems quickly.
When I got Usenet access, I started sending these out every couple of weeks. I encouraged people to contribute one-liners of their own. I edited these to size and included them in the list. At the end, I included my name and the names of all contributors in the order they got involved. I did not put a copyright notice on the document.
This list recieved some attention. It was published in the second volume of the now-defunct THINKin' CAP magazine. Someone at Apple wrote me that he had a copy on his wall, and it was the first thing he pointed people to when they had questions. I wrote extended explanations of each one-liner for the first USENET Macintosh Programming Guide. I maintained the list for quite a few years. I felt good about being a part of a community which I felt, at the time, was cooperative and mutually beneficial. It was one of the things I felt good about when the rest of the world looked bleak.
In the mid-1990's, I found myself doing less and less Macintosh programming, and fewer people were contributing one-liners, so the list didn't change much, but it was always available by anonymous FTP.
After a year or two, I saw a new USENET Macintosh Programming Guide. I looked for the one-liners, and sure enough, they were there. I read to the end, and my name had been removed, as well as the names of the other contributors. Instead, a list of other names had been placed there, headed by the guy who had sent the contribution to the editor.
I wrote the editor of the new Guide and asked him to put our names back. He refused. I sent all the information about prior publication. He still refused. I even offered to send him a copy of the magazine. He wasn't interested. There was nothing I could do about it, because I had never included a copyright.
Now, I had never wanted to make any money off of this list. I didn't restrict distribution in any way. I didn't make any money off the publication. All I wanted was to be a recognized, contributing member of a cooperative community.
To take somebody's name off their work, however, is a gross insult (to put it mildly). It is a betrayal and a slap in the face. It depressed me about the whole community of developers thing, and even to this day, it still burns me. I deliberately forgot the name of the asswipe who did this (he claimed that another asswipe was involved, too), to avoid unneccessary cleaning bills should I ever meet him. Now, all my memories are tainted with this gross insult.
I learned my lesson, though. The same community of people that insists that copyrights are bad and oppressive to the masses contains plenty of pigfuckers who think nothing of appropriating credit for work. I'm sure that there are plenty who wouldn't do such a thing, but there are not enough to keep the bad apples from doing this and getting away with it. Memories are short, and people are apathetic. As a result, nobody remembers, and nobody cares.
John Carmack probably isn't going to go hungry, and RMS isn't going to be forgotten, but what about the little folks, the folks who could some day do the next great thing if they don't get kicked in the huevos? Some of the abuses of copyright law are awful, but without copyright and freelance lawyers, they are simply screwed.
I think free software is a nice idea, and I hate the Microsoft EULA, but this experience changed me. I spent much of the 1990's working on an academic salary (genteel poverty, for those who have been there), producing software that I persuaded the University to give away free (including source). Now, I'm a changed man. I make lots of money writing proprietary software. Ja, dot's right. I'm a traitor.
Every once in a while I try to work on a free software project, a cross-platform cinematic adventure game editor and environment. Every time I try, a niggling voice in my head tells me that the community doesn't deserve it. From my paraphrase of Nietzsche: "To some people you should not offer your hand, but rather your fist, and it would be better if you were wearing brass knuckles."
People who want a free world and free goodies, who think copyright law is one-sided, start with the face in the mirror! Then do something about your peers. Attempt to learn a modicum of respect for someone's work. Nobody noticed that my name had been removed and brought it to my attention, let alone protested the act. I have no evidence that people are any better today.
I remember the days of the Tienenman Square massacre. I worked in an international scientific research institute at the time. Some of the people who worked with me were Chinese and spent a lot of time FAXing pictures of the massacre to their friends in China. People in China, of course, couldn't get press.
I've been hearing a lot of pretty outraged people griping about us western imperialist pigs and how we want to force things like democracy down other countries' throats. It's bothered me for a long time. However, I've heard so much of it that I no longer care.
You think other countries have the right to live in the Middle Ages? Fine. But independence means accountability. I don't want to hear a bunch of boo-hoo-hooing the next time a bunch of them kill each other or die of famine.
I think you're right. I think, however, that the presumptions (it hasn't harmed me personally; if you don't like it you must be jealous) reflect a short-term view of personal gratification.
While there is nothing wrong with this, it does not reflect the values of everyone. I did not originally get into computers to make a quick buck or simply to have fun. I got into them because I genuinely believed in the potential of computers to improve human life. There are, after all, many easier ways of making a buck, and there are plenty of ways of having fun that increase sexual status better than computers.
One aspect that I think is essential to maintain this potential is "genetic" diversity in the software business. This diversity has definitely been reduced, usually needlessly, by the practices of Microsoft.
In a way, it's a bit like the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest. One could say that it doesn't harm me, because I don't own any rain forest, and I won't lose any pets due to the elimination of species. In another way, it harms us all, because it makes the world a poorer place.
There is no way of knowing what might have come from an inventor who decided not to bother because they decided they couldn't compete with Microsoft, just as there's no way of knowing the possible direct benefits of a species that was wiped out before it was discovered, let alone studied.
One can also look at what is known to have been destroyed. There used to be a spirit of craftsmanship in software, according to which developers attempted to eliminate or prevent bugs as much as possible. Microsoft has been a primary force in encouraging an ethic whereby it is acceptable to consider whether or not to fix a bug in terms of ROI. This used only to be true of features, not bugs. I think that the industry has suffered because of this ethic.
Stallman's model seems to fit into the academic model of 10 to 15 years ago. It may not be the same as how academia works today, but I don't think it's terribly un-American. A lot of the recent success of America consists of the sequellae of the Land Grant colleges after World War II and the increased public funding for education that followed Sputnik.
Unless you're dealing with double-sided discs like DVD, the aluminum is deposited on top of the polycarbonate disc. I suppose the resin they spray on top of that to provide some nominal protection might technically be called "plastic," but it's really more like paint.
Most people don't realize that the label side is the fragile side.
You're right, it's Thomas Disch. Still fairly recent: 1998. Amazon has it here.
Check out The Dreams our Stuff is Made Of by Theodore Sturgeon. It's a recent review of how SF has or may have influenced the world. It would be a good starting point for a central thesis.
In principle, I would agree with the idea that public institutions should release everything free, but the same people who want free goodies also piss and moan every time April 15 comes around and whenever there's a tuition increase. Until this changes, so-called "public" institutions are not going to be primarily publically funded.
If you want truly public institutions, then, people, you have to pay for them. There's no infinite teat o' money.
Did you give them written notice that you were going to do it? If you had, you might have been bothered by them.
It's true on both trademarks and copyrights. It may have been a bit before your time, but Tolkien actually lost the copyright to LOTR in the U.S. because Ace stole it and published it, and Tolkien didn't pursue them vigorously enough. Tolkien had to make substantial changes to LOTR in order to get a copyright in the U.S.
Also, the first season and a half of Star Trek, under the Desilu distribution, was public domain, because it wasn't released with a copyright notice. Of course, Paramount has claimed copyright on all the re-releases and new prints, but if you can find an old print, you can do what you like with it. Ironically, this helped computer gaming, as all those Star Trek games were legal.
American copyright has been somewhat better since we signed the Berne convention. For instance, you now don't lose copyright if you fail to provide a notice, just the ability to sue for damages. But still, after the dismissal of Apple's suit of Microsoft (as well as Xerox' suit of Apple), not on the grounds that they were stupid but because they hadn't brought them earlier and vigorously enough, people are understandably cautious.
If you don't go after copyright violators, you can lose your copyright.
I know that hindsight is 20-20, but it would have been much smarter not to have gotten in touch with the company. In that case, the company might have been able to overlook the violation. As it is now, they cannot without legal risk.
The Supreme Court has long held that producing a parody or satire of a work does not violate the copyright.
Someone modified the images and sounds in Juri Munki's "Heart Quest" to make an affectionate parody called "Jerry's Guitars," which has Jerry Garcia trying to catch guitars instead of a butterfly trying to catch hearts. This would probably not be seen by the courts as an infringement, either on Munki or the estate of Jerry Garcia.
I wonder if something like this could be argued as a parody. One would have to put some humor into the translations. However, since none of the actual original work is used (the files would be patches to the original work), I don't think a copyright claim could be used in court.
As for reverse engineering, well, translating the strings in resources file hardly qualifies as reverse engineering. If the strings are in the actual code, then that might apply. Of course, Win32 resources are nowhere near as sophisticated and open as Mac resources, so this may be a gray area.
When Apple released the Macintosh in 1984, the system was heavily based on the use of resources (it still is). Apple's User Interface Guidelines pushed keeping all strings in resources to make it easier for third parties to localize the software.
Reading these at the time, I didn't experience any cognitive dissonance. I thought that, surely, nobody could object to a third-party's deliberately increasing one's market share, for free. I imagined that EULAs of the future would specify that anyone who made such modifications should submit them for approval by the original author.
How times have changed!