Most plugins are unnecessary gaudy crap glued onto the browser to create a market where none really exists. There are a handful of plugins which have "real" value. Depending on your point of view, it includes Flash, Shockwave, Real, and Acrobat. Most plugins aren't created to fill a need, they're created to make their authors money.
When you're trying to sell gaudy crap to someone, being multiplatform, stable, or well designed is irrelevant. The important thing is that it looks shiny on the computer of your end sucker... erm... customer. Joe Clueless Webmaster doesn't really know what Linux is, if the shiny crap looks good on his Windows 98 / MacOS 9 box, it must be good. Jane Clueful Webmistress does worry about Linux, WebTV, the Dreamcast, and other alternative web browsers, but Jane also realizes that good web sites are actually harmed by gaudy
plugins.
Supporting another platform costs a great deal of money. You need developer time to support the new platform, an variety of hardware to test on and QA time to make sure it works well. It's a lot of money to try and sell product to a hostile audience.
So quoth Cliff:
When will plug-in makers realize that there is a larger market out there who may also be interested in their product?
Simply put, if you're selling snake oil, don't worry about convincing the real doctors, just talk fast enough to fool the marks. There is no "larger market."
For this same reason, open sourcing the plugin doesn't help. The open source and free software communities have no sympathy for unnecessary junk.
Oh what a sad abuse of monopoly power when Microsoft can actually check to make sure their software is being paid for by
groups!
That's a very good point. I certainly look forward to book publishers checking to make sure groups aren't using photocopies or cover ripped books. I'll happy welcome the RIAA to audit my CD collection, I might have some copies I didn't pay for!
This isn't about monopoly power. This is about licenses containing unreasonable clauses. This is about companies doing it because they know no one actually reads the license. This is about putting the burden of proof of ownership on the customer. This is about corporations rewriting the law so that you're guilty until proven innocent.
This is about the freedom that RMS talks about. It's about protecting the freedoms you already had.
You might want to be more careful with your lucky little +1 in the future. Such massively unfair comparisions might get you modded down.
Seeing what public services a site is running is in no way similar entering someone's home. You set up DNS, FTP, and other servers because you want people to use them.
If a business has an unlabelled door, it's reasonable to assume that it's publically usable. If the door isn't for public use, it's either labelled as such ("Employees Only"), or locked. This guy didn't even generally port scan (it sounds like), he looked for common and generally available doors. He didn't attempt to actually gain access through those services in any way not intended for the public.
Your babbling on about taking the rock is even more inappropriate. Did he steal any evidence? No. Did he destroy, remove, or otherwise damage any evidence? No. He was just an irritating rubber-necker.
Lastly, problem isn't even that the FBI questioned him. The problem is that they seized his property on questionable grounds. Given the nature of evidence, he may not see his property back before it is close to valueless. Even more importantly, much of his data is probably gone.
Re:Semi-Official site with good info
on
D&D Trailer
·
· Score: 1
The comment about the trailer being "unfinished" and "unauthorized" refers to the French trailer released some time ago. This is the honest to god real theatrical trailer.
Semi-Official site with good info
on
D&D Trailer
·
· Score: 2
Well, it looks like the official site is slashdotted. Might as well spread the fun. If you really want more information check out dndmovie.com. Lots of photos, a few interviews, and generally a fun fan site which got some good behind the scenes information.
"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents."
-- Nathaniel Borenstein
In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud does point out that it's easier to attach oneself to an abstract form than a realistic one. McCloud explains that is is because other people look very realistic, and are obviously "not you", you most people only have an abstract sense of "self." An abstract character is easier to project myself into. However, he points out that there is a place for the realistic. Realistic things tend to look more "other." The comic Tintin placed the very abstract Tintin against much more realistic backdrops for this purpose.
While it's important to remember these details when designing a game, the lesson is not "don't make games realistic." The lesson is "it's easier for a player to project him or herself into an abstract avatar than a realistic one."
One good example of this working against a game is Diakatana. I never felt I was Hiro, Hiro was the nicely rendered character in front of me. On the other hand, it may be easier to feel for the characters of J et Grind Radio, who are rendered as cartoons.
Thief does a generally good job of making Garrent, the main character, abstract. In actual gameplay, you don't see Garret at all (it's first person). I always found it very jarring when Garret spoke while I was playing, it reinforced that I wasn't Garret.
That said, Understanding Comics is a great read. Anyone who reads comics will probably appreciate it. I suspect anyone involved in graphical arts of any time will find some valuable information.
Someone emailed me asking for advice on these mice for a blind friend. This is an area I don't know much about this area, but perhaps some elaboration on the the menu and icon "stickiness" provided will be help.
The WingMan mouse actually makes menus, icons, and links slighty
"sticky". There is ever so slight resistance to move away. This
would make it easier to hit menu and icon targets. On the other
hand, the mouses restricted range of motion is very frustrating.
If your friend is blind, he may not be able to tell that the
mouse cursor isn't at the right edge of the screen, but the mouse
is at the right edge of the pad.
The iFeel mice (Logitech) produces a single "click" when you move
onto a menu item or icon. There isn't any indication that you've
moved off of the target. While it would make it easier to
tell that you've moved onto the target, you don't get any warning
that you've moved off. On the up side, it's a normal mouse not
physically connected to a mouse pad.
Both mice have some control panel options for how they react, but
I'm not really in a position to seriously play with their
options. Both mice fail to detect icons and buttons in some
cases, particularly when a program ignores the Windows API and
creates custom controls.
I'd err on the side of the Wingman, the feedback seems more
meaningful. Unfortunately, it's very hard to guess how
frustrating the restricted range of motion will be for someone
who can't see the cursor. It is certainly something that could
be adapted to.
Obviously, if anyone has any real experience with this, please let us know!
There are two arguments I see against using some sort of resistance or force on the mouse wheels which are connected to the mouse ball:
Mice are moving to optical inputs. Optical mice are very smooth, hard to "clog", and work on almost any surface. Once you loose the mouse ball, it's no longer available to emit forced into.
Any non-trivial force is going to require more power than is available from USB or PS/2 Mouse Port. This is why the WingMan Mouse has a power cord. I'm not sure I want another power plug to drive my mouse
I'm used two of these mice, and they're vastly overrated.
The WingMan Force Feedback Mouse
This mouse is permenantly mounted to its "mouse pad". Movement is limited to about two inches of movement either way. The motion isn't absolute to the screen, so it's possible to end up in the middle of the screen and unable to move to the right. (You work around it by slowly moving left, then quickly moving right.) This is very frustrating.
Because the mouse is connected to the mouse pad, it can actually push back against you. It's a neat trick, but I'm not real sure about the value. When playing a game, having your mouse kick back when you fire would be distracting. Worse, being locked to the pad means that in a first person shooter, you can end up unable to turn in a direction.
Using their web browser plugin, a web page author can push your mouse around, or give a graphic a simplistic texture. Just what I need, my mouse to gravitate towards the "Purchase Now".
Or, oooh, I can _feel_ the Slashdot logo. Yippee. It's got all of the apeal of a BLINK tag or a web site entirely designed in Flash.
The strangest feature is that the mouse can generate simple tones by vibrating. It's a creepy feeling. I don't want my mouse to feel like an electric razer, and I want my audio to come from my nice sound card. It's such a bad idea that I suspect it's a side effect of the design that they decided to call a feature.
The only potential advantage is that once their drive is installed, menu items subtly "click". So do links in Internet Explorer. I didn't particularly like it, but I can see it making "hitting the target" easier.
All in all, I'd rather have a nice mouse I can actually pick up.
iFeel Mouse
On the up side it is a nice optical mouse. But they sell cheaper optical mice. Because it's not attached to a mouse pad, all it can do is vibrate. You don't sense any particular texture. You don't feel it push in any direction. It just vibrates. Push it over a textured web graphic and it vibrates. Fire a gun in a game and it vibrates. Move it over a link and it vibrates. It's as complex and useful as a "rumble pack" for a console controller. Oh, and it does the vibrating tone thing, but barely audiably.
It's a lot more practically useful than the WingMan mouse, but you're still paying a premium for a silly idea. Just buy a nice optical mouse without force feedback. Logitech even makes those.
Trouble is, if you act on your
customers' willingness to buy Naked PCs--knowing full well they are at risk of acquiring pirated operating systems elsewhere--you expose them to legal risks, viruses, and frustrating technical troubles.
If I buy a naked PC, how exactly am I "at risk" of acquiring an unauthorized OS? Will I walk down the street with my new PC and a copy of Windows will jump in from an alley? This is just silly. People who choose to use an unlicensed copy did so willingly. There is no risk, the buyer either will or will not.
This also implies that if the OEM installs an operating system, that the customer is safe from the "legal risks." If the customer takes his happy little WindowsME box, downloads a copy of Windows 2000 and installs it, he's most certainly at legal risk.
I'm also fond of the repeated implications that an OEM who sells naked PCs might be liable for some sort of damage. There are plenty of valid reasons to get a naked box (My business has a site license for Windows or I'm installing a different operating system). No sane person would find an OEM guilty of copyright infringement. (If the OEM sold or gave away unauthorized copies of Windows, or actively encouraged people to get such copies, that would be a very different story.)
Bah, typical Microsoft FUD. There are good reasons to sell naked PCs.
Simply put, fractal compression was a neat idea that never really worked well.
For some quick information the comp.compression FAQ part 1, search for "Subject: [17]". For a long history of fractal compression, check the comp.compression FAQ, part 2, search for "Subject: [77]".
These guys have to compete with real textbooks which, among other things, have resale value....
Granted, if any attempt is made to force such textbooks on people, I'd be in the front rows of the lynching mob.
Part of the problem is that this is being forced on people. VitalBook themselves says:
Publishers are guaranteed 100% market penetration at partner schools who opt to implement the Vital
Source system. Purchase of all included titles is mandated by the universities.
Go read VitalBook's page on the subject. Their list of "features" includes mandated purchases by schools (and NYU's Dental school is doing exactly this starting in 2001), and the removal of used book sales. They aren't competing with printed books. Frighting stuff. Given the current attitude of "save money at any cost" at universities, I can certainly see this spreading.
So speaks the NYU Dental school's FAQ on the VitalBook:
What if I decide I don't like the VitalBook? First of all, the VitalBook has been extensively pilot tested and a
beta-version was out for some time before the application was completed - that means, we don't believe you won't like it!
Wow, that's conviction. We're so certain you'll love the VitalBook, that if you claim you don't like it, we'll accuse you of lying.
Sure, the FAQ does go on to say that you can return it if you're not satisfied, but students starting in 2001 are told "It is our position that ALL dentists
must have excellent computer skills to maximize their skill and knowledge as dentists." To help them build excellent computer skills, Apple PowerBooks and VitalBooks are mandatory.
Publishers are guaranteed 100% market penetration
at partner schools who opt to implement the Vital
Source system. Purchase of all included titles is
mandated by the universities.
Here at VitalBook, we've taken care of little details like choice. Heck, you don't even need to be taking a given course to charge people for it:
Because the service is a global curriculum
application, the fee comes in from each student
each of the four years of their studies, regardless of whether they are taking that course that year.
And that pesky used book store where people can save a little money on their education and help protect the environment with reuse:
In the VSTi system, publishers...do not compete against used copies of their own books....
My biggest hope is that as companies get increasingly... well... evil, it will become clear to everyone that this must be stopped. I don't want to live in a world where I license everything and own nothing.
I love Fred. If I didn't have so much faith in human stupidity, I've suspect that his articles were actually some sort of satire on FUD.
Since ABCNews, it in interested of giving people the direct facts, have neglected to provide a link to the actual BugTraq statistics. Here's one. Check it out, lots of fascinating disclaimers and real numbers. Fred cheerfully brushes off such fun disclaimers as "The statistics should not be taken to imply that some particular operating system or application is more or less secure than another one." He ignores " We consider a vulnerability to affect an application or operating system if the vulnerability affects a component that is part of the application or operating system when brought or downloaded." So, if sendmail has a vulnerability, it's likely to count against Linux, since most Linux distributions ship a sendmail. If a mail transport agent for NT has a vulnerability, well, it didn't ship with NT, so it's okay.
Windows NT totaled 99 new vulnerabilities on the BugTraq list. (So far in 2000, the count stands at 37.) This looks like an alarmingly high number in comparison with Solaris' 34 or NetBSD's 10, but it is significantly less than the 122 racked up by Red Hat and the other Linuxes (their 2000 count stands at 47).
Let's check Fred's numbers. A quick check for 1999 for Windows NT reveals 99 incidents, sure enough. A check for "Linux (aggr.)" reveals... 84? Something smells fishy.
Well, the disclaimers at the top note " Were we display aggregate number of vulnerabilities (Linux and BSD) the number is the size of the set that results from the union of all vulnerabilities for the components without duplication. Vulnerabilities are not counted twice." Perhaps this means that the "aggr" entry doesn't include the Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, or Slackware entries. Not how I would have interpreted it (I would have read it as "If a single bug was found in Red Hat, SuSE, and Debian, we only counted it in the aggregation once, not three times.) But adding them together gets me... 182. Erm, so where did Fred pull 122 from?
Fred, after blowing off BugTraq's very long disclaimer, summarises with:
All that aside, though, one conclusion is inescapable: If you look this list over, and measure each system's number of vulnerabilities against the number of its customers, Linux is arguably the worst operating-system product in history, and Microsoft's the best.
This is just stupid. If you remove his little "against the number of its customers", his analysis has no meaning. I can find a strong case for many of the system with a little justification like Fred's. Security vulnerabilities are more important for servers on the internet where random people can attack them. Given the number of Linux boxes to Windows boxes serving web pages on the internet, it's looks that Linux and Windows NT are closely matched. Taking into account severity of the vulnerability (Are there real exploits, or is it a suspected vulnerability? Can it be exploited externally, or only if you already have local user permissions? Does it effect all computers, or only ones in particular configuration?) I suspect you'd find different answers, but the information isn't there (and BugTraq admits as much).
The amazingly low quality of this article makes me suspect that Fred is either so strongly biased against Linux that he is conciously or subconciously viewing the world through blue (screen) colored glasses. Of course, ABC doesn't have any reason to stop him, since clearly he's drawing huge hits.
Oh well.
As Linux zealots are beginning to find out, it's a lot easier to masquerade as a better product than it is to go out and be one.
Ultimately, we should just ignore the silly little man and go on enjoying our better product.
All in all, it's a fairly compelling document. I'm not terribly sure how ethically or legally right Napster is. Napster does maintain a database of copyright protected music with the intent to profit (in some nebulous way) from it. But the document still has some interesting thoughts from the RIAA. Some gems include:
The District Court enjoined Napster from infringing plaintiffs' copyrighted works after finding that Napster was actively trying to accomplish the goals laid out in its own early planning documents -- to "usurp" and "undermine" the record industry, "unhindered by cumbersome copyright schemes." Its declared goals also included the following: "[S]eize control of digital distribution. . . . Napster brings about death of the CD . . . Record stores (Tower Records) obsoleted."
Oh my, how dare anyone attempt to "usurp" or "undermine" the record industry and replace it with something else! How dare Napster view copyright schemes as combersome and avoid being hindered by them! How else will the RIAA enjoy it's God given right to make money. Feh. Anyone seriously attempting to change how music is distributed, even with great respect for copyright, will attempt to "usurp" the record industry. Such a company could quite reasonably view record stores as obsolete. This is in no way grounds to take Napster down.
The Court found Napster had no current substantial non- infringing use. Rather, the several purported non-infringing uses trumpeted by Napster -- all of which essentially boiled down to the same claim, that musical artists other than those whose copyrights plaintiffs own use Napster to promote their music -- were minimal, commercially insignificant, and pretextual.
It's nice to know that if you're an artist not involved in the case, you're "commercially insignificant" and as such not deserving of the right to use Napster to distribute your music.
All is not lost, since the RIAA the RIAA generously gives Napster a way to continue hosting files:
For example, Napster could compile a database of song titles and artist names that have been authorized by the copyright owners of those songs to be made available on the Napster service. . . .
(Don't be misled by the "For example", it's the only example they give. The only other options I can see are ineffective lists of prohibited titles or requirining "hindering" copyright protection technology.)
So, if you get a tape from a non-internet saavy friend musician who encourages you to make copies for anyone you want, you couldn't put it onto Napster without getting Napster some official form of authorization. If sending an email saying "I own this and I authorize it" is enough, it will be trivial to forge emails granting permission for the RIAA catalogs. If some sort of proof is required, it becomes an onerous burden for the copyright holder.
I generally agree that the value of physical newspapers is diminishing. Simply put, they don't carry the sort of news I do want to see (in depth analysis of candidate's views based on their voting records, technology coverage, summaries of more world events, certain comics), while dedicating pages to things I don't care about (local sports, certain comics, fluffy coverage of technology and politics). Each person has their own news that they need, and the web is starting to provide it better than print newspapers can.
It is worth noting that newspapers do provide one important function. It's important that people read things that they may not immediately agree with, they they expose themselves to other views. One of the biggest risks of news on the web is that one can isolate onesself from things you don't want to hear. Balancing this with the need for choice is hard.
Anyway, Jon stated:
In recent years, newspapers have remained graphically impaired. They seem oblivious to the graphic revolution that has swept magazines and is spreading through the Web.
What, you want USA Today? If I was going to get a newspaper (I don't, largely for the reasons above), I would get the Wall Street Journal. Minimal graphics. Pure text content. I like Slashdot for it's minimal graphics and high content value. Graphics aren't really important for more news.
C++ is a big language. A really big language, with piles of nifty features. Using the right feature in the right place (be it templates, the standard library, inheritance, operator overloading), can make code very easy to read. It's this feature that draws me to C++ and other big languages (like Perl). For every person that complains that these features aren't necessary and make code harder to read, I've got code made cleaner and easier to read. (Using a MonstrousInt class without operator overloading is extremely unpleasant.) I strongly believe that used properly, C++ can massively improve code readability.
However, used improperly, C++ can make code extremely hard to read. While you can certainly make code hard to read in any language, C++ provides many more tools which can be used to shoot yourself in the foot. I think that this is the source of most complaints about C++'s complexity.
I recently had it argued to me that C++'s biggest weakness is that in the hands of those who doesn't yet understand why to use specific features, it easier to write bad code. I've seen the horrors that a template, exception, or operator overloading used in the wrong place can be. The world is full of programmers who don't necessarily understand why certain features aren't always appropriate. While I'd prefer that we work to improve the quality of programmers, and make sure that anyone coding C++ be taught that critical why, I don't see it happening. not going to happen. So this argument against C++ remains compelling to me. (Fortunately it's not compelling enough to stop me from coding happily in C++.) What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you feel this is a weakness of C++? Is this issue not nearly as serious as I think it appear?
Sweeney seems so intent on proving his point that he seems a bit detached from reality. Almost... academic. This makes it hard for me to take his point seriously. Let's move through his article:
This is a really profound realization, that your language has such power to expand--or limit--your horizons, and define which concepts you are able to think about fluently, and which ideas are not easily ponderable.
Several other posts show that liguists in fact generally disagree with this argument. It doesn't seem to hold up well in real world programming either. I've seen very complex programs written entirely in assembly language. (Some people continue to write significant applications this way.). I certainly see object oriented programming on a day to day based in C (curses, the Win32 API (particularly the GUI bits), stdio, and the code I work on for a living). I've meet hard core C only programmers who vilify C++, then go on to write gloriously easy to read object orient code.
Of course, in his portrayal of C as being an ancient, out of date language, he goes so far as to claim:
Yes, you could develop user interfaces in C, but they were extremely kludgy in those early days, and didn't become mainstream until the advent of object-orientation and GUI class hierarchies.
Apparently Microsoft Windows and Mac OS weren't "mainstream" enough for Tim. (I won't argue that they're kludgy... that's a whole different problem.)
Skipping over brief discussions of hardwiring games and assembly, we come to C. He discusses slow adoptation of C by game programmers, then holds DOOM as a turning point of some sort:
When id Software released DOOM, they surprised much of the industry by having no reliance on assembly code--despite excellent game performance, and by successfully cross-developing the game (in NeXTstep and DOS), then successfully porting it to an astounding variety of platforms.
While DOOM didn't rely on assembly to run, it relied on assembly to run at acceptable speeds on mainstream computers. In addition, usage of C and C's contemporaries was already well entrenched in the game industry by that point.
I'll gloss the section on C++. I think he's getting overworked about the failings of C++. Many, many projects continue to work in C++ just fine without collapsing. I think he's a bit arrogant for lump UnrealScript into the mix. He filtered out Pascal and other C contemporaries to presumably keep his list simple, then lumps in a fairly specialized pet language.
Getting the future we get to the good parts. He wants to discuss "parametric polymorphism." He handwaves away C++'s templates with:
Unfortunately, the C++ language bastardizes this concept in its support for "templates" (C++ lingo for the same concept), a terribly hacked and inadequate feature which, unfortunately, leads programmers to believe that parametricity is just a flawed concept--just like object orientation looked like a flawed concept to C programmers.
Again, he ignores the many people who find that templates (especially the STL) provides many of the features he wants without introducing the ambiguity he does (more in a moment). He also ignores the C programmers who have been programming in object oriented styles for years. Oh well.
Anyway, we get to his list of things he wants for "'parametric polymorphism' in its full glory." (His extra quotes, not mine. Read into what you will.) First we wants an "open world evolution of source code and binaries." I read this as, he wants to be able to change various bits (containers, algorithms, other bits) without breaking compatibility. Why templates fail as a "link-time feature" is beyond me. I manage to "evolve" my template containers and algorithms without breaking anything just fine. Sure, I can break things, but I fail to see how any language can stop me from breaking things.
He wants "functions references bound to specific objects." I can't figure this one out. I certainly can stick function pointers in objects. Perhaps he means closure, which is easily done with function objects (an object which looks and acts suspiciously like a function). (This is slightly inelegant in C++, but certainly not an "enormous amount of 'duct tape'".
He also wants his polymorphic types to support bounds and constraints (simple enough), and "higher-order function calling" (No guess).
He then dwells on an example. He's got three integer arrays A, B, and C. He wants to add the each element in B and C and place the result in the corresponding element in A. He seems deeply bothered that C++ doesn't look at "A = B + C" and "do the right thing." He seems to ignore other, reasonable interpretations of B + C. Perhaps it means concatenate the arrays, or add all of the elements in B and C into a single number and put it into A[0]?
Looking at things this way, the beginning C programmer who naively tries "C=A+B" is showing more ingenuity and insight into programming than the experienced C programmer who knows why that doesn't work.
Looking at things this way, Tim Sweeney naively assumes that everyone can agree what + means in the situation.
Ultimately he appears to be looking for a general way to work on sets in this sort of way. It's a darn shame he hasn't looked at the STL recently, since tools like for_each() provide a solid, general basis for running over a single array, and a for_each like function running over two containers isn't very hard to write.
Moving on, we find:
What if the modeler built several pieces of trees -- branches, roots, and leaves; and the programmer wrote code to hook them together...? The forest could be infinitely larger and more realistic due to each tree being unique."
Why this isn't possible (and already being worked on just fine) in C++ (or even, god forbid, C), is beyond me.
His discussion on virtual classes and frameworks is interesting. Somehow I'm not feeling a compelling calling for virtual classes, but it's interesting.
His discussion on how wonderful UnrealScript is particularly interesting. He wants the various "good bits" of Java (binary interoperability, security), plus a few more (language supported serialization that automatically is backward compatible). This sounds nice and all, but he quietly ignores speed issues. Given that Unreal shipped with framerates regularly below 10fps on systems that were "up to date" when it shipped, I suspect he doesn't care. Like the Java advocates say, "A slight speed hit is okay, since computers keep getting faster." Of course, the "slight" speed hit generally turns out to be at least cutting your speed in half, it isn't okay. I'd certainly notice Word getting 50% slower, and I darn well want to run by games with as many graphical bells and whistles on as possible. Oh well.
Many people blame MS for netscape's way downhill but lets face: it they were out competed by a a better product.
Which part of "better product" is establishing deals with ISPs where the ISP got listed in the internet setup wizard in exchange for only pushing IE, and making sure that no more than a certain percentage of their clients used Netscape? And how, my exchanging a listing on the Channel Bar with major web site in agreement to only push IE, does that make IE a better product?
IE has improved in quality by leaps and bounds. It probably would have gained market share anyway. However, saying that the many steps taken by Microsoft to make it appear that Netscape didn't exist to new users didn't affect market share is foolish.
My point: Compete on quality, not by monopolistic tactics.
Many browsers already offer the option to spoof a user agent string. I'd used this ability in Lynx several times to work around exactly this sort of server side client blocking. You've probably already got people doing exactly what you're describing, so it seems a silly concorn.
I suggest you don't worry about people spoofing they're likely to be more technical people who understand the risks of doing so.
Of course, there is a deeper issue. Take a random feature, say JavaScript (since you brought it up), that the site "needs". First, what about users with acceptable browsers who disable JavaScript? Are we to be turned away? This is another support problem area.
Also, consider why they feel the need for JavaScript or similarly uncertain technologies? In many cases, JavaScript, DHTML, and the ilk are used just to "pretty up" the site. Maybe a better idea is to make the site use straight HTML, opening up your userbase to almost everyone?
If you really need the JavaScript/DHTML/Java/Whatever, limit it's use and put a "This page needs JavaScript. We recommend Netscape 4.X or IE 4.X or later. We can't support anything else, sorry." on the pages.
I wanted a nice printed book (since I'm not in a position to print the entire GUM) to learn the GIMP by. With much software that I anticipate heavily using, I don't mind a steep learning curve, but I only dabble with the Gimp, and wanted to quickly get going.
The Artist's Guide to the Gimp (AGG) is a good start. However, it is a step below what I was looking for. If you're familiar with Photoshop, you'll find the book a really light, fluffy intro. On the down side, you won't learn the equivalents of all of your favorite Photoshoppy goodness (and almost everything has equivalents these days), but on the up side, you'll quickly chew through the book and be productive in the Gimp (as opposed to guessing what the buttons do.:-)
The biggest problem is that the book is seriously out of date. I've found the latest builds of the development tree relatively stable, and the huge number of new features makes it hard to consider going back to the practically ancient 1.0x series the book describes. Still, it's nice to have large portions of the software's basic use described, making the newer shinier portions easier to get a handle on. Oh, and the information on using X and installing fonts seemed out of place. Either you're relatively unix clueful, and can manage them, or you're not and you have a sysadmin who does it for you. Either way it's not real valuable in my eyes.
Check out this. It's Bruce's Slashdot user's page, and lists 77 posts in the last few weeks alone. Bruce is a heavy poster to Slashdot, he clearly reads a lot of content and posts, and takes the time to reply to them. (BTW, Bruce, thanks for taking that time, it means a lot.)
I'm sure that Bruce will follow this thread, and the thread on the followup article. Ask you questions there, and if Bruce thinks they're worth answering, I suspect he will. You can't get much more open than that.
Slashdot is actually just providing a filtering service. No everyone cares enough about any given issue to read the comments, but Rob tries to filter out the most interesting bits to the articles proper. I don't really care enough about say, The Who, the see what people have to say about it, but it's kinda neat to know about Lighthouse. On the other hand, I'm real interested in what Bruce Perens has to say (at the least he is an interesting writer), so I follow threads on such things.
Anyway, in summary Rob/Slashdot filters questions. This is to allow those who are cursorily interested to get a quick glimpse of the action. Those of us who really care will read and post to the thread, which I expect will be chock full of Bruce replies.
Slashdot Mirror
Most plugins are unnecessary gaudy crap glued onto the browser to create a market where none really exists. There are a handful of plugins which have "real" value. Depending on your point of view, it includes Flash, Shockwave, Real, and Acrobat. Most plugins aren't created to fill a need, they're created to make their authors money.
When you're trying to sell gaudy crap to someone, being multiplatform, stable, or well designed is irrelevant. The important thing is that it looks shiny on the computer of your end sucker... erm... customer. Joe Clueless Webmaster doesn't really know what Linux is, if the shiny crap looks good on his Windows 98 / MacOS 9 box, it must be good. Jane Clueful Webmistress does worry about Linux, WebTV, the Dreamcast, and other alternative web browsers, but Jane also realizes that good web sites are actually harmed by gaudy plugins.
Supporting another platform costs a great deal of money. You need developer time to support the new platform, an variety of hardware to test on and QA time to make sure it works well. It's a lot of money to try and sell product to a hostile audience.
So quoth Cliff:
Simply put, if you're selling snake oil, don't worry about convincing the real doctors, just talk fast enough to fool the marks. There is no "larger market."
For this same reason, open sourcing the plugin doesn't help. The open source and free software communities have no sympathy for unnecessary junk.
That's a very good point. I certainly look forward to book publishers checking to make sure groups aren't using photocopies or cover ripped books. I'll happy welcome the RIAA to audit my CD collection, I might have some copies I didn't pay for!
This isn't about monopoly power. This is about licenses containing unreasonable clauses. This is about companies doing it because they know no one actually reads the license. This is about putting the burden of proof of ownership on the customer. This is about corporations rewriting the law so that you're guilty until proven innocent.
This is about the freedom that RMS talks about. It's about protecting the freedoms you already had.
(Urk, the Slashdot lameness filter choked on the very long URLs, you'll need to delete the spaces inserted. Grumble.)
http://a864.g.akamai.net/5/864/51/a1fd2644e6dcf8/
http://a1168.g.akamai.net/5/1168/51/94e9a89268a
http://a1440.g.akamai.net/5/1440/51/2b1dc47f9c5
These are direct links to the .mov files, suitable for downloading and viewing at your leisure.
You might want to be more careful with your lucky little +1 in the future. Such massively unfair comparisions might get you modded down.
Seeing what public services a site is running is in no way similar entering someone's home. You set up DNS, FTP, and other servers because you want people to use them. If a business has an unlabelled door, it's reasonable to assume that it's publically usable. If the door isn't for public use, it's either labelled as such ("Employees Only"), or locked. This guy didn't even generally port scan (it sounds like), he looked for common and generally available doors. He didn't attempt to actually gain access through those services in any way not intended for the public.
Your babbling on about taking the rock is even more inappropriate. Did he steal any evidence? No. Did he destroy, remove, or otherwise damage any evidence? No. He was just an irritating rubber-necker.
Lastly, problem isn't even that the FBI questioned him. The problem is that they seized his property on questionable grounds. Given the nature of evidence, he may not see his property back before it is close to valueless. Even more importantly, much of his data is probably gone.
The comment about the trailer being "unfinished" and "unauthorized" refers to the French trailer released some time ago. This is the honest to god real theatrical trailer.
Well, it looks like the official site is slashdotted. Might as well spread the fun. If you really want more information check out dndmovie.com. Lots of photos, a few interviews, and generally a fun fan site which got some good behind the scenes information.
"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents."
-- Nathaniel Borenstein
In Understanding Comics , Scott McCloud does point out that it's easier to attach oneself to an abstract form than a realistic one. McCloud explains that is is because other people look very realistic, and are obviously "not you", you most people only have an abstract sense of "self." An abstract character is easier to project myself into. However, he points out that there is a place for the realistic. Realistic things tend to look more "other." The comic Tintin placed the very abstract Tintin against much more realistic backdrops for this purpose.
While it's important to remember these details when designing a game, the lesson is not "don't make games realistic." The lesson is "it's easier for a player to project him or herself into an abstract avatar than a realistic one."
One good example of this working against a game is Diakatana . I never felt I was Hiro, Hiro was the nicely rendered character in front of me. On the other hand, it may be easier to feel for the characters of J et Grind Radio , who are rendered as cartoons.
Thief does a generally good job of making Garrent, the main character, abstract. In actual gameplay, you don't see Garret at all (it's first person). I always found it very jarring when Garret spoke while I was playing, it reinforced that I wasn't Garret.
That said, Understanding Comics is a great read. Anyone who reads comics will probably appreciate it. I suspect anyone involved in graphical arts of any time will find some valuable information.
Someone emailed me asking for advice on these mice for a blind friend. This is an area I don't know much about this area, but perhaps some elaboration on the the menu and icon "stickiness" provided will be help.
The WingMan mouse actually makes menus, icons, and links slighty "sticky". There is ever so slight resistance to move away. This would make it easier to hit menu and icon targets. On the other hand, the mouses restricted range of motion is very frustrating. If your friend is blind, he may not be able to tell that the mouse cursor isn't at the right edge of the screen, but the mouse is at the right edge of the pad.
The iFeel mice (Logitech) produces a single "click" when you move onto a menu item or icon. There isn't any indication that you've moved off of the target. While it would make it easier to tell that you've moved onto the target, you don't get any warning that you've moved off. On the up side, it's a normal mouse not physically connected to a mouse pad.
Both mice have some control panel options for how they react, but I'm not really in a position to seriously play with their options. Both mice fail to detect icons and buttons in some cases, particularly when a program ignores the Windows API and creates custom controls.
I'd err on the side of the Wingman, the feedback seems more meaningful. Unfortunately, it's very hard to guess how frustrating the restricted range of motion will be for someone who can't see the cursor. It is certainly something that could be adapted to.
Obviously, if anyone has any real experience with this, please let us know!
The company which licenses the force feedback mouse technology is Immersion.
There are two arguments I see against using some sort of resistance or force on the mouse wheels which are connected to the mouse ball:
The WingMan Force Feedback Mouse
This mouse is permenantly mounted to its "mouse pad". Movement is limited to about two inches of movement either way. The motion isn't absolute to the screen, so it's possible to end up in the middle of the screen and unable to move to the right. (You work around it by slowly moving left, then quickly moving right.) This is very frustrating.
Because the mouse is connected to the mouse pad, it can actually push back against you. It's a neat trick, but I'm not real sure about the value. When playing a game, having your mouse kick back when you fire would be distracting. Worse, being locked to the pad means that in a first person shooter, you can end up unable to turn in a direction.
Using their web browser plugin, a web page author can push your mouse around, or give a graphic a simplistic texture. Just what I need, my mouse to gravitate towards the "Purchase Now". Or, oooh, I can _feel_ the Slashdot logo. Yippee. It's got all of the apeal of a BLINK tag or a web site entirely designed in Flash.
The strangest feature is that the mouse can generate simple tones by vibrating. It's a creepy feeling. I don't want my mouse to feel like an electric razer, and I want my audio to come from my nice sound card. It's such a bad idea that I suspect it's a side effect of the design that they decided to call a feature.
The only potential advantage is that once their drive is installed, menu items subtly "click". So do links in Internet Explorer. I didn't particularly like it, but I can see it making "hitting the target" easier.
All in all, I'd rather have a nice mouse I can actually pick up.
iFeel Mouse
On the up side it is a nice optical mouse. But they sell cheaper optical mice. Because it's not attached to a mouse pad, all it can do is vibrate. You don't sense any particular texture. You don't feel it push in any direction. It just vibrates. Push it over a textured web graphic and it vibrates. Fire a gun in a game and it vibrates. Move it over a link and it vibrates. It's as complex and useful as a "rumble pack" for a console controller. Oh, and it does the vibrating tone thing, but barely audiably.
It's a lot more practically useful than the WingMan mouse, but you're still paying a premium for a silly idea. Just buy a nice optical mouse without force feedback. Logitech even makes those.
I loved this:
If I buy a naked PC, how exactly am I "at risk" of acquiring an unauthorized OS? Will I walk down the street with my new PC and a copy of Windows will jump in from an alley? This is just silly. People who choose to use an unlicensed copy did so willingly. There is no risk, the buyer either will or will not.
This also implies that if the OEM installs an operating system, that the customer is safe from the "legal risks." If the customer takes his happy little WindowsME box, downloads a copy of Windows 2000 and installs it, he's most certainly at legal risk.
I'm also fond of the repeated implications that an OEM who sells naked PCs might be liable for some sort of damage. There are plenty of valid reasons to get a naked box (My business has a site license for Windows or I'm installing a different operating system). No sane person would find an OEM guilty of copyright infringement. (If the OEM sold or gave away unauthorized copies of Windows, or actively encouraged people to get such copies, that would be a very different story.)
Bah, typical Microsoft FUD. There are good reasons to sell naked PCs.
Simply put, fractal compression was a neat idea that never really worked well. For some quick information the comp.compression FAQ part 1, search for "Subject: [17]". For a long history of fractal compression, check the comp.compression FAQ, part 2, search for "Subject: [77]".
Go read VitalBook's page on the subject. Their list of "features" includes mandated purchases by schools (and NYU's Dental school is doing exactly this starting in 2001), and the removal of used book sales. They aren't competing with printed books. Frighting stuff. Given the current attitude of "save money at any cost" at universities, I can certainly see this spreading.
Sure, the FAQ does go on to say that you can return it if you're not satisfied, but students starting in 2001 are told "It is our position that ALL dentists must have excellent computer skills to maximize their skill and knowledge as dentists." To help them build excellent computer skills, Apple PowerBooks and VitalBooks are mandatory.
Meanwhile, back at VitalBooks themselves, they comment:
Here at VitalBook, we've taken care of little details like choice. Heck, you don't even need to be taking a given course to charge people for it:
And that pesky used book store where people can save a little money on their education and help protect the environment with reuse:My biggest hope is that as companies get increasingly... well... evil, it will become clear to everyone that this must be stopped. I don't want to live in a world where I license everything and own nothing.
I love Fred. If I didn't have so much faith in human stupidity, I've suspect that his articles were actually some sort of satire on FUD.
Since ABCNews, it in interested of giving people the direct facts, have neglected to provide a link to the actual BugTraq statistics. Here's one. Check it out, lots of fascinating disclaimers and real numbers. Fred cheerfully brushes off such fun disclaimers as "The statistics should not be taken to imply that some particular operating system or application is more or less secure than another one." He ignores " We consider a vulnerability to affect an application or operating system if the vulnerability affects a component that is part of the application or operating system when brought or downloaded." So, if sendmail has a vulnerability, it's likely to count against Linux, since most Linux distributions ship a sendmail. If a mail transport agent for NT has a vulnerability, well, it didn't ship with NT, so it's okay.
Let's check Fred's numbers. A quick check for 1999 for Windows NT reveals 99 incidents, sure enough. A check for "Linux (aggr.)" reveals... 84? Something smells fishy.
Well, the disclaimers at the top note " Were we display aggregate number of vulnerabilities (Linux and BSD) the number is the size of the set that results from the union of all vulnerabilities for the components without duplication. Vulnerabilities are not counted twice." Perhaps this means that the "aggr" entry doesn't include the Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, or Slackware entries. Not how I would have interpreted it (I would have read it as "If a single bug was found in Red Hat, SuSE, and Debian, we only counted it in the aggregation once, not three times.) But adding them together gets me... 182. Erm, so where did Fred pull 122 from?
Fred, after blowing off BugTraq's very long disclaimer, summarises with:
This is just stupid. If you remove his little "against the number of its customers", his analysis has no meaning. I can find a strong case for many of the system with a little justification like Fred's. Security vulnerabilities are more important for servers on the internet where random people can attack them. Given the number of Linux boxes to Windows boxes serving web pages on the internet, it's looks that Linux and Windows NT are closely matched. Taking into account severity of the vulnerability (Are there real exploits, or is it a suspected vulnerability? Can it be exploited externally, or only if you already have local user permissions? Does it effect all computers, or only ones in particular configuration?) I suspect you'd find different answers, but the information isn't there (and BugTraq admits as much).
The amazingly low quality of this article makes me suspect that Fred is either so strongly biased against Linux that he is conciously or subconciously viewing the world through blue (screen) colored glasses. Of course, ABC doesn't have any reason to stop him, since clearly he's drawing huge hits.
Oh well.
Ultimately, we should just ignore the silly little man and go on enjoying our better product.
All in all, it's a fairly compelling document. I'm not terribly sure how ethically or legally right Napster is. Napster does maintain a database of copyright protected music with the intent to profit (in some nebulous way) from it. But the document still has some interesting thoughts from the RIAA. Some gems include:
Oh my, how dare anyone attempt to "usurp" or "undermine" the record industry and replace it with something else! How dare Napster view copyright schemes as combersome and avoid being hindered by them! How else will the RIAA enjoy it's God given right to make money. Feh. Anyone seriously attempting to change how music is distributed, even with great respect for copyright, will attempt to "usurp" the record industry. Such a company could quite reasonably view record stores as obsolete. This is in no way grounds to take Napster down.
It's nice to know that if you're an artist not involved in the case, you're "commercially insignificant" and as such not deserving of the right to use Napster to distribute your music.
All is not lost, since the RIAA the RIAA generously gives Napster a way to continue hosting files:
(Don't be misled by the "For example", it's the only example they give. The only other options I can see are ineffective lists of prohibited titles or requirining "hindering" copyright protection technology.)
So, if you get a tape from a non-internet saavy friend musician who encourages you to make copies for anyone you want, you couldn't put it onto Napster without getting Napster some official form of authorization. If sending an email saying "I own this and I authorize it" is enough, it will be trivial to forge emails granting permission for the RIAA catalogs. If some sort of proof is required, it becomes an onerous burden for the copyright holder.
It is worth noting that newspapers do provide one important function. It's important that people read things that they may not immediately agree with, they they expose themselves to other views. One of the biggest risks of news on the web is that one can isolate onesself from things you don't want to hear. Balancing this with the need for choice is hard.
Anyway, Jon stated:
What, you want USA Today? If I was going to get a newspaper (I don't, largely for the reasons above), I would get the Wall Street Journal. Minimal graphics. Pure text content. I like Slashdot for it's minimal graphics and high content value. Graphics aren't really important for more news.However, used improperly, C++ can make code extremely hard to read. While you can certainly make code hard to read in any language, C++ provides many more tools which can be used to shoot yourself in the foot. I think that this is the source of most complaints about C++'s complexity.
I recently had it argued to me that C++'s biggest weakness is that in the hands of those who doesn't yet understand why to use specific features, it easier to write bad code. I've seen the horrors that a template, exception, or operator overloading used in the wrong place can be. The world is full of programmers who don't necessarily understand why certain features aren't always appropriate. While I'd prefer that we work to improve the quality of programmers, and make sure that anyone coding C++ be taught that critical why, I don't see it happening. not going to happen. So this argument against C++ remains compelling to me. (Fortunately it's not compelling enough to stop me from coding happily in C++.) What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you feel this is a weakness of C++? Is this issue not nearly as serious as I think it appear?
Of course, in his portrayal of C as being an ancient, out of date language, he goes so far as to claim:
Apparently Microsoft Windows and Mac OS weren't "mainstream" enough for Tim. (I won't argue that they're kludgy... that's a whole different problem.)Skipping over brief discussions of hardwiring games and assembly, we come to C. He discusses slow adoptation of C by game programmers, then holds DOOM as a turning point of some sort:
While DOOM didn't rely on assembly to run, it relied on assembly to run at acceptable speeds on mainstream computers. In addition, usage of C and C's contemporaries was already well entrenched in the game industry by that point.I'll gloss the section on C++. I think he's getting overworked about the failings of C++. Many, many projects continue to work in C++ just fine without collapsing. I think he's a bit arrogant for lump UnrealScript into the mix. He filtered out Pascal and other C contemporaries to presumably keep his list simple, then lumps in a fairly specialized pet language.
Getting the future we get to the good parts. He wants to discuss "parametric polymorphism." He handwaves away C++'s templates with:
Again, he ignores the many people who find that templates (especially the STL) provides many of the features he wants without introducing the ambiguity he does (more in a moment). He also ignores the C programmers who have been programming in object oriented styles for years. Oh well.Anyway, we get to his list of things he wants for "'parametric polymorphism' in its full glory." (His extra quotes, not mine. Read into what you will.) First we wants an "open world evolution of source code and binaries." I read this as, he wants to be able to change various bits (containers, algorithms, other bits) without breaking compatibility. Why templates fail as a "link-time feature" is beyond me. I manage to "evolve" my template containers and algorithms without breaking anything just fine. Sure, I can break things, but I fail to see how any language can stop me from breaking things.
He wants "functions references bound to specific objects." I can't figure this one out. I certainly can stick function pointers in objects. Perhaps he means closure, which is easily done with function objects (an object which looks and acts suspiciously like a function). (This is slightly inelegant in C++, but certainly not an "enormous amount of 'duct tape'".
He also wants his polymorphic types to support bounds and constraints (simple enough), and "higher-order function calling" (No guess).
He then dwells on an example. He's got three integer arrays A, B, and C. He wants to add the each element in B and C and place the result in the corresponding element in A. He seems deeply bothered that C++ doesn't look at "A = B + C" and "do the right thing." He seems to ignore other, reasonable interpretations of B + C. Perhaps it means concatenate the arrays, or add all of the elements in B and C into a single number and put it into A[0]?
Looking at things this way, Tim Sweeney naively assumes that everyone can agree what + means in the situation.Ultimately he appears to be looking for a general way to work on sets in this sort of way. It's a darn shame he hasn't looked at the STL recently, since tools like for_each() provide a solid, general basis for running over a single array, and a for_each like function running over two containers isn't very hard to write.
Moving on, we find:
Why this isn't possible (and already being worked on just fine) in C++ (or even, god forbid, C), is beyond me.His discussion on virtual classes and frameworks is interesting. Somehow I'm not feeling a compelling calling for virtual classes, but it's interesting.
His discussion on how wonderful UnrealScript is particularly interesting. He wants the various "good bits" of Java (binary interoperability, security), plus a few more (language supported serialization that automatically is backward compatible). This sounds nice and all, but he quietly ignores speed issues. Given that Unreal shipped with framerates regularly below 10fps on systems that were "up to date" when it shipped, I suspect he doesn't care. Like the Java advocates say, "A slight speed hit is okay, since computers keep getting faster." Of course, the "slight" speed hit generally turns out to be at least cutting your speed in half, it isn't okay. I'd certainly notice Word getting 50% slower, and I darn well want to run by games with as many graphical bells and whistles on as possible. Oh well.
IE has improved in quality by leaps and bounds. It probably would have gained market share anyway. However, saying that the many steps taken by Microsoft to make it appear that Netscape didn't exist to new users didn't affect market share is foolish.
My point: Compete on quality, not by monopolistic tactics.
I suggest you don't worry about people spoofing they're likely to be more technical people who understand the risks of doing so.
Of course, there is a deeper issue. Take a random feature, say JavaScript (since you brought it up), that the site "needs". First, what about users with acceptable browsers who disable JavaScript? Are we to be turned away? This is another support problem area.
Also, consider why they feel the need for JavaScript or similarly uncertain technologies? In many cases, JavaScript, DHTML, and the ilk are used just to "pretty up" the site. Maybe a better idea is to make the site use straight HTML, opening up your userbase to almost everyone?
If you really need the JavaScript/DHTML/Java/Whatever, limit it's use and put a "This page needs JavaScript. We recommend Netscape 4.X or IE 4.X or later. We can't support anything else, sorry." on the pages.
The Artist's Guide to the Gimp (AGG) is a good start. However, it is a step below what I was looking for. If you're familiar with Photoshop, you'll find the book a really light, fluffy intro. On the down side, you won't learn the equivalents of all of your favorite Photoshoppy goodness (and almost everything has equivalents these days), but on the up side, you'll quickly chew through the book and be productive in the Gimp (as opposed to guessing what the buttons do. :-)
The biggest problem is that the book is seriously out of date. I've found the latest builds of the development tree relatively stable, and the huge number of new features makes it hard to consider going back to the practically ancient 1.0x series the book describes. Still, it's nice to have large portions of the software's basic use described, making the newer shinier portions easier to get a handle on. Oh, and the information on using X and installing fonts seemed out of place. Either you're relatively unix clueful, and can manage them, or you're not and you have a sysadmin who does it for you. Either way it's not real valuable in my eyes.
I'm sure that Bruce will follow this thread, and the thread on the followup article. Ask you questions there, and if Bruce thinks they're worth answering, I suspect he will. You can't get much more open than that.
Slashdot is actually just providing a filtering service. No everyone cares enough about any given issue to read the comments, but Rob tries to filter out the most interesting bits to the articles proper. I don't really care enough about say, The Who, the see what people have to say about it, but it's kinda neat to know about Lighthouse. On the other hand, I'm real interested in what Bruce Perens has to say (at the least he is an interesting writer), so I follow threads on such things.
Anyway, in summary Rob/Slashdot filters questions. This is to allow those who are cursorily interested to get a quick glimpse of the action. Those of us who really care will read and post to the thread, which I expect will be chock full of Bruce replies.