The JVM was created to support the Java language, but there's no reason that you must use Java to write for the JVM.
Mark my words: Barring interference from the government, MS will add a "compile to Java bytecode" feature in the next version of VB. That's MS's real response to Java, IMHO.
the Hollywood film industry got started because Edison was too tyrannical over the New York movie industry, so some of the film makers made a Mormon-style exodus westward to find a new home where they could do their own thing.
I hate to bring this up, but IIRC, it was actually a patent issue. Edison held the patent on motion picture production, so he was the film industry for a while. Apparently patent law wasn't as uniform then, though, so his competitors were able to get out of his jurisdiction by moving to California.
What the Academy is saying is that even if you do release the movie theatrically, you're out of the running for an Oscar if you disseminate it using any method other than theatrical exhibition.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but the rule is that movies must be distributed on film first to be eligible for Oscars. You could release your film theatrically, and then put it on the internet the next day, and you'd be fine.
If you're an indie producer or director, on the other hand, that is not an option. You can't afford to test-screen your movie in "select cities."
I think you're underestimating how professional "independent" filmmakers are. We're not talking about some kid with a Handicam. I don't know this for certain, but I'm pretty sure that they could just fill the requirement by renting out a local theater for the night and holding a screening.
IMHO, this ruling is intended to stifle independent films.
Contrary to the prevailing opinion on Slashdot, don't always have sinister motives. I think the ruling is intended to do exactly what it says: ensure that the Academy Awards for film continue to be awards for film. Other mediums can (and do) have their own awards.
Folks here have already mentioned audio CDs, which used to be packaged in huge cardboard boxes, but now are almost always sold in plain jewel boxes. If shoplifting is an issue, the store can lock the CDs in reusable plastic extenders, which are annoying, but (presumably) not wasteful.
Computer software is different. Think of games, in particular, since that's where packaging really comes into its own. Some computer games will always require a large box... any Sid Meier game, for example. Many other games could be sold in jewel boxes, but those games still have to compete with the ones in large boxes. Even the most rational consumer couldn't help but pay more attention to the huge Falcon 8.0 box, with its three volume manual, than to the little Quake IV CD, sitting in a rack with hundreds of other identical jewel boxes.
it would be a perfect application for those new-fangled flywheels
I have no idea if this makes sense or not, but it's a really interesting idea. Moderators take note.
Has there been any research done on this? Is it even remotely feasible?
Another poster mentioned that the gyroscopic forces would make maneuvering difficult (i.e. impossible,) but maybe it would still be suitable for interstellar trips, which might spend more time travelling straight?
Price gouging (the existence of free [beer] & cheap OSes like Linux & Be make the pricetag on Windows look suspicious)
Sorry, but noone has been gouged by the price of Win95. It is not a neccessity of life that people have some inherent right to. MS can charge whatever they want for it.
Hmmm... Makes for an interesting argument. If Windows and Linux (etc...) do not compete directly, then MS has a monopoly, and charging such a high price is illegal. If Windows and Linux do compete directly, then MS does not have a monopoly, so they're free to charge whatever they want. However, if Windows and Linux were in competition, then MS wouldn't be able to charge $200+ for Windows, as long as comparable alternative exists at a much lower price (Linux: $0). MS's own prices are proof that they have a monopoly.
Of course, by that logic, there are a whole lot of other monopolies out there...
Well no, actually government has an obligation to protect the people
I know a lot of/.ers would dispute this, but I think that most of MS's employees and shareholders are, in fact, people. They have rights too. I'm not saying that they must be insulated completely from any damage that might come from this case, but the government does have to have to have some consideration for their welfare.
MS shouldn't be split into many companies for the same reason that shoplifters and jaywalkers shouldn't be executed. They may have done wrong, but that doesn't mean they're completely without rights.
(Yes, I know that I'm confusing the corporation with its employees. It is theoretically possible that the government could punish MS without harming a single human being... but I wouldn't bet on it.)
In its zeal to tear apart the Windows OS, the government has managed to miss almost all of the monopolistic "ties" that give MS its power.
Separating Office from Windows is good, and it's probably the most important pair. But all of the various clients and servers are still in the same company (rather than leaving the servers with the OS,) which allows MS to push incompatible protocols; Java and Visual Studio are still together, leaving no incentive to keep Visual J++ standard; I'm sure there are other examples. It's only the poor OS division which is left without much monopolistic leverage.
IE is actually a tricky case, because MS has two potential angles on it: It can tie it to IIS, or it can tie it to content on MSNBC or MSN. I suppose separating IE from both IIS and "MS content" would work, but any way you do it, one company is going to end up with an odd combination of properties.
(And no, splitting MS into more companies is not the solution. The government can't just go messing around with the economy at will... They have an obligation to do only what is absolutely necessary to "fix" the problem. I'm not even convinced that splitting MS at all is appropriate, let alone splitting it more than two ways. Anyway, if the government did split MS three ways, we already know that they'd leave IE and content in the same company, which doesn't accomplish anything.)
Every single motion, action, etc. was exactly the same across the two platforms.
IMHO, that's exactly what you want to avoid when you're designing a "cross-platform" app. The point isn't to make the app look identical on many different machines... the point is to make it look native on many different machines. It should use the native widgets, common dialogs, and interface metaphors, even if that means that the shortcut keys or window layout are totally different on different machines.
Making a program look identical on different platforms is a popular form of user abuse. It makes life easier for the programmer, but it's guaranteed to frustrate most users. Apple's Quicktime player is a good example of this... as horrible it is on the Mac, it's even worse on Windows. You know how the Mac puts the menu bar at the top of the screen, whereas Windows attaches it to a window? Apparently the folks who ported Quicktime couldn't even handle this slight difference, so they just stick the menu at some arbitrary place on the screen, in its own little window.
I digress... The point is, interface consistency is good. But how often are people going to use the same application in more than one environment? On the other hand, how often are they going to use different applications in the same environment? That's the consistency that matters, no matter what programmers find asthetically pleasing.
Duck brain (useful for shutting half of your brain down, for resting, without requiring any actual sleep. Great for month-long coding frenzies).
You know, I've actually thought seriously about this. (Apparently whales do it too, incidentally.) I'd like to try training a human to sleep unihemispherically, using biofeedback, along with alternating sensory stimulation/deprivation targeted at the appropriate side of the brain.
It would be neat. I have a hunch that it might only work on young children, though, and messing with childrens' brains is generally frowned upon. Er... among scientists, I mean.
... and it certainly didn't need to be posted in its entirety.
Skimming through your comments:
[pretty standard so far, right?]
Well, yes.
[in other words, you can't run two instances of the program at the same time, nor can you install it on two computers, even if only one of them would be in use at a time (i.e. home vs work).]
That's not what it says. It says that you can't run the program in more than one session at a time. Granted, that's a little vague, but most of us know what it means: You can't dodge the license by installing one copy on a multi-user Un*x system, and letting two hundred people use it at once. Oh, and as far as installing it on more than one computer, that's a standard feature of almost every license. (Although I notice that recent Microsoft licenses often let you install the program on both a desktop and a notebook.)
[so much for right of first sale..]
Every license includes that clause. It's probably unenforceable.
[Hooray for DMCA! You can't reverse engineer or otherwise use xing's software for anything other than what the UI lets you do.]
Again, every proprietary license that I've ever read includes that clause. Whether it's enforceable or not remains to be seen.
[license ends with more standard legal stuff, including the obligatory all-caps "we aren't responsible, damnit!" section.]
"Standard legal stuff" indeed. So why did you post it?
I would be interested in knowing the relative effort of creation for each of the languages.
Interesting question, but complicated. Not every language has the same learning curve. For example, VB is pretty effortless for beginners, but gradually gets more tedious as you get more experienced. C++, on the other hand, starts out pretty smoothly, then rapidly sinks into complete incomprehensibility... until you achieve C++ nirvana, and everything makes perfect sense. (And all your friends think you're insane.)
Most of what you mention can be part of any operating environment, but it's not in the OS. There are several JVM's available for various platforms.
Actually, you're right on that. Even the JVM in Windows is replaceable, although I'm sure it's protected by undocumented APIs. MS/OS could just document those APIs, and remove the actual JVM, and that would be fine.
There's also a practical matter, though: Writing a Java VM is a job for OS programmers, not application programmers. Just from an organizational standpoint, it should be done in the OS division.
As far as servers, I'm still ambivalent, but I stand by what I said. (Especially, again, because leaving the clients and the servers in the same company is much more dangerous than leaving the servers and the OS together.)
Consumers do benefit from choice, all other things being equal. But consumers don't benefit from government-designed software.
You say a breakup is "a good thing" yet complain that Microsoft should be able to tie non-core OS features, such as a JVM, into Windows to prevent competition (even if that isn't the intent it's the result).
The question is, which features are "core OS features"? I gave my opinions. And there are only opinions... It's provably impossible to come up with a formal definiton of what is and what isn't part of an OS. (Just like it's impossible to adequately define what organisms are "human", and what aren't.)
They tuck this little bit in at the end, even though it seems to me that it's the core of the ruling: (excuse the long quote)
"Applications Business" means all businesses carried on by Microsoft Corporation on the effective date of this Final Judgment except the Operating Systems Business. Applications Business includes but is not limited to the development, licensing, promotion, and support of client and server applications and Middleware (e.g., Office, BackOffice, Internet Information Server, SQL Server, etc.), Internet Explorer, Mobile Explorer and other web browsers, Streaming Audio and Video client and server software, transaction server software, SNA server software, indexing server software, XML servers and parsers, Microsoft Management Server, Java virtual machines, Frontpage Express (and other web authoring tools), Outlook Express (and other e-mail clients), Media player, voice recognition software, Net Meeting (and other collaboration software), developer tools, hardware, MSN, MSNBC, Slate, Expedia, and all investments owned by Microsoft in partners or joint venturers, or in ISVs, IHVs, OEMs or other distributors, developers, and promoters of Microsoft products, or in other information technology or communications businesses.
Most of these are uncontroversial, but quite a few aren't.
Internet Explorer was a done deal, I suppose. No point in even discussing it.
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
Server software? I'm ambivalent about this. From an engineering standpoint, most server software probably can't be considered part of the OS. But for practical purposes, I think it makes sense to allow that. Especially since putting the server software in the same company as the client software defeats much of the purpose of the ruling.
Developer tools? I'm also ambivalent about this, for the opposite reason: I think compilers should be considered part of the OS, but I can see the danger in that arrangement.
Indexing server software? Does that mean ActiveDirectory, or whatever it's called? I don't know much about server systems, but isn't that basically NT's security system? It would be very dangerous to have security separated from the OS.
Voice recognition software? Oh well, I guess it'll be another few decades before we can talk to our computers. (SR won't become universal if it's not supported by the OS.)
"Client Applications"? No more command-line ftp? How about ping? More seriously, what about Windows file sharing? A server OS isn't worth much if it's not allowed to serve files.
Well, that's enough for now. As I've said before, I think splitting up Microsoft is a good thing in and of itself. (I'm not sure that the government should have that power, though.) But they need to do some more work on the line between the two companies.
how do you justify the fact that people are going to hold illegal data in your facility in the name of free speech?
Analogy: "How do you justify allowing black people to vote, in the name of equal rights?"
The question doesn't make sense. Free speech is free speech. Illegal speech is not free speech. For supporters of free speech, there is no such thing as "illegal data".
Having said that, the other posters here are correct... HavenCo isn't taking such a bold stance. They won't allow "illegal data." Read the FAQ... er, actually, the Acceptable Use Policy.
Well, windows 9x might have, NT is a different story. To install NT 4 (and windows 2000) on a ATA/66 drive.
While we're depositing our pennies, I may as well say that I installed Windows 2000 Pro on an ATA/66 system with no problems. Maybe you were using a beta release? I guess YMMV.
First of all, I don't think anybody ever doubted that black holes grow. It's kind of fundamental to the definition.
Hawking showed that black holes also shrink. (The reason why is really trippy...) As long as they grow faster than they shrink, the net effect is still growth... and the rate of shrinkage is so slow that even the cosmic background radiation is sufficient to keep them, well, in the black. Black hole shrinkage and decay will happen eventually, but not for a long, long, long, long time.
This is flamebait, I know, but it has to be said: I find it interesting (and dissappointing) that everyone here is so anxious to point out that this is not a worm (which is correct), yet most people had no problem with calling the ILOVEYOU trojan a worm, even though it used the exact same mechanism to propagate. (I.e. convincing stupid users to run it.)
This really isn't "opening" the Playstation 2. This is just allowing other companies to buy the chips.
The article isn't very clear on this point, but it does say that Sony is doing two things: licensing the chips, and "opening the architecture". "Opening the architecture" could be a euphemism for licensing the chips, but if it is, they wouldn't have mentioned it separately. So I assume that it means publishing specs.
The main point of computer games is to allow us to experience things that we can't do in real life. If you make the interaction too realistic, then it becomes just as hard to play the game as it is to do the real thing (and not as rewarding.)
Personally, I'd probably like a "virtual lightsaber," but, like many/.ers, I have experience with martial arts. There are a lot of other people out there who would find such an interface frustrating.
This doesn't directly answer your question, but... The DMCA makes all protection-defeating software illegal (and DeCSS clearly falls under that, no matter what it's actually used for.)
However, exceptions must be made, if "persons who are users of a copyrighted work are... adversely affected by the prohibition... in their ability to make noninfringing uses... of a particular class of copyrighted works." If there are no legal DVD players for Linux, then that exception clearly applies... but if legal players appear, the argument loses a lot of its weight.
Personally, I think that the DMCA is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech (i.e. code.) But until we can get it overturned, that's where it stands.
Slashdot Mirror
I kept thinking about that as I was reading this article. It was a neat package.
Folks here have already mentioned audio CDs, which used to be packaged in huge cardboard boxes, but now are almost always sold in plain jewel boxes. If shoplifting is an issue, the store can lock the CDs in reusable plastic extenders, which are annoying, but (presumably) not wasteful.
Computer software is different. Think of games, in particular, since that's where packaging really comes into its own. Some computer games will always require a large box... any Sid Meier game, for example. Many other games could be sold in jewel boxes, but those games still have to compete with the ones in large boxes. Even the most rational consumer couldn't help but pay more attention to the huge Falcon 8.0 box, with its three volume manual, than to the little Quake IV CD, sitting in a rack with hundreds of other identical jewel boxes.
Has there been any research done on this? Is it even remotely feasible?
Another poster mentioned that the gyroscopic forces would make maneuvering difficult (i.e. impossible,) but maybe it would still be suitable for interstellar trips, which might spend more time travelling straight?
Of course, by that logic, there are a whole lot of other monopolies out there...
MS shouldn't be split into many companies for the same reason that shoplifters and jaywalkers shouldn't be executed. They may have done wrong, but that doesn't mean they're completely without rights.
(Yes, I know that I'm confusing the corporation with its employees. It is theoretically possible that the government could punish MS without harming a single human being... but I wouldn't bet on it.)
In its zeal to tear apart the Windows OS, the government has managed to miss almost all of the monopolistic "ties" that give MS its power.
Separating Office from Windows is good, and it's probably the most important pair. But all of the various clients and servers are still in the same company (rather than leaving the servers with the OS,) which allows MS to push incompatible protocols; Java and Visual Studio are still together, leaving no incentive to keep Visual J++ standard; I'm sure there are other examples. It's only the poor OS division which is left without much monopolistic leverage.
IE is actually a tricky case, because MS has two potential angles on it: It can tie it to IIS, or it can tie it to content on MSNBC or MSN. I suppose separating IE from both IIS and "MS content" would work, but any way you do it, one company is going to end up with an odd combination of properties.
(And no, splitting MS into more companies is not the solution. The government can't just go messing around with the economy at will... They have an obligation to do only what is absolutely necessary to "fix" the problem. I'm not even convinced that splitting MS at all is appropriate, let alone splitting it more than two ways. Anyway, if the government did split MS three ways, we already know that they'd leave IE and content in the same company, which doesn't accomplish anything.)
Making a program look identical on different platforms is a popular form of user abuse. It makes life easier for the programmer, but it's guaranteed to frustrate most users. Apple's Quicktime player is a good example of this... as horrible it is on the Mac, it's even worse on Windows. You know how the Mac puts the menu bar at the top of the screen, whereas Windows attaches it to a window? Apparently the folks who ported Quicktime couldn't even handle this slight difference, so they just stick the menu at some arbitrary place on the screen, in its own little window.
I digress... The point is, interface consistency is good. But how often are people going to use the same application in more than one environment? On the other hand, how often are they going to use different applications in the same environment? That's the consistency that matters, no matter what programmers find asthetically pleasing.
It would be neat. I have a hunch that it might only work on young children, though, and messing with childrens' brains is generally frowned upon. Er... among scientists, I mean.
Skimming through your comments:Well, yes.That's not what it says. It says that you can't run the program in more than one session at a time. Granted, that's a little vague, but most of us know what it means: You can't dodge the license by installing one copy on a multi-user Un*x system, and letting two hundred people use it at once. Oh, and as far as installing it on more than one computer, that's a standard feature of almost every license. (Although I notice that recent Microsoft licenses often let you install the program on both a desktop and a notebook.)Every license includes that clause. It's probably unenforceable.Again, every proprietary license that I've ever read includes that clause. Whether it's enforceable or not remains to be seen."Standard legal stuff" indeed. So why did you post it?
There's also a practical matter, though: Writing a Java VM is a job for OS programmers, not application programmers. Just from an organizational standpoint, it should be done in the OS division.
As far as servers, I'm still ambivalent, but I stand by what I said. (Especially, again, because leaving the clients and the servers in the same company is much more dangerous than leaving the servers and the OS together.)
Consumers do benefit from choice, all other things being equal. But consumers don't benefit from government-designed software.
Internet Explorer was a done deal, I suppose. No point in even discussing it.
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
Server software? I'm ambivalent about this. From an engineering standpoint, most server software probably can't be considered part of the OS. But for practical purposes, I think it makes sense to allow that. Especially since putting the server software in the same company as the client software defeats much of the purpose of the ruling.
Developer tools? I'm also ambivalent about this, for the opposite reason: I think compilers should be considered part of the OS, but I can see the danger in that arrangement.
Indexing server software? Does that mean ActiveDirectory, or whatever it's called? I don't know much about server systems, but isn't that basically NT's security system? It would be very dangerous to have security separated from the OS.
Voice recognition software? Oh well, I guess it'll be another few decades before we can talk to our computers. (SR won't become universal if it's not supported by the OS.)
"Client Applications"? No more command-line ftp? How about ping? More seriously, what about Windows file sharing? A server OS isn't worth much if it's not allowed to serve files.
Well, that's enough for now. As I've said before, I think splitting up Microsoft is a good thing in and of itself. (I'm not sure that the government should have that power, though.) But they need to do some more work on the line between the two companies.
The question doesn't make sense. Free speech is free speech. Illegal speech is not free speech. For supporters of free speech, there is no such thing as "illegal data".
Having said that, the other posters here are correct... HavenCo isn't taking such a bold stance. They won't allow "illegal data." Read the FAQ... er, actually, the Acceptable Use Policy.
First of all, I don't think anybody ever doubted that black holes grow. It's kind of fundamental to the definition.
Hawking showed that black holes also shrink. (The reason why is really trippy...) As long as they grow faster than they shrink, the net effect is still growth... and the rate of shrinkage is so slow that even the cosmic background radiation is sufficient to keep them, well, in the black. Black hole shrinkage and decay will happen eventually, but not for a long, long, long, long time.
This is flamebait, I know, but it has to be said: I find it interesting (and dissappointing) that everyone here is so anxious to point out that this is not a worm (which is correct), yet most people had no problem with calling the ILOVEYOU trojan a worm, even though it used the exact same mechanism to propagate. (I.e. convincing stupid users to run it.)
The main point of computer games is to allow us to experience things that we can't do in real life. If you make the interaction too realistic, then it becomes just as hard to play the game as it is to do the real thing (and not as rewarding.)
/.ers, I have experience with martial arts. There are a lot of other people out there who would find such an interface frustrating.
Personally, I'd probably like a "virtual lightsaber," but, like many
This doesn't directly answer your question, but... The DMCA makes all protection-defeating software illegal (and DeCSS clearly falls under that, no matter what it's actually used for.)
However, exceptions must be made, if "persons who are users of a copyrighted work are... adversely affected by the prohibition... in their ability to make noninfringing uses... of a particular class of copyrighted works." If there are no legal DVD players for Linux, then that exception clearly applies... but if legal players appear, the argument loses a lot of its weight.
Personally, I think that the DMCA is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech (i.e. code.) But until we can get it overturned, that's where it stands.