naww, I think the best BSG has always been about what makes us human and what seperates them from the cylons. it's not really about the end game.
unfortunately, I think the last season has had too many "filler" episodes that just didn't have the hard edge of the first two seasons. Plot threads like the crazy admiral (Michelle Forbes) and Adama wanting to assassinate each other were incredible and entertaining.
it also doesn't help that they keep putting in these 6-8 month breaks!
Parent has been modded insightful? Shouldn't that be a +5 funny? Or do people seriously think that's true?
Canada is no more two nations, than the UK is 3 (Wales, England and Scotland). The UK is supposed to be one "nation" and yet can have 3 separate rugby and world cup football teams.
What would the parent's definition of a nation be?
"...European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system"
It's not asking Apple to REMOVE DRM. It's asking Apple to adjust the DRM so other competitors can sell music for the Ipod. I'm curious who they're asking on behalf of - the people?
"Apple is essentially locking people into buying from iTunes if they want to buy music from big record labels online."
Can't I just buy a CD, rip it to mp3/or whatever format I want and load it to whatever device I want? I don't see how Apple is forcing anyone to do anything.
Wasn't this the slogan used by Apple a few years ago? Don't get me wrong as I'll admit I like Apple, but this mentality has been pushed by the big computer manufacturers since day one. Remember when cdr/cdrw drives kept getting faster and faster at burning a cd? Couldn't every software manufacturer that produces backup programs be (mis)interpreted to "foster infringement"?
Talk about ridiculous. Next time someone gets sued they should say their laptop/bit torrent/p2p software made them do it. After all, the supreme court says so.
I also wonder how much time, effort and money was involved in these raids (130 homes times how many police at each location?)? Who exactly would be paying for these officers to "monitor" and then spend the time to coordinate and raid the homes? wouldn't that be the tax payers?
Whenever you force the consumer to conform to YOUR way of using a product(no fast forwarding commercials, view it through one type of player) when they are used to another(just turn on the TV, or put in a DVD, watch a show on my pocket pc), it will be difficult to get adoption unless you offer incentives (ie. cheaper, easier). It doesn't sound incredibly cheaper, and it's definitely not more convenient.
I don't think the parent poster is talking about "P2P music crap, or cracked shareware" blah blah.
At my work, open source software is frowned on because it is not part of the admin's sphere of knowledge. I get threatening emails about how such software is "illegal" (at best, a creative use of the word) and how I should remove it immediately. These include VERY useful programs such as FileZilla and even using mozilla (usefulness of the javascript debugger, web developer plugin,etc). These programs are not useful to THEM, so they just don't care.
I geniunely don't feel I am putting any admins, directors or the company at risk by using this software. If I am, then clearly I am doing something that is not making my life easier, nor am I making myself more efficient.
Allowing anyone to install any "crap" is clearly a bad idea. Admins do have a responsibility to make sure systems run smoothly. However, this should not be to the detriment of user functionality.
"The reality is that cost and poor computer literacy mean almost two-thirds of parents don't have internet filters on their family computers"
Could this mean that instead of spending millions of dollars on a censorship program, they should spend it on a computer literacy program? surely, this could help the economy in general and also protect your kids?
Also, what costs are they referring to and are they prohibitive to the average consumer? If you can afford a computer, surely you can invest the time and effort to learn how to use it? I admit, I might be being ignorant here, but before I buy anything I put a little time into learning about it and why it would be useful to me, whether it's a mutual fund, TV, mobile phone, etc.
Parent has a point here and should be modded up. Today, you censor porn and violence, but maybe tomorrow you decide that you don't like:
The opposition party
Gays or bisexuals
Racial minorities
Other countries
Insert any societal subgroup here...
This could easily be any type of technology as well where you are trying to push your own technology over another country's (it could prevent competition of VOIP for example). I guess my point is that this type of censorship seems to be a manipulation/perversion of governmental control.
expressing my ignorance here, but who's RMS (do u have a link)? I can definitely see that (generalization) happening - why can't we apply thought and logic rather than cut corners eh?
btw, thanks for taking the time to respond. however, I notice the moderators give you a 2, but I only got a 1 - what's up with that?!?;)
No, I don't think we should feel sorry for RIM. however, there has to be some medium ground where inventors are protected. the small keyboard is really only part of the device right? wireless, push email in an easy to use form factor, plus the unit is economical enough to mass produce. that takes a lot to come up with I think. no, they shouldn't go around suing people but where do you draw the line?
let's say they don't sue handspring... how long would it have taken for handspring/palm to come up with a competitor? if you've got devices, and an OS, aren't you within striking range of someone like RIM? notice how palm didn't try to produce a unit with a thumb board until RIM came out and were successful? how many years had palm been in the business before RIM showed up?
why yes, because we should kick everyone that is ignorant. that's the best way to deal with this problem and we should start it early in the playground. in fact, we should start with you because your comments are so incredibly enlightening such as "RTFA and all other RIM-related articles first." I have a better suggestion. go to school and learn how to develop an opinion which you then support with fact. that way, next time you will hit "preview" so you review your lame comment instead of "submit".
why the f$ck would anyone know about "Eatoni Ergonomics"? who the hell is that? why would I know them? just because you've read up on RIM doesn't mean everyone else has.
No, I didn't say they weren't litigating bastards because they should have a monopoly on mobile phone readers. I'm saying they aren't litigating bastards because they built a product which should have reasonable protection from others copying it for a short period of time so that they can reap the benefits, as they were the ones to design, create, produce and market this device and concept in a working form. however, the patent system doesn't seem to have the idea of reasonable time, and that has to be addressed. but, don't you think that there needs to be some way of protecting inventions/creators from others that just clone/copy their work?
your example of mobile phones is very true, but think of pharmaceuticals - they are the flip side. drugs can take a decade or more to research and create, but once the formula is out there, it's extremely easy for the generic drug makers to reproduce. why should the generics reap the monetary benefit so easily? did they spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to come up with this product? of course not. in the same manner, RIM was the first one to come up with a successful design. granted, they didn't come up with the general idea (as you've pointed out), but clearly they spent some time perfecting it.
I guess I just want to hear how people expect creators/inventors to have their IP protected. or is it just: look how RIM are worth millions... they don't need any help.?;)
I've just read the link that you've posted. The first sentence starts with:
"Research In Motion (RIM), the company that produces the BlackBerry wireless device"
ie. they already made the blackberry and were selling it. Now, how is it that they "started as a bunch of litigating bastards"? Can you give any links to articles to show how they sued people before they had a working blackberry? If not, how is it that they "started as a bunch of litigating bastards"? Looks to me like they started by making a product, and then protecting the value of their IP and brand by sueing knock offs.
Agreed. But look at all the implementations of the thumb keyboard. Try to hold and use the blackberry and compare that with other devices. See which device yields the least number of errors and compare it's responsiveness. I've tried many, and you can and will see the difference.
Again the success of the blackberry is because of both the concept and the implementation. My point was that NTP is holding a patent for the concept but did nothing to create a real implementation. This is where the real work comes in.
"RIM started as a bunch of patent litigating bastards"
really? I've always thought they made this device called the blackberry, which took a lot of money and effort to create. Think about this for a second. This NTP patent seems to cover the "wireless email" side of the blackberry, but don't you think the blackberry interface is really the other very important piece here? the interface being the thumb board, the jog dial, the ease of use. I've seen women with inch long nails type 40 words per minute on that thing. I somehow doubt NTP's patents cover the interface which no doubt took a long time to come up with (look at the palm treo and htc devices - they CAN be good, but not all are).
my point is, I see a lot of posts saying how RIM are just into sueing people. The difference is that they DID take the time to design and build a device. they DID spend money producing and marketing said device. they DID NOT just leave it as a conceptual idea. so, yes, they deserve to sue a few people if those people are just copying the interface and concepts.
Re:The real 90s versus outdated 00s software
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 5, Informative
have to agree with Mr. Decaff there. Garbage collection has gotten more advanced using things such as incremental GC. Also, specialized VMs such as from bea (look for JRockit) use advanced techniques such as multiple GCs.
Also the article mentions:
For one, many of the now-large companies built from the ground up to operate on the Internet don't make Java a major piece of their tech strategy. Those include Google (GOOG) and Yahoo! (YHOO).
In this article, Li Moore (software engineer at Google) says:
"Google makes extensive use of the Java platform. Large parts of popular Google products are written in Java. We also use Java in many internal systems and products under development." So, this would seem to be entirely untrue in Google. I wish people would do a bit of research, instead of speculate/lie (which are, of course, easier to do).
Finally, I notice that the author of the article asks Peter Yared and Marc Andreessen their opinion. What sort of answer would one expect from the CEO and chairman (respectively) of competing technology companies? Naturally, they would champion their own technology and bash a competitor. I certainly would if I were in their shoes!
Slashdot Mirror
That was one of the most hilarious and insightful posts I've read in a while. If I had any mod points, I'd give them all to you!!!
naww, I think the best BSG has always been about what makes us human and what seperates them from the cylons. it's not really about the end game. unfortunately, I think the last season has had too many "filler" episodes that just didn't have the hard edge of the first two seasons. Plot threads like the crazy admiral (Michelle Forbes) and Adama wanting to assassinate each other were incredible and entertaining. it also doesn't help that they keep putting in these 6-8 month breaks!
Parent has been modded insightful? Shouldn't that be a +5 funny? Or do people seriously think that's true?
Canada is no more two nations, than the UK is 3 (Wales, England and Scotland). The UK is supposed to be one "nation" and yet can have 3 separate rugby and world cup football teams.
What would the parent's definition of a nation be?
I could be reading this wrong, but TFA says:
"...European effort to push Apple into an open DRM system"
It's not asking Apple to REMOVE DRM. It's asking Apple to adjust the DRM so other competitors can sell music for the Ipod. I'm curious who they're asking on behalf of - the people?
Absolutely. but is this Apple's decision, or the RIAA?
That's actually an interesting analogy. Why are these countries not forcing services like Napster, etc. to make their format compatible with the Ipod?
If every service should be compatible with every player, who should pay for the software maintenance/development effort?
"Apple is essentially locking people into buying from iTunes if they want to buy music from big record labels online."
Can't I just buy a CD, rip it to mp3/or whatever format I want and load it to whatever device I want? I don't see how Apple is forcing anyone to do anything.
The network IS the computer ;)
"Rip, Mix and Burn"
Wasn't this the slogan used by Apple a few years ago? Don't get me wrong as I'll admit I like Apple, but this mentality has been pushed by the big computer manufacturers since day one. Remember when cdr/cdrw drives kept getting faster and faster at burning a cd? Couldn't every software manufacturer that produces backup programs be (mis)interpreted to "foster infringement"?
Talk about ridiculous. Next time someone gets sued they should say their laptop/bit torrent/p2p software made them do it. After all, the supreme court says so.
true dat.
I also wonder how much time, effort and money was involved in these raids (130 homes times how many police at each location?)? Who exactly would be paying for these officers to "monitor" and then spend the time to coordinate and raid the homes? wouldn't that be the tax payers?
Totally agree with the parent.
Whenever you force the consumer to conform to YOUR way of using a product(no fast forwarding commercials, view it through one type of player) when they are used to another(just turn on the TV, or put in a DVD, watch a show on my pocket pc), it will be difficult to get adoption unless you offer incentives (ie. cheaper, easier). It doesn't sound incredibly cheaper, and it's definitely not more convenient.
I don't think the parent poster is talking about "P2P music crap, or cracked shareware" blah blah.
At my work, open source software is frowned on because it is not part of the admin's sphere of knowledge. I get threatening emails about how such software is "illegal" (at best, a creative use of the word) and how I should remove it immediately. These include VERY useful programs such as FileZilla and even using mozilla (usefulness of the javascript debugger, web developer plugin,etc). These programs are not useful to THEM, so they just don't care.
I geniunely don't feel I am putting any admins, directors or the company at risk by using this software. If I am, then clearly I am doing something that is not making my life easier, nor am I making myself more efficient.
Allowing anyone to install any "crap" is clearly a bad idea. Admins do have a responsibility to make sure systems run smoothly. However, this should not be to the detriment of user functionality.
Totally agree. and yea, I liked this quote:
"The reality is that cost and poor computer literacy mean almost two-thirds of parents don't have internet filters on their family computers"
Could this mean that instead of spending millions of dollars on a censorship program, they should spend it on a computer literacy program? surely, this could help the economy in general and also protect your kids?
Also, what costs are they referring to and are they prohibitive to the average consumer? If you can afford a computer, surely you can invest the time and effort to learn how to use it? I admit, I might be being ignorant here, but before I buy anything I put a little time into learning about it and why it would be useful to me, whether it's a mutual fund, TV, mobile phone, etc.
Parent has a point here and should be modded up. Today, you censor porn and violence, but maybe tomorrow you decide that you don't like:
This could easily be any type of technology as well where you are trying to push your own technology over another country's (it could prevent competition of VOIP for example). I guess my point is that this type of censorship seems to be a manipulation/perversion of governmental control.
No, no. They really mean it this time! ;)
Found this really useful link summarizing the raison d'etre of Seamonkey and offers a comparison to Firefox/Thunderbird:
http://ilias.ca/SeamonkeyvsFirefox.htmlAlso a discussion on mozillazine: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=7 957
expressing my ignorance here, but who's RMS (do u have a link)? I can definitely see that (generalization) happening - why can't we apply thought and logic rather than cut corners eh?
btw, thanks for taking the time to respond. however, I notice the moderators give you a 2, but I only got a 1 - what's up with that?!? ;)
No, I don't think we should feel sorry for RIM. however, there has to be some medium ground where inventors are protected. the small keyboard is really only part of the device right? wireless, push email in an easy to use form factor, plus the unit is economical enough to mass produce. that takes a lot to come up with I think. no, they shouldn't go around suing people but where do you draw the line?
let's say they don't sue handspring... how long would it have taken for handspring/palm to come up with a competitor? if you've got devices, and an OS, aren't you within striking range of someone like RIM? notice how palm didn't try to produce a unit with a thumb board until RIM came out and were successful? how many years had palm been in the business before RIM showed up?
what's your take on that?
"You shoud be kicked for your ignorance.."
why yes, because we should kick everyone that is ignorant. that's the best way to deal with this problem and we should start it early in the playground. in fact, we should start with you because your comments are so incredibly enlightening such as "RTFA and all other RIM-related articles first." I have a better suggestion. go to school and learn how to develop an opinion which you then support with fact. that way, next time you will hit "preview" so you review your lame comment instead of "submit".
why the f$ck would anyone know about "Eatoni Ergonomics"? who the hell is that? why would I know them? just because you've read up on RIM doesn't mean everyone else has.
No, I didn't say they weren't litigating bastards because they should have a monopoly on mobile phone readers. I'm saying they aren't litigating bastards because they built a product which should have reasonable protection from others copying it for a short period of time so that they can reap the benefits, as they were the ones to design, create, produce and market this device and concept in a working form. however, the patent system doesn't seem to have the idea of reasonable time, and that has to be addressed. but, don't you think that there needs to be some way of protecting inventions/creators from others that just clone/copy their work?
your example of mobile phones is very true, but think of pharmaceuticals - they are the flip side. drugs can take a decade or more to research and create, but once the formula is out there, it's extremely easy for the generic drug makers to reproduce. why should the generics reap the monetary benefit so easily? did they spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to come up with this product? of course not. in the same manner, RIM was the first one to come up with a successful design. granted, they didn't come up with the general idea (as you've pointed out), but clearly they spent some time perfecting it.
I guess I just want to hear how people expect creators/inventors to have their IP protected. or is it just: look how RIM are worth millions... they don't need any help.? ;)
I've just read the link that you've posted. The first sentence starts with:
"Research In Motion (RIM), the company that produces the BlackBerry wireless device"
ie. they already made the blackberry and were selling it. Now, how is it that they "started as a bunch of litigating bastards"? Can you give any links to articles to show how they sued people before they had a working blackberry? If not, how is it that they "started as a bunch of litigating bastards"? Looks to me like they started by making a product, and then protecting the value of their IP and brand by sueing knock offs.
Agreed. But look at all the implementations of the thumb keyboard. Try to hold and use the blackberry and compare that with other devices. See which device yields the least number of errors and compare it's responsiveness. I've tried many, and you can and will see the difference.
Again the success of the blackberry is because of both the concept and the implementation. My point was that NTP is holding a patent for the concept but did nothing to create a real implementation. This is where the real work comes in.
"RIM started as a bunch of patent litigating bastards"
really? I've always thought they made this device called the blackberry, which took a lot of money and effort to create. Think about this for a second. This NTP patent seems to cover the "wireless email" side of the blackberry, but don't you think the blackberry interface is really the other very important piece here? the interface being the thumb board, the jog dial, the ease of use. I've seen women with inch long nails type 40 words per minute on that thing. I somehow doubt NTP's patents cover the interface which no doubt took a long time to come up with (look at the palm treo and htc devices - they CAN be good, but not all are).
my point is, I see a lot of posts saying how RIM are just into sueing people. The difference is that they DID take the time to design and build a device. they DID spend money producing and marketing said device. they DID NOT just leave it as a conceptual idea. so, yes, they deserve to sue a few people if those people are just copying the interface and concepts.
have to agree with Mr. Decaff there. Garbage collection has gotten more advanced using things such as incremental GC. Also, specialized VMs such as from bea (look for JRockit) use advanced techniques such as multiple GCs.
Also the article mentions:
For one, many of the now-large companies built from the ground up to operate on the Internet don't make Java a major piece of their tech strategy. Those include Google (GOOG) and Yahoo! (YHOO).
In this article, Li Moore (software engineer at Google) says: "Google makes extensive use of the Java platform. Large parts of popular Google products are written in Java. We also use Java in many internal systems and products under development." So, this would seem to be entirely untrue in Google. I wish people would do a bit of research, instead of speculate/lie (which are, of course, easier to do).
Finally, I notice that the author of the article asks Peter Yared and Marc Andreessen their opinion. What sort of answer would one expect from the CEO and chairman (respectively) of competing technology companies? Naturally, they would champion their own technology and bash a competitor. I certainly would if I were in their shoes!
I think the parent has this completely right. "Otto" is just "winding you guys up" by "taking the piss". ;)
Next week is Microsoft's turn