OK, so You don't have a clue. -SNIP- "Slashdot Uninformed Reactionary Zealot"...
Looks like I didn't check my facts close enough - no need to be so damn rude though. I had misunderstood and assumed that "The P-NAP, and its ASsimilator technology" referred to the entirety of the methods you were talking about - being busy as all fck, I didn't read every word on the website. Any how, just because you'll never meet me, there's no reason to call me clueless and reactionary based on the contents of one post. Read the Advocacy FAQ - the post above would have been more compelling without the derogatory first two and last sentences.
Having a look at their web site this page mentions that "* The P-NAP, and its ASsimilator technology are proprietary and patent-pending " - so we really don't want these guys to be the future of the internet. No matter how good their technology is, if they are moving such basic internet standards to proprietry forms, they are not a company I feel people should support.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Leasing is a corparate, not tech, ideal
on
The Leased Life?
·
· Score: 1
Look at where the trend toward ASPs, UCITA, DMCA, and etc is coming from. It's from the big corporate technology players. And they're certainly not in all this leasing stuff because that's the natural direction for technology to go. It's because the rights of ownership, fair use, and etc make it harder to sell us more product. The less rights we have over the products we use, the more power big business has.
This is nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with economics.
Remember Napster don't condone piracy (at least in public). Their stance is that of a common carrier - they don't want to play any kind of IP law radicals. So when their IP was used by someone else, they took action. I wouldn't do the same thing, but as a business, this action from Napster is not surprising.
If Offspring started producing product with Teac logos on it because they condone copying their music onto CD-Rs, Teac would probably take action too. Or Offspring used the logo of a major telco because their songs were copied over their phone lines.
There is a wakeup call here. Napster are not IP radicals. They're just another business, behaving the way businesses do.
Yes, it's possible to rename a file to make it look incriminating, or to rename an incriminating file to make it look innocent. There is a legal problem with this: Offering something AS an illegal item MAKES IT an illegal item.
Yes, but having Metallica in the name of an mp3 is not offering it as a Metallica song. I may have Anti_Metallica_Rant.mp3, or Metallica_Cover.mp3. And I think that for any method you may come up with for identifying filenames indicate illegal content, you'll find there are filenames for legal content the method will flag illegal. So while filenames may be an indicator of possible piracy, trying to claim anything more (eg Metallica getting users kicked off Napster) based on filename methods is not viable.
I want to use Napster to distribute my music... I'm far from the only one. For those of us who want to distribute our music without playing the copyright game (and there's a lot, look at how many artists are on mp3.com), Napster is legitimately useful.
Just because 99.99% of Napster users are lame ass pirates, doesn't mean Napster has no legitimate purpose. This situation is a fault of users actions, not the Napster program.
If everyone stopped using Usenet except for pirates, would that mean Usenet had no legitimate purpose ?
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Only criticism I've seen is "designed for Intel"
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
At high scoring points levels, the only criticism I've seen is mine and others that AtheOS is designed for Intel from the ground up. This is not "bashing things just because they are new". This is a legitimate criticism of a design decision. I don't think that designing your OS for one platform is a wise choice in this day and age.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Re:Why designed for one platform
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
Its amazing how many people turn off thier brains and make stupid comments like this.
I think that comment applies to you really - have you actually read this thread? I'm not saying that AtheOS should run on every platform under the sun right now. I'm saying AtheOS should not be designed for Intel from the ground up. You don't need access to any other platforms to do that, just a different design philosophy.
And while not exactly poor, I only own one computer, a Pentium 166. So as far as computers go, I'm more of a peasant than most on slashdot.
Mabye slashdot is going to the dogs. Only one person, NaughtyEddie, has really got my point.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Re:Why designed for one platform
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
Not what I'm saying - I have access to plenty of Intel boxes. What I'm saying is designing for one chip from the ground up is a mistake. While obviously you have to start on one platform, I believe designers of modern OSes should count on the OS becoming crossplatform, and design for this fact.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Re:Why designed for one platform
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
I'm not saying that there is a problem with the first release being Intel only. I think they are very wise to do this.
But you'll notice it says "designed for Intel from the ground up" - this is what I think is foolish. We've seen Linux have large amounts of work put into rewriting Intel designed code so it can be cross-platform. I think OS designers should learn from these lessons, and start out with designing for the fact that if your OS takes of, it will become cross-platform.
And I'm currently using pure Intel. You rude sod.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Not crossplatform is shortsighted
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
I'm more saying that I don't know if I'm interested in using a platform written by people who can't learn the lessons of the past. Linux is a good example here. Rather than having the pain of writing a non-portable OS, and then rewriting chunks for portability, as Linux did, why not write it with portability in mind from the start.
I could help port it to other platforms. But if I was going to pick up a new OS, I'd rather it was one that wasn't designed so shortsightedly. And I have to wonder what other design decisions have been made in the short rather than long term.
This makes the assumption that the X bashers know what they're talking about.
Reading A New Rendering Model For X it appears, that without bashing X the feature set could be improved. However the bypassing of X for the 3d pipeline was the main feature I was interested in.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Bandwidth problem, not server
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
As this comment states, the problems are with the bandwidth they have, not the server load.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Why designed for one platform
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 4
Is it really a good thing that AtheOS is only designed for Intel? There is only two good reasons for doing this - to gain performance, and to make the design and implementation easier.
As far as performance goes, in this era of high powered chips, is it really worth tying yourself to one platform and sacrificing a significant group of potential users, in return for gaining an extra 1% of CPU time for SETI@home.
And if it's for expediency, I think it's very short sighted not to put the extra effort into making a potentially portable OS (even if you do no porting).
Overall, the Intel-only thing makes me a bit wary.
Reading articles that have floated through Slashdot recently, it is apparent that X-Windows has some limitations to it's abilities. Do these impact on 3D performance? And if they do is X-Windows always going to limit 3D performance?
In fact Linux doesn't do anything either. Developers do things to Linux. So the developers that want desktop Linux develop desktop improvements, the developers that want server Linux develop server improvements, and both sides of Linux improve at the rate developers work on them at.
I guess the collary here is if you want Linux development to go in a particular direction you should work on it yourself, and try and convince the Linux developer community that your direction is the best. And from that, if you are not communicating with the Linux developer community, you have no business complaining Linux isn't going the direction you want.
Everybody should be required to start from the bottom instead of learning from others' experiences.
No, everyone should be expected to be able to do the jobs that they go for - not knowing how to bypass Windows 'security' is a sign of gross incompetence at administering a Windows box to me.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody throwing away their time on someting like this is going to be dead wood.
Not a good plan - all sorts of people, some very talented, get these sorts of qualifications because it makes them look more hirable to the suits. You may be missing some great staff by doing this.
But the first five minutes I used Linux I didn't go and get myself a job as a sysadmin. There is a difference between asking an occasional question, and really not knowing what you are doing. People in jobs they aren't able to perform make life hard on themselves and their co-workers - criticising people for this is not 'arrogance', it's commonsense.
...machines have absolutely no reason to want the same things we do
Absolutely - machines are different to us in almost every respect
But in the end, no matter *what* the systems were programmed to do, that'll be, for the forseeable future, all they're going to do--what some *human* has programmed them to do.
This I disagree with. We are talking about adaptive programs, that can learn their own goals, and we probably cannot count on being able to always teach the goals we want, anymore than we can count on teaching our kids to have exactly the same values as us.
This has already happened with neural networks that you'd barely apply the term intelligent to. I read of an AI project designed to recognise tanks on the ground from airbourne photos. They trained using classic positive/negative feedback techniques, and after they finished, the system worked on the test pictures with 100% accuracy. But then when they applied the system to real photos, it flunked miserably. After a while, the researchers found that all the tank pictures were taken in the shade, and the neural network had learned to identify shadows !!
Of course, one could argue that the researchers taught the neural network to identify shadows, but I'd argue this is the way that an AI (or any other intelligence) will learn things that we don't want it to - it draws an unwanted conclusion from the data given.
Maybe intelligence will emerge, but if it will, it'll emerge out of what the systems have been programmed to do--in general, retain robust connectivity over unreliable media, recognize unauthorized accesses, and so on.
Yes, but this'll be the way that machine learn behaviours we dislike. I recently saw a method to send packets in such a way that you get bandwidth at the cost of other users (on Ars Technica). You can imagine an AI based protocol stack that could learn this behaviour
Machines will learn only the things we teach them, but as they get more complex and adaptive, just like children they'll interpret them in ways we never foresaw and never planned for.
Some of my favourite writing on this come from Neil Postman - he has a book called "Technopoly". One of his thesis is that technology will inevitably be used for any purpose that it may serve, whether good, bad, or indifferent to any given cause. (for example he'd predict the rise of web profiling, because the technology of the web enables this use(
Technology is not good has been around as long as the luddites !
It would appear so and then some. Looking at the screenshots, Dreamcast is powerful enough to render Playstation games at higher resolution. One assumes that they wouldn't sacrifice full frame rates for this. Remember the reason PCs need so much grunt to emulate is their lack of custom chips.
Netscape, sure, but what Open Source software has Oracle released? (I could just be uninformed, so feel free to enlighten me).
I'd assume that they're referring to the release of Oracle for Linux... a lot of news media think that if a product is to do with Linux, it's open source.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like I didn't check my facts close enough - no need to be so damn rude though. I had misunderstood and assumed that "The P-NAP, and its ASsimilator technology" referred to the entirety of the methods you were talking about - being busy as all fck, I didn't read every word on the website. Any how, just because you'll never meet me, there's no reason to call me clueless and reactionary based on the contents of one post. Read the Advocacy FAQ - the post above would have been more compelling without the derogatory first two and last sentences.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Having a look at their web site this page mentions that "* The P-NAP, and its ASsimilator technology are proprietary and patent-pending " - so we really don't want these guys to be the future of the internet. No matter how good their technology is, if they are moving such basic internet standards to proprietry forms, they are not a company I feel people should support.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Look at where the trend toward ASPs, UCITA, DMCA, and etc is coming from. It's from the big corporate technology players. And they're certainly not in all this leasing stuff because that's the natural direction for technology to go. It's because the rights of ownership, fair use, and etc make it harder to sell us more product. The less rights we have over the products we use, the more power big business has.
This is nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with economics.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Remember Napster don't condone piracy (at least in public). Their stance is that of a common carrier - they don't want to play any kind of IP law radicals. So when their IP was used by someone else, they took action. I wouldn't do the same thing, but as a business, this action from Napster is not surprising.
If Offspring started producing product with Teac logos on it because they condone copying their music onto CD-Rs, Teac would probably take action too. Or Offspring used the logo of a major telco because their songs were copied over their phone lines.
There is a wakeup call here. Napster are not IP radicals. They're just another business, behaving the way businesses do.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Yes, but having Metallica in the name of an mp3 is not offering it as a Metallica song. I may have Anti_Metallica_Rant.mp3, or Metallica_Cover.mp3. And I think that for any method you may come up with for identifying filenames indicate illegal content, you'll find there are filenames for legal content the method will flag illegal. So while filenames may be an indicator of possible piracy, trying to claim anything more (eg Metallica getting users kicked off Napster) based on filename methods is not viable.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
I wonder if it was because they thought your sig was part of the main body of your comment - can't see any other reason your post could be flamebait
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
I want to use Napster to distribute my music... I'm far from the only one. For those of us who want to distribute our music without playing the copyright game (and there's a lot, look at how many artists are on mp3.com), Napster is legitimately useful.
Just because 99.99% of Napster users are lame ass pirates, doesn't mean Napster has no legitimate purpose. This situation is a fault of users actions, not the Napster program.
If everyone stopped using Usenet except for pirates, would that mean Usenet had no legitimate purpose ?
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
At high scoring points levels, the only criticism I've seen is mine and others that AtheOS is designed for Intel from the ground up. This is not "bashing things just because they are new". This is a legitimate criticism of a design decision. I don't think that designing your OS for one platform is a wise choice in this day and age.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
I think that comment applies to you really - have you actually read this thread? I'm not saying that AtheOS should run on every platform under the sun right now. I'm saying AtheOS should not be designed for Intel from the ground up. You don't need access to any other platforms to do that, just a different design philosophy.
And while not exactly poor, I only own one computer, a Pentium 166. So as far as computers go, I'm more of a peasant than most on slashdot.
Mabye slashdot is going to the dogs. Only one person, NaughtyEddie, has really got my point.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Not what I'm saying - I have access to plenty of Intel boxes. What I'm saying is designing for one chip from the ground up is a mistake. While obviously you have to start on one platform, I believe designers of modern OSes should count on the OS becoming crossplatform, and design for this fact.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
I'm not saying that there is a problem with the first release being Intel only. I think they are very wise to do this.
But you'll notice it says "designed for Intel from the ground up" - this is what I think is foolish. We've seen Linux have large amounts of work put into rewriting Intel designed code so it can be cross-platform. I think OS designers should learn from these lessons, and start out with designing for the fact that if your OS takes of, it will become cross-platform.
And I'm currently using pure Intel. You rude sod.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
I'm more saying that I don't know if I'm interested in using a platform written by people who can't learn the lessons of the past. Linux is a good example here. Rather than having the pain of writing a non-portable OS, and then rewriting chunks for portability, as Linux did, why not write it with portability in mind from the start.
I could help port it to other platforms. But if I was going to pick up a new OS, I'd rather it was one that wasn't designed so shortsightedly. And I have to wonder what other design decisions have been made in the short rather than long term.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Reading A New Rendering Model For X it appears, that without bashing X the feature set could be improved. However the bypassing of X for the 3d pipeline was the main feature I was interested in.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
As this comment states, the problems are with the bandwidth they have, not the server load.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Is it really a good thing that AtheOS is only designed for Intel? There is only two good reasons for doing this - to gain performance, and to make the design and implementation easier.
As far as performance goes, in this era of high powered chips, is it really worth tying yourself to one platform and sacrificing a significant group of potential users, in return for gaining an extra 1% of CPU time for SETI@home.
And if it's for expediency, I think it's very short sighted not to put the extra effort into making a potentially portable OS (even if you do no porting).
Overall, the Intel-only thing makes me a bit wary.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Reading articles that have floated through Slashdot recently, it is apparent that X-Windows has some limitations to it's abilities. Do these impact on 3D performance? And if they do is X-Windows always going to limit 3D performance?
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
In fact Linux doesn't do anything either. Developers do things to Linux. So the developers that want desktop Linux develop desktop improvements, the developers that want server Linux develop server improvements, and both sides of Linux improve at the rate developers work on them at.
I guess the collary here is if you want Linux development to go in a particular direction you should work on it yourself, and try and convince the Linux developer community that your direction is the best. And from that, if you are not communicating with the Linux developer community, you have no business complaining Linux isn't going the direction you want.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
No, everyone should be expected to be able to do the jobs that they go for - not knowing how to bypass Windows 'security' is a sign of gross incompetence at administering a Windows box to me.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Not a good plan - all sorts of people, some very talented, get these sorts of qualifications because it makes them look more hirable to the suits. You may be missing some great staff by doing this.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
But the first five minutes I used Linux I didn't go and get myself a job as a sysadmin. There is a difference between asking an occasional question, and really not knowing what you are doing. People in jobs they aren't able to perform make life hard on themselves and their co-workers - criticising people for this is not 'arrogance', it's commonsense.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Absolutely - machines are different to us in almost every respect
But in the end, no matter *what* the systems were programmed to do, that'll be, for the forseeable future, all they're going to do--what some *human* has programmed them to do.
This I disagree with. We are talking about adaptive programs, that can learn their own goals, and we probably cannot count on being able to always teach the goals we want, anymore than we can count on teaching our kids to have exactly the same values as us.
This has already happened with neural networks that you'd barely apply the term intelligent to. I read of an AI project designed to recognise tanks on the ground from airbourne photos. They trained using classic positive/negative feedback techniques, and after they finished, the system worked on the test pictures with 100% accuracy. But then when they applied the system to real photos, it flunked miserably. After a while, the researchers found that all the tank pictures were taken in the shade, and the neural network had learned to identify shadows !!
Of course, one could argue that the researchers taught the neural network to identify shadows, but I'd argue this is the way that an AI (or any other intelligence) will learn things that we don't want it to - it draws an unwanted conclusion from the data given.
Maybe intelligence will emerge, but if it will, it'll emerge out of what the systems have been programmed to do--in general, retain robust connectivity over unreliable media, recognize unauthorized accesses, and so on.
Yes, but this'll be the way that machine learn behaviours we dislike. I recently saw a method to send packets in such a way that you get bandwidth at the cost of other users (on Ars Technica). You can imagine an AI based protocol stack that could learn this behaviour
Machines will learn only the things we teach them, but as they get more complex and adaptive, just like children they'll interpret them in ways we never foresaw and never planned for.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Technology is not good has been around as long as the luddites !
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
Too many w's on your url - www.microsith.com is the right one.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
It would appear so and then some. Looking at the screenshots, Dreamcast is powerful enough to render Playstation games at higher resolution. One assumes that they wouldn't sacrifice full frame rates for this. Remember the reason PCs need so much grunt to emulate is their lack of custom chips.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
I'd assume that they're referring to the release of Oracle for Linux... a lot of news media think that if a product is to do with Linux, it's open source.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose