Silencing of non-major label CDs is known problem
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 2
Apparantly, they are aware of this problem:
-- Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:52:38 -0700 From: beamitsupport@mp3.com Subject: The following CDs have been silenced but are not from major labels [#242062]
Dear ian stevens,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are aware of the situation and our engineering staff is working on resolving the problem. Please try to access the feature at a later time.
Regards, MP3.com Customer Service --
ian.
MP3.com over-silencing itself?
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 3
I went into my.mp3.com today and noticed that *all* of my CDs have been silenced while only a few have a "locked" icon next to them. Playing any track gives me a voice recording saying the track has been silenced, even though many of my CDs are not from nor distributed by major labels.
No doubt MP3.com just went and silenced every beamed CD to cover their asses. If you have some CDs on your account which you *know for sure* are not in any way from major labels then you might want to e-mail them to give attention to the error.
Our scanning machines today can clearly capture neural features as long as the scanner is very close to the source. Within 30 years, however, we will be able to send billions of nanobots-blood cell-size scanning machines-through every capillary of the brain to create a complete noninvasive scan of every neural feature. A shot full of nanobots will someday allow the most subtle details of our knowledge, skills and personalities to be copied into a file and stored in a computer.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "A penny for your thoughts?"
This is scary. In thirty years a simple inoculation could carry with it billions of nanobot "spies" designed to transmit its host's knowledge and, potentially, his very thoughts, to a machine located nearby. Heck, with a few modifications, the infiltrating nanobots could destroy any memories after transmitting them.
As a result, top political, military and technological personnel would have to harbor anti-spy nanobots which would prevent any enemy infiltration and eventual transmittal of host information. And if the common man can't afford such anti-nanobot devices, they could be victim to the most effective marketing survey ever created.
As someone who is working on web-based application development, I can tell you that Netscape has a long way to go before it can even compare to IE. IE is just a better browser, period. Long ago, Microsoft saw the potential for the browser-as-platform and implemented a consistent Document Object Model which adheres to many more W3C standards than any 4.x version of Netscape. CSS support in IE4 outweighs that of any Netscape 4.x as well. (Mind you, Microsoft also added a few "enhancements" here and there.) As a result, writing web-based apps is a lot less frustrating on IE than under Netscape. There is not a person on our development team who does not secretly wish we could forget about Netscape support altogether... and these are people who bad-mouth Microsoft all the time for their shoddy products. Quite simply, Microsoft went and done good with IE.
This is not to say that Netscape's crappiness is the only issue. Most people, as we know, don't support good web design or are using web authoring tools which may use crazy IE or Windows-only extensions. They may not even know that they are doing it, nor may they care. Add that to the fact that most plugins exist only on Windows and with closed protocols.
In my opinion, though, if Netscape could make it easier to develop products and pages for its browser by supporting a more consistent DOM and a larger breadth of CSS support, they would be one step closer to pleasing the people who matter as much as the users... the developers. I haven't really seen the environment under M10, so I can't comment on how well they are doing, but the browser looks and renders significantly better than Netscape 4.x.
Mozilla doesn't need to involve a huge overhaul either. If Netscape could start providing some decent developing tools, like a DOM browser and debugger for Netscape like the one InterDev has for IE, that would be super. Debugging code under Netscape is hell right now and involves a lot of alert() calls all over the place. Yes, they have a JavaScript debugger but it still has a long way to go.
If you reduce the number of excuses developers can give when asked to support your browser, you can make your browser easier to develop for and, in turn, much less of a pain to use.
ian.
PS. Of course, your problem could be solved if you ran IE via VMWare but that's beside the point.
This article sounds remarkably like any other arguments in support of the introduction of vendor-specific tools in the classroom. Remember these? In the past, companies like Apple, IBM and Microsoft have all played on this gimmick. Sure, it may not start as a marketing campaign but once articles like these start to proliferate, you can be sure that schools will be offered contracts, discount plans and compelling educational reasons why their school should be investing in technology "X".
Of course, we all know what the real mandate is: encourage consumer loyalty and product use when your potential clients are still young. It may not work for some, but it's an excellent marketing ploy.
The bottom line is that many schools make these purchases without researching cheaper or less vendor-centric alternatives or without making appropriate changes to the curriculum so that they can be taken full advantage of. Fandangled new hardware and software isn't going to solve your drop-out rates or low grades by themselves, but I think that there is the tendency to expect them to do miracles.
Meanwhile, the only miracle that occurs when product introductions like this happen is the miracle of consumerism. Yes, you can perform the experiments the article was talking about with a thermometer, a pad of graph paper and a bulletin board, but that's irrelevant because you're using TECHNOLOGY here, and we all know that technology, and not appropriate materials or better teaching, is the key to our children's future.
The suggestion that a redistribution of the world's population as numbers increase in developing nations and decrease in more developed ones would result in a shift in global politics is old hat, alarmist and without precedent.
Even if this were an inevitable future, it is certainly nothing to be fearful of. I would imagine that many who tout this as a possibility see it as global domination by the unwashed masses. This is certainly not the case as many lesser developed nations are gradually coming into their own in terms of technological superiority. Fifty years ago, who would have thought that Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and many other Asian countries along the pacific rim would become technological powerhouses?
Note that a larger population does not mean increased political power. If that were so, many third world nations would be equal or superior to other smaller developed nations in terms of political power. This is simply not the case. In the world of politics, money, wealth and industry mean power. An increased workforce does not necessarily mean increased production or wealth. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Note that the article is a student paper and is certainly not the final word on the subject of population decline. There are many, many other factors that can come into play.
Nanotechnology will not save the world on its own.
on
Rise of the Nanobots
·
· Score: 2
Yes, there exists a plausible heaven (and hell) upon the creation and mastery of nanotechnology. One of the points the article mentions is the obliteration of hunger and the emancipation of the environment. But, wait, we have the tools RIGHT NOW to do those very same things except that they aren't being used properly or are being kept from the hands of the people who need them.
All of the good and saviour aspects of nanotechnology the article mentions depend on how the technology will be distributed and put to use. Unless the technology is used on a wide-scale and available to everyone, the heaven-on-Earth described will be limited to pockets of "civilization".
If we want to take full advantage of nanotechnology in the future, we need to put in place the infrastructure that will support its gains TODAY. If we expect nanotechnology to clean up the environment, we need to take steps NOW to do just that (ie. reduce pollution and provide clean-ups *world-wide* and not just in isolated areas). The same goes with food. We need to put in place fair distribution channels TODAY so that nanotechnology can make use of them to help us save the world TOMORROW.
Nanotechnology is not a silver bullet and yet the article touts it as such. In order for the technology to really affect our lives in the future, we need to help it along and make sincere efforts to change our lives today -- something which I felt the article failed to mention.
First half tripe, second half satisfying ...
on
Snow Crash
·
· Score: 2
I read this book after everyone I knew and respected was giving it rave reviews and labelled it as "a must read". I recally reading the first few chapters and wondering what the big deal was. The writing is very pedestrian and not at all what I've come to expect from the "best-of-the-best" in any genre. I found the ideas presented in the first half of Snowcrash pretty tame and almost of a "this is cool and so I'm going to write about it just to be cool" variety. Much of what in the first half just seemed like the meanderings of a juvenile writer who thought that cyberpunk was hip and wanted to delve into it. Mind you, my previous escapades into the genre consisted of earlier Gibson, Sterling and their ilk and so I consider myself a little spoiled. Many of the starting ideas just seemed to be rehashed from "the godfathers of cyberpunk".
It wasn't until the book started to plummet into a world of linguistics and a seemingly well-researched and in-depth history of language that I started to become interested. I considered putting an end to my read until I reached this harder, more satisfying interior. While the first half insulted my intelligence and experience with the cyberpunk genre, the second half held my interest and challenged my mind.
If it wasn't for this new spark and introduction of "language as virus" as well as the relatively heavy linguistics, I probably would have passed off Stephenson as just another one of many mediocre cyberpunk writers. Instead, it is clear to me that Stephenson has some really good ideas, albeit a relatively mediocre writing style.
So would I recommend the book? Yes, but with a warning that the first half of the book might seem tripe for those who have lots of experience with cyberpunk but nevertheless well worth the wait to build up to the harder material in the last half.
"They could never do this with a tape recorder or a digital sampler because it would never recognize the person's voice! It would just record everything!"
Tape surveillance and a human filter can only go so far. Parabolic antennae are bulky and easily recognized. Humans using digital filters require training and equipment booking, which could be expensive depending on the amount of noise in the recording and the expertise of the user.
These speech recognition devices could put surveillance within reach of anyone, regardless of their expertise, without hiring potentially expensive human filters. You or I, without any surveillance experience or knowledge of digital filtering technology, could trail certain people and tape their conversations even in crowded areas.
The article misses another interesting, albeit scary, use of this technology. If these could be made small enough and cheap enough, they could be placed in key locations across the country, forever listening in on passers-by.
Avoiding all the issues of privacy, consider the following scenario. The police want to arrest a suspect for some crime (drug traffiking, conspiracy, etc.) but have no proof and can't tap his phone lines since he encrypts all his phone conversations. Through some method, they train this speech-recognition device to the suspect's voice and either have someone with the device planted on them track the suspect or have an array of said devices placed in public areas where the suspect is known to hang out (bus terminals, bars, etc.). Sooner or later, the suspect might slip up and the authorities have enough evidence needed for an arrest.
Regarding privacy concerns, it seemed to me that this device could only track a handful of known voices... probably requiring vast processing power to track every voice in a room. So it might be a while yet before everybody's conversations in bugged places get transcripted.
But what about the possibility of consulting services? In this feature on the 30th anniversary of the internet, the point was made that IBM makes a slew of money on consulting and that Linux companies could as well:
When asked how Linux can generate revenue, Alan [Kay] said that [...] giving away Linux meant that large fees could be found in consulting, helping companies use the technology to their advantage. He then mentioned something that dropped just about everyone's jaw: he said that the company with the biggest revenue in the computer industry was not Microsoft, but IBM's consulting business, which he said brings in double the revenue that Microsoft does selling software, just by showing companies how to use technology in their business (which Linux is a part of).
RedHat would be silly if they just relied on sales and support of their distribution. If they are able to obtain a name for themselves, they can get in and be the leading Linux consulting firm able to step in and set up a network infrastructure or what have you better than any "in-house Linux expert" might. And with co-operation from other computer companies, Red Hat just might be able to get you a deal on workstations.
That change will also allow Card to include material from the book that was going to be cut out, such as the "surprise" ending, the fantasy game sequence and the intense relationships among the children enrolled at the Battle School.
All I can say is "What the heck were they thinking?" A movie without those aspects of the book wouldn't be _Ender's Game_ at all, but rather a cheap, Hollywood version inspired by the book. At least now there is some hope of putting out a fairly decent movie.
So I finally work for a company (through acquisition, not directly) that makes the good news of Slashdot only to find that I may have to leave in the near future. Nothing serious... just that our R&D is being moved to the Hummingbird offices in the suburbs of Toronto, a long commute from my apartment downtown. Is there no justice?
Mark this post down... it has nothing to do with this news.
Nonsense. Anyone who has used IRIX knows how horrible it is at multi-tasking (I recall compiling on an O2 or an Octane and witnessing other processes grind to a halt) and other functionality that we take for granted under other operating systems. SGI doesn't make money selling an OS; it makes money on hardware. IMHO, opting for Linux instead of IRIX is probably one of the better software ideas SGI has had.
I would have to agree. The high-end graphics systems are where it's at for SGI as they've really made their market there and have been able to dominate successfully. Maybe they see cheap distributed computing as a nail in their coffin and want to go on to something that would mean selling more units at lower cost. Still, there's a lot more competition in that market.
The constitution states that the anthem is selected on a weekly basis through a random generator fed with a list of candidates. I can see that this process might be a way of curbing nationalism through a non-identification with a specific national anthem, but why not do away with an anthem altogether? What is the point if it is randomly selected each week? More than likely it will degenerate into "This Week's #1 Hit Single at JUGA" and serve to degrade the whole idea of a virtual nation.
And then there's the flag and weapon, which are static. Juga resists an identifiable anthem but chooses to maintain a single flag and weapon? Again, if the absence of a single anthem is meant to avoid a nationalistic furor then why choose a flag *and* a weapon? I can see the point of a flag and/or a logo but what about this weapon? What would a virtual community have need for a weapon?
Several items in the constitution smell of silliness, like choosing C/C++, Pascal and Visual Basic as some of the official languages. If Juga wants to be recognised as a valid nation, giving programming languages an official status is not the way to do it.
And there are other items, such as obligating the citizenry to visit the web site at least fifty times a year, reading the constitution at least once a month, and forcing them to participate in a government position. There is participational democracy and then there is *PARTICIPATIONAL* democracy. Clause five of the constitution even states that if citizens do not adhere to forced participation (ie. the "obligations" stated afterwards), then they will have their citizenship removed. It seems to me that Juga wants to be a nation of geeks who have the time to provide their input, and not a nation of everymen who might intervene once in a while.
And, yes, this has been done before. I recall a few years back Scott Thompson of the Kids in the Hall set up a site called ScottLand that had the same idea.
TIME's Person of the Century is that person who, for better or worse, most influenced the course of history over the past 100 years.
Do you honestly believe that Linus Torvalds has influenced human history over the past 100 years more than any other individual? Listen kids, he may be the most important guy according to your tenth grade geek circle but, honestly, ancient history to you is anything prior to 1980.
Personally, most people on that list are lightweights who don't even deserve much more than a footnote in the past 100 years. Elvis Presley? I can't believe he's second. Billy Graham? Only if you're a nutcase. John Lennon? Good musician who influenced a few others but hardly changed the course of history. Princess Diana? Nope. Madonna? Nuh-uh. Yitzhak Rabin? A small circle of the world. Martin Luther King? If only in America. Bill Gates? I'd choose an earlier geek. Saddam Hussein? Ha! Nelson Mandela? Nadda.
The only people I see in the top twenty who may have changed the course of human history would have been either Adolf Hitler (WWII still has its repercussions), Henry Ford (automation helped lift us out of the industrial age and into post-industrial, and possibly Ghandi who is a global icon and not just an American one. All the rest are either bit players, pop culture icons or those voted in by Americans who seem to think their corner of the world *is* the entire world.
From what I can see, these "Easy PC" boxes will be pushed on people who don't really want a computer (mostly because they can't justify the expense) but would still like to be connected. Most people have no use for office packages. If they had a burning need to do some word processing, time management, spreadsheet manipulation, etc., they probably would have invested money in a computer long ago. And if you don't have children who have projects to do, there's no urge to spend $750 on something just to poke around on the internet and *MAYBE* do a few odd jobs on.
If your average homeowner could get a stand-alone webified system for less than a mid-range television set, they probably would.
Watching a virtual model swaying her hips on a screen is nothing compared to sitting in a crowded room watching real-life models wearing real fabrics sashay down the runway. Try selling this to a market which thrives on glitz, glamour and high-profile events aimed at the fashion elite and it won't work. Smaller manufacturers, maybe, but there's a lot present in even a small fashion show that a virtual one could never hope to accomplish.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparantly, they are aware of this problem:
ian.
I went into my.mp3.com today and noticed that *all* of my CDs have been silenced while only a few have a "locked" icon next to them. Playing any track gives me a voice recording saying the track has been silenced, even though many of my CDs are not from nor distributed by major labels.
No doubt MP3.com just went and silenced every beamed CD to cover their asses. If you have some CDs on your account which you *know for sure* are not in any way from major labels then you might want to e-mail them to give attention to the error.
ian.
... is http://www.hj.com/JFW/JFW.html. An evaluation version is available for download.
ian.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "A penny for your thoughts?"
This is scary. In thirty years a simple inoculation could carry with it billions of nanobot "spies" designed to transmit its host's knowledge and, potentially, his very thoughts, to a machine located nearby. Heck, with a few modifications, the infiltrating nanobots could destroy any memories after transmitting them.
As a result, top political, military and technological personnel would have to harbor anti-spy nanobots which would prevent any enemy infiltration and eventual transmittal of host information. And if the common man can't afford such anti-nanobot devices, they could be victim to the most effective marketing survey ever created.
ian.
As someone who is working on web-based application development, I can tell you that Netscape has a long way to go before it can even compare to IE. IE is just a better browser, period. Long ago, Microsoft saw the potential for the browser-as-platform and implemented a consistent Document Object Model which adheres to many more W3C standards than any 4.x version of Netscape. CSS support in IE4 outweighs that of any Netscape 4.x as well. (Mind you, Microsoft also added a few "enhancements" here and there.) As a result, writing web-based apps is a lot less frustrating on IE than under Netscape. There is not a person on our development team who does not secretly wish we could forget about Netscape support altogether ... and these are people who bad-mouth Microsoft all the time for their shoddy products. Quite simply, Microsoft went and done good with IE.
... the developers. I haven't really seen the environment under M10, so I can't comment on how well they are doing, but the browser looks and renders significantly better than Netscape 4.x.
This is not to say that Netscape's crappiness is the only issue. Most people, as we know, don't support good web design or are using web authoring tools which may use crazy IE or Windows-only extensions. They may not even know that they are doing it, nor may they care. Add that to the fact that most plugins exist only on Windows and with closed protocols.
In my opinion, though, if Netscape could make it easier to develop products and pages for its browser by supporting a more consistent DOM and a larger breadth of CSS support, they would be one step closer to pleasing the people who matter as much as the users
Mozilla doesn't need to involve a huge overhaul either. If Netscape could start providing some decent developing tools, like a DOM browser and debugger for Netscape like the one InterDev has for IE, that would be super. Debugging code under Netscape is hell right now and involves a lot of alert() calls all over the place. Yes, they have a JavaScript debugger but it still has a long way to go.
If you reduce the number of excuses developers can give when asked to support your browser, you can make your browser easier to develop for and, in turn, much less of a pain to use.
ian.
PS. Of course, your problem could be solved if you ran IE via VMWare but that's beside the point.
This article sounds remarkably like any other arguments in support of the introduction of vendor-specific tools in the classroom. Remember these? In the past, companies like Apple, IBM and Microsoft have all played on this gimmick. Sure, it may not start as a marketing campaign but once articles like these start to proliferate, you can be sure that schools will be offered contracts, discount plans and compelling educational reasons why their school should be investing in technology "X".
Of course, we all know what the real mandate is: encourage consumer loyalty and product use when your potential clients are still young. It may not work for some, but it's an excellent marketing ploy.
The bottom line is that many schools make these purchases without researching cheaper or less vendor-centric alternatives or without making appropriate changes to the curriculum so that they can be taken full advantage of. Fandangled new hardware and software isn't going to solve your drop-out rates or low grades by themselves, but I think that there is the tendency to expect them to do miracles.
Meanwhile, the only miracle that occurs when product introductions like this happen is the miracle of consumerism. Yes, you can perform the experiments the article was talking about with a thermometer, a pad of graph paper and a bulletin board, but that's irrelevant because you're using TECHNOLOGY here, and we all know that technology, and not appropriate materials or better teaching, is the key to our children's future.
Pokey: LOOK NUTTY, I HAVE A GREEN SKIN TINT!!!
Mr. Nutty: SO YOU DO, OLD BOY!!
Pokey: I AM GOING TO THE MOON!!!!!!
Mr. Nutty: BUT POKEY, THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE!
Pokey: I SEE ... THEN I SHALL GO TO MARS AND HARVEST THE KETCHUP FIELDS!!
Mr. Nutty: I'LL DRINK TO THAT!
Pokey: YES!
HOORAY!!!!!!
The suggestion that a redistribution of the world's population as numbers increase in developing nations and decrease in more developed ones would result in a shift in global politics is old hat, alarmist and without precedent.
Even if this were an inevitable future, it is certainly nothing to be fearful of. I would imagine that many who tout this as a possibility see it as global domination by the unwashed masses. This is certainly not the case as many lesser developed nations are gradually coming into their own in terms of technological superiority. Fifty years ago, who would have thought that Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and many other Asian countries along the pacific rim would become technological powerhouses?
Note that a larger population does not mean increased political power. If that were so, many third world nations would be equal or superior to other smaller developed nations in terms of political power. This is simply not the case. In the world of politics, money, wealth and industry mean power. An increased workforce does not necessarily mean increased production or wealth. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Note that the article is a student paper and is certainly not the final word on the subject of population decline. There are many, many other factors that can come into play.
Yes, there exists a plausible heaven (and hell) upon the creation and mastery of nanotechnology. One of the points the article mentions is the obliteration of hunger and the emancipation of the environment. But, wait, we have the tools RIGHT NOW to do those very same things except that they aren't being used properly or are being kept from the hands of the people who need them.
All of the good and saviour aspects of nanotechnology the article mentions depend on how the technology will be distributed and put to use. Unless the technology is used on a wide-scale and available to everyone, the heaven-on-Earth described will be limited to pockets of "civilization".
If we want to take full advantage of nanotechnology in the future, we need to put in place the infrastructure that will support its gains TODAY. If we expect nanotechnology to clean up the environment, we need to take steps NOW to do just that (ie. reduce pollution and provide clean-ups *world-wide* and not just in isolated areas). The same goes with food. We need to put in place fair distribution channels TODAY so that nanotechnology can make use of them to help us save the world TOMORROW.
Nanotechnology is not a silver bullet and yet the article touts it as such. In order for the technology to really affect our lives in the future, we need to help it along and make sincere efforts to change our lives today -- something which I felt the article failed to mention.
I read this book after everyone I knew and respected was giving it rave reviews and labelled it as "a must read". I recally reading the first few chapters and wondering what the big deal was. The writing is very pedestrian and not at all what I've come to expect from the "best-of-the-best" in any genre. I found the ideas presented in the first half of Snowcrash pretty tame and almost of a "this is cool and so I'm going to write about it just to be cool" variety. Much of what in the first half just seemed like the meanderings of a juvenile writer who thought that cyberpunk was hip and wanted to delve into it. Mind you, my previous escapades into the genre consisted of earlier Gibson, Sterling and their ilk and so I consider myself a little spoiled. Many of the starting ideas just seemed to be rehashed from "the godfathers of cyberpunk".
It wasn't until the book started to plummet into a world of linguistics and a seemingly well-researched and in-depth history of language that I started to become interested. I considered putting an end to my read until I reached this harder, more satisfying interior. While the first half insulted my intelligence and experience with the cyberpunk genre, the second half held my interest and challenged my mind.
If it wasn't for this new spark and introduction of "language as virus" as well as the relatively heavy linguistics, I probably would have passed off Stephenson as just another one of many mediocre cyberpunk writers. Instead, it is clear to me that Stephenson has some really good ideas, albeit a relatively mediocre writing style.
So would I recommend the book? Yes, but with a warning that the first half of the book might seem tripe for those who have lots of experience with cyberpunk but nevertheless well worth the wait to build up to the harder material in the last half.
Tape surveillance and a human filter can only go so far. Parabolic antennae are bulky and easily recognized. Humans using digital filters require training and equipment booking, which could be expensive depending on the amount of noise in the recording and the expertise of the user.
These speech recognition devices could put surveillance within reach of anyone, regardless of their expertise, without hiring potentially expensive human filters. You or I, without any surveillance experience or knowledge of digital filtering technology, could trail certain people and tape their conversations even in crowded areas.
The article misses another interesting, albeit scary, use of this technology. If these could be made small enough and cheap enough, they could be placed in key locations across the country, forever listening in on passers-by.
Avoiding all the issues of privacy, consider the following scenario. The police want to arrest a suspect for some crime (drug traffiking, conspiracy, etc.) but have no proof and can't tap his phone lines since he encrypts all his phone conversations. Through some method, they train this speech-recognition device to the suspect's voice and either have someone with the device planted on them track the suspect or have an array of said devices placed in public areas where the suspect is known to hang out (bus terminals, bars, etc.). Sooner or later, the suspect might slip up and the authorities have enough evidence needed for an arrest.
Regarding privacy concerns, it seemed to me that this device could only track a handful of known voices ... probably requiring vast processing power to track every voice in a room. So it might be a while yet before everybody's conversations in bugged places get transcripted.
Damned cool technology, though.
But what about the possibility of consulting services? In this feature on the 30th anniversary of the internet, the point was made that IBM makes a slew of money on consulting and that Linux companies could as well:
RedHat would be silly if they just relied on sales and support of their distribution. If they are able to obtain a name for themselves, they can get in and be the leading Linux consulting firm able to step in and set up a network infrastructure or what have you better than any "in-house Linux expert" might. And with co-operation from other computer companies, Red Hat just might be able to get you a deal on workstations.
ian.
All I can say is "What the heck were they thinking?" A movie without those aspects of the book wouldn't be _Ender's Game_ at all, but rather a cheap, Hollywood version inspired by the book. At least now there is some hope of putting out a fairly decent movie.
ian.
So I finally work for a company (through acquisition, not directly) that makes the good news of Slashdot only to find that I may have to leave in the near future. Nothing serious ... just that our R&D is being moved to the Hummingbird offices in the suburbs of Toronto, a long commute from my apartment downtown. Is there no justice?
... it has nothing to do with this news.
Mark this post down
ian.
Nonsense. Anyone who has used IRIX knows how horrible it is at multi-tasking (I recall compiling on an O2 or an Octane and witnessing other processes grind to a halt) and other functionality that we take for granted under other operating systems. SGI doesn't make money selling an OS; it makes money on hardware. IMHO, opting for Linux instead of IRIX is probably one of the better software ideas SGI has had.
ian.
I would have to agree. The high-end graphics systems are where it's at for SGI as they've really made their market there and have been able to dominate successfully. Maybe they see cheap distributed computing as a nail in their coffin and want to go on to something that would mean selling more units at lower cost. Still, there's a lot more competition in that market.
ian.
The constitution states that the anthem is selected on a weekly basis through a random generator fed with a list of candidates. I can see that this process might be a way of curbing nationalism through a non-identification with a specific national anthem, but why not do away with an anthem altogether? What is the point if it is randomly selected each week? More than likely it will degenerate into "This Week's #1 Hit Single at JUGA" and serve to degrade the whole idea of a virtual nation.
And then there's the flag and weapon, which are static. Juga resists an identifiable anthem but chooses to maintain a single flag and weapon? Again, if the absence of a single anthem is meant to avoid a nationalistic furor then why choose a flag *and* a weapon? I can see the point of a flag and/or a logo but what about this weapon? What would a virtual community have need for a weapon?
Several items in the constitution smell of silliness, like choosing C/C++, Pascal and Visual Basic as some of the official languages. If Juga wants to be recognised as a valid nation, giving programming languages an official status is not the way to do it.
And there are other items, such as obligating the citizenry to visit the web site at least fifty times a year, reading the constitution at least once a month, and forcing them to participate in a government position. There is participational democracy and then there is *PARTICIPATIONAL* democracy. Clause five of the constitution even states that if citizens do not adhere to forced participation (ie. the "obligations" stated afterwards), then they will have their citizenship removed. It seems to me that Juga wants to be a nation of geeks who have the time to provide their input, and not a nation of everymen who might intervene once in a while.
And, yes, this has been done before. I recall a few years back Scott Thompson of the Kids in the Hall set up a site called ScottLand that had the same idea.
ian.
Do you honestly believe that Linus Torvalds has influenced human history over the past 100 years more than any other individual? Listen kids, he may be the most important guy according to your tenth grade geek circle but, honestly, ancient history to you is anything prior to 1980.
Personally, most people on that list are lightweights who don't even deserve much more than a footnote in the past 100 years. Elvis Presley? I can't believe he's second. Billy Graham? Only if you're a nutcase. John Lennon? Good musician who influenced a few others but hardly changed the course of history. Princess Diana? Nope. Madonna? Nuh-uh. Yitzhak Rabin? A small circle of the world. Martin Luther King? If only in America. Bill Gates? I'd choose an earlier geek. Saddam Hussein? Ha! Nelson Mandela? Nadda.
The only people I see in the top twenty who may have changed the course of human history would have been either Adolf Hitler (WWII still has its repercussions), Henry Ford (automation helped lift us out of the industrial age and into post-industrial, and possibly Ghandi who is a global icon and not just an American one. All the rest are either bit players, pop culture icons or those voted in by Americans who seem to think their corner of the world *is* the entire world.
ian.
From what I can see, these "Easy PC" boxes will be pushed on people who don't really want a computer (mostly because they can't justify the expense) but would still like to be connected. Most people have no use for office packages. If they had a burning need to do some word processing, time management, spreadsheet manipulation, etc., they probably would have invested money in a computer long ago. And if you don't have children who have projects to do, there's no urge to spend $750 on something just to poke around on the internet and *MAYBE* do a few odd jobs on.
If your average homeowner could get a stand-alone webified system for less than a mid-range television set, they probably would.
ian.
Watching a virtual model swaying her hips on a screen is nothing compared to sitting in a crowded room watching real-life models wearing real fabrics sashay down the runway. Try selling this to a market which thrives on glitz, glamour and high-profile events aimed at the fashion elite and it won't work. Smaller manufacturers, maybe, but there's a lot present in even a small fashion show that a virtual one could never hope to accomplish.
ian.
Who is being arrogant now?
And here's a reference:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planeta ry/giotto.html
Yes, it was Giotto. Don't know what I was thinking. Still, that was a while back and I was much younger and care-free.
When Halley's last visited, they launched a probe called Galileo. Did that land on the comet or just come really close to it?