It is going to take decades for us to come to terms with what this means.
I told a friend today that the digital age meeting copyright is like standing in a rain storm, and having someone tell you that they own individual drops.
The digital age will make copyrighting and intellectual property fight for survival. Once it is digitized, the reproduction on any PC is trivial. Things are going to change rapidly in this area in the next 10 years. I don't think even the "visionary" Jon Katz can predict the future here.
7 million of the 10 million are probably not of voting age. And most of those 3 million left probably don't feel passionatly enough to try to save the earth, let alone a software company...
I tend to agree to a point. Maybe not as violently, but I agree. I've submitted some stories I thought would provoke some real conversation, only to be rejected. Then I see a Cartoon Network anime story posted, and I wonder if my time @/. is drawing to a close...
As Jenkins points out in his article, if Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll and the authors of the Bible were covered by the DMCA, none of their works would have received a fraction of the attention or influence they've generated.
That's because during those times, you couldn't copy their entire work to your Zip Disk, take it to the office, and transfer it to Taiwan over your 100 Mbit/s LAN connection to the company T-3.
Why do you think DMCA and similar protective coverage originated? Why is Napster all of the sudden there when we've been taping songs off the radio for years? Because MP3 and CD burners are the printing press of digital music.
did you ever wonder why apple went to dual processor instead of just increasing the speed of the g4. mainly because they cant. and they have to increase with the rapid speed jumps of intel.
That is completely wrong. Apple has no control over G4 production. That is Motorolla and IBM. They have to agree in their alliance on a path toward faster chips. Currently, they are in a little tiff.
The second thing, is that Apple doubled up on the chips for marketing reasons. A RISC based G4 and a CISC based Pentium can not be compared by Mhz, but everyone here knows that. Problem is, the people out there (Joe Consumer) don't know that. Steve Jobs knows the G4 500 gives a Pentium 800 Mhz a run for the money, and he also realizes that the speed gap is getting tight, and that Mhz gap is huge. So mainly for marketing reasons he doubled up.
There are Multi Proc. libs in OS 9. The dual processors do speed up threaded apps and the OS. It is not a 2x speed increase, but it is significant enough. There are quite a few apps optimized for MP machines. Photoshop being a one of the big ones. Mac OS X (coming soon) will fully support SMP (Symetric Multi. Proc I believe). So you won't have to worry about it.
That isn't true at all. Let's be at least some what reasonable. A $400 Intel box:
1) Has a $300 or $400 Compuserve Rebate 2) Has a Celeron (read: shitty CPU) 3) Is most likely not as fast as a G3 iMac with 64 or 128 RAM, and a 6-10 gig HD, with a ATI based video accelerator. 4) The iMac has a monitor. Your $400 Intel box (after the Compuserve raping) doesnt have a monitor.
This article at Salon should put your mind at ease. It talks about the landmark case, and reiterates what has been said here: if Napster goes down, it's phenomenon on the Internet will get stronger.
As much as I thoroughly enjoy Napster, I have to admit that by law, this is a bad, bad thing.
Imagine you invent something. You want to benefit from your creativity, but a thousand teenagers get a hold on it and smash it down the throat of the collective internet. Now where do you stand?
In one sense, Napster does save us money, takes money from big companies, lets the starving artist be heard, and "shares" the wealth. On the other hand, if this was your intellectual property (I know many don't think of Britney Spears as having any sort of Intellectual property, but listen...) you most likely would not want to have it spread across the Internet.
If you want everything under the sun to be open source, you will lose an edge of capitalistic innovation. You have to admit money is a force behind creativity in America.
Napster may not be wrong (it's just software, they don't host illegal files), but they are facilitating a crime. Where that leaves them is interpreted, along with the law, by a judge.
A boycott will do little if anything. The Internet is too anonymous, with too little presence. You'd have to go to the RIAA's office, call your congress person, or protest at the court to even have a fraction of your voice heard.
Can anyone lend any validity to this article? It appears that this person:
A) Knows a lot about this
or
B) Is making all this up in an attempt at a good story.
or
C) A little of both
Those pictures of "interception stations" are strangely similar to every other large, white satellite dish you see around. In fact, there is one of those on top of the building I'm in right now. Is this a conspiracy?
Some of this stuff ("Nor is equipment available with the capacity to process and recognise the content of every speech message or telephone call.") sounds sorta wrong. I believe that the technology is there, maybe not to do EVERY call, but to single calls out by region or randomly sampled conversations.
I'd like to know if anyone can truely verify what this article says as truth.
So would the space craft have to travel directly above the position on the earth where the wire is anchored? Wouldn't the wire break (or Imagine the shuttle in orbit over China, connected to a wire in Florida). So how does this work?
As some know, this week is MacWorld Expo in NYC, and there is an article at MacNN regarding Netscape's presence at the show, as well as some answers from Chris Nalls, Macintosh Product Manager for Netscape. Check it out for some hard facts.
I think you are right. If I was given *just* a browser that launched immediately, didn't crash, rendered pages quickly (and correctly?), and wasn't too bad on the RAM requirements, I would probably use it for all my browsing.
Sad thing is the above hasn't been true since Netscape v2?
But isn't it slightly their fault? They are making their own standards and running with it. I might say that it is more Mozilla's fault for not competing w/ MS than anything. Whether or not MS utilized a monopoly to kill NS is another story...
Thank you for your computer science lesson, but I was not directly commenting on the buffer overflow exploit. What I was trying to do was draw a parallel between this exploit, and the fact that in the same week, Microsoft has acheived "the worst exploit in their OS ever." My point is, there is an underlying problem. It's not just one thing, it's the philosophy and way that Microsoft is "innovating" that is the problem. Look at their track record this week alone. Two HUGE exploits that can execute almost completely independent of any user control.
Yes, that may be the end result, but I was referring to the reason why the code is able to execute to begin with. No code should be executed upon email download unless the user specifically makes an action to do so.
"Anyway, I think that the problem is people actually getting/using the patch."
I don't thank that is the root of the problem. I think that the problem (considering strictly the Microsoft OS development, not Linux/Unix or anything else) stems from the fact that Microsoft tries to shove too many of these useless active features down the throats of the standard install people who buy their PC from OfficeMax. ActiveX is crap, all the stupid Microsoft proprietary stuff that breeds these security breaches should be curtailed. There shouldn't be huge gaping holes in major packaged components of the Microsoft OS.
If they truly innovate, they shouldn't make these mistakes. This SANS alert goes into more detail about the security hole. Turns out MS's software engineers actually make a series of calls out of order that preempts whatever the user chooses to do. Why does this crap get released?
I personally believe, that Voice Recognition technology is an ideal candidate for open-source development.
The main reason is that VUI technology will eventually infiltrate most areas of technology, and by moving forward through open-source with voice recognition, we allow a much more diverse and portable array of technologies to blossom. Most likely, quicker than someone like Microsoft or IBM could move.
The problems I see, are stability and customer support. Can those be adequately supplied in the open-source community, or is that something delegated to the closed-source companies?
That's not true. There are plenty of good drivers for X, and the reason there haven't been great drivers is that ATI was never taken seriously before. There cards are the cheap alternative, but it appears that they will be getting much more interest in the months to come when this card hits the market.
ATI has also released the specs and it should not be hard to build a nice, stable driver. With Apple bringing BSD to their OS, I'm sure an easy port of the ATI drivers won't be all that hard after the beta of OS X is released.
OK, thanks, I do meta-moderate. Thank you for your slashdot tutorial, but meta-moderating doesn't guarantee I'll get to moderate that moderation. I was voicing my opinion. Thanks for your expertise.
So, Mr. Katz, I'm having trouble imagining the bloodbath, can you name a few?
So why are you getting all upset now and flaiming Katz? I'm not a Katz fan, nor do I particularly dislike him. But here you go flaiming and he really said nothing that goes against what you said, did he? He was merely commenting on society and it's correlation with technology and development. He was making a statement that both society and technology have changed by citing an old set of laws that would be very out of place today. He acknowledges that engineers make mistakes. That's why when bridges fall down, you can file suit, but no one is executed. Or if my car's brakes fail, I crash, and get hurt, I might sue the car company, but most likely 1 in 10,000 parts could be faulty and there is no particular "blame."
So from examing both your statement, and Katz's review, you get on his case over nothing. I think you missed his point.
What if the system can't handle the number of votes, and crashes? What then? Do we say: "Sorry, but the system is temporarily unavailable, please vote again tomorrow..." That won't fly.
b) People who pay little or no attention to the real issues and put a tick in a box for someone with a few 'cool' policies
These are the people far less likely to vote.
Therefore, group A produces a fairly precise selection of who the "majority" of people feel will best run the country. Group B (if there even is a group B; most people do follow important issues in their own lives and vote accordingly) then produces a psuedo-random result. But this random result falls pretty fairly across all candidates altering the election very little.
Slashdot Mirror
At billions of simultaneous calculations (simultaneous means less than one second :) ), that would make a beowulf obsolete I would imagine...
It is going to take decades for us to come to terms with what this means.
I told a friend today that the digital age meeting copyright is like standing in a rain storm, and having someone tell you that they own individual drops.
The digital age will make copyrighting and intellectual property fight for survival. Once it is digitized, the reproduction on any PC is trivial. Things are going to change rapidly in this area in the next 10 years. I don't think even the "visionary" Jon Katz can predict the future here.
7 million of the 10 million are probably not of voting age. And most of those 3 million left probably don't feel passionatly enough to try to save the earth, let alone a software company...
I tend to agree to a point. Maybe not as violently, but I agree. I've submitted some stories I thought would provoke some real conversation, only to be rejected. Then I see a Cartoon Network anime story posted, and I wonder if my time @ /. is drawing to a close...
As Jenkins points out in his article, if Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll and the authors of the Bible were covered by the DMCA, none of their works would have received a fraction of the attention or influence they've generated.
That's because during those times, you couldn't copy their entire work to your Zip Disk, take it to the office, and transfer it to Taiwan over your 100 Mbit/s LAN connection to the company T-3.
Why do you think DMCA and similar protective coverage originated? Why is Napster all of the sudden there when we've been taping songs off the radio for years? Because MP3 and CD burners are the printing press of digital music.
did you ever wonder why apple went to dual processor instead of just increasing the speed of the g4. mainly because they cant. and they have to increase with the rapid speed jumps of intel.
That is completely wrong. Apple has no control over G4 production. That is Motorolla and IBM. They have to agree in their alliance on a path toward faster chips. Currently, they are in a little tiff.
The second thing, is that Apple doubled up on the chips for marketing reasons. A RISC based G4 and a CISC based Pentium can not be compared by Mhz, but everyone here knows that. Problem is, the people out there (Joe Consumer) don't know that. Steve Jobs knows the G4 500 gives a Pentium 800 Mhz a run for the money, and he also realizes that the speed gap is getting tight, and that Mhz gap is huge. So mainly for marketing reasons he doubled up.
There are Multi Proc. libs in OS 9. The dual processors do speed up threaded apps and the OS. It is not a 2x speed increase, but it is significant enough. There are quite a few apps optimized for MP machines. Photoshop being a one of the big ones. Mac OS X (coming soon) will fully support SMP (Symetric Multi. Proc I believe). So you won't have to worry about it.
That's my rant.
That isn't true at all. Let's be at least some what reasonable. A $400 Intel box:
1) Has a $300 or $400 Compuserve Rebate
2) Has a Celeron (read: shitty CPU)
3) Is most likely not as fast as a G3 iMac with 64 or 128 RAM, and a 6-10 gig HD, with a ATI based video accelerator.
4) The iMac has a monitor. Your $400 Intel box (after the Compuserve raping) doesnt have a monitor.
This article at Salon should put your mind at ease. It talks about the landmark case, and reiterates what has been said here: if Napster goes down, it's phenomenon on the Internet will get stronger.
As much as I thoroughly enjoy Napster, I have to admit that by law, this is a bad, bad thing.
Imagine you invent something. You want to benefit from your creativity, but a thousand teenagers get a hold on it and smash it down the throat of the collective internet. Now where do you stand?
In one sense, Napster does save us money, takes money from big companies, lets the starving artist be heard, and "shares" the wealth. On the other hand, if this was your intellectual property (I know many don't think of Britney Spears as having any sort of Intellectual property, but listen...) you most likely would not want to have it spread across the Internet.
If you want everything under the sun to be open source, you will lose an edge of capitalistic innovation. You have to admit money is a force behind creativity in America.
Napster may not be wrong (it's just software, they don't host illegal files), but they are facilitating a crime. Where that leaves them is interpreted, along with the law, by a judge.
A boycott will do little if anything. The Internet is too anonymous, with too little presence. You'd have to go to the RIAA's office, call your congress person, or protest at the court to even have a fraction of your voice heard.
Can anyone lend any validity to this article? It appears that this person:
A) Knows a lot about this
or
B) Is making all this up in an attempt at a good story.
or
C) A little of both
Those pictures of "interception stations" are strangely similar to every other large, white satellite dish you see around. In fact, there is one of those on top of the building I'm in right now. Is this a conspiracy?
Some of this stuff ("Nor is equipment available with the capacity to process and recognise the content of every speech message or telephone call.") sounds sorta wrong. I believe that the technology is there, maybe not to do EVERY call, but to single calls out by region or randomly sampled conversations.
I'd like to know if anyone can truely verify what this article says as truth.
So would the space craft have to travel directly above the position on the earth where the wire is anchored? Wouldn't the wire break (or Imagine the shuttle in orbit over China, connected to a wire in Florida). So how does this work?
As some know, this week is MacWorld Expo in NYC, and there is an article at MacNN regarding Netscape's presence at the show, as well as some answers from Chris Nalls, Macintosh Product Manager for Netscape. Check it out for some hard facts.
I think you are right. If I was given *just* a browser that launched immediately, didn't crash, rendered pages quickly (and correctly?), and wasn't too bad on the RAM requirements, I would probably use it for all my browsing.
Sad thing is the above hasn't been true since Netscape v2?
But isn't it slightly their fault? They are making their own standards and running with it. I might say that it is more Mozilla's fault for not competing w/ MS than anything. Whether or not MS utilized a monopoly to kill NS is another story...
Thank you for your computer science lesson, but I was not directly commenting on the buffer overflow exploit. What I was trying to do was draw a parallel between this exploit, and the fact that in the same week, Microsoft has acheived "the worst exploit in their OS ever." My point is, there is an underlying problem. It's not just one thing, it's the philosophy and way that Microsoft is "innovating" that is the problem. Look at their track record this week alone. Two HUGE exploits that can execute almost completely independent of any user control.
Yes, that may be the end result, but I was referring to the reason why the code is able to execute to begin with. No code should be executed upon email download unless the user specifically makes an action to do so.
"Anyway, I think that the problem is people actually getting/using the patch."
I don't thank that is the root of the problem. I think that the problem (considering strictly the Microsoft OS development, not Linux/Unix or anything else) stems from the fact that Microsoft tries to shove too many of these useless active features down the throats of the standard install people who buy their PC from OfficeMax. ActiveX is crap, all the stupid Microsoft proprietary stuff that breeds these security breaches should be curtailed. There shouldn't be huge gaping holes in major packaged components of the Microsoft OS.
If they truly innovate, they shouldn't make these mistakes. This SANS alert goes into more detail about the security hole. Turns out MS's software engineers actually make a series of calls out of order that preempts whatever the user chooses to do. Why does this crap get released?
I personally believe, that Voice Recognition technology is an ideal candidate for open-source development.
The main reason is that VUI technology will eventually infiltrate most areas of technology, and by moving forward through open-source with voice recognition, we allow a much more diverse and portable array of technologies to blossom. Most likely, quicker than someone like Microsoft or IBM could move.
The problems I see, are stability and customer support. Can those be adequately supplied in the open-source community, or is that something delegated to the closed-source companies?
That's not true. There are plenty of good drivers for X, and the reason there haven't been great drivers is that ATI was never taken seriously before. There cards are the cheap alternative, but it appears that they will be getting much more interest in the months to come when this card hits the market.
ATI has also released the specs and it should not be hard to build a nice, stable driver. With Apple bringing BSD to their OS, I'm sure an easy port of the ATI drivers won't be all that hard after the beta of OS X is released.
OK, thanks, I do meta-moderate. Thank you for your slashdot tutorial, but meta-moderating doesn't guarantee I'll get to moderate that moderation. I was voicing my opinion. Thanks for your expertise.
How the fsck is this offtopic? There are 5 or 6 other posts about Katz below this and how this one slipped through. Who is doing this moderation?
So, Mr. Katz, I'm having trouble imagining the bloodbath, can you name a few?
So why are you getting all upset now and flaiming Katz? I'm not a Katz fan, nor do I particularly dislike him. But here you go flaiming and he really said nothing that goes against what you said, did he? He was merely commenting on society and it's correlation with technology and development. He was making a statement that both society and technology have changed by citing an old set of laws that would be very out of place today. He acknowledges that engineers make mistakes. That's why when bridges fall down, you can file suit, but no one is executed. Or if my car's brakes fail, I crash, and get hurt, I might sue the car company, but most likely 1 in 10,000 parts could be faulty and there is no particular "blame."
So from examing both your statement, and Katz's review, you get on his case over nothing. I think you missed his point.
Your scalability point leads to a question:
What if the system can't handle the number of votes, and crashes? What then? Do we say: "Sorry, but the system is temporarily unavailable, please vote again tomorrow..." That won't fly.
b) People who pay little or no attention to the real issues and put a tick in a box for someone with a few 'cool' policies
These are the people far less likely to vote.
Therefore, group A produces a fairly precise selection of who the "majority" of people feel will best run the country. Group B (if there even is a group B; most people do follow important issues in their own lives and vote accordingly) then produces a psuedo-random result. But this random result falls pretty fairly across all candidates altering the election very little.