Well that is assuming that they transmit at 2.4Ghz, which I assume they do. Everytime Britanny hits a high note, the ftp connection to the warez site will drop. Oh wait, she can't hit high notes so I guess you're safe.
Dude, chill out. The reason they made the mistake was that they were counting IN from the edge of the solar system since that was the direction they were traveling. Now this may still be a glaring mistake, but at least more plausable. After all, theoretically there'd be no problem with doing it that way, though you'd think that unless CA5 assumed CA6's orbit, they would have noticed that something was amiss.
Dude, he said "city" not "planet". Or are you implying that he lived in a city called "Earth"? and instead of having mayors, they have a President (President Guiliani anyone?)
That was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. This is the junk they pass for "research" these days?
Others have mentioned the "...actually slowing down interaction with the net..." and the fact that they never bother to mention how they came to that conclusion.
"People are not doing things that require speed, so that is something of a red herring as a selling point," - What, no one must be surfing then. I know not everyone is downloading warez, but lord knows that BB has been a boom to the pr0n industry.
simply because most users do not leave their computers on. - OK, actually a good point, I'll give them this one.
But until technophobia is overcome, broadband is unlikely to be viewed in this way, said Mr Crabtree. - they never mention how broadband and technophobia are related, at least in terms of broadband vs dialup. Hell, hooking up my dsl/cable modem was simpler than getting my dialup working right.
"Broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin," - What, it doesn't provide faster downloads and instant on service? That's what their advertising isn't it, and isn't that what they (generally) deliver?
I can't believe that news about Alan Kay doesn't make it (or did it and I missed it?) but yet crap like this shows up?!?
Imagine a tin (can) of say, sardines and it says reduces cholesterol, increases sex drive and wards away acne. You eat the stuff and non of the above comes true, well it didn't do what it says on the tin. It's actually a quite literal saying.
He was referring to software for "common folk", he says so in the first line of his comment. Apache, MySQL don't count in this regard. There are five things people do most often:
1. Surf - IE dominates, hard to knock off when the thing is sitting right there on the desktop of every machine sold. The common user would have absolutely no reason to bother to download anything else.
2. Email - Again, Outlook/Express, dominates for the same reason.
3. IM - Here AOL rules the roost, but MSN Messenger is making some headway.
4. Office Productivity - MSOffice is the king here. Potential for OS inroads since MS does not bundle/force OEM's to put it on every desktop. Licensing can get quite expensive so OS could have a compelling value proposition. Plus only about 10% of MSO features are utilized by the average user anyway.
5. Games - well the funny thing is that no one seems to be crying for OS games. Funny that, as it's the one area that the supergeek is similar to the typical end user, they just want to use the software (i.e. play the game) and don't give a flip about having any source available to "fix bugs" or to "improve the software by having a million eyes looking over it".
It sounds like this guy is talking about end-user applications that would be used by "normal people"
So sendmail and bind wouldn't be in the mix. Anyhow, NT ships with a dns server, don't know what it's origins are though. StarOffice is too much of a bloated pig (yes, even compared to MSOffice) to become mainstream, though it's been about a year and a half since I last looked at it). Maybe OpenOffice?
The linux kernel, for example is a HUGE program. Much larger than many (most?) commercial products. It is constantly modified and dissected by thousands of interested users
OK, I hear this over and over, so I ask you, the average/. reader, how many of you have ever taken a look at the kernel source? How many have actually tried to understand any piece of the source (vs a casual browse)? Like the person said, there is a lot there, how much coverage does the "kernel" really get. Somehow I think that the "thousands of eyes" effect is quite overstated when it comes to OS, but I would be curious to see a show of hands and opinions.
It would be pretty untappable. You'd notice inmediately iF it's tapped.
You could "easily" tap it by simply inserting your device into the line of sight and then retransmitting. While the receiver would "see" a momentary disruption in transmission, how would it distinguish between someone tapping and say a bird flying through it's path?
And it can't be jammed electronically, only blocked.
If you had close to the same LOS as the sender, you could beam a signal to either interfere with the sender or to simply confuse the receiver, though true doing something radio based would not work.
the new handsets seem to be succeeding where the PC has failed. Mobile phones have a far broader appeal than PCs
Gee, maybe it's because cell phones can often be bought for "free" or mostly for $100 while even a "cheap" pc costs ~$500. Not to mention the "slight" difference in functionality provided. Sheesh, that's like saying that the boat market is a failure because they have less market penetration than the auto market.
An expert craftsman will produce good work whether he has good tools or not; but the reason craftspeople invest in good tools is that it makes their work easier and faster.
I agree with you as well. My point was that OO as a design methodology, and OOP tools aren't necessarily "better tools". After all, as experienced developers, what do we want. We want tools that do what WE want. We want existing bodies of code (whether they are libraries, STL macros, OO objects, whatever) that help us focus on solving the problem, not reinventing infrastructure.
But you still don't need to know in what way a metal bit differs from a wood or masonry bit. You just need to know that there are different bits for different jobs. Just like knowing that a hammer drill is needed to do concrete/brick. I'm not saying that you can be a total ignoramous, you still have to have an idea of what you're trying to achieve and the tools ability to meet that need. However, you don't need to know the goings on of the tool, just the parameters involved.
Honestly, this is more lke a Lexus ES300 You might see a good car, but all I see is a souped-up Toyota Camry --- and a big pit with 10k buried in it.
That is irrelevant. The point is not are they charging a "reasonable" price for what they are selling, the point is using that as a justification for engaging in illegal acts. The fact that the ES300 is nothing but a relabeled Camry doesn't give you the right to "steal" an ES300. Market forces will dictate how good of a "deal" this is. After all, to my wife, a Ferrari is nothing but a pretty car that goes fast, nothing remotely worth the premium you pay over a Toyota. I on the other hand don't see the point for a piece of squashed carbon selling for 5 figures that's about the size of a pea. I can't affort the Ferrari and I choose not to "waste" money on the rock, my choice.
Plus, how do you "value" the content anyway? Should all cd's cost the same assuming a single cd? After all, bit's is bit's right? Once the glass master is made the quantity on the disc doesn't matter. If an artist spent 5 years of their lives to create the content, shouldn't they be allowed to charge more than some bubblegum group whose song writers boiler plated the songs in two weeks? Or should it be based on the people who may purchase it?
Actually you bring up an excellent point that I'm afraid will get lost, but anyway.
What you described is an "ideal" situation, but then the ugly reality of programming rears it's ugly head. What if you want to sort by something other than the first column, your data abstract should support that (a property perhaps). What if you want to sort an object by a member (do you supply a comparison routine that now makes the abstract not quite as abstract), what if you need to sort unicode, what if you're sorting 500MB of data. All these extra requirements have a tendency to break many abstractions and force the programmer to A) have a lot more knowledge about the tool B) make any particular tool less likely to fit the bill.
This authors experience bodes well for Apple if they can get the licensing straight. If they can interface with these music sites and make them as easy to use as say the iPod, then they'd have a killer combo. Imagine being able to add tracks to your inbox, pay for them, click a button and have it download AND burn for you automatically. Or download/convert to mp3/shove it over to you iPod automatically. This could be another area where the Mac shines, again, if they can get the necessary buy in.
Two words, Instant gratification. The author mentions that it is easier to do this than to venture out in the middle of winter (after living in Canada, I can relate to this) to purchase a cd. So the real question is, is this truely better than going over to Amazon, purchasing the cd and waiting the week or so for it to show up?
As to will it work on *nix/Mac, didn't the original announcement of the service say that it was pc only initially? Plus with the problems the author had using a pc, hard to imagine they have it working on anything else yet.
Uh, but isn't the whole point that this is a _legal_ way of attaining the music. So first the excuse was that the music was too expensive, now it's that it isn't quite convenient enough?
I agree with you, but I think you misunderstand the point of my post. I was saying to "truely" get programming to reach another level, we have to get beyond the point of having to know such information for the general programmer. I use my cordless drill around the house for a good many things, but yet it matters not a single iota to me exactly how the thing works. Plop a fresh battery in, but the correct bit in and start building/destroying. The amount of information that I require to use the tool is minimal, it just works. Now as I get more advanced in my tool usage, I can start to get to know the tools better, but there is still a huge layer of abstraction available that allows me to focus on drilling a hole, not tinkering with a machine.
This is pie in the sky stuff, the simple fact is that programmers don't have those nice abstractions available and they do need to have a much better understanding of what's "really" going on. But, as a goal, this is where we need to be, though I don't know from a practical standpoint if we'll ever get there.
This demonstrates that as an industry we have a lot of work to do in security
I think that this comment by a M$'ie is the key point. If OS people sit around patting themselves on the back because of how much more secure OS is because of all those "talented eyes" that are poring over the code, then they are going to be in for a very rude awakening. All this "your software is less secure than mine" blustering just simply points out that the overwhelming majority of software that is used out there (regardless of the religious camp from which it originated) has serious security issues. The OpenBSD camp seems to be the only ones that are making a focused effort to try to shore things up in this regard, and until others (M$ and Linux) tackle the issue with the same zeal, we'll continue to have problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that is assuming that they transmit at 2.4Ghz, which I assume they do. Everytime Britanny hits a high note, the ftp connection to the warez site will drop. Oh wait, she can't hit high notes so I guess you're safe.
Dude, chill out. The reason they made the mistake was that they were counting IN from the edge of the solar system since that was the direction they were traveling. Now this may still be a glaring mistake, but at least more plausable. After all, theoretically there'd be no problem with doing it that way, though you'd think that unless CA5 assumed CA6's orbit, they would have noticed that something was amiss.
Dude, he said "city" not "planet". Or are you implying that he lived in a city called "Earth"? and instead of having mayors, they have a President (President Guiliani anyone?)
That was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. This is the junk they pass for "research" these days?
..." and the fact that they never bother to mention how they came to that conclusion.
Others have mentioned the "...actually slowing down interaction with the net
"People are not doing things that require speed, so that is something of a red herring as a selling point," - What, no one must be surfing then. I know not everyone is downloading warez, but lord knows that BB has been a boom to the pr0n industry.
simply because most users do not leave their computers on. - OK, actually a good point, I'll give them this one.
But until technophobia is overcome, broadband is unlikely to be viewed in this way, said Mr Crabtree. - they never mention how broadband and technophobia are related, at least in terms of broadband vs dialup. Hell, hooking up my dsl/cable modem was simpler than getting my dialup working right.
"Broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin," - What, it doesn't provide faster downloads and instant on service? That's what their advertising isn't it, and isn't that what they (generally) deliver?
I can't believe that news about Alan Kay doesn't make it (or did it and I missed it?) but yet crap like this shows up?!?
Imagine a tin (can) of say, sardines and it says reduces cholesterol, increases sex drive and wards away acne. You eat the stuff and non of the above comes true, well it didn't do what it says on the tin. It's actually a quite literal saying.
He was referring to software for "common folk", he says so in the first line of his comment. Apache, MySQL don't count in this regard. There are five things people do most often:
1. Surf - IE dominates, hard to knock off when the thing is sitting right there on the desktop of every machine sold. The common user would have absolutely no reason to bother to download anything else.
2. Email - Again, Outlook/Express, dominates for the same reason.
3. IM - Here AOL rules the roost, but MSN Messenger is making some headway.
4. Office Productivity - MSOffice is the king here. Potential for OS inroads since MS does not bundle/force OEM's to put it on every desktop. Licensing can get quite expensive so OS could have a compelling value proposition. Plus only about 10% of MSO features are utilized by the average user anyway.
5. Games - well the funny thing is that no one seems to be crying for OS games. Funny that, as it's the one area that the supergeek is similar to the typical end user, they just want to use the software (i.e. play the game) and don't give a flip about having any source available to "fix bugs" or to "improve the software by having a million eyes looking over it".
He starts off by saying:
It sounds like this guy is talking about end-user applications that would be used by "normal people"
So sendmail and bind wouldn't be in the mix. Anyhow, NT ships with a dns server, don't know what it's origins are though. StarOffice is too much of a bloated pig (yes, even compared to MSOffice) to become mainstream, though it's been about a year and a half since I last looked at it). Maybe OpenOffice?
Wouldn't expect less from a "Canuck" ;)
The linux kernel, for example is a HUGE program. Much larger than many (most?) commercial products. It is constantly modified and dissected by thousands of interested users
/. reader, how many of you have ever taken a look at the kernel source? How many have actually tried to understand any piece of the source (vs a casual browse)? Like the person said, there is a lot there, how much coverage does the "kernel" really get. Somehow I think that the "thousands of eyes" effect is quite overstated when it comes to OS, but I would be curious to see a show of hands and opinions.
OK, I hear this over and over, so I ask you, the average
It would be pretty untappable. You'd notice inmediately iF it's tapped.
You could "easily" tap it by simply inserting your device into the line of sight and then retransmitting. While the receiver would "see" a momentary disruption in transmission, how would it distinguish between someone tapping and say a bird flying through it's path?
And it can't be jammed electronically, only blocked.
If you had close to the same LOS as the sender, you could beam a signal to either interfere with the sender or to simply confuse the receiver, though true doing something radio based would not work.
Philips already has a version of this called the JackRabbit (no 32) that appears similar but without the DVD player. Here is a link to a pdf describing the product.
the new handsets seem to be succeeding where the PC has failed. Mobile phones have a far broader appeal than PCs
Gee, maybe it's because cell phones can often be bought for "free" or mostly for $100 while even a "cheap" pc costs ~$500. Not to mention the "slight" difference in functionality provided. Sheesh, that's like saying that the boat market is a failure because they have less market penetration than the auto market.
An expert craftsman will produce good work whether he has good tools or not; but the reason craftspeople invest in good tools is that it makes their work easier and faster.
I agree with you as well. My point was that OO as a design methodology, and OOP tools aren't necessarily "better tools". After all, as experienced developers, what do we want. We want tools that do what WE want. We want existing bodies of code (whether they are libraries, STL macros, OO objects, whatever) that help us focus on solving the problem, not reinventing infrastructure.
In this case I was referring to the artist. The original posters comment was:
I would rather support independents than coorporate whor....errr, I mean popular artists.
But you still don't need to know in what way a metal bit differs from a wood or masonry bit. You just need to know that there are different bits for different jobs. Just like knowing that a hammer drill is needed to do concrete/brick. I'm not saying that you can be a total ignoramous, you still have to have an idea of what you're trying to achieve and the tools ability to meet that need. However, you don't need to know the goings on of the tool, just the parameters involved.
Honestly, this is more lke a Lexus ES300 You might see a good car, but all I see is a souped-up Toyota Camry --- and a big pit with 10k buried in it.
That is irrelevant. The point is not are they charging a "reasonable" price for what they are selling, the point is using that as a justification for engaging in illegal acts. The fact that the ES300 is nothing but a relabeled Camry doesn't give you the right to "steal" an ES300. Market forces will dictate how good of a "deal" this is. After all, to my wife, a Ferrari is nothing but a pretty car that goes fast, nothing remotely worth the premium you pay over a Toyota. I on the other hand don't see the point for a piece of squashed carbon selling for 5 figures that's about the size of a pea. I can't affort the Ferrari and I choose not to "waste" money on the rock, my choice.
Plus, how do you "value" the content anyway? Should all cd's cost the same assuming a single cd? After all, bit's is bit's right? Once the glass master is made the quantity on the disc doesn't matter. If an artist spent 5 years of their lives to create the content, shouldn't they be allowed to charge more than some bubblegum group whose song writers boiler plated the songs in two weeks? Or should it be based on the people who may purchase it?
Then don't purchase it. I think Ferrari's are too expensive, but I don't break into them and go for joyrides and call it "protesting my rights".
Actually you bring up an excellent point that I'm afraid will get lost, but anyway.
What you described is an "ideal" situation, but then the ugly reality of programming rears it's ugly head. What if you want to sort by something other than the first column, your data abstract should support that (a property perhaps). What if you want to sort an object by a member (do you supply a comparison routine that now makes the abstract not quite as abstract), what if you need to sort unicode, what if you're sorting 500MB of data. All these extra requirements have a tendency to break many abstractions and force the programmer to A) have a lot more knowledge about the tool B) make any particular tool less likely to fit the bill.
This authors experience bodes well for Apple if they can get the licensing straight. If they can interface with these music sites and make them as easy to use as say the iPod, then they'd have a killer combo. Imagine being able to add tracks to your inbox, pay for them, click a button and have it download AND burn for you automatically. Or download/convert to mp3/shove it over to you iPod automatically. This could be another area where the Mac shines, again, if they can get the necessary buy in.
Two words, Instant gratification. The author mentions that it is easier to do this than to venture out in the middle of winter (after living in Canada, I can relate to this) to purchase a cd. So the real question is, is this truely better than going over to Amazon, purchasing the cd and waiting the week or so for it to show up?
As to will it work on *nix/Mac, didn't the original announcement of the service say that it was pc only initially? Plus with the problems the author had using a pc, hard to imagine they have it working on anything else yet.
since it's easier to use free p2p
Uh, but isn't the whole point that this is a _legal_ way of attaining the music. So first the excuse was that the music was too expensive, now it's that it isn't quite convenient enough?
How about simply supporting those whose music you enjoy?
I can see it now, /. starts automagically filtering comments based on those comments you've clicked on. Now all I can see is :
....
/. seems to have already implemented this ...
First Post!
Imagine a beowulf
Sony/M$ sux, OS rules
CmdrTaco can't spell
This is old news
Oh wait,
I agree with you, but I think you misunderstand the point of my post. I was saying to "truely" get programming to reach another level, we have to get beyond the point of having to know such information for the general programmer. I use my cordless drill around the house for a good many things, but yet it matters not a single iota to me exactly how the thing works. Plop a fresh battery in, but the correct bit in and start building/destroying. The amount of information that I require to use the tool is minimal, it just works. Now as I get more advanced in my tool usage, I can start to get to know the tools better, but there is still a huge layer of abstraction available that allows me to focus on drilling a hole, not tinkering with a machine.
This is pie in the sky stuff, the simple fact is that programmers don't have those nice abstractions available and they do need to have a much better understanding of what's "really" going on. But, as a goal, this is where we need to be, though I don't know from a practical standpoint if we'll ever get there.
This demonstrates that as an industry we have a lot of work to do in security
I think that this comment by a M$'ie is the key point. If OS people sit around patting themselves on the back because of how much more secure OS is because of all those "talented eyes" that are poring over the code, then they are going to be in for a very rude awakening. All this "your software is less secure than mine" blustering just simply points out that the overwhelming majority of software that is used out there (regardless of the religious camp from which it originated) has serious security issues. The OpenBSD camp seems to be the only ones that are making a focused effort to try to shore things up in this regard, and until others (M$ and Linux) tackle the issue with the same zeal, we'll continue to have problems.