"And at least one of those (Hulu) probably isn't going to survive as a free
service..."
What we are seeing is the normal development of new technology. For
example, our use of styles of automobiles and of aircraft have changed due to
the processes of development. We don't have many blimps now, but at one time
they seemed to be the future of air transport.
Talking about "mutually assured destruction" is nonsense. There
is an ignorant sub-culture of people who see everything in terms of violence.
Cringley seems to have very little real insight, except for this:
"It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft's part and
blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen." That's an
exaggeration, but it exaggerates a fact, the fact that Microsoft's profit
comes from adversarial behavior. When a non-adversarial competitor enters the
field, the adversarial companies die. Who wants an unfriendly partner? No one,
if an unfriendly partner can be avoided.
Google is entering new fields because it is logical, not because of
adversarial intent. Google does have a SERIOUS problem, however. Google has
not been handling its public relations well. The "Chrome Operating System"
should have been released with better explanation. News writers have limited
time to produce their stories. They cannot be expected to engage in creative
thinking. When they don't have enough ideas, they sometimes write crazy
things.
Gnome is hopeless with leaders like this. Quote:
"Every once in a while they decide they're going to reinvent how desktops
work. Well, we've all been dealing with their half baked reinventions for a
long time. Things that mostly work but have strange bugs preventing you from
doing essential stuff. Incomplete components, like the horrible default music
players and photo viewers (you can't even view pictures by date)."
Mark Shuttleworth has been wonderful for Linux, but he has not shown the kind of intense leadership necessary to get the job done. You can see that even in the interview. Somehow he has allowed an interview to be published that has numerous grammatical and typing mistakes.
Also, the interview doesn't provide the expected information that would give an impression of sufficient leadership. Quote: "We delivered a couple of interesting things in Ubuntu 9.04, some of them are controversial, like the notification piece and the messaging menu. But I think in principle it's going well."
Notice also the poor use of language. "Couple" means two and doesn't fit with "some".
From the inside, participating in KDE, GNOME, and X.org may seem like a lot of fascinating fun to developers and technology enthusiasts. Frankly, from the outside Linux desktop development seems like it's moving very slowly. Linux has been a 6-step process for a lot of people: 1) Want to install Linux. 2) Get involved in a lot of time-consuming, self- and other-defeating debate over KDE and GNOME. 3) Make a choice. 4) Install Linux and discover that you can't set the proper resolution for your monitor. 5) Spend a lot of time learning the reasons why. 6) Decide to wait until the Linux desktop is more mature.
Years of that has been very bad publicity for Linux as a desktop OS.
In my opinion, finding some way to work around the present Linux desktop self-defeat is in the best interest of Google.
I've read both Slashdot articles. They look similar to me. The older one is far superior.
Basically, if you have a keyboard of poor quality that has poor shielding and no noise reduction components, it is possible to read signals. The question is, which keyboards and computers are poorly designed and poorly shielded?
Read the complete story: This PDF, not referenced by Slashdot, tells the whole story: CanSecWest/core09 March 16-20, 2009 (PDF). Quote from page 41: "This doesn't work against USB keyboards because of differential signaling". Also, on page 12: "The [PS/2 keyboard] wires are very close to each other and poorly shielded".
Slashdot articles of especially poor quality: Are they paid advertisements? I've read Slashdot articles for years, and there is now a new phenomenon. A publication runs an article of very poor quality and Slashdot links to it, possibly to lead Slashdot readers to the publication so that they will read the ads. This article was submitted to Slashdot by a professional writer, Hugh Pickens, who is possibly acting as a public relations agent. He has written at least 413 Slashdot articles. Does someone at Slashdot accept money to publish his articles?
Quote from the OLDER article referenced by the OLDER Slashdot story:
'March 12, 2009, 02:46 PM - IDG News Service -
'Inverse Path researchers Andrea Barisani and Daniele Bianco say they get accurate results, picking out keyboard signals from keyboard ground cables.
'Their work only applies to older, PS/2 keyboards [PS/2 connector, not PlayStation], but the data they get is "pretty good," they say. On these keyboards, "the data cable is so close to the ground cable, the emanations from the data cable leak onto the ground cable, which acts as an antenna," Barisani said.
'That ground wire passes through the PC and into the building's power wires, where the researchers can pick up the signals using a computer, an oscilloscope and about $500 worth of other equipment. They believe they could pick up signals from a distance of up to 50 meters by simply plugging a keystroke-sniffing device into the power grid somewhere close to the PC they want to snoop on.
'Because PS/2 keyboards emanate radiation at a standard, very specific frequency, the researchers can pick up a keyboard's signal even on a crowded power grid. They tried out their experiment at a local university's physics department, and even with particle detectors, oscilloscopes and other computers on the network were still able to get good data.'
Yes, I saw that in the information I posted in my comment.
However, the Slashdot story gave the impression that small broadcasters would be put out of business. That was a lie, and certainly the person who wrote the story to which Slashdot linked knew it was a lie, in my opinion.
Slashdot has hosted many misleading stories like that. I wonder if someone at Slashdot is paid to post stories.
Yes, but you didn't mention that Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME all trashed their file systems. You didn't mention that they all trashed their centralized, buggy resource called the Registry.
Windows operating systems need periodic complete re-installation to remain stable. That includes Windows XP, in my experience.
See Myths About Microsoft. Quote: "... Microsoft gains some of its market share by shady back-room deals and by threatening and intimidating its own customers."
You are correct, but the amounts don't seem to change. This is apparently the correct information, from the Proceedings page of the Copyright and Royalty Board (CRB). The link titled "Notice of agreement 74 FR 9293 March 3, 2009" is a PDF file: PDF. See page 9303 of the U.S. Federal Registry:
4. Minimum Annual Fees
(a) In General. For each year from 2006-2015, an Eligible Small Webcaster shall pay
annual minimum fees as follows:
(1) $500 for electing Microcasters, which
shall constitute the only royalty payable
hereunder by an electing Microcaster, except
that an electing Microcaster also shall pay a
$100 annual fee (the ''Proxy Fee'') to
SoundExchange for the reporting waiver
discussed in Section 6(a), and the provisions
of Section 5(d) shall apply;
(2) $2,000, for Eligible Small Webcasters
other than electing Microcasters that had
Gross Revenues during the prior year of not
more than $50,000 and reasonably expect
Gross Revenues of not more than $50,000
during the applicable year; or
(3) $5,000, for Eligible Small Webcasters
that had Gross Revenues during the prior
year of more than $50,000 or reasonably
expect Gross Revenues to exceed $50,000
during the applicable year.
(b) The amounts specified in Section 4(a)
shall be paid by January 31 of each year.
(c) All minimum fees (but not the Proxy
Fee for the reporting waiver for Microcasters)
shall be fully creditable toward royalties due
for the year for which such amounts are paid,
but not any other year.
If you read the actual agreement, the government document to which I linked, you will see that the Wikipedia article is correct. I can find no mention of anything different than $500.
LOL. Gordie the cat understands "no" perfectly, I'm guessing. He just doesn't agree.
This seems insightful to me: 'There is the larger question of what it _means_ to "understand" language of course -- and, for that matter, how often humans typically first "understand" the philosophical depth of an utterance before they then respond to it. That's a whole 'nother game.'
I often get the impression that the science of language isn't really science yet.
When I read papers about animals and language, I get the idea that the science is weak. Also, when I read Slashdot stories, I get the idea that the language skills of Slashdot editors are weak.
The Slashdot story quotes the Examiner, which in turn quotes this Discovery article: Monkeys Display Verbal Skills Quote: "... a response previously determined to indicate their acknowledgment that the familiar sound ordering pattern had been violated".
This BBC article is a better discussion: Monkeys recognise 'bad grammar'. Quote: ' "Simple temporal ordering is shared with non-human animals," he said. '. My impression is that the researchers are claiming something different than they actually have shown to be true. And, of course, the articles about their work are even more exaggerated.
Slashdot Error: The minimum is $500, not $25,000, as the Slashdot story says. In all
these years, the company that owns Slashdot has not learned the basic elements
of editing.
I assumed, in my grandparent comment, that the Slashdot story was
correct, and was shocked at the amount.
This government PDF file seems to say $500, also: Final Determination Of Rates And Terms, Docket No. 2005-1 CRB
DTRA (PDF) Quote: "(b) Minimum fee. Each Commercial Webcaster and
Noncommercial Webcaster will pay an annual, nonrefundable minimum fee of $500
for each calendar year or part of a calendar year of the license period during
which they are Licensees pursuant to licenses under 17 U.S.C. 114."
"Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year. So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."
"If you had time to reference it then, you have time to reference it now." That's not motivating to me. It seems impolite.
It's crazy, I think that the events are not common knowledge.
Why do you want to know? What research are you doing?
I just don't have time now. All I remember immediately is that Glass-Steagull was not particularly objectionable. The corruption was accomplished using several rule changes that were kept quite secret.
During the time of the oil price increase, the supply of oil went up a small amount, and the demand went down by a tiny amount. There should have been a tiny price decrease.
However it was accomplished, it was market manipulation. I don't have time to supply links now.
"The rolling stone article is conspiracy drivel..."
Thoughts:
1) The linked article is not the article published on paper in Rolling Stone, although confusingly it has the same name.
2) A Slashdot comment is not meant to be a complete discussion of anything. A Slashdot comment can alert you to the need to do further research.
3) The actual Rolling Stone article in the paper edition only says things that have been reported elsewhere.
4) The bankers certainly knew there would be a crash, and that they would profit from the crash, and that the crash would be very destructive to everyone else.
5) Matt Taibbi's article, The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of The Pope lacks any humor. It's just stupid. In number 26, he guesses that the pope lives, and he dies. The point of the article seems to be that the pope gets less respect now; a big difference from 50 years ago. But it's a terrible article.
6) What is important is not what someone said, but the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
"And at least one of those (Hulu) probably isn't going to survive as a free service..."
What we are seeing is the normal development of new technology. For example, our use of styles of automobiles and of aircraft have changed due to the processes of development. We don't have many blimps now, but at one time they seemed to be the future of air transport.
Talking about "mutually assured destruction" is nonsense. There is an ignorant sub-culture of people who see everything in terms of violence.
Cringley seems to have very little real insight, except for this: "It would have to be an act of deliberate sabotage on Microsoft's part and blatantly illegal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen." That's an exaggeration, but it exaggerates a fact, the fact that Microsoft's profit comes from adversarial behavior. When a non-adversarial competitor enters the field, the adversarial companies die. Who wants an unfriendly partner? No one, if an unfriendly partner can be avoided.
Google wants to make progress, and that progress is being limited by the limitations of the other players. For example, consider my comment on another story: "Linux desktop development seems like it's moving very slowly".
Google is entering new fields because it is logical, not because of adversarial intent. Google does have a SERIOUS problem, however. Google has not been handling its public relations well. The "Chrome Operating System" should have been released with better explanation. News writers have limited time to produce their stories. They cannot be expected to engage in creative thinking. When they don't have enough ideas, they sometimes write crazy things.
Anyone doubting that the Linux desktop discussion is still very primitive can read the many, many comments below. Here are some:
... let's be honest, there is no such things as productivity
when developing on GNOME. Quote: "The guys of KDE need to admit when an
idea was wrong and just drop the code."
GNOME 3.0 sneak preview (Score:5, Funny)
Gnome is hopeless with leaders like this. Quote: "Every once in a while they decide they're going to reinvent how desktops work. Well, we've all been dealing with their half baked reinventions for a long time. Things that mostly work but have strange bugs preventing you from doing essential stuff. Incomplete components, like the horrible default music players and photo viewers (you can't even view pictures by date)."
It's obvious that the children entered the cage themselves, as part of playing.
That seems correct to me.
Mark Shuttleworth has been wonderful for Linux, but he has not shown the kind of intense leadership necessary to get the job done. You can see that even in the interview. Somehow he has allowed an interview to be published that has numerous grammatical and typing mistakes.
Also, the interview doesn't provide the expected information that would give an impression of sufficient leadership. Quote: "We delivered a couple of interesting things in Ubuntu 9.04, some of them are controversial, like the notification piece and the messaging menu. But I think in principle it's going well."
Notice also the poor use of language. "Couple" means two and doesn't fit with "some".
From the inside, participating in KDE, GNOME, and X.org may seem like a lot of fascinating fun to developers and technology enthusiasts. Frankly, from the outside Linux desktop development seems like it's moving very slowly. Linux has been a 6-step process for a lot of people: 1) Want to install Linux. 2) Get involved in a lot of time-consuming, self- and other-defeating debate over KDE and GNOME. 3) Make a choice. 4) Install Linux and discover that you can't set the proper resolution for your monitor. 5) Spend a lot of time learning the reasons why. 6) Decide to wait until the Linux desktop is more mature.
Years of that has been very bad publicity for Linux as a desktop OS.
In my opinion, finding some way to work around the present Linux desktop self-defeat is in the best interest of Google.
Slashdot has covered this story before, many times, beginning at least as early as 2005.
I've read both Slashdot articles. They look similar to me. The older one is far superior.
Basically, if you have a keyboard of poor quality that has poor shielding and no noise reduction components, it is possible to read signals. The question is, which keyboards and computers are poorly designed and poorly shielded?
Read the complete story: This PDF, not referenced by Slashdot, tells the whole story: CanSecWest/core09 March 16-20, 2009 (PDF). Quote from page 41: "This doesn't work against USB keyboards because of differential signaling". Also, on page 12: "The [PS/2 keyboard] wires are very close to each other and poorly shielded".
Slashdot articles of especially poor quality: Are they paid advertisements? I've read Slashdot articles for years, and there is now a new phenomenon. A publication runs an article of very poor quality and Slashdot links to it, possibly to lead Slashdot readers to the publication so that they will read the ads. This article was submitted to Slashdot by a professional writer, Hugh Pickens, who is possibly acting as a public relations agent. He has written at least 413 Slashdot articles. Does someone at Slashdot accept money to publish his articles?
Quote from the OLDER article referenced by the OLDER Slashdot story:
'March 12, 2009, 02:46 PM - IDG News Service -
'Inverse Path researchers Andrea Barisani and Daniele Bianco say they get accurate results, picking out keyboard signals from keyboard ground cables.
'Their work only applies to older, PS/2 keyboards [PS/2 connector, not PlayStation], but the data they get is "pretty good," they say. On these keyboards, "the data cable is so close to the ground cable, the emanations from the data cable leak onto the ground cable, which acts as an antenna," Barisani said.
'That ground wire passes through the PC and into the building's power wires, where the researchers can pick up the signals using a computer, an oscilloscope and about $500 worth of other equipment. They believe they could pick up signals from a distance of up to 50 meters by simply plugging a keystroke-sniffing device into the power grid somewhere close to the PC they want to snoop on.
'Because PS/2 keyboards emanate radiation at a standard, very specific frequency, the researchers can pick up a keyboard's signal even on a crowded power grid. They tried out their experiment at a local university's physics department, and even with particle detectors, oscilloscopes and other computers on the network were still able to get good data.'
Yes, I saw that in the information I posted in my comment.
However, the Slashdot story gave the impression that small broadcasters would be put out of business. That was a lie, and certainly the person who wrote the story to which Slashdot linked knew it was a lie, in my opinion.
Slashdot has hosted many misleading stories like that. I wonder if someone at Slashdot is paid to post stories.
So what is the answer? Is there really a $500 minimum payment, or is it sometimes $25,000?
Yes, but you didn't mention that Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME all trashed their file systems. You didn't mention that they all trashed their centralized, buggy resource called the Registry.
Windows operating systems need periodic complete re-installation to remain stable. That includes Windows XP, in my experience.
Microsoft paid a reported $75,000 for what became DOS 1.0.
Here's a history that seems accurate: A Short History of MS-DOS. See also Origins of MS-DOS.
See Myths About Microsoft. Quote: "... Microsoft gains some of its market share by shady back-room deals and by threatening and intimidating its own customers."
MOD PARENT UP to +10.
Excellent history of Microsoft, in my opinion.
You are correct, but the amounts don't seem to change. This is apparently the correct information, from the Proceedings page of the Copyright and Royalty Board (CRB). The link titled "Notice of agreement 74 FR 9293 March 3, 2009" is a PDF file: PDF. See page 9303 of the U.S. Federal Registry:
4. Minimum Annual Fees
(a) In General. For each year from 2006-2015, an Eligible Small Webcaster shall pay annual minimum fees as follows:
(1) $500 for electing Microcasters, which shall constitute the only royalty payable hereunder by an electing Microcaster, except that an electing Microcaster also shall pay a $100 annual fee (the ''Proxy Fee'') to SoundExchange for the reporting waiver discussed in Section 6(a), and the provisions of Section 5(d) shall apply;
(2) $2,000, for Eligible Small Webcasters other than electing Microcasters that had Gross Revenues during the prior year of not more than $50,000 and reasonably expect Gross Revenues of not more than $50,000 during the applicable year; or
(3) $5,000, for Eligible Small Webcasters that had Gross Revenues during the prior year of more than $50,000 or reasonably expect Gross Revenues to exceed $50,000 during the applicable year. (b) The amounts specified in Section 4(a) shall be paid by January 31 of each year. (c) All minimum fees (but not the Proxy Fee for the reporting waiver for Microcasters) shall be fully creditable toward royalties due for the year for which such amounts are paid, but not any other year.
If you read the actual agreement, the government document to which I linked, you will see that the Wikipedia article is correct. I can find no mention of anything different than $500.
'... "no" less than perfectly'
LOL. Gordie the cat understands "no" perfectly, I'm guessing. He just doesn't agree.
This seems insightful to me: 'There is the larger question of what it _means_ to "understand" language of course -- and, for that matter, how often humans typically first "understand" the philosophical depth of an utterance before they then respond to it. That's a whole 'nother game.'
I often get the impression that the science of language isn't really science yet.
When I read papers about animals and language, I get the idea that the science is weak. Also, when I read Slashdot stories, I get the idea that the language skills of Slashdot editors are weak.
The Slashdot story quotes the Examiner, which in turn quotes this Discovery article: Monkeys Display Verbal Skills Quote: "... a response previously determined to indicate their acknowledgment that the familiar sound ordering pattern had been violated".
This BBC article is a better discussion: Monkeys recognise 'bad grammar'. Quote: ' "Simple temporal ordering is shared with non-human animals," he said. '. My impression is that the researchers are claiming something different than they actually have shown to be true. And, of course, the articles about their work are even more exaggerated.
The abstract in Biology Letters gives some useful information: Evidence of an evolutionary precursor to human language affixation in a non-human primate.
They plan on using the power of government to enforce the agreement.
However, the Slashdot story seems to be in error. The amount should be $500, not $25,000, apparently.
Slashdot Error: The minimum is $500, not $25,000, as the Slashdot story says. In all these years, the company that owns Slashdot has not learned the basic elements of editing.
I assumed, in my grandparent comment, that the Slashdot story was correct, and was shocked at the amount.
This government PDF file seems to say $500, also: Final Determination Of Rates And Terms, Docket No. 2005-1 CRB DTRA (PDF) Quote: "(b) Minimum fee. Each Commercial Webcaster and Noncommercial Webcaster will pay an annual, nonrefundable minimum fee of $500 for each calendar year or part of a calendar year of the license period during which they are Licensees pursuant to licenses under 17 U.S.C. 114."
The rich take advantage of the less rich:
"Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year. So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."
From the article: "The SAHMO is truly a lightweight carbon fiber vehicle, weighting less than 110 kilograms."
The entire car weighs less than an overweight American.
"If you had time to reference it then, you have time to reference it now." That's not motivating to me. It seems impolite.
It's crazy, I think that the events are not common knowledge.
Why do you want to know? What research are you doing?
I just don't have time now. All I remember immediately is that Glass-Steagull was not particularly objectionable. The corruption was accomplished using several rule changes that were kept quite secret.
I liked what the woman said in the video. Something like, "Accidents are not accidental, they happen because people aren't careful."
We need that ad here.
Thanks, thanks, thanks to the VideoLAN team. Just tried the 1.0.0 version. It works great.
Thanks for freeing me from the media player craziness of Windows XP.
During the time of the oil price increase, the supply of oil went up a small amount, and the demand went down by a tiny amount. There should have been a tiny price decrease.
However it was accomplished, it was market manipulation. I don't have time to supply links now.
"The rolling stone article is conspiracy drivel..."
Thoughts:
1) The linked article is not the article published on paper in Rolling Stone, although confusingly it has the same name.
2) A Slashdot comment is not meant to be a complete discussion of anything. A Slashdot comment can alert you to the need to do further research.
3) The actual Rolling Stone article in the paper edition only says things that have been reported elsewhere.
4) The bankers certainly knew there would be a crash, and that they would profit from the crash, and that the crash would be very destructive to everyone else.
5) Matt Taibbi's article, The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of The Pope lacks any humor. It's just stupid. In number 26, he guesses that the pope lives, and he dies. The point of the article seems to be that the pope gets less respect now; a big difference from 50 years ago. But it's a terrible article.
6) What is important is not what someone said, but the facts.