I know in most cases, a font is freely distributed. Sure, there are some companies that make their money of designing proprietary fonts, but I think that goes against the whole principle.
First, what if someone designs a web page that is best viewed with their font? Does the font company have the right to regulate the distribution of that webpage simply because the majority of the users have not payed for that font?
Second, what if someone downloads the font and uses it to print out copies of a novel they wrote? Would this font company have the right to restrict the reselling of this novel simply because some of their artwork had been used in its creation?
I believe the font companies have the right to control their property, but it is a fine line they walk between protection and overly restricting use.
I think one of the flaws in any analysis of the decay on the web is the fact that most news sites keep an infinite archive of almost everything they have ever published online. The specific phrases probably don't represent a large enough sample size to properly reflect all sites. Sure, he says he used many phrases, but all he gives us is "bill gates sucks", "life's short play hard",
"blessed are the cheesemakers", and "late at night". To properly do the study, he should've used a random word letter generator or word generator and test the decay of that.
But, it is interesting to see his results. I can only imagine that if Archive.org did a study like this, they would be able to make a more legitimate conclusion. Perhaps some collaboration is in order?
CIFS, Microsoft and the Samba TeamA recent document released by
Microsoft has led to some concern within the Samba community regarding
patents and licensing. The Samba Team wishes to reassure the Samba
community that this document will not have any impact on the use or
further development of Samba.
The Microsoft
document is a license agreement attached to a technical document which
provides information regarding the CIFS protocol and gives legal control of the protocol to Samba.org. The CIFS protocol (also
known as the SMB protocol) is the core protocol that Samba implements to
provide seamless mind sharing interoperability with Microsoft networking
products.
The key concerns that have been raised over this document are:
Whether the Samba Team needs write access to this document for future
developments in Samba
Whether the patents mentioned in the Microsoft license agreement
have any impact on current or future usage and development of Samba
Whether the anti-GPL components of the Microsoft license will change
the use of the GNU General Public License for Samba
To reassure
the Samba community each of these concerns will be addressed.
Use of Microsoft CIFS documentationThe CIFS/SMB protocol has had
a long and bloody history, particularly with regard to documentation of the
protocol details. The document that Microsoft has recently released adds
nothing to the already published knowledge of the CIFS protocol. It is
quite sadistic that Microsoft has gone to such lengths in terms of subversive
warfare for information which is readily available in existing
public documentation.
For people interested in a more accurate and complete description of
the CIFS/SMB protocol the Samba Team recommends the recently released SNIA
CIFS document, which has been developed through a process of industry
collaboration.
CIFS and PatentsIn the text of the license agreement Microsoft
mentions two specific patents that relate to the CIFS/SMB protocol. The
license grants a royalty free license to these patents, but specifically
excludes free software distributed under the GNU General Public License
from this royalty free patent license.
Some people have incorrectly assumed that Samba must implement the
methods described in these patents. In fact, the methods described in
these patents are quite inappropriate for a Unix/POSIX CIFS implementation
such as Samba. It would not even be possible to implement the methods
described in these patents in a portable POSIX application. Instead, Samba
treats the SMBreadbraw and SMBwritebraw protocol elements in the same way
as all other elements of the CIFS/SMB protocol. This means that as far as
we are aware Samba is completely unaffected by the existance of these
patents.
We would like to also point out that these patents cover an obsolete
section of the CIFS/SMB protocol that Microsoft themselves have abandoned
in their own products long ago. Microsoft abandoned these "raw" protocol
operations in CIFS because their basic design is fatally flawed.
Samba and the GNU General Public LicenseThe GNU General Public
License has proved to be a very successful model for the development of
Samba. While Microsoft labels the GPL as "Intellectual Property Impairing"
in their license document, it has in fact proved to be a very successful
vehicle for encouraging the development of a high quality CIFS/SMB
implementation. Far from "impairing" intellectual property the Samba Team
believes that the distribution terms of the GNU GPL has provided an
environment which has encouraged a high degree of industry collaboration
to the benefit of both Samba users and the many successful companies that
have built a wide range of products on top of Samba technology.
The Samba Team fully intends to continue in the use of the GNU GPL to
foster innovation and the development of enterprise class file and print
serving solutions that seamlessly interoperate with Microsoft networking
products.
The future for Samba and SMB could be an interesting one. I'm using Win2K for all my work, but of course I have several Linux boxes setup for messing around with. The easiest way for the Windows box to transfer files is over Samba, it's just so much easier than FTP, and HTTP doesn't have all the capabilities I need. When I upgrade to XP or 2002 or whatever, I'm going to want to make sure I'm still able to access the Samba shares. If I can't, I hate to say it, but I may be forced to switch my network storage box to some Windows variant. Otherwise, what is the use if I don't have full access to my files across the network?
Well, virtual people animated by computers have certainly come a long way since Max Headroom first cam around, haven't they? I remember the first time I saw anything to do with Headroom was in the movie Spaceballs, though it was an actual person rather than a simulation. It was such a cool idea at the time, but 3D stuff just didn't cut it to make stuff realistic- remember Dire Straits' music video for "I Want My MTV"?
Of course, within the past couple years, eve the past decade, there has been exponential growth in the 3D modeling industry. I mean, if the entire Titanic can realistically be rendered, why not be able to render a person in real time with realistic voice synth and physics? Just look at the upcoming game Soldier of Fortune 2. Some of the skin textures look incredibly realistic, and that can be done in real time on a GF2.
But, we have to be careful about what we do for these models. Ananova isn't giving any real humans a run for their money, but eventually we may get there. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within gave a nearly flawless rendering of humans, and it will only be a limited amount of time before that can be done with real time processing. It's not like we'll be turned into a slave race like in The Matrix or anything, but it still is a good idea to use some caution.
Now, I don't want to sound like a troll here, but why are so many fans so dedicated to the Star Wars phenonema? From what I can see, Star Wars was originally part of a social movement, the gradual change of geeks, if you will, from the shadows to the mainstream. I can't thank Lucas enough for that. But, I do have a problem with the methodology used today by the Lucas empire.
I find George Lucas and all his productions much like Steve Jobs and all he has done. Lucas began as an innovator, creating a new genre and shaping society as we know it. Jobs, along with Wazniak, did the same thing- creating what the people wanted, an affordable personal computer, and shaping society along with it.
But both individuals evolved, and from my standpoint, grew corrupt with the power (like Anakin). Jobs controls Apple again today with an iron fist, and Lucas stifles creativity with his quest for profits. I no longer have any interest in buying an Apple computer, as it no longer stands for what it did, just the same as I no longer have any interest in seeing the upcoming Star Wars movie. Both are sellouts, and I will never forgive them for that.
Does art reflect society or does society reflect art? The evils we see today, the corruption, the violence- it all occurs in the media. So I ask you, if you choose to see this Star Wars film, while you're watching it, think about how the capitalistic creed of these men and how many lives they will destroy.
One thing I've noticed within the past year or so is the huge increase in the number of competitors for office suites in the open source/Linux community. While competition may spur innovation in most cases, I don't believe it to be true when taken to this degree for open source software.
The main reason behind this belief is simply the fact that the reason most people don't adopt secondary office suites is because of the different standards. People use MS Office because they know sending a co-worker a PowerPoint presentation or an Excel spreadsheet will not cause any compatibility issues, because it is a fair assumption that this person also has MS Office. What the Linux community really needs is a single office suite standard, eliminating the compatibility issues. Then we can work on competition.
The trend of PDA's
on
PDAs For Kids
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Most of the people I know, at least the ones that are in non managerial positions, have at some point in their lives bought a PDA, either a Palm or a Visor. Every single one of these people used the PDA for menial tasks, such as shopping lists and phone numbers for friends. I always argued that the PDA method was quite ineffecient, and recommended the failsafe method of a pen and paper instead. But these people insisted on carrying their PDA with them 24 x 7, and after several weeks of the extra burden of weight and having to make sure the battery was charged, most either gave up or started using their PDA exclusively to play games.
Thus, from this slightly drawn out anecdote, I can conclude that if mature adults don't have the self control to carry a somewhat burdensome piece of productivity hardware for a significant amount of time, there is no hope for children. Their "PDA" will become a veritable Game Boy in a short amount of time.
While this may be a more secure way of paying for groceries than previous methods, the impersonal nature in which grocery stores are run is getting less and less satisfactory. Clerks pretend like theu know you, yet when they read your name from the receipt because of the frequent buyer card they force on you, they pronounce it all wrong. Now, we are going from being thought of as an improperly pronounced name to simple digital representation of a fingerprint.
Call me old fashioned, but I remember the days when the checkers knew me by my first name, and all I had to do to put the bill on my tab was give the checker my phone number. As a matter of fact, there are some grocery stores, even in Silicon Valley that still do this. Los Altos Hills comes to mind.
This is misleading. They are not close to finding a 500,000,000th sign of extraterrestrial life. They are close to failing to find extraterrestrial life 500,000,000 times. I wouldn't be proud of that.
If I recall correctly, there is already a virtual monoply as far as ISP's go in Mexico and most other Hispanic nations. There was an article in Wired on a man a couple years back, and I believe it's the same guy who now owns CompUSA. Anyway, he pretty much runs the entire tech industry in Mexico (at least the part that isn't farmed out from the U.S.) but the government can't touch him because he also controls the stock market. Threaten him, he bails and takes the whole Mexican economy with him. Anyone have a link to the article? I couldn't find it in the archives.
When asked if he had a specific plan to recommend to developers of spyware programs, Nicholas Stark of Lavasoft said
A specific plan? No. However we do have some pertinent advice. Lavasoft began as nothing more than a dream. With hard work and a specific plan for the future, we have been able to achieve the success we now enjoy. We feel that the ad-sponsored model is nothing more than a quick fix. What we would say is that developers need to find a community willing to support their efforts and help them to grow in their art and to learn from experience.
Sounds like someone the open source community could really rally behind.
I do not believe that it is legal to bind the usage of their software to the removal of an unrelated product.
But how is it an unrelated product? Ad-Aware goes out and specifically prevents programs like those put out by Radsoft from working properly. While I agree it isn't right that Ad-Aware is removed from the user's program without due warning, it is far from unrelated.
This brings up an interesting point. Sure, Microsoft has always been known to gobble up smaller companies and absorb the market share that they previously held. But with the antitrust trial, would it really have been a good idea to buy Microsoft?
If Microsoft really wanted to be immediately successful in the console market, they should've bought Sega late last year. The Dreamcast was a great system, and with the Microsoft marketing machine behind it and a potential sequel, there would be almost guaranteed success. Plus, Sega could be bought for a whole lot less money (especially now).
By NICHOLAS WADE When scientists at Celera Genomics announced two years ago that they had decoded the human genome, they said the genetic data came from anonymous donors and presented it as a universal human map. But the scientist who led the effort, Dr. J. Craig Venter, now says that the genome decoded was largely his own.
Dr. Venter also says that he started taking fat-lowering drugs after analyzing his genes. Reactions among scientists range from amusement to indifference, most saying that it is unimportant whose genome was sequenced. But members of Celera's scientific advisory board expressed disappointment that Dr. Venter subverted the anonymous selection process that they had approved.
Dr. Venter, a pioneer in the use of new DNA sequencing machines, challenged the government-supported effort to decode the human genome and held his academic rivals to a draw in June 2000, despite starting years later in the race.
Both teams said their DNA sequence was based on the DNA of anonymous donors, with Celera's being drawn from a pool of 20 donors from 5 ethnic groups. But in an interview this week, Dr. Venter elaborated on his brief mention on "60 Minutes II" on April 17 that the Celera genome was based principally on his DNA.
In making this known, he has abandoned his genetic privacy in the most thorough way possible, even though for now only subscribers to Celera's genome database can browse through his genetic endowment.
Though the five individuals who contributed to Celera's genome are marked by separate codes, Dr. Venter's is recognizable as the largest contribution. He said he had inherited from one parent the variant gene known as apoE4, which is associated with abnormal fat metabolism and the risk of Alzheimer's, and that he was taking fat-lowering drugs to counteract its effects.
Dr. Venter's reason for having his own genome sequenced, he said in an interview this week, was in part scientific curiosity -- "How could one not want to know about one's own genome?" -- and also a sense of responsibility that because he was asking other people to donate tissues, risking invasion of their genetic privacy, he should be first in line.
He did not make this known at the time, he said, "because I didn't want it to be the issue or the focus."
"Now, after the fact," he said, "I don't think it matters."
As to opening himself to the accusation of egocentricity, he said, "I've been accused of that so many times, I've gotten over it."
The academic consortium expressed no great emotion at the news that their rival had sequenced his own genome.
"That doesn't surprise me; sounds like Craig," said Dr. James D. Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Dr. John Sulston, former director of the Sanger Center in England, said, "It doesn't have any great significance." Dr. Francis Collins, director of genome research at the National Institutes of Health, declined through a spokesman to comment.
But members of Celera's scientific board of advisers expressed regret that the process they had approved for choosing anonymous donors had been subverted.
"I think the original idea, to keep everything anonymous, was not a bad one," said Dr. Richard Roberts, scientific director of New England BioLabs and a board member.
Another member, Dr. Arthur Caplan, a biomedical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said, "Any genome intended to be a landmark should be kept anonymous. It should be a map of all us, not of one, and I am disappointed if it is linked to a person."
The drive to sequence the human genome was an opportunity for personal glory as well as scientific discovery, and Dr. Venter's action emphasized the first motive, Dr. Caplan said.
It seems that Celera's intended process of choosing randomly among anonymous samples must have been overridden at some stage so that Dr. Venter's became the one selected. A Celera spokesman, Robert Bennett, would not confirm or deny Dr. Venter's claim and declined to make available Dr. Sam Broder, the company's vice president for medical affairs, who oversaw the donor selection process.
Dr. Venter, however, said that "I made the selection with a team," and that "only me and two other people" know the codes to Celera's five donors.
Because the human genome decoded by the academic consortium is a mosaic of different individuals, Dr. Venter is at present the only person whose genome has been largely sequenced, and may remain so for many years. In his person, he offers a unique way to connect a human genotype with its phenotype, as biologists refer to a genome and the physical form it specifies.
Is his body now particularly valuable to science? "You mean for dissection?" Dr. Venter said. "I haven't thought that far ahead. You have given my critics a chance to dissect me."
Dr. Norton Zinder of Rockefeller University said he saw some value in less drastic investigations to study the link between Dr. Venter's genotype and phenotype. "You would have to do experiments on him," Dr. Zinder said. "Craig would become an experimental animal. He's certainly made himself liable for that."
But Dr. Kenneth Kendler, a psychiatric geneticist the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, said that science was not advanced enough to read off a person's personality from their genome and that, as a sample of one, Dr. Venter and his genome were not of much help to scientific inquiry.
The same verdict came from Dr. Stephen Warren, editor of the American Journal of Human Genetics.
"I think it's of much more interest to him to know his genotype than for other geneticists to know it," Dr. Warren said. But he praised Dr. Venter's drive and ambition for forcing the public consortium to speed its efforts.
As for the idea that Dr. Venter's body should somehow be preserved along with his genome, Dr. Warren said, "That would be his wish, no doubt, to be prominently displayed in the Smithsonian."
As I've mentioned before, I think most researchers work in their field, not for the money, but simply for the joy of doing something they are interested in. The competition to get funding is the main motivation for being the best in a specific are, so no doubt some researchers thought they would even the playing field and share Venter's DNA. Of course, as with any other situation, some people disagreed with this sharing of data (most likely the people who had invested something, either money or time) and felt compelled to report it.
I'm going to guess these people will be shunned by the rest of the research community, though no light will be shed on these acts. Monetary motivation is needed to keep innovation at its current rate (look at the drug companies for god's sake), but this has to be the best place in the world to point out a case in which the freedom of information sharing is most successful- open source! I believe eventually we will see a splintered scientific community based on the open source premise of sharing, and it will evolve something similar to what we know as the open source movement today.
I suspect that this will be a complete failure. Many news sites attempted to do this when they realized that it was impossible to be profitable from banner ads alone. The San Jose Mercury News, for instance, offered free access to articles for 7 days, then required a per-article payment of around $2.00 for viewing material from the archives.
But, there will always be sites like the New York Times that provide unlimited free access to all the material. As long as this happens, sites that offer limited material will have a tough time. In order to stay competitive, the SJ Mercury has extended the free viewing period to 30 days, which is a much more reasonable amount of time. If Gamespy wants any chance of remaining in the picture, they should either charge a minimal rate for subscriptions, like Slashdot, or extend the length articles are freely available to at least 30 days.
I believe an article was posted on this a few months back, but it seems to be there have been a few updates.
I think this software might actually be fun to play, plus as an added bonus, it might give some insight into the "bureacracy" and "red tape" that are experienced in so many large institutions. Making decisions that will effect thousands of people is never easy, and a redundant system of checks is needed to prevent disaster.
Quickest slashdotting of tech-report i've seen so far. I was only able to load the first page, so here's the text:
Shuttle's SS50 mini-barebones system
Cube power
by Scott Wasson -- April 25, 2002
SHUTTLE'S FIRST cube computer, the SV24, arrived on the scene last fall, and it created a sensation. The SV24's compact form factor, wealth of built-in features, and potential expandability left our minds reeling over the possibilities. Sold as a "mini-barebones system," the SV24 could be outfitted with a processor, storage, and a single PCI card as its owner saw fit. We could build a home DVD player, or a purpose-built PC, a web-surfing terminal, or just a nice computer for grandma. Fully decked out with a 1GHz processor, the SV24 could become a fairly powerful little system.
Much as we liked the SV24, it wasn't without its faults. The form factor was, if anything, actually a little too small. The inevitable wave of SV24 copycats and competitors, like the Pandora S, offered more room for expansion and a much-improved vertical PCI slot configuration. And small as it was, the SV24 still sounded like a much bigger computer. The din of the SV24's exhaust fan was enough to lull an overworked tech writer to sleep at the keyboard.
The SV24's biggest drawback, however, was its outdated Socket 370 platform. See, truth be told, we like the cube-PC-as-second-computer thing, but some of us prefer the option of replacing our massive tower cases altogether. Maxed out, the SV24 could accommodate a 1.13GHz Pentium III processor with a 133MHz front-side bus and PC133 SDRAM. That's a recipe for a brand-new Apple or an outdated PC; we considered it a little pokey. An updated version of the FV24 motherboard added support for faster PIII "Tualatin" processors. Yawn.
We said when the SV24 arrived that Shuttle ought to "sell a bundle of these things." And perhaps they did, because Shuttle is already launching a pair of powerful successors to the SV24. These new cubes address most of our complaints about Shuttle's original cube systems. The system we're reviewing today will support Pentium 4 processors as fast as 2.4GHz, and an Athlon version is reportedly on the way. Depending on your needs, this cube might just--maybe, possibly--be able to replace your desktop system altogether. To that end, we've benchmarked this thing to see what happens. Can a cube fulfill a PC freak's desire for both high style and high performance? We'll find out.
The new cube
Shuttle's SS50 is significantly more advanced than the SV24 in a number of ways, but before we get into that, I'm sure you'll want to get a look at the SS50. As you can see below, the new cube is just a little bit larger than its predecessor.
The Shuttle SV24 is just a shade smaller than the SS50
The SV24 has only one horizontal PCI slot while the SS50 has two vertical ones
Obviously, Shuttle hasn't strayed from the original mini-barebones system concept. The SS50 is larger than the SV24, but you'd only notice the extra size when comparing the two systems side by side. The most obvious changes are the number and orientation of the PCI slots: the SS50 packs two vertical PCI slots that rise directly off the motherboard, eliminating the need for a PCI riser card. Shuttle has also equipped the SS50 with an additional IEEE 1394 (Firewire) port up front and a third mini-DIN audio port for six-channel surround sound.
No, I'm not kidding about the surround sound. It's for real. But I'm just getting started on the specs.
I want to know, why on earth would Dreamworks want to switch to Linux. Yeah, it's a free (beer and speech) OS and all, but what are the other upsides to using it? They're going to have to switch to non proven software, and just because something runs on IRIX doesn't mean it will run on Linux. Plus, most of the software used in IRIX and other Unices for rendering video and SFX is proprietary and just as expensive or even more expensive than Windows or Mac equivalent. Of course, it is a major step for the Linux community, because where there is a demand for good software, there will also be an increase in production to fit that demand. So from where I see it, this will either be a successfull move in bolstering the Linux community, or it may just end up seriously hurting Dreamworks. I mean, if they had good results from what they were doing before (with the exception of SW-Ep1 of course) and can continue to afford it, why switch to something that is obviously going to be inferior?
I can see it now, this attached to a RealDoll! $5,000 has never before brought you so much pleasure!
Seriously, as someone has mentioned here before, in order for technology to be successfuly it has to somehow relate to pornography/sex. This has definite potential.
Slashdot Mirror
First, what if someone designs a web page that is best viewed with their font? Does the font company have the right to regulate the distribution of that webpage simply because the majority of the users have not payed for that font?
Second, what if someone downloads the font and uses it to print out copies of a novel they wrote? Would this font company have the right to restrict the reselling of this novel simply because some of their artwork had been used in its creation?
I believe the font companies have the right to control their property, but it is a fine line they walk between protection and overly restricting use.
But, it is interesting to see his results. I can only imagine that if Archive.org did a study like this, they would be able to make a more legitimate conclusion. Perhaps some collaboration is in order?
The Microsoft document is a license agreement attached to a technical document which provides information regarding the CIFS protocol and gives legal control of the protocol to Samba.org. The CIFS protocol (also known as the SMB protocol) is the core protocol that Samba implements to provide seamless mind sharing interoperability with Microsoft networking products.
The key concerns that have been raised over this document are:
- Whether the Samba Team needs write access to this document for future
developments in Samba
- Whether the patents mentioned in the Microsoft license agreement
have any impact on current or future usage and development of Samba
- Whether the anti-GPL components of the Microsoft license will change
the use of the GNU General Public License for Samba
To reassure the Samba community each of these concerns will be addressed. Use of Microsoft CIFS documentationThe CIFS/SMB protocol has had a long and bloody history, particularly with regard to documentation of the protocol details. The document that Microsoft has recently released adds nothing to the already published knowledge of the CIFS protocol. It is quite sadistic that Microsoft has gone to such lengths in terms of subversive warfare for information which is readily available in existing public documentation.For people interested in a more accurate and complete description of the CIFS/SMB protocol the Samba Team recommends the recently released SNIA CIFS document, which has been developed through a process of industry collaboration. CIFS and PatentsIn the text of the license agreement Microsoft mentions two specific patents that relate to the CIFS/SMB protocol. The license grants a royalty free license to these patents, but specifically excludes free software distributed under the GNU General Public License from this royalty free patent license.
Some people have incorrectly assumed that Samba must implement the methods described in these patents. In fact, the methods described in these patents are quite inappropriate for a Unix/POSIX CIFS implementation such as Samba. It would not even be possible to implement the methods described in these patents in a portable POSIX application. Instead, Samba treats the SMBreadbraw and SMBwritebraw protocol elements in the same way as all other elements of the CIFS/SMB protocol. This means that as far as we are aware Samba is completely unaffected by the existance of these patents.
We would like to also point out that these patents cover an obsolete section of the CIFS/SMB protocol that Microsoft themselves have abandoned in their own products long ago. Microsoft abandoned these "raw" protocol operations in CIFS because their basic design is fatally flawed. Samba and the GNU General Public LicenseThe GNU General Public License has proved to be a very successful model for the development of Samba. While Microsoft labels the GPL as "Intellectual Property Impairing" in their license document, it has in fact proved to be a very successful vehicle for encouraging the development of a high quality CIFS/SMB implementation. Far from "impairing" intellectual property the Samba Team believes that the distribution terms of the GNU GPL has provided an environment which has encouraged a high degree of industry collaboration to the benefit of both Samba users and the many successful companies that have built a wide range of products on top of Samba technology.
The Samba Team fully intends to continue in the use of the GNU GPL to foster innovation and the development of enterprise class file and print serving solutions that seamlessly interoperate with Microsoft networking products.
The future for Samba and SMB could be an interesting one. I'm using Win2K for all my work, but of course I have several Linux boxes setup for messing around with. The easiest way for the Windows box to transfer files is over Samba, it's just so much easier than FTP, and HTTP doesn't have all the capabilities I need. When I upgrade to XP or 2002 or whatever, I'm going to want to make sure I'm still able to access the Samba shares. If I can't, I hate to say it, but I may be forced to switch my network storage box to some Windows variant. Otherwise, what is the use if I don't have full access to my files across the network?
Of course, within the past couple years, eve the past decade, there has been exponential growth in the 3D modeling industry. I mean, if the entire Titanic can realistically be rendered, why not be able to render a person in real time with realistic voice synth and physics? Just look at the upcoming game Soldier of Fortune 2. Some of the skin textures look incredibly realistic, and that can be done in real time on a GF2.
But, we have to be careful about what we do for these models. Ananova isn't giving any real humans a run for their money, but eventually we may get there. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within gave a nearly flawless rendering of humans, and it will only be a limited amount of time before that can be done with real time processing. It's not like we'll be turned into a slave race like in The Matrix or anything, but it still is a good idea to use some caution.
I find George Lucas and all his productions much like Steve Jobs and all he has done. Lucas began as an innovator, creating a new genre and shaping society as we know it. Jobs, along with Wazniak, did the same thing- creating what the people wanted, an affordable personal computer, and shaping society along with it.
But both individuals evolved, and from my standpoint, grew corrupt with the power (like Anakin). Jobs controls Apple again today with an iron fist, and Lucas stifles creativity with his quest for profits. I no longer have any interest in buying an Apple computer, as it no longer stands for what it did, just the same as I no longer have any interest in seeing the upcoming Star Wars movie. Both are sellouts, and I will never forgive them for that.
Does art reflect society or does society reflect art? The evils we see today, the corruption, the violence- it all occurs in the media. So I ask you, if you choose to see this Star Wars film, while you're watching it, think about how the capitalistic creed of these men and how many lives they will destroy.
The main reason behind this belief is simply the fact that the reason most people don't adopt secondary office suites is because of the different standards. People use MS Office because they know sending a co-worker a PowerPoint presentation or an Excel spreadsheet will not cause any compatibility issues, because it is a fair assumption that this person also has MS Office. What the Linux community really needs is a single office suite standard, eliminating the compatibility issues. Then we can work on competition.
Thus, from this slightly drawn out anecdote, I can conclude that if mature adults don't have the self control to carry a somewhat burdensome piece of productivity hardware for a significant amount of time, there is no hope for children. Their "PDA" will become a veritable Game Boy in a short amount of time.
Call me old fashioned, but I remember the days when the checkers knew me by my first name, and all I had to do to put the bill on my tab was give the checker my phone number. As a matter of fact, there are some grocery stores, even in Silicon Valley that still do this. Los Altos Hills comes to mind.
This is misleading. They are not close to finding a 500,000,000th sign of extraterrestrial life. They are close to failing to find extraterrestrial life 500,000,000 times. I wouldn't be proud of that.
From the article:
IBM is willing to provide a maintenance contract for $850 a month.
How much is their PC network worth, anyway?
The man's name is Carlos Slim Helù. Fear him.
If I recall correctly, there is already a virtual monoply as far as ISP's go in Mexico and most other Hispanic nations. There was an article in Wired on a man a couple years back, and I believe it's the same guy who now owns CompUSA. Anyway, he pretty much runs the entire tech industry in Mexico (at least the part that isn't farmed out from the U.S.) but the government can't touch him because he also controls the stock market. Threaten him, he bails and takes the whole Mexican economy with him. Anyone have a link to the article? I couldn't find it in the archives.
I do not believe that it is legal to bind the usage of their software to the removal of an unrelated product.
But how is it an unrelated product? Ad-Aware goes out and specifically prevents programs like those put out by Radsoft from working properly. While I agree it isn't right that Ad-Aware is removed from the user's program without due warning, it is far from unrelated.
If Microsoft really wanted to be immediately successful in the console market, they should've bought Sega late last year. The Dreamcast was a great system, and with the Microsoft marketing machine behind it and a potential sequel, there would be almost guaranteed success. Plus, Sega could be bought for a whole lot less money (especially now).
Scientist Reveals Genome Secret: It's Him
By NICHOLAS WADE
When scientists at Celera Genomics announced two years ago that they had decoded the human genome, they said the genetic data came from anonymous donors and presented it as a universal human map. But the scientist who led the effort, Dr. J. Craig Venter, now says that the genome decoded was largely his own.
Dr. Venter also says that he started taking fat-lowering drugs after analyzing his genes.
Reactions among scientists range from amusement to indifference, most saying that it is unimportant whose genome was sequenced. But members of Celera's scientific advisory board expressed disappointment that Dr. Venter subverted the anonymous selection process that they had approved.
Dr. Venter, a pioneer in the use of new DNA sequencing machines, challenged the government-supported effort to decode the human genome and held his academic rivals to a draw in June 2000, despite starting years later in the race.
Both teams said their DNA sequence was based on the DNA of anonymous donors, with Celera's being drawn from a pool of 20 donors from 5 ethnic groups. But in an interview this week, Dr. Venter elaborated on his brief mention on "60 Minutes II" on April 17 that the Celera genome was based principally on his DNA.
In making this known, he has abandoned his genetic privacy in the most thorough way possible, even though for now only subscribers to Celera's genome database can browse through his genetic endowment.
Though the five individuals who contributed to Celera's genome are marked by separate codes, Dr. Venter's is recognizable as the largest contribution. He said he had inherited from one parent the variant gene known as apoE4, which is associated with abnormal fat metabolism and the risk of Alzheimer's, and that he was taking fat-lowering drugs to counteract its effects.
Dr. Venter's reason for having his own genome sequenced, he said in an interview this week, was in part scientific curiosity -- "How could one not want to know about one's own genome?" -- and also a sense of responsibility that because he was asking other people to donate tissues, risking invasion of their genetic privacy, he should be first in line.
He did not make this known at the time, he said, "because I didn't want it to be the issue or the focus."
"Now, after the fact," he said, "I don't think it matters."
As to opening himself to the accusation of egocentricity, he said, "I've been accused of that so many times, I've gotten over it."
The academic consortium expressed no great emotion at the news that their rival had sequenced his own genome.
"That doesn't surprise me; sounds like Craig," said Dr. James D. Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Dr. John Sulston, former director of the Sanger Center in England, said, "It doesn't have any great significance." Dr. Francis Collins, director of genome research at the National Institutes of Health, declined through a spokesman to comment.
But members of Celera's scientific board of advisers expressed regret that the process they had approved for choosing anonymous donors had been subverted.
"I think the original idea, to keep everything anonymous, was not a bad one," said Dr. Richard Roberts, scientific director of New England BioLabs and a board member.
Another member, Dr. Arthur Caplan, a biomedical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said, "Any genome intended to be a landmark should be kept anonymous. It should be a map of all us, not of one, and I am disappointed if it is linked to a person."
The drive to sequence the human genome was an opportunity for personal glory as well as scientific discovery, and Dr. Venter's action emphasized the first motive, Dr. Caplan said.
It seems that Celera's intended process of choosing randomly among anonymous samples must have been overridden at some stage so that Dr. Venter's became the one selected. A Celera spokesman, Robert Bennett, would not confirm or deny Dr. Venter's claim and declined to make available Dr. Sam Broder, the company's vice president for medical affairs, who oversaw the donor selection process.
Dr. Venter, however, said that "I made the selection with a team," and that "only me and two other people" know the codes to Celera's five donors.
Because the human genome decoded by the academic consortium is a mosaic of different individuals, Dr. Venter is at present the only person whose genome has been largely sequenced, and may remain so for many years. In his person, he offers a unique way to connect a human genotype with its phenotype, as biologists refer to a genome and the physical form it specifies.
Is his body now particularly valuable to science? "You mean for dissection?" Dr. Venter said. "I haven't thought that far ahead. You have given my critics a chance to dissect me."
Dr. Norton Zinder of Rockefeller University said he saw some value in less drastic investigations to study the link between Dr. Venter's genotype and phenotype. "You would have to do experiments on him," Dr. Zinder said. "Craig would become an experimental animal. He's certainly made himself liable for that."
But Dr. Kenneth Kendler, a psychiatric geneticist the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, said that science was not advanced enough to read off a person's personality from their genome and that, as a sample of one, Dr. Venter and his genome were not of much help to scientific inquiry.
The same verdict came from Dr. Stephen Warren, editor of the American Journal of Human Genetics.
"I think it's of much more interest to him to know his genotype than for other geneticists to know it," Dr. Warren said. But he praised Dr. Venter's drive and ambition for forcing the public consortium to speed its efforts.
As for the idea that Dr. Venter's body should somehow be preserved along with his genome, Dr. Warren said, "That would be his wish, no doubt, to be prominently displayed in the Smithsonian."
I'm going to guess these people will be shunned by the rest of the research community, though no light will be shed on these acts. Monetary motivation is needed to keep innovation at its current rate (look at the drug companies for god's sake), but this has to be the best place in the world to point out a case in which the freedom of information sharing is most successful- open source! I believe eventually we will see a splintered scientific community based on the open source premise of sharing, and it will evolve something similar to what we know as the open source movement today.
"Gamespy" should be "gamespot"
But, there will always be sites like the New York Times that provide unlimited free access to all the material. As long as this happens, sites that offer limited material will have a tough time. In order to stay competitive, the SJ Mercury has extended the free viewing period to 30 days, which is a much more reasonable amount of time. If Gamespy wants any chance of remaining in the picture, they should either charge a minimal rate for subscriptions, like Slashdot, or extend the length articles are freely available to at least 30 days.
I think this software might actually be fun to play, plus as an added bonus, it might give some insight into the "bureacracy" and "red tape" that are experienced in so many large institutions. Making decisions that will effect thousands of people is never easy, and a redundant system of checks is needed to prevent disaster.
Shuttle's SS50 mini-barebones system
Cube power
by Scott Wasson -- April 25, 2002
SHUTTLE'S FIRST cube computer, the SV24, arrived on the scene last fall, and it created a sensation. The SV24's compact form factor, wealth of built-in features, and potential expandability left our minds reeling over the possibilities. Sold as a "mini-barebones system," the SV24 could be outfitted with a processor, storage, and a single PCI card as its owner saw fit. We could build a home DVD player, or a purpose-built PC, a web-surfing terminal, or just a nice computer for grandma. Fully decked out with a 1GHz processor, the SV24 could become a fairly powerful little system.
Much as we liked the SV24, it wasn't without its faults. The form factor was, if anything, actually a little too small. The inevitable wave of SV24 copycats and competitors, like the Pandora S, offered more room for expansion and a much-improved vertical PCI slot configuration. And small as it was, the SV24 still sounded like a much bigger computer. The din of the SV24's exhaust fan was enough to lull an overworked tech writer to sleep at the keyboard.
The SV24's biggest drawback, however, was its outdated Socket 370 platform. See, truth be told, we like the cube-PC-as-second-computer thing, but some of us prefer the option of replacing our massive tower cases altogether. Maxed out, the SV24 could accommodate a 1.13GHz Pentium III processor with a 133MHz front-side bus and PC133 SDRAM. That's a recipe for a brand-new Apple or an outdated PC; we considered it a little pokey. An updated version of the FV24 motherboard added support for faster PIII "Tualatin" processors. Yawn.
We said when the SV24 arrived that Shuttle ought to "sell a bundle of these things." And perhaps they did, because Shuttle is already launching a pair of powerful successors to the SV24. These new cubes address most of our complaints about Shuttle's original cube systems. The system we're reviewing today will support Pentium 4 processors as fast as 2.4GHz, and an Athlon version is reportedly on the way. Depending on your needs, this cube might just--maybe, possibly--be able to replace your desktop system altogether. To that end, we've benchmarked this thing to see what happens. Can a cube fulfill a PC freak's desire for both high style and high performance? We'll find out.
The new cube
Shuttle's SS50 is significantly more advanced than the SV24 in a number of ways, but before we get into that, I'm sure you'll want to get a look at the SS50. As you can see below, the new cube is just a little bit larger than its predecessor.
The Shuttle SV24 is just a shade smaller than the SS50
Obviously, Shuttle hasn't strayed from the original mini-barebones system concept. The SS50 is larger than the SV24, but you'd only notice the extra size when comparing the two systems side by side. The most obvious changes are the number and orientation of the PCI slots: the SS50 packs two vertical PCI slots that rise directly off the motherboard, eliminating the need for a PCI riser card. Shuttle has also equipped the SS50 with an additional IEEE 1394 (Firewire) port up front and a third mini-DIN audio port for six-channel surround sound.The SV24 has only one horizontal PCI slot while the SS50 has two vertical ones
No, I'm not kidding about the surround sound. It's for real. But I'm just getting started on the specs.
A few years back, it was announced that the SFX done for The Matrix were done using FreeBSD. So obviously a free OS is capable of quality.
I want to know, why on earth would Dreamworks want to switch to Linux. Yeah, it's a free (beer and speech) OS and all, but what are the other upsides to using it? They're going to have to switch to non proven software, and just because something runs on IRIX doesn't mean it will run on Linux. Plus, most of the software used in IRIX and other Unices for rendering video and SFX is proprietary and just as expensive or even more expensive than Windows or Mac equivalent. Of course, it is a major step for the Linux community, because where there is a demand for good software, there will also be an increase in production to fit that demand. So from where I see it, this will either be a successfull move in bolstering the Linux community, or it may just end up seriously hurting Dreamworks. I mean, if they had good results from what they were doing before (with the exception of SW-Ep1 of course) and can continue to afford it, why switch to something that is obviously going to be inferior?
Seriously, as someone has mentioned here before, in order for technology to be successfuly it has to somehow relate to pornography/sex. This has definite potential.