That's a good question. I wonder if anyone has decent numbers on HTPC usage. I'm betting both Microsoft and Apple have at least tried to figure it out, seeing as they're selling into the market, but I've never seen the numbers publicised.
Even if there are good numbers on HTPCs, I wonder how many of them are used for gaming. Personally, I've enjoyed gaming on my 36" non-HDTV Mitsubishi for several years now, but I know a lot of other people just use their PCs to record TV, play DVDs or run movies off their hard drive. I've always believed the number of PC gamers using large-screen TVs would increase with HDTV penetration (easier to use and higher quality/resolution), but I have no idea if that is actually panning out.
I thought my reference to domestic protests was made clear by the context. I did mean American domestic protests.
And I'm not saying people everywhere wouldn't use coutermeasures. All I'm saying is that they're not likely to use them if going about their daily buiness and the riot police know it. If they do wear the countermeasures, then other types of weapons will probably be be used and those other weapons are very likely to be deadly. Although wearing armor may seem like a good idea, if it "forces" your adversarry to use a bigger gun, it's not neccessarily to your advantage.
For domestic protests I'll have to retract my statement. You're right, as well as the guy above you. My conclusions are far more likely to be correct in Iraq at the moment.
Joking aside, how easy would it be to make protective armor against this kind of attack? You can buy rolls of steel or aluminum window screening at any hardware store for under $50.
The intended purpose of this device is for crowd control. The implication of people using "armor" would be that the "mob" is actually somewhat organized. You wouldn't be wearing the armor unless you anticipated being in a place where the millimeter-wave weapon would be used. You wouldn't anticipate being in such a situation unless you were planning to cause a disruption or asked to join in one.
Wearing armor would also imply that the crowd is likely to atack. Try to picture someone putting on armor so they could quietly sit and protest. These are people who'd at least be throwing rocks.
My guess is that if armor is possible and is used, that the army would put down the millimeter gun and pick back up the machine gun. You couldn't get away with firing an automatic weapon into the crowd during a riot in L.A., but something tells me it wouldn't be a problem in Iraq. Unless you haven't noticed, it's not exactly like we're going out of our way to detail the number of Iraqis killed by Americans in the news. We would probably never even notice. For this reason alone, I hope the energy weapon works as advertised.
Wow, this guy finally figured out what us PC gamers have known for about a decade now! Who'da thunk it?
Still, there's a lot more PC gamers could learn about HDTV, including proper cables for converting DVI to HDMI, which brands support DVI standard and what resolutions just wont look good on HDTV. Heck, even some info on setting it to native res, much like standard LCD monitors, would have been handy.
All in all, I'd prefer an article like this be called "A Console Gamer's Guide to Buying an HDTV" since it clearly covers only that material. It's not that I don't like consoles, but I think the word "gaming" without a qualifier should be used to represent the whole industry.
They learned from where Jack Valenti failed (from their perspective) and are now a lot smarter when it comes to using the government as a cudgel against their own customers.
I just walked in from the car where I was listening to NPR. They had a guy from Youtube and another guy from NBC. During this call-in program (The Diane Ream Show) they were actually quite civil and seemed like they wanted to work together. The NBC guy said they don't want "vast quantities" of their music on Youtube without compensatino, but said they eagerly look forward to haveing some kind of revenue sharing agreement. He pointed to the iTunes deal as a great success and said $1.99 per movie worked great for them. Additionally he pointed out that some of NBC's shows are put online directly on the NBC site. They Youtube guy said they're working with NBC right now and hope they can put together a deal
The bottom line is that it sounded a whole hell of a lot like NBC wasn't purposely trying to be evil. They're not just trying to get politicians to do their biddnig to screw everyone over. They're working with distribution outlets to get their material out there. They just want to get paid for their very expensive programming.
Now I know there's still a lot of badness out there. Copy protection sucks, as well as the fact that it's not like their whole library is available for you to pick and choose from. They still want the broadcast flag so they can force us to pay and then make content disapear.
But at least it looks like they're trying to resolve some of the basics, like giving consumers the choice of ad supported, or pay-to-watch content ("Lost" is available one way on the ABC site and the other way on iTunes, not to mention DVD) and generaly making more material available to watch, without making you pay a bunch of times for the same thing.
We should still fight the bad stuff, but, damn, they're at least starting to come to terms with the fact that consumers need some level of control over the process. They're a little smarter, also, in the sense that they realize they have to move into the internet era. Unlike the record industry, they know that they cant force consumers to keep using the same old business model. For that, at least, I do give them credit.
"Science" isn't an organization or an industry. Science is a method for finding an approximation of the truth. It's a really good method.
Journalism is also a surprisingly good method for discovering the truth.
However, Journalism doesn't really understand science. Jounalists view of the truth is on a very different level than scientists. The best they can do is report what scientists tell them, and they don't have very good ways of differentiating betweein "scientists" wh don't really practice science, and the other kind.
I'm not suggesting self policing. I'm suggesting that scientists are best suited to evaluate whether any given group of people are correctly applying the scientific method. They're best at it because they've studied it and understand it. They're better than journalists because journalism has a completely different method and journalists often have difficulting understanding that their method of finding truth is insufficient for the needs of science.
Saying that scientists evaluating scientists is self policing makes about as much sense as saying ABC evaluating NBC is self policing because they're both news organizations. Neither is true. "News" is not an organization in the same way "science" is not an organization.
You've already responded that you wouldn't pay the mafia to determine if organized crime is really organized. Too bad, because that is exactly where I would go. Who else is going to understand whether the standards of organized crime are being upheld? Someone like you, me, the BBC or NIS would almost certainly screw it up. Would the BBC understand what is an appropriate level of violence to get someone two-weeks late on his loan to pay up? If the Mafia were evaluating the Total_Wimp crime family, I'm sure they'd do a much better job of determining if I was too hard or too soft on 'em.
Now if you're distrustful of science in general, I can't help you. It's possible you're just in the wrong place, because Slashdot is a very pro-science forum. But if you think the method is good, than getting actual scientists to evaluate whether other scientists are following scientific principals is almost certainly the best way to go. We're not talking about determining if climatologists are correct, but simply whether they've done good science, yet have been silensed. I'd trust the BBC to figure out if someone has been silenced, but they're most certainly _not_ the best type of organization to determine whether that silence was for legitimate reasons or not.
Although I agree with the idea tha science should rigorously root out roadblocks to discenting opinions that pratice good science(by this I mean designing and running good experiments and drawing conclusions that match the data), it does so at the risk of elevating ideas that really belong on the fringes.
Look at the Mac and Windows communities. I sometimes listen to a show that has a Mac expert and a PC expert. They give advice as well as good-natured ribbing. Most of us have seen the comercial with the Mac and the PC. If someone were to pop into our culture and see/hear this media, they'd probably think that there are nearly as many Mac users as PC users. After all, in this media, each is fifty percent of the voice. The truth that all us geeks know is that the number of Mac users is tiny compared to PCs. Despite this, Macs enjoy an elevated status. They're seen as almost as important in our society as the PC. In reality, they're a fringe (please, no flames. I'm not saying Macs are inferior, only that their numbers are small).
Look at Intelligent design. Since ID gets about as much air time as evolution, if not more, many people would consider it to be well vetted science and a major contender to evolution in the scientific community. The truth is that the total number of people in ID who even call themselves scientists (much less others refering to them that way) is tiny. It's fringe science at best.
So we get back to global warming. Yes, the fringe should not be squashed, but why on earth should we allow those that want to promote the fringe for non-scientific purposes elevate their fringe theory to the point that the general public believes it's a major scientific contender? Yes, as scientists we should listen to them, but why on earth should this listening be done on the BBC? Is the BBC a scientific forum? Or are they going to provide a platform to bad scientists and people with a political agenda?
Do you know of any good, legitimate scientists that go to the media first before publishing and waiting for review? The only people I know of who do that are those that are more interested in their voices being heard than their science being correct. And most of the time, they do that because it's an equilizer, where otherwise there would be no chance of being considered equal.
If the BBC was really interested in good science, they might consider giving money to a respected science organization to try to do a proper study to figure out if good scientists are being ignored or silenced. The way they're doing it now tells me that they're more interested in news-generating fight than in finding the truth.
In addition to the air sabotage you mentioned, one of the most feared terrorist organizations in the eighties and nineties was the IRA. True, they weren't feared much by us because they didn't strike at us, but neither did the PLO.
Of those that did strike at us, we probably had the most fear about very loosely connected "patriots" in our country that belonged to groups that often called themselves "militias". Of these groups and, others vaguely related, various law enforcement agencies often confiscated positively scary quantities of guns and ammo. These groups largely peaked around the time of the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City, which Timothy McVeigh stated was done because of his sympathy, if not actual participation, with these groups.
I think Timmy, the members of the various "militias" and the members of the IRA would be very unlikely to be swept up in the "Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40" category. In fact, plain ol' white folk in our country have a surprisingly high propensity to get caught up in emotional issues that then lead to them feeling they need to destroy something. The KKK, for example, has largely stuck to acts of terror on individuals, but has not been against firebombing a school building or such here and there. Anti-abortion activists have found both non-lethal and murderous ways to terrorize abortion clinics and doctors. Once again, these haven't been on planes, but does it make them any less lethal or scary? Does that fact that these things were done by largely white Westerners mean it's not actual terror? Maybe it's just that since we understand (note: understanding does notj equal agreement) many of the reasons behind these acts, they don't instill the same sense of terror in us as mostly nameless, faceless terrorist fighting for something or other in the Middle East. People need to remember to ask themselves what might be coming from their right if they place all their attention on their left. We need to look both ways when crossing this street. Terrorists are all over the place. If you check every guy with brown skin and a beard, you're likely to find out the hard way that your very white, nice, clean cut neighbor is the one that's really upset about [insert cause here] and thinks a few hundred people need to die to show the world just how mad he really is.
If you want a war on Islamic Fundimentalists, then at least have the balls to say it. If you want a "war on terror", then my friend, terror starts at home.
So, tell me, if you destroy your hard drive, but you have a good backup copy, why wouldn't the feds just prosecute you based on the backup copy?
I'm sure it's offsite and everything, but if its a regularly accessed drop site (it pretty much has to be if you're making regular backups) then I'd think the feds would be able to find it without much extra effort.
You gotta destroy everything if you don't want it to be used in court.
Of course the whole point is moot when they ignore your hard drive completely and just use ISP records, like the RIAA does. As long as people use the internet to access, say, kiddie porn, there's a very good chance that scrubbing their HD will not prevent their prosecution.
Best protections:
If it's of questionable morality, but legal, fly under the radar. No one really cares if you download the latest album from Britney Spears, but the RIAA has a track record of sueing people who share out thousands of albums.
If it's moraly repugnant and illegal, just don't do it. Dude, people care about 8-year-old Timmy. A lot. After they raid your favorite porn carrier and view your online sessions and/or account info, getting your hard drive will just be a bonus. They'll nail your ass with or without it. Once you arrive in prison, you will find out that the regular prison population feels about Timmy very much like the rest of us do. But they have shivs. And they too will 'nail your ass' before they use the shiv. Much better to leave Timmy's pictures alone.
I know a lot of prosecution is done with HDs, but the ability to destroy your HD will only protect you so much. Besides records from the places you go on the internet, there is the human factor. Will you be willing to destroy all of your hard work at the drop of a hat? Really? Most people aren't.
Everyone may want to get the bad guys by whatever means possible, but throughout our country's history we've had a few wise people that worked very hard to place limits on the "good guys". This is neccessary.
See, the good guys almost always want unlimited power so they can spread their goodness without restriction. After all, if you have frustrating roadblocks, you won't be able to do as much good, will you?
However, those with more wisdom understand the notion of speed bumps and speed limits. Even though you'd be able to travel much faster without them, they help you get to your destination in one piece, and help prevent you from running over others.
The very wisest groups put limits in place for a reason. They knew they needed to protect us from the best intentions of the good guys. It's not that Democrats are a wise group that wants to block the Republicans from spreading thier goodness. It's that the Republicans have fought so hard over the last five years to remove the speadbumps and raise the speedlimits that the Democrats(and "the people") are the only ones with enough power to reign them in. Since the people have largely used their power only to vote, it's up to the Democrats to keep the Republicans from running over so many people.
BTW, I don't quite get the "you must be white" thing. It happens I am, but what relivence is it?
Nice analysis. I agree. People tend to focus too much on relative success, and not enough on idividual success. If I made $10 million dollars net profit selling the Total_Wimp Video Game Console, I'd be bouncing off the walls. Saddly, however, many people would consider me a loser.
I'm personally looking forward to getting a PS3. I already own a PS2 and a PSP and I like them both very much. However, I have to give big props to Nintendo for not losing their focus or their cool while they lost market share. Their customers were happy enough to keep buying a lot of gaming gear; their managers were happy enough to plug along in the same general direction (happy, fun games with less power at a cheaper price); and their stockholders were, presumably, happy to keep making money, even if it wasn't quite as much as Sony. They're definately "winners."
Terrorism is bad. It really is. It does not follow that it is so bad that we need to re-examin our fundemental rights.
Far more people die at the hands of run-of-the-mill criminals, in automobile accidents, of heart disease, and of AIDS. The number of Americans who were killed by terrorists last year was laughably small (Even our president calls those guys in Iraq insurgents and not terrorists, just in case you wanted to lump them in).
So why give up free speech? Privacy? Protection against unreasonable search and seisure? To stop the "scourge" of terrorism that didn't bomb a single target you can actually name last year?
These guys want power over you. They want to arrest you for mere suspision, they want to detain you for disagreeing, they want to hold you as long as they want without a trial, and they want to beat the confesion out of you when time alone doesn't make you change your tune. Then they want ot take the false info you gave them and proclaim "Look! We stopped this terrorist!"
Don't give it to them. Don't give them your rights. Anyone who says you need to make that kind of sacrifice, he's the one you want to kick out of office.
Didn't Dreamcast sell very well at first too? We need to reserve judgement on all 3 consoles for at least a year (maybe more, or maybe less for the 360) before seeing who the winners/losers are.
I generally agree with this statement, but I gotta ask what we judge as "winners" or "losers"?
The DS has better sales in many places than the PSP, but the PSP has sold a heck of a lot of units. It's not that far behind the DS in anyplace but Japan. Despite this, people on Slashdot like to treat it as an "also ran" instead of giving it credit for it's large user base. Is the PSP a loser?
On the other hand, the Gamecube was a very distant third to the PS2. Despite this, many people rightfully pointed out that Nintendo made a profit, and a lot of people enjoyed their console quite a lot. Is the Gamecube a winner?
One of the nextgen consoles is going to sell better than the others. We could call this the winner. But the Xbox has a year head start. If it is always significantly ahead of the others in total sales, do we declare it the winner even if its monthly sales are less?
I know you're not to believe analysts, but earlier this week they were reporting that the Wii had 4 times as many units and that the PS3 launched with between 125,000 and 175,000 units...
That goes along with what I've been seeing. Anyone have any restock numbers? I know Nintendo has promised a fast restock and Sony has indicated a slow one, but will that be 4-1 like initial sales, or are we talking a different animal entirely?
You're right. It is the consumer. For example, the consumer prefers high-quality entertainment, so the TV stations spend more money for better scripts and directors. The consumer wants thier local team to win, so the teams spend more money on talent.
You could argue that consumers spend more (buying more goods that are advertised or spending more for tickets) and that justifies the expense, but the reverse is as much of a motivator. If you have bad shows or crappy teams, less people are going to waste their time with you.
So, the motivator for TV visual quality? If you want to keep your station relevant, you're going to have to spend money to have high-quality HD content. Charge more? Get real. If you don't have it for the same cost, we'll just leave.
TW
BTW, some of you may argue that there are great shows that were/are made in SD. True. There are also terrific black and white shows, and some awesome silent films as well. I love the old stuff, but most of the new stuff really needs to be, well, new.
America has done a good job with all of the things you mention. However, it also has to be mentioned that the Monopoly held by MS wa not just due to the quality of it's products. Europe certainly has as much a right to complain about a misused monopoly as America did (didn't we restrict and fine them as well?). The lack of success of European OSs doesn't erase their right to protect their markets from preditory business practices.
But what does any of this this have to do with the present and future of Linux? On the one hand you seem to be saying Europe hasn't been competitive with America in this area, but then you're quick to dismiss Linux as a copycat and you appear to be dismissing the idea that Europe (and others) should proceed with extending the OS if America should gut it through patend protection. So which is it, should Europe now step up in an area where it may have been deficient in the past, or should they just sit on their hands?
Windows has reached great heights because it stood on the shoulders of giants. So has Linux. Instead of dinging either of them as copycats, we should probably be saying "keep up the good work" and asking them to contribute as much as possible in the future.
Note: Everyone knows that Windows relies heavily on ideas that were present in Unix, the Mac OS, and other OSs that were popular or cutting edge at the time of its development. Dismissing Linux as a Unix clone very much ignores the free borrowing of everyone else. Sure, these were American technolgies, but America has not been shy about borrowing for Europe when we've seen something we liked (pizza anyone?:-)
So what exactly are your thoughts? Is it that nobody else should develop their own OS because America owns the process of OS development? Is it that Europeans have no right to extend the OS in any direction they please, because America has a moral right of first refusal on new or existing features? Are you saying that Europeans just aren't smart enough to develop Linux without help from Americans?
Seriously, your comments alude to quite a lot, but don't actually spell out your feelings on this matter. What exactly are you saying?
No, they're not straight from MS. If you know of some special place that has exact, historical copies of every MS EULA then great, you show me. But absent of that, I have to do the best I can. These may not be signed by Bill himself, but for the purpose I'm using them for they're plenty accurate enough. If you really feel someone doctored these up to make MS look bad then, well, it's your conspiracy theory life.
Secondly, both of the clauses offer additional restrictions to the use of MSDN products for the development of Office software that does not exist for any other type of software. That is the exact nature of the original article, even if it is not the exact same restriction. This, my friend, is called relevancy.
Thirdly, I freely admitted in my second post that I may have gotten some of the details wrong in my first post. You waving your hands and saying, "your first post was wrong!" and "qualify your statements!" a second time is quite redundant. But I was not completely and utterly wrong. I was simply wrong about timeframe and the scope. MS most certainly did place some types of restrictions on developing Office products that was not placed on any other software developed by users of the MSDN. They absolutely did this at some point, even if they don't do it now.
Lastly, get a grip. I was big enough to admit that I was part wrong; what makes you so stubborn you can't admit the same? You are part wrong, at least in as far as claiming that no restrictions of this nature have existed, and especially in saying that there was no veracity to my claim. I can respect the fact that you want to get at the truth, and you succeeded to a great degree. But I can only hope that you respect the fact that I'm trying to do the same, including quite a large amount of success. Life is imperfect, and in that vein I'm quite satisfied with pretty much everything I've posted in this thread.
I don't know about the version you're quoting, but how about these?
5.2 MSDN Library--Additional Rights and Restrictions. a. Documentation. For the Library, Microsoft grants you a worldwide, nonexclusive, nontransferable, royalty-free right to make, use, and install an unlimited number of copies of the Library solely for internal use by an unlimited number of end users so long as: (i) such end users are persons who are generally granted access to your internal network; (ii) such copies shall be used only for internal purposes and are not to be republished or distributed (either in hard copy or electronic form) beyond your premises; and: (iii) you may use documentation identified in the Library as the file format specification for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, and/or Microsoft PowerPoint ("File Format Documentation") solely in connection with your development of software product(s) that operate in conjunction with Windows, Windows NT, or Windows 2000 that are not general-purpose word-processing, spreadsheet, database management, or presentation graphics software products or an integrated work or product suite whose components include one or more general-purpose word-processing, spreadsheet, or database management software products.
Note: A product that includes limited word-processing, spreadsheet, database, or presentation graphics components along with other components that provide significant and primary value, such as an accounting product with limited spreadsheet capability, is not considered to be a "general-purpose" product. For licensing terms relating to use of the File Format Documentation for purposes other than the use described above, please contact Microsoft Corporation.
and how about some of this?
3.3 Additional Distribution Requirements and License Rights and Limitations - Software-Specific. 3.3.1 Microsoft SQL Server Desktop Engine ("MSDE"). If you redistribute MSDE you agree to comply with the following additional requirements: (a) Licensee Software shall not substantially duplicate the capabilities of Microsoft Access or, in the reasonable opinion of Microsoft, compete with same; and (b) unless Licensee Software requires your customers to license Microsoft Access in order to operate, you shall not reproduce or use MSDE for commercial distribution in conjunction with a general purpose word processing, spreadsheet or database management software product, or an integrated work or product suite whose components include a general purpose word processing, spreadsheet, or database management software product except for the exclusive use of importing data to the various formats supported by Microsoft Access. A product that includes limited word processing, spreadsheet or database components along with other components which provide significant and primary value, such as an accounting product with limited spreadsheet capability, is not considered to be a "general purpose" product.
I don't know if there are more out there in this general vein or not. It could just be different versions. Also, this is more limited than I remember. There may still be a version out there that's spot on. However, as you can see, my comment was not a complete and utter falsehood. Not all of the details were correct, but the general idea that MS has restricted use of its MSDN to support production of software that would compete with Office is absolutely correct.
Note: none of my sources were really authoritative. It was from the websites of a couple of universities. Do a search for "general-purpose" and MSDN and you'll find what you're looking for.
Are you talking memory and proccessor or app size? The whole FF install file is less than 6gb. It's a very focused app. although it's true that the actual iexplore.exe executible is tiny, the install executable for IE7 is 14.7gb.
Even though that doesn't seem all that much bigger, it's not counting the fact that IE is, as MS puts it, is "part of the operating system," so it has very much of it's executable content spread out throughout the system. Earlier versions of IE that were standalone were actually 20gb or more, and thats in the days when the funtionality was much reduced from what it is today. My guess (and it really is just a guess) would be that a stand-alone IE7 would go well over 30gb if not closer to 50gb.
Memory and processor usage is actually the exact same issue. Since MS is putting a lot of IE functionality in all sorts of place other than iexplore.exe, the memory and processor footprint of the executable doesn't tell the whole story. Truth is, I don't know exactly which processes are involved, my guess would be at least "system", but I know that iexplore can not be directly compared to firefox.exe for these metrics.
On the flip side, while the "open source community" can probably outdo Microsoft in terms of developer numbers, there is no effectve way of mobilising that "workforce" towards a common goal. Even Sun has been unable to create a usable GUI for Openoffice. It sucks terribly in comparison with MS Office...
...I'll be the first to cheer when someone comes up with a more usable interface. I won't be holding my breath though.
I'm not so sure it's as bad as all that. For example, look at the OOo 2.0 icons. They look great. I know an icon is barely a UI element, much less a whole UI, but you know a a regular ol' programer didn't do that. It took someone with more than a little artistic talent to pull that off.
For that matter, look at the visual elements in major Linux distros over the last few years. Visual quality and consistency have improved dramatically across the board. Some areas are still rough, but if you've ever looked at the mess that's in most Microsoft "options" menus, you know theyr'e not alone.
I have to admit that I've been lulled into looking for the next clone of an MS feature. When they put the format painter in OO.o 2 I was very pleased. But it's not the clone features that get me comming back to open source. It's the things that only those products offer.
Wasn't it tabs. popup blocking and the small footprint that got you hooked on Firefox? MS didn't have 'em. I know I like being able to have more than one true window in OO.o spreadsheet. The guys in Redmond make me use a single window.
Now microsoft is following Firefox's lead on tabs. They're actually following open source. Tabs are a UI element. Clearly OS has some ability to lead.
BTW, I agree with you. Microsoft has some very bright people who often do a great job at making thier UIs work for you. Sometimes they don't. Often, even if they do, they take their good, sweet time to get there. The OS community can bang out an improvement almost at the speed of thought, and then ramp up evolutionary improvements in short months, or even weeks. I think that if it's a priority for OS to lead, MS is going to have no choice but to follow. I also think if we simply follow, we'll never be given the opportunity to lead.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good question. I wonder if anyone has decent numbers on HTPC usage. I'm betting both Microsoft and Apple have at least tried to figure it out, seeing as they're selling into the market, but I've never seen the numbers publicised.
Even if there are good numbers on HTPCs, I wonder how many of them are used for gaming. Personally, I've enjoyed gaming on my 36" non-HDTV Mitsubishi for several years now, but I know a lot of other people just use their PCs to record TV, play DVDs or run movies off their hard drive. I've always believed the number of PC gamers using large-screen TVs would increase with HDTV penetration (easier to use and higher quality/resolution), but I have no idea if that is actually panning out.
TW
I thought my reference to domestic protests was made clear by the context. I did mean American domestic protests.
And I'm not saying people everywhere wouldn't use coutermeasures. All I'm saying is that they're not likely to use them if going about their daily buiness and the riot police know it. If they do wear the countermeasures, then other types of weapons will probably be be used and those other weapons are very likely to be deadly. Although wearing armor may seem like a good idea, if it "forces" your adversarry to use a bigger gun, it's not neccessarily to your advantage.
TW
For domestic protests I'll have to retract my statement. You're right, as well as the guy above you. My conclusions are far more likely to be correct in Iraq at the moment.
TW
The intended purpose of this device is for crowd control. The implication of people using "armor" would be that the "mob" is actually somewhat organized. You wouldn't be wearing the armor unless you anticipated being in a place where the millimeter-wave weapon would be used. You wouldn't anticipate being in such a situation unless you were planning to cause a disruption or asked to join in one.
Wearing armor would also imply that the crowd is likely to atack. Try to picture someone putting on armor so they could quietly sit and protest. These are people who'd at least be throwing rocks.
My guess is that if armor is possible and is used, that the army would put down the millimeter gun and pick back up the machine gun. You couldn't get away with firing an automatic weapon into the crowd during a riot in L.A., but something tells me it wouldn't be a problem in Iraq. Unless you haven't noticed, it's not exactly like we're going out of our way to detail the number of Iraqis killed by Americans in the news. We would probably never even notice. For this reason alone, I hope the energy weapon works as advertised.
TW
Still, there's a lot more PC gamers could learn about HDTV, including proper cables for converting DVI to HDMI, which brands support DVI standard and what resolutions just wont look good on HDTV. Heck, even some info on setting it to native res, much like standard LCD monitors, would have been handy.
All in all, I'd prefer an article like this be called "A Console Gamer's Guide to Buying an HDTV" since it clearly covers only that material. It's not that I don't like consoles, but I think the word "gaming" without a qualifier should be used to represent the whole industry.
TW
I just walked in from the car where I was listening to NPR. They had a guy from Youtube and another guy from NBC. During this call-in program (The Diane Ream Show) they were actually quite civil and seemed like they wanted to work together. The NBC guy said they don't want "vast quantities" of their music on Youtube without compensatino, but said they eagerly look forward to haveing some kind of revenue sharing agreement. He pointed to the iTunes deal as a great success and said $1.99 per movie worked great for them. Additionally he pointed out that some of NBC's shows are put online directly on the NBC site. They Youtube guy said they're working with NBC right now and hope they can put together a deal
The bottom line is that it sounded a whole hell of a lot like NBC wasn't purposely trying to be evil. They're not just trying to get politicians to do their biddnig to screw everyone over. They're working with distribution outlets to get their material out there. They just want to get paid for their very expensive programming.
Now I know there's still a lot of badness out there. Copy protection sucks, as well as the fact that it's not like their whole library is available for you to pick and choose from. They still want the broadcast flag so they can force us to pay and then make content disapear.
But at least it looks like they're trying to resolve some of the basics, like giving consumers the choice of ad supported, or pay-to-watch content ("Lost" is available one way on the ABC site and the other way on iTunes, not to mention DVD) and generaly making more material available to watch, without making you pay a bunch of times for the same thing.
We should still fight the bad stuff, but, damn, they're at least starting to come to terms with the fact that consumers need some level of control over the process. They're a little smarter, also, in the sense that they realize they have to move into the internet era. Unlike the record industry, they know that they cant force consumers to keep using the same old business model. For that, at least, I do give them credit.
TW
"Science" isn't an organization or an industry. Science is a method for finding an approximation of the truth. It's a really good method.
Journalism is also a surprisingly good method for discovering the truth.
However, Journalism doesn't really understand science. Jounalists view of the truth is on a very different level than scientists. The best they can do is report what scientists tell them, and they don't have very good ways of differentiating betweein "scientists" wh don't really practice science, and the other kind.
I'm not suggesting self policing. I'm suggesting that scientists are best suited to evaluate whether any given group of people are correctly applying the scientific method. They're best at it because they've studied it and understand it. They're better than journalists because journalism has a completely different method and journalists often have difficulting understanding that their method of finding truth is insufficient for the needs of science.
Saying that scientists evaluating scientists is self policing makes about as much sense as saying ABC evaluating NBC is self policing because they're both news organizations. Neither is true. "News" is not an organization in the same way "science" is not an organization.
You've already responded that you wouldn't pay the mafia to determine if organized crime is really organized. Too bad, because that is exactly where I would go. Who else is going to understand whether the standards of organized crime are being upheld? Someone like you, me, the BBC or NIS would almost certainly screw it up. Would the BBC understand what is an appropriate level of violence to get someone two-weeks late on his loan to pay up? If the Mafia were evaluating the Total_Wimp crime family, I'm sure they'd do a much better job of determining if I was too hard or too soft on 'em.
Now if you're distrustful of science in general, I can't help you. It's possible you're just in the wrong place, because Slashdot is a very pro-science forum. But if you think the method is good, than getting actual scientists to evaluate whether other scientists are following scientific principals is almost certainly the best way to go. We're not talking about determining if climatologists are correct, but simply whether they've done good science, yet have been silensed. I'd trust the BBC to figure out if someone has been silenced, but they're most certainly _not_ the best type of organization to determine whether that silence was for legitimate reasons or not.
TW
Although I agree with the idea tha science should rigorously root out roadblocks to discenting opinions that pratice good science(by this I mean designing and running good experiments and drawing conclusions that match the data), it does so at the risk of elevating ideas that really belong on the fringes.
Look at the Mac and Windows communities. I sometimes listen to a show that has a Mac expert and a PC expert. They give advice as well as good-natured ribbing. Most of us have seen the comercial with the Mac and the PC. If someone were to pop into our culture and see/hear this media, they'd probably think that there are nearly as many Mac users as PC users. After all, in this media, each is fifty percent of the voice. The truth that all us geeks know is that the number of Mac users is tiny compared to PCs. Despite this, Macs enjoy an elevated status. They're seen as almost as important in our society as the PC. In reality, they're a fringe (please, no flames. I'm not saying Macs are inferior, only that their numbers are small).
Look at Intelligent design. Since ID gets about as much air time as evolution, if not more, many people would consider it to be well vetted science and a major contender to evolution in the scientific community. The truth is that the total number of people in ID who even call themselves scientists (much less others refering to them that way) is tiny. It's fringe science at best.
So we get back to global warming. Yes, the fringe should not be squashed, but why on earth should we allow those that want to promote the fringe for non-scientific purposes elevate their fringe theory to the point that the general public believes it's a major scientific contender? Yes, as scientists we should listen to them, but why on earth should this listening be done on the BBC? Is the BBC a scientific forum? Or are they going to provide a platform to bad scientists and people with a political agenda?
Do you know of any good, legitimate scientists that go to the media first before publishing and waiting for review? The only people I know of who do that are those that are more interested in their voices being heard than their science being correct. And most of the time, they do that because it's an equilizer, where otherwise there would be no chance of being considered equal.
If the BBC was really interested in good science, they might consider giving money to a respected science organization to try to do a proper study to figure out if good scientists are being ignored or silenced. The way they're doing it now tells me that they're more interested in news-generating fight than in finding the truth.
TW
You are awesome.
In addition to the air sabotage you mentioned, one of the most feared terrorist organizations in the eighties and nineties was the IRA. True, they weren't feared much by us because they didn't strike at us, but neither did the PLO.
Of those that did strike at us, we probably had the most fear about very loosely connected "patriots" in our country that belonged to groups that often called themselves "militias". Of these groups and, others vaguely related, various law enforcement agencies often confiscated positively scary quantities of guns and ammo. These groups largely peaked around the time of the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City, which Timothy McVeigh stated was done because of his sympathy, if not actual participation, with these groups.
I think Timmy, the members of the various "militias" and the members of the IRA would be very unlikely to be swept up in the "Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40" category. In fact, plain ol' white folk in our country have a surprisingly high propensity to get caught up in emotional issues that then lead to them feeling they need to destroy something. The KKK, for example, has largely stuck to acts of terror on individuals, but has not been against firebombing a school building or such here and there. Anti-abortion activists have found both non-lethal and murderous ways to terrorize abortion clinics and doctors.
Once again, these haven't been on planes, but does it make them any less lethal or scary? Does that fact that these things were done by largely white Westerners mean it's not actual terror? Maybe it's just that since we understand (note: understanding does notj equal agreement) many of the reasons behind these acts, they don't instill the same sense of terror in us as mostly nameless, faceless terrorist fighting for something or other in the Middle East.
People need to remember to ask themselves what might be coming from their right if they place all their attention on their left. We need to look both ways when crossing this street. Terrorists are all over the place. If you check every guy with brown skin and a beard, you're likely to find out the hard way that your very white, nice, clean cut neighbor is the one that's really upset about [insert cause here] and thinks a few hundred people need to die to show the world just how mad he really is.
If you want a war on Islamic Fundimentalists, then at least have the balls to say it. If you want a "war on terror", then my friend, terror starts at home.
TW
So, tell me, if you destroy your hard drive, but you have a good backup copy, why wouldn't the feds just prosecute you based on the backup copy?
I'm sure it's offsite and everything, but if its a regularly accessed drop site (it pretty much has to be if you're making regular backups) then I'd think the feds would be able to find it without much extra effort.
You gotta destroy everything if you don't want it to be used in court.
TW
Of course the whole point is moot when they ignore your hard drive completely and just use ISP records, like the RIAA does. As long as people use the internet to access, say, kiddie porn, there's a very good chance that scrubbing their HD will not prevent their prosecution.
Best protections:
If it's of questionable morality, but legal, fly under the radar. No one really cares if you download the latest album from Britney Spears, but the RIAA has a track record of sueing people who share out thousands of albums.
If it's moraly repugnant and illegal, just don't do it. Dude, people care about 8-year-old Timmy. A lot. After they raid your favorite porn carrier and view your online sessions and/or account info, getting your hard drive will just be a bonus. They'll nail your ass with or without it. Once you arrive in prison, you will find out that the regular prison population feels about Timmy very much like the rest of us do. But they have shivs. And they too will 'nail your ass' before they use the shiv. Much better to leave Timmy's pictures alone.
I know a lot of prosecution is done with HDs, but the ability to destroy your HD will only protect you so much. Besides records from the places you go on the internet, there is the human factor. Will you be willing to destroy all of your hard work at the drop of a hat? Really? Most people aren't.
TW
Everyone may want to get the bad guys by whatever means possible, but throughout our country's history we've had a few wise people that worked very hard to place limits on the "good guys". This is neccessary.
See, the good guys almost always want unlimited power so they can spread their goodness without restriction. After all, if you have frustrating roadblocks, you won't be able to do as much good, will you?
However, those with more wisdom understand the notion of speed bumps and speed limits. Even though you'd be able to travel much faster without them, they help you get to your destination in one piece, and help prevent you from running over others.
The very wisest groups put limits in place for a reason. They knew they needed to protect us from the best intentions of the good guys. It's not that Democrats are a wise group that wants to block the Republicans from spreading thier goodness. It's that the Republicans have fought so hard over the last five years to remove the speadbumps and raise the speedlimits that the Democrats(and "the people") are the only ones with enough power to reign them in. Since the people have largely used their power only to vote, it's up to the Democrats to keep the Republicans from running over so many people.
BTW, I don't quite get the "you must be white" thing. It happens I am, but what relivence is it?
TW
Nice analysis. I agree. People tend to focus too much on relative success, and not enough on idividual success. If I made $10 million dollars net profit selling the Total_Wimp Video Game Console, I'd be bouncing off the walls. Saddly, however, many people would consider me a loser.
I'm personally looking forward to getting a PS3. I already own a PS2 and a PSP and I like them both very much. However, I have to give big props to Nintendo for not losing their focus or their cool while they lost market share. Their customers were happy enough to keep buying a lot of gaming gear; their managers were happy enough to plug along in the same general direction (happy, fun games with less power at a cheaper price); and their stockholders were, presumably, happy to keep making money, even if it wasn't quite as much as Sony. They're definately "winners."
TW
Why do we let them be in charge?
Terrorism is bad. It really is. It does not follow that it is so bad that we need to re-examin our fundemental rights.
Far more people die at the hands of run-of-the-mill criminals, in automobile accidents, of heart disease, and of AIDS. The number of Americans who were killed by terrorists last year was laughably small (Even our president calls those guys in Iraq insurgents and not terrorists, just in case you wanted to lump them in).
So why give up free speech? Privacy? Protection against unreasonable search and seisure? To stop the "scourge" of terrorism that didn't bomb a single target you can actually name last year?
These guys want power over you. They want to arrest you for mere suspision, they want to detain you for disagreeing, they want to hold you as long as they want without a trial, and they want to beat the confesion out of you when time alone doesn't make you change your tune. Then they want ot take the false info you gave them and proclaim "Look! We stopped this terrorist!"
Don't give it to them. Don't give them your rights. Anyone who says you need to make that kind of sacrifice, he's the one you want to kick out of office.
TW
Do you not think the PS2 made a profit, or are you saying that everyone that makes a profit is a winner?
I generally agree with this statement, but I gotta ask what we judge as "winners" or "losers"?
The DS has better sales in many places than the PSP, but the PSP has sold a heck of a lot of units. It's not that far behind the DS in anyplace but Japan. Despite this, people on Slashdot like to treat it as an "also ran" instead of giving it credit for it's large user base. Is the PSP a loser?
On the other hand, the Gamecube was a very distant third to the PS2. Despite this, many people rightfully pointed out that Nintendo made a profit, and a lot of people enjoyed their console quite a lot. Is the Gamecube a winner?
One of the nextgen consoles is going to sell better than the others. We could call this the winner. But the Xbox has a year head start. If it is always significantly ahead of the others in total sales, do we declare it the winner even if its monthly sales are less?
What do you think?
TW
That goes along with what I've been seeing. Anyone have any restock numbers? I know Nintendo has promised a fast restock and Sony has indicated a slow one, but will that be 4-1 like initial sales, or are we talking a different animal entirely?
TW
You're right. It is the consumer. For example, the consumer prefers high-quality entertainment, so the TV stations spend more money for better scripts and directors. The consumer wants thier local team to win, so the teams spend more money on talent.
You could argue that consumers spend more (buying more goods that are advertised or spending more for tickets) and that justifies the expense, but the reverse is as much of a motivator. If you have bad shows or crappy teams, less people are going to waste their time with you.
So, the motivator for TV visual quality? If you want to keep your station relevant, you're going to have to spend money to have high-quality HD content. Charge more? Get real. If you don't have it for the same cost, we'll just leave.
TW
BTW, some of you may argue that there are great shows that were/are made in SD. True. There are also terrific black and white shows, and some awesome silent films as well. I love the old stuff, but most of the new stuff really needs to be, well, new.
"Slashdot Headline is Most Misleading Ever"
Console launch? No, game title average.
Relivance? Console two generations ago was worst, but the time of the article makes you think otherwise.
Agreement with article? No, the title of the 1UP article makes clear it's about the games and that it's an open ended question answered in the text.
You can tell the truth just by reading further? Well yeah, but it's a not a main-page aritcle so you have to click-through first.
Do I care that the Wii was the worst of this gen? Not really, because it still has good games.
Do I think the PS3 sucks because Slashdot keeps wanting to tell me it does? Oh yes. I really don't care to think for myself.
Good day all,
TW
America has done a good job with all of the things you mention. However, it also has to be mentioned that the Monopoly held by MS wa not just due to the quality of it's products. Europe certainly has as much a right to complain about a misused monopoly as America did (didn't we restrict and fine them as well?). The lack of success of European OSs doesn't erase their right to protect their markets from preditory business practices.
:-)
But what does any of this this have to do with the present and future of Linux? On the one hand you seem to be saying Europe hasn't been competitive with America in this area, but then you're quick to dismiss Linux as a copycat and you appear to be dismissing the idea that Europe (and others) should proceed with extending the OS if America should gut it through patend protection. So which is it, should Europe now step up in an area where it may have been deficient in the past, or should they just sit on their hands?
Windows has reached great heights because it stood on the shoulders of giants. So has Linux. Instead of dinging either of them as copycats, we should probably be saying "keep up the good work" and asking them to contribute as much as possible in the future.
Note: Everyone knows that Windows relies heavily on ideas that were present in Unix, the Mac OS, and other OSs that were popular or cutting edge at the time of its development. Dismissing Linux as a Unix clone very much ignores the free borrowing of everyone else. Sure, these were American technolgies, but America has not been shy about borrowing for Europe when we've seen something we liked (pizza anyone?
TW
So what exactly are your thoughts? Is it that nobody else should develop their own OS because America owns the process of OS development? Is it that Europeans have no right to extend the OS in any direction they please, because America has a moral right of first refusal on new or existing features? Are you saying that Europeans just aren't smart enough to develop Linux without help from Americans?
Seriously, your comments alude to quite a lot, but don't actually spell out your feelings on this matter. What exactly are you saying?
TW
http://www.informatik.fh-wiesbaden.de/~gelling/msd naa/eula.pdf
http://msdnaa.oit.umass.edu/Neula.asp
No, they're not straight from MS. If you know of some special place that has exact, historical copies of every MS EULA then great, you show me. But absent of that, I have to do the best I can. These may not be signed by Bill himself, but for the purpose I'm using them for they're plenty accurate enough. If you really feel someone doctored these up to make MS look bad then, well, it's your conspiracy theory life.
Secondly, both of the clauses offer additional restrictions to the use of MSDN products for the development of Office software that does not exist for any other type of software. That is the exact nature of the original article, even if it is not the exact same restriction. This, my friend, is called relevancy.
Thirdly, I freely admitted in my second post that I may have gotten some of the details wrong in my first post. You waving your hands and saying, "your first post was wrong!" and "qualify your statements!" a second time is quite redundant. But I was not completely and utterly wrong. I was simply wrong about timeframe and the scope. MS most certainly did place some types of restrictions on developing Office products that was not placed on any other software developed by users of the MSDN. They absolutely did this at some point, even if they don't do it now.
Lastly, get a grip. I was big enough to admit that I was part wrong; what makes you so stubborn you can't admit the same? You are part wrong, at least in as far as claiming that no restrictions of this nature have existed, and especially in saying that there was no veracity to my claim. I can respect the fact that you want to get at the truth, and you succeeded to a great degree. But I can only hope that you respect the fact that I'm trying to do the same, including quite a large amount of success. Life is imperfect, and in that vein I'm quite satisfied with pretty much everything I've posted in this thread.
TW
and how about some of this?
I don't know if there are more out there in this general vein or not. It could just be different versions. Also, this is more limited than I remember. There may still be a version out there that's spot on. However, as you can see, my comment was not a complete and utter falsehood. Not all of the details were correct, but the general idea that MS has restricted use of its MSDN to support production of software that would compete with Office is absolutely correct.
Note: none of my sources were really authoritative. It was from the websites of a couple of universities. Do a search for "general-purpose" and MSDN and you'll find what you're looking for.
Thanks,
TW
Are you talking memory and proccessor or app size? The whole FF install file is less than 6gb. It's a very focused app. although it's true that the actual iexplore.exe executible is tiny, the install executable for IE7 is 14.7gb.
Even though that doesn't seem all that much bigger, it's not counting the fact that IE is, as MS puts it, is "part of the operating system," so it has very much of it's executable content spread out throughout the system. Earlier versions of IE that were standalone were actually 20gb or more, and thats in the days when the funtionality was much reduced from what it is today. My guess (and it really is just a guess) would be that a stand-alone IE7 would go well over 30gb if not closer to 50gb.
Memory and processor usage is actually the exact same issue. Since MS is putting a lot of IE functionality in all sorts of place other than iexplore.exe, the memory and processor footprint of the executable doesn't tell the whole story. Truth is, I don't know exactly which processes are involved, my guess would be at least "system", but I know that iexplore can not be directly compared to firefox.exe for these metrics.
TW
I'm not so sure it's as bad as all that. For example, look at the OOo 2.0 icons. They look great. I know an icon is barely a UI element, much less a whole UI, but you know a a regular ol' programer didn't do that. It took someone with more than a little artistic talent to pull that off.
For that matter, look at the visual elements in major Linux distros over the last few years. Visual quality and consistency have improved dramatically across the board. Some areas are still rough, but if you've ever looked at the mess that's in most Microsoft "options" menus, you know theyr'e not alone.
I have to admit that I've been lulled into looking for the next clone of an MS feature. When they put the format painter in OO.o 2 I was very pleased. But it's not the clone features that get me comming back to open source. It's the things that only those products offer.
Wasn't it tabs. popup blocking and the small footprint that got you hooked on Firefox? MS didn't have 'em. I know I like being able to have more than one true window in OO.o spreadsheet. The guys in Redmond make me use a single window.
Now microsoft is following Firefox's lead on tabs. They're actually following open source. Tabs are a UI element. Clearly OS has some ability to lead.
BTW, I agree with you. Microsoft has some very bright people who often do a great job at making thier UIs work for you. Sometimes they don't. Often, even if they do, they take their good, sweet time to get there. The OS community can bang out an improvement almost at the speed of thought, and then ramp up evolutionary improvements in short months, or even weeks. I think that if it's a priority for OS to lead, MS is going to have no choice but to follow. I also think if we simply follow, we'll never be given the opportunity to lead.
TW