It's the same as any skilled perception, really. The article was _really_ stupid in many ways.
If I wanted to make optimal use of a tetrachromat, I would have her color calibrate my monitor or proof printed stuff, or choose between photographic paper. That sort of thing. Looking at the real world and then looking at some poorer copies of it and deciding which was most accurate.
I wonder if these clever article writers have ever heard of LAB color- or Edwin Land's brilliant experiments synthesising full color from polarized white light and _red_ light? Color is a hell of a lot more mysterious than these people think.
As for the poor wretched colorblind websurfers- *ROFL* yeah, like there's any color-specific interface consistency on the web in the first place! Riiiiight.
It's not a _question_ of putting the Linux kernel in Windows. At all.
It's a question of 'woooo, drawing the background of this menu isn't fast enough- where's an example of some x86 code that draws a background and uses (SSE/MMX/whatever x86 PC-specific stuff)?'
There's no way this is suggesting wholesale kernel replacement- or even major chunks of code. The MS programmers are largely fresh new just-out-of-college codemonkeys, and there's nothing like looking at some examples to whip out a working prototype or project. I think it's completely implausible that there's a highlevel movement at MS to intentionally steal Linux code. Instead it's probably a widespread tendency to look to Linux code for examples of how to deal with typical problems. Not kernel, but tiny bits of kernel functions. Not interface, but scraps of optimised x86 routines. Those are the times where you might be grovelling the web or your documentation looking for an example of how to SSE-optimise something or other- and if it's not in your textbooks? Then maybe it's been implemented by some geek much like you who happens to be writing open source for Linux. He'd probably want to share his idea with you anyway, deep down, right? Filch away and let the lawyers sort it out- they can't _really_ believe a mere license agreement is a threat. And that's how it'd go.
There's no grand conspiracy, just the interactions of different characteristics of Microsoft and open source developers.
That's a public relations statement, kind of like "Microsoft wishes only to continue innovating and bringing technology and choice to consumers".
If Petreley is correct, we're hearing about another well known characteristic of Microsoft- a tendency to treat the law as a suggestion. It's good to bear in mind that even if they simultaneously have a policy of investigating what Linux code might benefit their products, they will still maintain that nobody ever looks at GPL code and protest loudly at the distrust and negativity. It's a winning strategy that allows them to on the one hand try anything they need to try, legal or not, and on the other hand rely on people's assumptions about ethics and morality.
I am not aware of any corporate law specifically requiring corporations to be ethical or indeed to refrain from outright lying in PR statements (barring specific fraudulent claims about products, which I think is illegal). They _are_, however, legally compelled to maximize shareholder value, and MS is completely dependent on doing that without fail. Given that Microsoft cannot consider the GPL a threat, it is entirely plausible that they are seeking out good x86 code in Linux, secure behind two levels of defense- one, denial ("Microsoft policy is simple...") and two, the law (their capacity to obstruct and manipulate the legal system).
Seriously now- the GOVERNMENT has been hard pressed to deal with their obstructionist tactics and keep an advantage, and the Government has somewhat more resources than the FSF. How can anyone seriously believe that Microsoft is afraid of the GPL? Their attitude must be 'see you in court' and a conflict is inevitable. The only question is when- and in the event of this conflict, it's interesting to consider that Microsoft's extreme confidence is a matter of corporate culture and does NOT necessarily translate to victory on their part. The GPL is a contract- and the legal system is built on centuries of disputes over contracts. If Microsoft ends up in court trying to get the GPL invalidated, they will not necessarily win. They will, however, _think_ they can win, every step of the way.
That would be the normal way of looking at things. However, Microsoft does not always take the normal view. I'm not by any means convinced, but I would say on Petreley's behalf that Microsoft obviously sees the law not as a constraint but a system for winning arguments.
Given that, why wouldn't they investigate the guts of Linux to see if there's any useful x86 code they could rewrite and adapt? Clearly the idea of being sued would not frighten them- they have more expensive lawyers than the FSF. It's overwhelmingly likely that they don't consider that boundary worth respecting- the remaining question is whether they identify Linux code as worth stealing, and I'm not convinced- it goes against their tendency for NIH. On the other hand, lots of Linux code is heavily x86-centric- which would be Microsoft's primary interest.
The question is whether aiding Microsoft can be spun to hurt him politically. Of course, Bush won the popular vote and got a substantial majority backed with massive Republican majorities in the House and Senate, so he can support MS all he likes without risking political damage;P
Seriously- MS may just be hosed here. It's a question of whether Bush and the Republicans are ready to seriously risk what shreds of credibility they have to prop up a trust that is obviously guilty. Personally, I think the safer course for Bush and his people is to continue talking big about Innovation and This Great Company etc etc and then do absolutely squat to help them. That might come as a bit of a shock to MS, but it serves them right for thinking politicians stay bought. They've also lost the Senator From MS. The current political climate is hypersensitive to any sign of partisanship, and the moderates have control. Lame Duck Presidents don't really have the power to get away with that kind of partisanship.
I've seen an interesting variation on your (1) there. I and another person were getting good at particular jobs in a workplace. Another guy got hired to a sort of JOAT position- and immediately proceeded to grab most or all of the jobs we were doing, and then ended up not able to do all that right away. The other person is currently on a different assignment, and I took it as a sign that I needed to bail- and am contemplating doubling my price in case they continue to need to call me in after cutting the stability and predictability of the situation out from under me. I was good at what I did and it offended my sensibilities that this other person got allowed to romp in and replace me without anyone checking that he could do what he claimed, and so first I had to deal with being 'downsized' and then immediately had to deal with being called in anyhow. I can't work under those conditions and things are... negotiable at this point. If I stay it will be only because some aspect of the situation was improved for me- either the pay or the security and stability of the position or both. The pathetic thing is, there was really no reason to screw with that situation at all- it was working really well for everyone concerned, this one person just had boundary issues and couldn't refrain from grabbing big chunks of other people's jobs. I think that's a very good lesson to be learned- don't jerk people around for ego reasons or you might end up without the support you need- at the very least you risk losing any loyalty you've earned.
This is a very good point. _Too_ much of a disparity should be considered a red flag, a warning sign. Apparently the P4's performance is really brittle- if you pick just the right task to test it on it can scream, but hit it with something it doesn't like (something that beats on the excessively deep pipeline or doesn't logically break down into simple SSE stuff) and it bogs, it's an absolute pig.
Logically, then, we must all avoid attempting any tasks that the P4 doesn't like;P
...ok, maybe not. How about some benches on tasks like POV-Ray scenes, SQL operations, kernel compiles? Some of these map more closely to the sort of tasks you'd get if (for instance) you were an EFX house and wrote your own software to do some heinous particle system rendering task. Those are the people who need _real_ CPU speed, and it's really questionable whether P4 is going to be any use to them at all. When you're doing that sort of stuff you have no time to fuss around with wizzy CISC operations- you're writing hopefully bugfree code and running it against a deadline to produce footage that is needed right away if not sooner, and you frankly don't care how Flask does since you aren't using it. You're running fairly general purpose code- a LOT of it- and live or die by your ability to (a) write it as needed and (b) run it. There's no room for "it's 70% as fast as an Alpha but if we spend another month optimising it for SSE we might be able to run it three times as fast, or it might go splat again if we double the number of scene elements or change a line!" no no no...
This isn't necessarily EVER going to be any good at rendering. It's nowhere near general-purpose enough. Ironically, people doing heavy duty imageprocessing or rendering or raytracing are the ones who need a superfast processor most- but I doubt the P4 will _ever_ be any good at that. There will be some ultrafast codecs and that's it- and that's a really tiny percentage of what a rendering farm does- and the people working in these fields _never_ have enough time or enough CPU, making it not an abstract problem.
If anybody tries to build render farms off P4s they will literally go out of business due to missing deadlines. The P4 pipeline is too deep, the whole thing is geared towards flashy performance on consumer codecs and it's not general-purpose enough to perform realworld EFX tasks to deadlines. The high end market will be avoiding this one- it's just too easy to push it out of its 'high performance zone' and make it bog down.
Too late. Audio cassettes have been handled this way for some time. You didn't know that? That's the same Home Recording Act that was supposed to establish 'fair use' principles that the RIAA are now reneging on.
You _didn't_ actually know that if I an independent musician buy consumer blank cassettes to record my music on, I'm forced to pay off my own deeply entrenched competition? That I PAY THEM to obliterate me? This isn't a free market, what made you think it was? We're talking about the MUSIC BUSINESS for crying out loud;P
An interesting sidenote is that if you wiped out government it'd be all the easier to exert this type of force on a purely economic basis- in other words if there's no government taxes are even HIGHER as long as there's an RIAA capable of extorting the taxes out of small store owners and putting them out of business by withholding product if they won't play ball.
Personally I'd like to see _more_ government involvement, just not this corporate-welfare sort, speaking as someone who has literally paid RIAA taxes on his own musical endeavors for years.
Do you mean to say that your band name/stage name is taken directly from a They Might Be Giants song on the 'Lincoln' album, 1988? Or was this just your unusual way of saying that you feel protective over 'Kiss The Blade' music?
It seems strange to on the one hand be totally anchored in the musical tradition of ripping off artists you like, and on the other hand not giving your potential fans this liberty. It's rather like Led Zeppelin ripping off old blues artists (but their art is not free! Oh no!) except that almost anyone will recognize 'Mr. Me' as a TMBG song if they have any familiarity with that album.
Punished? Surely you are simply paying for the privilege of being allowed to copy that material?
Seems to me that if you _pay_ to be allowed to do a thing, that thing is tacitly accepted by the people you're paying. I don't see much grounds for 'you aren't ever allowed to do this! But gimme a buck in case you do anyway'.
Junk snail mail is stupid and wasteful but _they_ pay for it and pay the Post Office bulk rates to have it delivered. _I_ pay for my email.
If I had to pay by the pound for snailmail the junkmail would bug me a lot more. The fact that the bulkmailer has to pay postage is a governing factor that keeps them from going too nuts with it. I have yet to see a Taiwanese sex toy emporium find it economical to flood me with unsolicited catalogs. Those cost _them_ actual money:)
Spammers are a type of thief. It's that simple really. It's the online equivalent of if people could steal your car while you weren't using it, and return it when they are done with it but without paying for gas. They can make a big fuss about how they aren't stealing your car but they're using it and wearing it out without paying for any of it, and whether or not you also can use it is not relevant.
The law doesn't let people steal your car just in case they plan to return it before you need it again. It forbids people from stealing your car in general terms because the stealing is taking place without your permission or consent. By the same token, spamming is use of your internet resources (from ISP right down to use of your inbox and 'mail visual scan' for important stuff) without your permission or consent- the resources being used are all YOURS, not the spammers. They have no right to use 'em, any more than they have a right to steal your car temporarily and use the gas up.
There is also no legitimate argument that their use of your resources is doing you some kind of informational favor. You would be just as able to access that information if you went to their website on your own- you don't owe them the attention, just for existing. I guess that's the bottom line really- spammers behave like attention is a right, calling it free speech and basically insisting they must be allowed to _seize_ the attention of anybody in the world. Attention is a privilege, not a right. Free speech laws never considered the situation of a person with a megaphone loud enough to yell at every single person that exists- free speech is based on an assumption that the speech is going to be somewhat localised, and that if you are somewhere else or not paying attention you won't hear it.
In a weird way stalking laws seem oddly applicable. If you continually follow a person berating them you may well be legally forced to stop as your demanding of their attention is considered a sort of assault. Spammers are, effectively, 'stalking' millions of people at a time. No-contact laws might be a good idea- if no-contact to specific individuals is too much like 'opt out' or too unrealistic, perhaps what's needed is 'no bulkmail/email at all' laws for a digital version of no-contact. The former would be a legal acceptance that spamming is a form of harassment, and a block against that person doing it again for any reason through any means- and the latter would be a recourse if the spammer refused to stop harassing.
If Kevin Mitnick can be forbidden to work in the computer industry just for being a troublemaker, why can't unrepentant spammers be forbidden to use email for any reason? There's always postal mail, the phone, and face to face contact- ALL of which already are covered legally against harassment situations.
I can even tell you exactly where they got it- read "Tog On Interface". Microsoft has! Bruce Tognazzini was developing this technique _decades_ ago, just the way you describe it...
...for the Apple ][.
It's nice that Microsoft care so much about using Apple usability testing. You'd think it would help them more than it seems to.
Corporations have unthinkably greater resources than private individuals. They have billions for marketing, distribution of products, they can have warehouses and representatives in many different countries and in general are set up to do business on a scale that dwarfs what individuals would ever be capable of, no matter how 'internet-savvy' they were.
Given that, why on earth do you need to give corporations property of ideas too?
Amazon has warehouses, fulfillment systems, tons of workers madly trying to keep up with demand. If you gave J. Random Hacker the right to do a one-click web ordering system does that make him therefore equal to Amazon as far as his capacity to handle business? I think not.
Hell, give J. Random Hacker rights to the source code to Office- a zillion dollar business, even if it is slumping- and see if he's able to do that sort of revenue on it. I promise you he can't. The support structures for distributing, producing, marketing Office are _humongous_, requiring lots of people working fulltime just to handle the volume. Only a corporation or _big_ company can handle that kind of volume on a product.
So again where is the justification for software patents and _intellectual_ property? I don't see it. If you think for one second that some hacker will be able to replace (for instance) "Office"... even if you GAVE HIM the EXACT source to office and rights to sell the product!.. you're out of your mind. Do you have any idea of the workload involved with supporting a product in that kind of volume?
The corporations _could_ give away all the 'ideas' for free- it would make little difference as what the corporation/big company has to offer is support structures, distribution, fulfillment structures that will support that kind of volume. If everybody got to legally release a clone of Office- we're talking the EXACT CODE of Office- then every shop would have 'Jim And Bob's Office' in ziplock baggies with photocopied instructions.
And beside it- the same MS box as always- in every shop, everywhere in the world, unlike Jim and Bob's version. Jim and Bob won't ever have that kind of distribution.
"Are you running
any software which produces a warning dialog?"
...
"Well, we apologize, but we cannot support 'hacked' systems. In these cases our recommendation is to reinstall the system and all Office/.NET files, and don't install the untrusted software. If you've done this and are still experiencing problems you may qualify for tech support, but we can't take responsibility for 'hacked' systems, okay?"
It's that simple. On the one hand- this makes perfect sense. Windows is _plagued_ with horrible little shareware programs and random junk and AOL and who knows what else- it _is_ absurd to try and support some Windows system in which some idiot has installed a really old version of AOL from some random old CD or floppy. On the other hand, this is the mother of all network effects- a really strong argument for freezing out _all_ other software developers, essentially delivering on that long forgotten promise of Microsoft: "We think 100% penetration is a good marketshare". It is downright justifiable to take this attitude as Windows is easily rendered useless by screwed up software (so's MacOS, FYI). At the same time- this turns the situation at a stroke from a market into a command economy with MS the sole supplier- if you can't get support unless you abandon all untrusted code, a surprising number of people will do just that, particularly in controlled situations such as workplaces, or the large number of people who are _not_ busily checking out all the new games or whatever. Aunt Fannie, who only reads email and uses Word, is square in the crosshairs of this new development, and there are a lot of people like that out there.
Nothing more than a warning dialog and loss of 'support' need ever happen. Think of it as a combination cutting of support for 'renegade' users who run untrusted code- and keeping in line 'good' users who want normal, expected support from the vendor.
I have/had a PDF plugin installed and never used it. I went and got the latest Shockwave plugin _just_ to watch all the Camp Chaos "Napster BAAAD!" movies (baaaad! nasty! but funny!) and then promptly yanked it. Had to relaunch netscape several times just to get through all the movies, too.
The same process that caused you to drop Lynx for Netscape caused me to drop Cyberdog for Netscape, some years ago- several sites I commonly use (most notably Spamcop but to a lesser extent Thresh's Firing Squad)) make sensible use of Javascript.
It seems as if Javascript is of most utility on the Web, Java turns up occasionally in fancy banner ads, and Shockwave sites seem to focus so heavily on it that (like Camp Chaos) there's absolutely no point in going there unless you're setting out specifically to watch Shockwave movies and things- ideally Macromedia should accept this and continue to make heavier emphasis on standalone viewers, and sites should assume that some people will be content to download.swf and view it separately rather than assuming everyone wants to view it in a browser. Camp Chaos, I think, is a good example of what really happens in practice- loads of people have viewed Napster Bad etc. but that is not a navigation system, or webcandy- it's essentially a scripted cartoon, obviously standalone content. The standalone aspect is much more interesting than the 'interactive' aspects of the special edition, and in general the cartoons in the format are creative and entertaining (and very low bandwidth) and the games are just stupid:)
Regarding the CD issue, this is quite well understood by this point. You might be interested to know that this recent re-release of a bunch of Beatles songs (CD with a big '1' on the cover, naturally not a scrap of material that hasn't been released 6,000 times) obviously made use of _really_ modern technology to the point that it sounds like the CD you made.
To be specific, a lot of these CDs were made off poor masters or treated with markedly inferior 80s/90s era digital processing in the belief that this would make them sound better. That gear was miserable by current standards- 16 bit mix busses, poor understanding of the algorithms, nothing a professional would use in this day and age.
When the sound engineers of the current day got a hold of this stuff (and made this re-release) they did it right- modern 64-bit mix busses, high quality dithering algorithms etc- and I can confirm that their results are quite similar to the original vinyl played over a _good_ system. In particular, the sound was a lot less shrill than most CDs, and the bass was exceptionally good and powerful. Nobody would call it 'muffled', either.
I'd hate for anybody to go off buying this silly rerelease just because I talked about its sonics *g* I think people should _boycott_ the majors. However, I wanted to make the observation because I know lots of people will jump about going 'the CDs are much better sounding!' which is not true. This _recent_ remastering is very good sounding. A lot of the CDs out there are _far_ from that quality level, and in general the vinyl does sound better. This Beatles reissue just happens to do a very nice job of illustrating _how_ the vinyl was sounding better all these years, and gets the 'feel' of the music much better than previous CDs in general.
It's nice that people didn't just sit around assuming CDs were better, because now we can do musical work and have the CDs roughly equivalent to the vinyl- CDs tend to win in noise floor, easy access and pitch stability, vinyl tends to win in warmth, spaciousness, tonality and the ability to convincingly present _loud_ tones, plus the covers are bigger and nicer:) frankly, the CDs used to be _so_ much worse, it's really nice to see them finally coming into their own.
...for which the costs of production are an order of magnitude cheaper than the vinyl records were, never mind that the price is significantly higher.
Sure, something stinks but it's not necessarily the 'licensing' of the music.
As an interesting side note, if the music industry manages to transition to the Internet and have people paying for downloaded music, they will have people literally paying for nothing!
I'm a musician, and I'd like to see this. I think I could do well on that basis.
Right now I'm rebuilding a guitar that I got for the purpose of making a dedicated 'metal' guitar- which is to say, I have various instruments tailored to get very specific 'sounds'. Many of them, this one included, have scalloped fretboards to suit my playing style. The upshot of it is this: these are tools to help me practice a particular skill at quality levels substantially beyond J. Random Highschooler.
Given that, the question is, do I try to get paid by copy of performance, or do I try to get paid 'for hire', for the time I spend actually doing the work? Well, the former is more of a 'win the lottery' scenario: currently it's really not feasible to expect to get paid this way- musicians _lose_ money in the industry, typically would get paid better flipping burgers because, as I have, they spend their own money on tools, promotion etc in efforts to hit that jackpot.
Instead of being the 'artist' in the 'star system' sense, I can choose to be the tool- and my income wouldn't have to be a lottery gamble. It could be straightforward income for hours of work put in- simple, effective. The line blurs somewhat- ever heard the name Marc Ribot? He played guitar for Tom Waits on the album 'Rain Dogs' and put in a startling, imaginative solo on the song 'Clap Hands' that stole the show from even sidemen like Keith Richards, who also played on the album. I don't know if Ribot gets royalties on that solo- the point is, work like this from Marc Ribot built him a career and he's legitimately able to ask for good wages should he choose to do more session work.
There are more artists needing the help of skilled musicians, engineers and producers than there are artists who will hit big enough for the royalties to be worth anything. That's always been the case. It's slightly different now with the rampant sampling and repackaging of everything- I just visited a friend who was playing a 'new' CD- a big 'greatest hits' collection of remastered Beatles. The engineers did in fact do a terrific job on that one- the tunes sounded very much like the original vinyl heard on a _really_ good system- but it raises the question of how many times will people listen to the same music over and over again before they get bored of it. I think there's a limit- ragtime and big band music are not chart toppers in this day and age, there's a half-life for musical taste despite the efforts of marketers to not come up with new content.
When new music is required, there will be that option- to be poor and try to wrestle the RIAA for rockstar wealth (and probably lose), or to get paid and then allow the RIAA to lose sleep over mp3s and whatever else comes down the pike. For me it's dead obvious- it is just not worth it to try and turn music into a mass market, get-rich-quick scheme. It's the execs and marketers who will win at that game- and they already own the entire catalogue of the Beatles, they aren't interested in me, or even in the 'next Beatles' whatever that might be. Novelty isn't profitable and never has been- formula is everything.
For anyone who feels that they can and should go up against the big media companies and try to get _wealth_ off their artistry: Cool;) you do that. In fact, I will happily help out with a guitar solo if you like and you can keep the solo once I'm done with it! All for just $75 an hour (if you're an indie) or $7,500 an hour (if you're Britney Spears or some other manufactured star from the major labels).
Up front;)
Then I'll have your money and _you_ can worry about becoming and staying rich off of volatile, zero-cost-copying, uncontainable, imaginary intellectual property. Lotsa luck:)
You're assuming that if Intel bought up everything, they would then act any differently from how RAMBUS is acting.
The problem isn't with one specific corporation. It is a dreadful interaction between a corporation and a legal situation and could happen with any of them, given the initial sleaziness to produce the Intellectual Property at dispute here.
I could make a case that if Intel owned these patents they would be obligated under fiduciary duty to press them as far as they will go, just like RAMBUS. Perhaps without the desperation (that's from RAMBUS's miserable business case) but with the same basic result.
Intellectual Property simply doesn't mesh with a fast-paced, innovative industry. This is only the beginning. Assuming that the laws aren't radically revamped- I'd have to recommend nobody attempt to work in the field. The future is like this but more so. The only bright side is- for so many useful things (including Linux) you don't actually _need_ new tech and innovation... you can use old kit and make do. This is quite unglamorous- but it's going to be harder and harder to be on the cutting edge technologically, because of legal challenges- I think it will become impossible for private individuals. That's just my personal opinion.
It's slanderous. If I was being censored I would want it to be labeled 'CENSORED' rather than allowing someone to suggest publically, unchallenged, that I was engaged in hate speech or criminal skills teaching. Some of these charges are dangerous- add 'pedophile' to the censorware lists and see how people like being filed under that name as 'just overkill'.
That said, some of the categories are flatly astonishing. Art/culture? Job search? General News? I understand that the censors want to be able to meet any conceivable need but this is kind of ridiculous- and I question the legitimacy of censoring stuff like Alternative Lifestyles and Politics/Opinion/Religion. My argument is, what business does anyone have blocking that sort of constitutionally protected information and calling the result 'the Internet' in any sense? I don't understand why people like that don't set up some kind of private network or just a big LAN with only such information as they want to allow. Why even allow people like that to pretend, behave, claim that they are implementing Internet access? There is no 'The Internet' to sue such people for deceptiveness- if you had some joker offering a Microsoft Support site in which the only files allowed to be shown were the ones that were known to be buggier than usual, you know MS would sue them and win because the claim is deceptive. Why is 'Internet' minus all the 'categories' listed not also considered so deceptive that it should fall into the category of fraud?
No, this is a problem not an axiom. Your assertion 'a company has to live and die by what most people do/think/buy' is misleading and untrue.
Apple
Rolls-Royce
Harley-Davidson
Rickenbacker
Martin-Logan
Jadis
Cartier
Boeing
Caterpillar
Mack
None of these companies pay attention to what 'most' people do/think/buy. In some cases they are providing boutique items, in others they are providing performance items at staggering cost, and in some they are just plain vertical market and the buyer is not 'most people', it is a specific target like an airline or a contracting company.
It's always shocked and dismayed me that so many computer people assume the computer industry can be reduced to 'most people'. That's like saying Toyotas are equivalent to Mack Trucks and Caterpillar tractors. True, most people have no clue what the semi-trailer market is like: however, in the computer industry because of the greatly enhanced communication of the Internet and the public expectations for software companies (basically, 'be like Microsoft or be crushed by Microsoft), there is more of a risk of legitimate vertical markets being destroyed by the _expectation_ that they will be destroyed, since they are not mainstream. When it becomes an issue of standards and interoperability, this risk becomes still worse- sure you could make a nifty optical packet switch for vertical markets, but what if Microsoft controls the whole environment and would rather people used NT routers? If they could break the environment around your nifty switch they _create_ your destruction, artificially, in a way they couldn't do if you were, say, building trucks.
The end result is either going to be a grudging acceptance of vertical markets and unorthodox needs (even on 'the desktop': people use desktops for many different things), or a wasteland, a 'Dark Ages' in which no innovation can happen because all needs are 'met' by very generic products which are expected to work perfectly for everyone- 'proved' by the fact that no competing products can arise. The assumption is that the generic, 'most people' product is therefore the best one. The reality is that the industry is a lot more sensitive to network effects than anyone bargained for, and this stifles genuine innovations for specialised purposes at birth. If you won't look beyond the 'dummy' rationalisation of 'it must be the best solution 'cos everyone uses it so logically nothing better has been proposed or tried', you won't ever get beyond a sort of Wal-Mart environment (physically and intellectually) and will be sharply limited in the tasks you're able to perform, without even knowing it.
Basically, in order to get anywhere you have to reject network effects. You can't 'run everything' or be 'compatible' with everything. You have to make choices. If you don't or won't you just end up in Wal-Mart-land playing Diablo on WinME and waiting for other people to decide that your interests are 'most people' enough to provide.
Slashdot Mirror
If I wanted to make optimal use of a tetrachromat, I would have her color calibrate my monitor or proof printed stuff, or choose between photographic paper. That sort of thing. Looking at the real world and then looking at some poorer copies of it and deciding which was most accurate.
I wonder if these clever article writers have ever heard of LAB color- or Edwin Land's brilliant experiments synthesising full color from polarized white light and _red_ light? Color is a hell of a lot more mysterious than these people think.
As for the poor wretched colorblind websurfers- *ROFL* yeah, like there's any color-specific interface consistency on the web in the first place! Riiiiight.
Funny, I just downloaded an Atari 2600 and 512 games yesterday :) and the first thing I played was Adventure, too. I grew up on that stuff, I'm 32 :)
It's a question of 'woooo, drawing the background of this menu isn't fast enough- where's an example of some x86 code that draws a background and uses (SSE/MMX/whatever x86 PC-specific stuff)?'
There's no way this is suggesting wholesale kernel replacement- or even major chunks of code. The MS programmers are largely fresh new just-out-of-college codemonkeys, and there's nothing like looking at some examples to whip out a working prototype or project. I think it's completely implausible that there's a highlevel movement at MS to intentionally steal Linux code. Instead it's probably a widespread tendency to look to Linux code for examples of how to deal with typical problems. Not kernel, but tiny bits of kernel functions. Not interface, but scraps of optimised x86 routines. Those are the times where you might be grovelling the web or your documentation looking for an example of how to SSE-optimise something or other- and if it's not in your textbooks? Then maybe it's been implemented by some geek much like you who happens to be writing open source for Linux. He'd probably want to share his idea with you anyway, deep down, right? Filch away and let the lawyers sort it out- they can't _really_ believe a mere license agreement is a threat. And that's how it'd go.
There's no grand conspiracy, just the interactions of different characteristics of Microsoft and open source developers.
If Petreley is correct, we're hearing about another well known characteristic of Microsoft- a tendency to treat the law as a suggestion. It's good to bear in mind that even if they simultaneously have a policy of investigating what Linux code might benefit their products, they will still maintain that nobody ever looks at GPL code and protest loudly at the distrust and negativity. It's a winning strategy that allows them to on the one hand try anything they need to try, legal or not, and on the other hand rely on people's assumptions about ethics and morality.
I am not aware of any corporate law specifically requiring corporations to be ethical or indeed to refrain from outright lying in PR statements (barring specific fraudulent claims about products, which I think is illegal). They _are_, however, legally compelled to maximize shareholder value, and MS is completely dependent on doing that without fail. Given that Microsoft cannot consider the GPL a threat, it is entirely plausible that they are seeking out good x86 code in Linux, secure behind two levels of defense- one, denial ("Microsoft policy is simple...") and two, the law (their capacity to obstruct and manipulate the legal system).
Seriously now- the GOVERNMENT has been hard pressed to deal with their obstructionist tactics and keep an advantage, and the Government has somewhat more resources than the FSF. How can anyone seriously believe that Microsoft is afraid of the GPL? Their attitude must be 'see you in court' and a conflict is inevitable. The only question is when- and in the event of this conflict, it's interesting to consider that Microsoft's extreme confidence is a matter of corporate culture and does NOT necessarily translate to victory on their part. The GPL is a contract- and the legal system is built on centuries of disputes over contracts. If Microsoft ends up in court trying to get the GPL invalidated, they will not necessarily win. They will, however, _think_ they can win, every step of the way.
Given that, why wouldn't they investigate the guts of Linux to see if there's any useful x86 code they could rewrite and adapt? Clearly the idea of being sued would not frighten them- they have more expensive lawyers than the FSF. It's overwhelmingly likely that they don't consider that boundary worth respecting- the remaining question is whether they identify Linux code as worth stealing, and I'm not convinced- it goes against their tendency for NIH. On the other hand, lots of Linux code is heavily x86-centric- which would be Microsoft's primary interest.
Seriously- MS may just be hosed here. It's a question of whether Bush and the Republicans are ready to seriously risk what shreds of credibility they have to prop up a trust that is obviously guilty. Personally, I think the safer course for Bush and his people is to continue talking big about Innovation and This Great Company etc etc and then do absolutely squat to help them. That might come as a bit of a shock to MS, but it serves them right for thinking politicians stay bought. They've also lost the Senator From MS. The current political climate is hypersensitive to any sign of partisanship, and the moderates have control. Lame Duck Presidents don't really have the power to get away with that kind of partisanship.
I've seen an interesting variation on your (1) there. I and another person were getting good at particular jobs in a workplace. Another guy got hired to a sort of JOAT position- and immediately proceeded to grab most or all of the jobs we were doing, and then ended up not able to do all that right away. The other person is currently on a different assignment, and I took it as a sign that I needed to bail- and am contemplating doubling my price in case they continue to need to call me in after cutting the stability and predictability of the situation out from under me. I was good at what I did and it offended my sensibilities that this other person got allowed to romp in and replace me without anyone checking that he could do what he claimed, and so first I had to deal with being 'downsized' and then immediately had to deal with being called in anyhow. I can't work under those conditions and things are... negotiable at this point. If I stay it will be only because some aspect of the situation was improved for me- either the pay or the security and stability of the position or both. The pathetic thing is, there was really no reason to screw with that situation at all- it was working really well for everyone concerned, this one person just had boundary issues and couldn't refrain from grabbing big chunks of other people's jobs. I think that's a very good lesson to be learned- don't jerk people around for ego reasons or you might end up without the support you need- at the very least you risk losing any loyalty you've earned.
Logically, then, we must all avoid attempting any tasks that the P4 doesn't like ;P
If anybody tries to build render farms off P4s they will literally go out of business due to missing deadlines. The P4 pipeline is too deep, the whole thing is geared towards flashy performance on consumer codecs and it's not general-purpose enough to perform realworld EFX tasks to deadlines. The high end market will be avoiding this one- it's just too easy to push it out of its 'high performance zone' and make it bog down.
You _didn't_ actually know that if I an independent musician buy consumer blank cassettes to record my music on, I'm forced to pay off my own deeply entrenched competition? That I PAY THEM to obliterate me? This isn't a free market, what made you think it was? We're talking about the MUSIC BUSINESS for crying out loud ;P
An interesting sidenote is that if you wiped out government it'd be all the easier to exert this type of force on a purely economic basis- in other words if there's no government taxes are even HIGHER as long as there's an RIAA capable of extorting the taxes out of small store owners and putting them out of business by withholding product if they won't play ball.
Personally I'd like to see _more_ government involvement, just not this corporate-welfare sort, speaking as someone who has literally paid RIAA taxes on his own musical endeavors for years.
Do you mean to say that your band name/stage name is taken directly from a They Might Be Giants song on the 'Lincoln' album, 1988? Or was this just your unusual way of saying that you feel protective over 'Kiss The Blade' music?
It seems strange to on the one hand be totally anchored in the musical tradition of ripping off artists you like, and on the other hand not giving your potential fans this liberty. It's rather like Led Zeppelin ripping off old blues artists (but their art is not free! Oh no!) except that almost anyone will recognize 'Mr. Me' as a TMBG song if they have any familiarity with that album.
Sheesh...
Seems to me that if you _pay_ to be allowed to do a thing, that thing is tacitly accepted by the people you're paying. I don't see much grounds for 'you aren't ever allowed to do this! But gimme a buck in case you do anyway'.
If I had to pay by the pound for snailmail the junkmail would bug me a lot more. The fact that the bulkmailer has to pay postage is a governing factor that keeps them from going too nuts with it. I have yet to see a Taiwanese sex toy emporium find it economical to flood me with unsolicited catalogs. Those cost _them_ actual money :)
Spammers are a type of thief. It's that simple really. It's the online equivalent of if people could steal your car while you weren't using it, and return it when they are done with it but without paying for gas. They can make a big fuss about how they aren't stealing your car but they're using it and wearing it out without paying for any of it, and whether or not you also can use it is not relevant.
The law doesn't let people steal your car just in case they plan to return it before you need it again. It forbids people from stealing your car in general terms because the stealing is taking place without your permission or consent. By the same token, spamming is use of your internet resources (from ISP right down to use of your inbox and 'mail visual scan' for important stuff) without your permission or consent- the resources being used are all YOURS, not the spammers. They have no right to use 'em, any more than they have a right to steal your car temporarily and use the gas up.
There is also no legitimate argument that their use of your resources is doing you some kind of informational favor. You would be just as able to access that information if you went to their website on your own- you don't owe them the attention, just for existing. I guess that's the bottom line really- spammers behave like attention is a right, calling it free speech and basically insisting they must be allowed to _seize_ the attention of anybody in the world. Attention is a privilege, not a right. Free speech laws never considered the situation of a person with a megaphone loud enough to yell at every single person that exists- free speech is based on an assumption that the speech is going to be somewhat localised, and that if you are somewhere else or not paying attention you won't hear it.
In a weird way stalking laws seem oddly applicable. If you continually follow a person berating them you may well be legally forced to stop as your demanding of their attention is considered a sort of assault. Spammers are, effectively, 'stalking' millions of people at a time. No-contact laws might be a good idea- if no-contact to specific individuals is too much like 'opt out' or too unrealistic, perhaps what's needed is 'no bulkmail/email at all' laws for a digital version of no-contact. The former would be a legal acceptance that spamming is a form of harassment, and a block against that person doing it again for any reason through any means- and the latter would be a recourse if the spammer refused to stop harassing.
If Kevin Mitnick can be forbidden to work in the computer industry just for being a troublemaker, why can't unrepentant spammers be forbidden to use email for any reason? There's always postal mail, the phone, and face to face contact- ALL of which already are covered legally against harassment situations.
I can even tell you exactly where they got it- read "Tog On Interface". Microsoft has! Bruce Tognazzini was developing this technique _decades_ ago, just the way you describe it...
It's nice that Microsoft care so much about using Apple usability testing. You'd think it would help them more than it seems to.
Given that, why on earth do you need to give corporations property of ideas too?
Amazon has warehouses, fulfillment systems, tons of workers madly trying to keep up with demand. If you gave J. Random Hacker the right to do a one-click web ordering system does that make him therefore equal to Amazon as far as his capacity to handle business? I think not.
Hell, give J. Random Hacker rights to the source code to Office- a zillion dollar business, even if it is slumping- and see if he's able to do that sort of revenue on it. I promise you he can't. The support structures for distributing, producing, marketing Office are _humongous_, requiring lots of people working fulltime just to handle the volume. Only a corporation or _big_ company can handle that kind of volume on a product.
So again where is the justification for software patents and _intellectual_ property? I don't see it. If you think for one second that some hacker will be able to replace (for instance) "Office"... even if you GAVE HIM the EXACT source to office and rights to sell the product!.. you're out of your mind. Do you have any idea of the workload involved with supporting a product in that kind of volume?
The corporations _could_ give away all the 'ideas' for free- it would make little difference as what the corporation/big company has to offer is support structures, distribution, fulfillment structures that will support that kind of volume. If everybody got to legally release a clone of Office- we're talking the EXACT CODE of Office- then every shop would have 'Jim And Bob's Office' in ziplock baggies with photocopied instructions.
And beside it- the same MS box as always- in every shop, everywhere in the world, unlike Jim and Bob's version. Jim and Bob won't ever have that kind of distribution.
Your desire for software patents is ill-founded.
It's that simple. On the one hand- this makes perfect sense. Windows is _plagued_ with horrible little shareware programs and random junk and AOL and who knows what else- it _is_ absurd to try and support some Windows system in which some idiot has installed a really old version of AOL from some random old CD or floppy. On the other hand, this is the mother of all network effects- a really strong argument for freezing out _all_ other software developers, essentially delivering on that long forgotten promise of Microsoft: "We think 100% penetration is a good marketshare". It is downright justifiable to take this attitude as Windows is easily rendered useless by screwed up software (so's MacOS, FYI). At the same time- this turns the situation at a stroke from a market into a command economy with MS the sole supplier- if you can't get support unless you abandon all untrusted code, a surprising number of people will do just that, particularly in controlled situations such as workplaces, or the large number of people who are _not_ busily checking out all the new games or whatever. Aunt Fannie, who only reads email and uses Word, is square in the crosshairs of this new development, and there are a lot of people like that out there.
Nothing more than a warning dialog and loss of 'support' need ever happen. Think of it as a combination cutting of support for 'renegade' users who run untrusted code- and keeping in line 'good' users who want normal, expected support from the vendor.
The same process that caused you to drop Lynx for Netscape caused me to drop Cyberdog for Netscape, some years ago- several sites I commonly use (most notably Spamcop but to a lesser extent Thresh's Firing Squad)) make sensible use of Javascript.
It seems as if Javascript is of most utility on the Web, Java turns up occasionally in fancy banner ads, and Shockwave sites seem to focus so heavily on it that (like Camp Chaos) there's absolutely no point in going there unless you're setting out specifically to watch Shockwave movies and things- ideally Macromedia should accept this and continue to make heavier emphasis on standalone viewers, and sites should assume that some people will be content to download .swf and view it separately rather than assuming everyone wants to view it in a browser. Camp Chaos, I think, is a good example of what really happens in practice- loads of people have viewed Napster Bad etc. but that is not a navigation system, or webcandy- it's essentially a scripted cartoon, obviously standalone content. The standalone aspect is much more interesting than the 'interactive' aspects of the special edition, and in general the cartoons in the format are creative and entertaining (and very low bandwidth) and the games are just stupid :)
Regarding the CD issue, this is quite well understood by this point. You might be interested to know that this recent re-release of a bunch of Beatles songs (CD with a big '1' on the cover, naturally not a scrap of material that hasn't been released 6,000 times) obviously made use of _really_ modern technology to the point that it sounds like the CD you made.
To be specific, a lot of these CDs were made off poor masters or treated with markedly inferior 80s/90s era digital processing in the belief that this would make them sound better. That gear was miserable by current standards- 16 bit mix busses, poor understanding of the algorithms, nothing a professional would use in this day and age.
When the sound engineers of the current day got a hold of this stuff (and made this re-release) they did it right- modern 64-bit mix busses, high quality dithering algorithms etc- and I can confirm that their results are quite similar to the original vinyl played over a _good_ system. In particular, the sound was a lot less shrill than most CDs, and the bass was exceptionally good and powerful. Nobody would call it 'muffled', either.
I'd hate for anybody to go off buying this silly rerelease just because I talked about its sonics *g* I think people should _boycott_ the majors. However, I wanted to make the observation because I know lots of people will jump about going 'the CDs are much better sounding!' which is not true. This _recent_ remastering is very good sounding. A lot of the CDs out there are _far_ from that quality level, and in general the vinyl does sound better. This Beatles reissue just happens to do a very nice job of illustrating _how_ the vinyl was sounding better all these years, and gets the 'feel' of the music much better than previous CDs in general.
It's nice that people didn't just sit around assuming CDs were better, because now we can do musical work and have the CDs roughly equivalent to the vinyl- CDs tend to win in noise floor, easy access and pitch stability, vinyl tends to win in warmth, spaciousness, tonality and the ability to convincingly present _loud_ tones, plus the covers are bigger and nicer :) frankly, the CDs used to be _so_ much worse, it's really nice to see them finally coming into their own.
Not around a campfire. ASCAP'll come gitcha! ;)
Sure, something stinks but it's not necessarily the 'licensing' of the music.
As an interesting side note, if the music industry manages to transition to the Internet and have people paying for downloaded music, they will have people literally paying for nothing!
Right now I'm rebuilding a guitar that I got for the purpose of making a dedicated 'metal' guitar- which is to say, I have various instruments tailored to get very specific 'sounds'. Many of them, this one included, have scalloped fretboards to suit my playing style. The upshot of it is this: these are tools to help me practice a particular skill at quality levels substantially beyond J. Random Highschooler.
Given that, the question is, do I try to get paid by copy of performance, or do I try to get paid 'for hire', for the time I spend actually doing the work? Well, the former is more of a 'win the lottery' scenario: currently it's really not feasible to expect to get paid this way- musicians _lose_ money in the industry, typically would get paid better flipping burgers because, as I have, they spend their own money on tools, promotion etc in efforts to hit that jackpot.
Instead of being the 'artist' in the 'star system' sense, I can choose to be the tool- and my income wouldn't have to be a lottery gamble. It could be straightforward income for hours of work put in- simple, effective. The line blurs somewhat- ever heard the name Marc Ribot? He played guitar for Tom Waits on the album 'Rain Dogs' and put in a startling, imaginative solo on the song 'Clap Hands' that stole the show from even sidemen like Keith Richards, who also played on the album. I don't know if Ribot gets royalties on that solo- the point is, work like this from Marc Ribot built him a career and he's legitimately able to ask for good wages should he choose to do more session work.
There are more artists needing the help of skilled musicians, engineers and producers than there are artists who will hit big enough for the royalties to be worth anything. That's always been the case. It's slightly different now with the rampant sampling and repackaging of everything- I just visited a friend who was playing a 'new' CD- a big 'greatest hits' collection of remastered Beatles. The engineers did in fact do a terrific job on that one- the tunes sounded very much like the original vinyl heard on a _really_ good system- but it raises the question of how many times will people listen to the same music over and over again before they get bored of it. I think there's a limit- ragtime and big band music are not chart toppers in this day and age, there's a half-life for musical taste despite the efforts of marketers to not come up with new content.
When new music is required, there will be that option- to be poor and try to wrestle the RIAA for rockstar wealth (and probably lose), or to get paid and then allow the RIAA to lose sleep over mp3s and whatever else comes down the pike. For me it's dead obvious- it is just not worth it to try and turn music into a mass market, get-rich-quick scheme. It's the execs and marketers who will win at that game- and they already own the entire catalogue of the Beatles, they aren't interested in me, or even in the 'next Beatles' whatever that might be. Novelty isn't profitable and never has been- formula is everything.
For anyone who feels that they can and should go up against the big media companies and try to get _wealth_ off their artistry: Cool ;) you do that. In fact, I will happily help out with a guitar solo if you like and you can keep the solo once I'm done with it! All for just $75 an hour (if you're an indie) or $7,500 an hour (if you're Britney Spears or some other manufactured star from the major labels).
Up front ;)
Then I'll have your money and _you_ can worry about becoming and staying rich off of volatile, zero-cost-copying, uncontainable, imaginary intellectual property. Lotsa luck :)
The problem isn't with one specific corporation. It is a dreadful interaction between a corporation and a legal situation and could happen with any of them, given the initial sleaziness to produce the Intellectual Property at dispute here.
I could make a case that if Intel owned these patents they would be obligated under fiduciary duty to press them as far as they will go, just like RAMBUS. Perhaps without the desperation (that's from RAMBUS's miserable business case) but with the same basic result.
Intellectual Property simply doesn't mesh with a fast-paced, innovative industry. This is only the beginning. Assuming that the laws aren't radically revamped- I'd have to recommend nobody attempt to work in the field. The future is like this but more so. The only bright side is- for so many useful things (including Linux) you don't actually _need_ new tech and innovation... you can use old kit and make do. This is quite unglamorous- but it's going to be harder and harder to be on the cutting edge technologically, because of legal challenges- I think it will become impossible for private individuals. That's just my personal opinion.
That said, some of the categories are flatly astonishing. Art/culture? Job search? General News? I understand that the censors want to be able to meet any conceivable need but this is kind of ridiculous- and I question the legitimacy of censoring stuff like Alternative Lifestyles and Politics/Opinion/Religion. My argument is, what business does anyone have blocking that sort of constitutionally protected information and calling the result 'the Internet' in any sense? I don't understand why people like that don't set up some kind of private network or just a big LAN with only such information as they want to allow. Why even allow people like that to pretend, behave, claim that they are implementing Internet access? There is no 'The Internet' to sue such people for deceptiveness- if you had some joker offering a Microsoft Support site in which the only files allowed to be shown were the ones that were known to be buggier than usual, you know MS would sue them and win because the claim is deceptive. Why is 'Internet' minus all the 'categories' listed not also considered so deceptive that it should fall into the category of fraud?
- Apple
- Rolls-Royce
- Harley-Davidson
- Rickenbacker
- Martin-Logan
- Jadis
- Cartier
- Boeing
- Caterpillar
- Mack
None of these companies pay attention to what 'most' people do/think/buy. In some cases they are providing boutique items, in others they are providing performance items at staggering cost, and in some they are just plain vertical market and the buyer is not 'most people', it is a specific target like an airline or a contracting company.It's always shocked and dismayed me that so many computer people assume the computer industry can be reduced to 'most people'. That's like saying Toyotas are equivalent to Mack Trucks and Caterpillar tractors. True, most people have no clue what the semi-trailer market is like: however, in the computer industry because of the greatly enhanced communication of the Internet and the public expectations for software companies (basically, 'be like Microsoft or be crushed by Microsoft), there is more of a risk of legitimate vertical markets being destroyed by the _expectation_ that they will be destroyed, since they are not mainstream. When it becomes an issue of standards and interoperability, this risk becomes still worse- sure you could make a nifty optical packet switch for vertical markets, but what if Microsoft controls the whole environment and would rather people used NT routers? If they could break the environment around your nifty switch they _create_ your destruction, artificially, in a way they couldn't do if you were, say, building trucks.
The end result is either going to be a grudging acceptance of vertical markets and unorthodox needs (even on 'the desktop': people use desktops for many different things), or a wasteland, a 'Dark Ages' in which no innovation can happen because all needs are 'met' by very generic products which are expected to work perfectly for everyone- 'proved' by the fact that no competing products can arise. The assumption is that the generic, 'most people' product is therefore the best one. The reality is that the industry is a lot more sensitive to network effects than anyone bargained for, and this stifles genuine innovations for specialised purposes at birth. If you won't look beyond the 'dummy' rationalisation of 'it must be the best solution 'cos everyone uses it so logically nothing better has been proposed or tried', you won't ever get beyond a sort of Wal-Mart environment (physically and intellectually) and will be sharply limited in the tasks you're able to perform, without even knowing it.
Basically, in order to get anywhere you have to reject network effects. You can't 'run everything' or be 'compatible' with everything. You have to make choices. If you don't or won't you just end up in Wal-Mart-land playing Diablo on WinME and waiting for other people to decide that your interests are 'most people' enough to provide.