Was the prototype ultrasonic? If so how did they manage 19.2MBPS? 'Cause that would be cool in a known-physics defying way. Maybe when someone reposts the article, I can actually read it and find out...
Why can't websites publish streaming video in some kind of open format that doesn't suck? What's wrong with ogg or mpeg?
Because neither supports lower bitrates. In particular, Ogg Vorbis is poorly suited for voice compression (i.e. newscasts, which is about the only thing I use Real for). There may be other open source options for this kind of thing, but I'm not familiar with any of them. Even with a good connection, low bit-rate streams are nice to have.
SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News article, SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors. As a normal part of business, SCO has had discussions with several legal experts in the field of intellectual property law, and these discussions included David Boies. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.
Agreed. Cartoon Network, by the way, has taken it up and will be running it all this week (I think 10PM CST. Don't know if there will be any new episodes or not.
This information comes from my 12-yo son, but is probably reasonably reliable.
The observation that stars at the edge of our galaxy don't move fast enough shouldn't incite scientists to come up with new types of matter--it should incite them to find the matter that they've obviously overlooked.
But is "dark matter" really supposed to be a new type of matter? I understood that it was just extra mass we couldn't see. But then IANAA (obviously). Cheers --
One of the things that makes any kind of flat fee arrangement desirable is that it becomes easier to predict (and plan for) expenses occured ahead of time. Moreover, particularly in the case of businesses, there will always be overhead associated with any pay-as-you-go system, since it does indeed cost something to monitor and perhaps cap the use of any resource with an open-ended cost.
This doesn't mean micropayments are necessarily a bad idea, since such a system is potentially cheaper, depending on the type of resource and who's using it. I believe there is actually some experimentation going on in the insurance industry with "pay as you go" auto insurance; i.e., you pay based on mileage, the time of day you are on the road, and where you happen to be driving. A GPS-enabled transponder reports this information back to your insurer.
Obvious privacy concerns aside, this idea DOES have the potential to save some folks a great deal of money on auto insurance; it also has the potential to bost rates through the roof for others.
What? Once something is placed in the public domain (via a notice that the works are "hereby placed in the Public Domain" or similar), my understanding was that it was in the public domain for good -- the PD status can't just be revoked arbitrarily. (I believe this is the way it works in the publishing world, anyway).
However, I'm not a lawyer (obviously) -- it would be nice to hear from someone a little more versed in this kind of thing...
Why would you conclude this post is a troll? The OP ends with "Go Public Domain!". He's knocking the GPL, not free licensing in general. And he's right -- the GPL is restrictive compared with other licenses (LGPL, BSD, PD) since it places requirements on the derivative work product. Not a big deal for applications, but when applied to a library, the GPL would appear to preclude closed-source application development (or maybe not -- see yesterdays/. article). Whatever you think of CS development, this is a significant restriction which (for CS developers) can be a more onerous restriction than a commercial license (depending on the terms).
Which definition trumps which here? The GPL has it's own definition of a "derivative work". Current copyright law (at least in the US) also defines the term "derivative work", if only vaguely.
So is the implication of the article that the GPL's definition is somehow invalid (or potentially invalid) in light of existing law? I mean, the GPL provides a rather specific definition of a "derivative work" that while perhaps controversial, would appear to be legally binding and specifically prohibits linking by closed source programs. It was this restriction that spawned the LGPL, correct?
The article appears to imply, however, that the term "derivative" has a potential definition in existing law which would take precedence. Is this the case?
Start menu, windowing toolkit, API's, the fact that you start in a GUI rather than DOS and then switch to a GUI.
*sigh*
A start menu, while useful, does not represent a major paradigm shift. Neither does the fact that Windows versions prior to 95 needed to be started manually, especially since regular 3.1 users generally started it in autoexec.bat. In either case, there was very little in the way of relearning that needed to happen for 3.1 users to migrate to 95 -- and this, by the way, was by design. But, yes, 95 WAS a big improvment over 3.1. This was one of the last things Microsoft ever did (except for the introduction of NT) that was actually worth getting excited about.
I'm a little unclear on your point about windowing toolkits and APIs -- Windows APIs were published as early as 1.x, although they remained a moving target until 3.0. I myself was developing professionally by at least 3.0. Unless I've hallucinated a rather large chunk of my professional life along with the copy of Petzold's 1990 "Programming Windows" gathering dust over there on my bookshelf, there were plenty of APIs. Not that the presence or absence of specific APIs have anything to do with the nature of the human interface. If you believe that, then the advent of NT would have been a much greater leap from 95 than 95 from 3.1.
I fail to see how you can't see win 3.1 to win95 as major. Did you even use 3.1?
And, yes, in addition to actually writing code for Windows 3.1 and earlier, I did also actually use it. In fact, I used even erlier versions, going all the way back to whatever RT version was bundled with PageMaker 1.0 (which I believe was Windows 1.1), and I ran it on a freakin '286. That's right, boy -- I'm a geezer! And although you didn't ask, I also used (and in some case coded to) DesqView, GEOS, a little GEM and OS/2 going back to 1.1.
Surrender now and your women and children will be spared.
Ummm... A "Start" menu does not constitute a major UI change, although I suppose it depends on the standard you use. Personally, I would file that one under "minor incremental change".
Re:And here's the crux of the matter...
on
The Humane Environment
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think you forget, as most people seem to, that all learning takes effort. Even when your gear is hooked straight into your brain do you have to spend substantial time to learn how to use it.
No -- I am aware that any interface takes time to learn, and I assume that a neural interface would be no exception. But the real issue is whether the perceived investment in time spent learning something new is worth the perceived benefit of the interface. The more radical the change, the higher the perceived value needs to be. Note the term "perceived" -- in order for an interface to succeed, a sufficient number of people need to see it as potentially worth the trouble of learning; else I would expect it to fade into obscurity.
Re:And here's the crux of the matter...
on
The Humane Environment
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Win 3.1 to Win95 was not a major UI change -- it required learning almost nothing new to use. I can't speak for OS9-OSX, but I assume the case was the same.
Regardless of your (or my own) feelings on the Windows GUI, which of the interfaces you named in your posting has had the widest acceptance?
And here's the crux of the matter...
on
The Humane Environment
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
From the website:
Important observation: You cannot make an interface better without making it different (that's obvious).
Herein lies the problem: an interface that requires relearning can, at least in a sense, be said to be flawed. Time that has to be spent up front learning a new interface is widely perceived as wasted time. In order to be accepted, interfaces generally have to be incremental improvements on an existing paradigm. Radically new interfaces, no matter how much they improve on existing UIs, are almost certainly doomed to failure.
There are obvious exceptions. GUIS were such an improvement over CLIs (at least for the masses) that they were readily accepted. I guess the same could really be said for the ascendancy of the CLI over batch jobs.
The developer board at $299 (with no support) looks pretty reasonable, although you can get a more capable PC-104 board for the same price.
Still,given the feature set and the low power consumption this is a pretty appealing package, but I think even the embedded the applications are somewhat limited.
.. but all I got was a dancing robot alarm clock. Still, with a little work, I think I could modify it to destroy my enemies, rob banks or something else equally useful...
.. and just patent the act of clicking itself? On anything. I mean, what are they waiting for?
Re:Creating your experience
on
Robocoaster
·
· Score: 1
Disney has doen this already -- see previous posts on the Disney Quest coaster sim. Basically, you are given a barcoded card and sent to a small workstation. Swipe the card at the station and design your coaster.
Once you're done, you go to the sim area, where you "ride" your coaster in a simulator. Not quite up to the real thing, but entertaining nonetheless.
Re:Disney Quest
on
Robocoaster
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It's possible there's more than one, but the one I went to was at Disney World (Downtown Disney).
About the only reason to go to that area of the park, unless you're into staggeringly overpriced shopping and dining. And, yes, I realize that "staggeringly overpriced" and Disney go together like ham and cheese...
Reminds me of the coaster simulator at DisneyQuest (Disney World). The simulator, of course, is really just a simulator -- there's no actual forward movement. Still, worth a look if you're ever down that way.
11MBPS is probably fast enough; however, it's worth pointing out that 11MBPS isn't guaranteed by 802.11B. In fact, the connection speed can fall back to fairly slow speeds in the presence of a less than perfect RF link. I can't recall the bottom end off hand (1MBPS?).
It may be that you are seeing partial signal blockage or reflectance problems between your office and den. Try using something to benchmark the actual connection speed (if you haven't done so already).
Slashdot Mirror
Was the prototype ultrasonic? If so how did they manage 19.2MBPS? 'Cause that would be cool in a known-physics defying way. Maybe when someone reposts the article, I can actually read it and find out...
Because neither supports lower bitrates. In particular, Ogg Vorbis is poorly suited for voice compression (i.e. newscasts, which is about the only thing I use Real for). There may be other open source options for this kind of thing, but I'm not familiar with any of them. Even with a good connection, low bit-rate streams are nice to have.
SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News article, SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors. As a normal part of business, SCO has had discussions with several legal experts in the field of intellectual property law, and these discussions included David Boies. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.
I mean, geez. What else are they supposed to do?
It's like watching Hitler and Stalin Jello(tm)-Wrestle -- who to root for?
I'll bet all 7 people in the target demographic snap this one up like hotcakes...
Like how much for leather? Is there a towing option? You'd think CNN might dig a little deeper...
This information comes from my 12-yo son, but is probably reasonably reliable.
But is "dark matter" really supposed to be a new type of matter? I understood that it was just extra mass we couldn't see. But then IANAA (obviously). Cheers --
This doesn't mean micropayments are necessarily a bad idea, since such a system is potentially cheaper, depending on the type of resource and who's using it. I believe there is actually some experimentation going on in the insurance industry with "pay as you go" auto insurance; i.e., you pay based on mileage, the time of day you are on the road, and where you happen to be driving. A GPS-enabled transponder reports this information back to your insurer.
Obvious privacy concerns aside, this idea DOES have the potential to save some folks a great deal of money on auto insurance; it also has the potential to bost rates through the roof for others.
However, I'm not a lawyer (obviously) -- it would be nice to hear from someone a little more versed in this kind of thing...
Why would you conclude this post is a troll? The OP ends with "Go Public Domain!". He's knocking the GPL, not free licensing in general. And he's right -- the GPL is restrictive compared with other licenses (LGPL, BSD, PD) since it places requirements on the derivative work product. Not a big deal for applications, but when applied to a library, the GPL would appear to preclude closed-source application development (or maybe not -- see yesterdays /. article). Whatever you think of CS development, this is a significant restriction which (for CS developers) can be a more onerous restriction than a commercial license (depending on the terms).
No comments at all are (rightly) far more likely to get you fired.
So is the implication of the article that the GPL's definition is somehow invalid (or potentially invalid) in light of existing law? I mean, the GPL provides a rather specific definition of a "derivative work" that while perhaps controversial, would appear to be legally binding and specifically prohibits linking by closed source programs. It was this restriction that spawned the LGPL, correct?
The article appears to imply, however, that the term "derivative" has a potential definition in existing law which would take precedence. Is this the case?
*sigh*
A start menu, while useful, does not represent a major paradigm shift. Neither does the fact that Windows versions prior to 95 needed to be started manually, especially since regular 3.1 users generally started it in autoexec.bat. In either case, there was very little in the way of relearning that needed to happen for 3.1 users to migrate to 95 -- and this, by the way, was by design. But, yes, 95 WAS a big improvment over 3.1. This was one of the last things Microsoft ever did (except for the introduction of NT) that was actually worth getting excited about.
I'm a little unclear on your point about windowing toolkits and APIs -- Windows APIs were published as early as 1.x, although they remained a moving target until 3.0. I myself was developing professionally by at least 3.0. Unless I've hallucinated a rather large chunk of my professional life along with the copy of Petzold's 1990 "Programming Windows" gathering dust over there on my bookshelf, there were plenty of APIs. Not that the presence or absence of specific APIs have anything to do with the nature of the human interface. If you believe that, then the advent of NT would have been a much greater leap from 95 than 95 from 3.1.
I fail to see how you can't see win 3.1 to win95 as major. Did you even use 3.1?
And, yes, in addition to actually writing code for Windows 3.1 and earlier, I did also actually use it. In fact, I used even erlier versions, going all the way back to whatever RT version was bundled with PageMaker 1.0 (which I believe was Windows 1.1), and I ran it on a freakin '286. That's right, boy -- I'm a geezer! And although you didn't ask, I also used (and in some case coded to) DesqView, GEOS, a little GEM and OS/2 going back to 1.1.
Surrender now and your women and children will be spared.
Ummm... A "Start" menu does not constitute a major UI change, although I suppose it depends on the standard you use. Personally, I would file that one under "minor incremental change".
No -- I am aware that any interface takes time to learn, and I assume that a neural interface would be no exception. But the real issue is whether the perceived investment in time spent learning something new is worth the perceived benefit of the interface. The more radical the change, the higher the perceived value needs to be. Note the term "perceived" -- in order for an interface to succeed, a sufficient number of people need to see it as potentially worth the trouble of learning; else I would expect it to fade into obscurity.
Regardless of your (or my own) feelings on the Windows GUI, which of the interfaces you named in your posting has had the widest acceptance?
Important observation: You cannot make an interface better without making it different (that's obvious).
Herein lies the problem: an interface that requires relearning can, at least in a sense, be said to be flawed. Time that has to be spent up front learning a new interface is widely perceived as wasted time. In order to be accepted, interfaces generally have to be incremental improvements on an existing paradigm. Radically new interfaces, no matter how much they improve on existing UIs, are almost certainly doomed to failure.
There are obvious exceptions. GUIS were such an improvement over CLIs (at least for the masses) that they were readily accepted. I guess the same could really be said for the ascendancy of the CLI over batch jobs.
Maybe a direct neural interface...
Still,given the feature set and the low power consumption this is a pretty appealing package, but I think even the embedded the applications are somewhat limited.
.. but all I got was a dancing robot alarm clock. Still, with a little work, I think I could modify it to destroy my enemies, rob banks or something else equally useful...
.. and just patent the act of clicking itself? On anything. I mean, what are they waiting for?
Once you're done, you go to the sim area, where you "ride" your coaster in a simulator. Not quite up to the real thing, but entertaining nonetheless.
About the only reason to go to that area of the park, unless you're into staggeringly overpriced shopping and dining. And, yes, I realize that "staggeringly overpriced" and Disney go together like ham and cheese...
Reminds me of the coaster simulator at DisneyQuest (Disney World). The simulator, of course, is really just a simulator -- there's no actual forward movement. Still, worth a look if you're ever down that way.
It may be that you are seeing partial signal blockage or reflectance problems between your office and den. Try using something to benchmark the actual connection speed (if you haven't done so already).