Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) for you humans, it's we Transhumans who will do the dominating. (Not that we care about that, it's just as Linus said - "an unintended side effect.")
It's the director who directs human actors who will direct the tweaking of the software to get exactly the effects he wants - including emotional ones.
It will be HIS emotions, not the software's, that you see on the screen.
This has nothing to do with getting virtual actors to actually act. That would require AI - and yes, that IS and will continue to be extremely hard to achieve - at least until somebody figures out the core issue which is conceptual processing.
"Even given the technology, how many people/effects teams out there are going to have the talent and skill necessary to create and animate a convincing CG actor doing a good, convincing CG performance? Plus you'll still need good voice actors."
You're forgetting technological improvement. And it won't take "decades" (well, maybe one or two.) The computer hardware and software available by another ten or twenty years will be so good any director will be able to order up any kind of character he wants, AND tweak scenes as he likes, AND generate voiceovers with any emotional content he wants.
Of course, this will result in a lot of bad movies as bad directors ignore the interplay of real actors for their own obsessive interpretation of the movie (see: Lucas, George).
However, good directors will be able to produce great movies exactly as they want them for less money.
Net effect will be like the introduction of word processing on computers: some great documents, and a lot of over-fonted crap.
So the studio pays less money for the RIGHTS to the actor's APPEARANCE, i.e. computer-animated image.
No need for the actor to even show up.
Actors will like that, too - well, some of them, but a lot of them would really prefer to actually act than take money for nothing, because acting is an emotional necessity for them.
However, this will be merely a transitional phase. Eventually, the overwhelming economic sense of simply generating any kind of actor you want will put actors out of the movie business. They will have to return to the physical stage in theater - which will be a benefit for theater (or maybe not.)
O'Gara appears to be leading the SCO cheerleading team (I thought Enderle was the head cheerleader).
Her polemics against IBM in the article clearly spell out her bias.
And yet some morons here on/. are accusing Groklaw of being biased. Oh, yes, the Windows trolls, no doubt.
Groklaw at least puts up the REAL DOCUMENTS for everyone to read and provides decent legal analysis (for a paralegal, anyway) and the comments also include useful questions and explanations. The polemics come from recognition of the legal and ethical absurdity of the entire SCO operation.
If that's what you're worried about, the only way that's going to happen is if George Bush (at Bill Gates' order) calls an air strike on IBM HQ with B-52's to root out "Al Qaeda terrorists".
Read my lips (to quote his father). SCO HAS NO CASE. NONE. PERIOD.
And if you can't read the legal and technical analyses in Groklaw, you're too dumb to figure out why SCO has no case anyway.
This so-called "report" is actually a polemic against IBM by this "Maureen O'Gara" who sounds like she's on SCO's payroll - or at least on their PR team.
That's what I thought. OP was asking for some way to verify that the tool "caught it all". By definition, it did, since without the tool, there's no way to verify at all.
Obviously the tool was tested on some test cases before he used it on something like this.
Linux is "advertised" by every tech publication on the planet, which is what is read by corporate IT types (the ones that can read, anyway.)
Aside from some hardware driver issues which are also irrelevant to IT shops since they won't buy anything that doesn't run the OS completely anyway, there are no hardware issues for Linux.
Why do you think MS keeps pushing phoney "TCO" ads attacking Linux? Because they haven't got anything else to say bad about Linux - and what they are saying is bullshit.
That's why I want to see his results in that case.
Was he retained by the DOJ to COVER UP the situation, or was he retained by someone in the DOJ actually investigating the situation?
What am I thinking? He was retained by the DOJ.
Ergo, he was either paid to cover it up or he was handed a bunch of snow and couldn't come to any true conclusion.
Now if he had actually concluded the DOJ had defrauded the INSLAW firm, yes, he would be dead by an Israeli or FBI or CIA bullet (or he would have "committed suicide") by now.
"It balances out, because he's working against another guy doing exactly the same thing."
Correction, please. It SHOULD balance out.
That's theory.
In reality, it never does balance out - except in cases where a major corporation is opposing a local jurisdiction that can't match the legal funding or manpower.
In most other cases, you have one lawyer (or law firm, again depending on funding) opposing a state-funded operation (which might, however, be incompetent, I'll give you that.)
There's a reason the criminal conviction rate in Federal Court exceeds 98% - and it's not that everybody is guilty.
"Furthermore, I am satisfied that he did whatever is necessary to ensure that "no matches" means that there were in fact no matches and not simply that the filter itself failed to detect them"
Excuse me, but if your only tool says "no match", how do you then in any particular case verify that it is correct - since that's the only tool you have?
Are you suggesting he manually examine everything as verification?
"I have also been retained by the Department of Justice on its investigation of the INSLAW matter. In 1992 (and later in 1995) my task in that engagement was to investigate alleged copyright theft and subsequent cover-up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the United States Customs Service, and the Defense Intelligence Agency."
1) Monopolies ARE illegal - what do you think MS was convicted of? Jaywalking?
2) Monopolies which are not NATURAL monopolies ARE automatically bad because they are coercive distortions of the free market (leaving aside the fact that while we have a state we have no free market) - and even a natural monopoly would be bad if it lasted very long, which most don't.
"If you think the rules protect "monopolists", you should lobby to change the rules.'
Right, I can match Gates' political contributions.
Even if I could, it would be irrelevant, because I would be bribing Congressmen to go with freedom and that's fundamentally opposed to their nature.
And I didn't miss your point. Your point was that the GPL license is bad because it prevents people from licensing proprietary technologies. And I said it does NOT - it merely requires you to buy a different version of the software if you want to use the proprietary product. The problem is thus with the proprietary license, NOT the GPL.
You are saying that Microsoft should force a hardware standard on the industry that requires proprietary licensing so that any open standard is at a disadvantage. Then you blame this on open standards, in effect.
1) The point is that users aren't trusted. MS is selling this as a way to prevent "trusted" users from walking off with corporate data. Assigning rights to trusted users is an administration problem, so they want corporations to be able to bypass that by making the USB hardware unusable on corporate PCs entirely if the corporation so desires.
2) Cringely told you the benefits - namely the USB makers get to sell another billion devices, the corporations get to eliminate a supposed security hole, and MS gets to hurt Linux.
"MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be."
Bullshit. They're scared shitless of Linux on the desktop. It's already a foregone conclusion they're going to lose the server market in the next five or ten years. Desktop is right behind.
Modded "Insightful"??? What, ALL the Windows trolls climb on this one?
As others have pointed out, providing information on the specs is useless if the standard is proprietary, patented or copyrighted, and protected by the DMCA.
Which is why Sender ID is being dumped by most players.
It's not development time, the point is MS wants to PREVENT any Linux development of this (of course, it will be done anyway, but it won't be LEGAL - and for the average user who buys at WalMart or CompUSA that means they won't see Linux there.)
Microsoft has not actually been a TRUE monopoly because it can't use government force to restrict Linux. It has TRIED to be a true monopoly by using restrictive contracts with hardware suppliers which appears to be failing as more and more of them allow Linux to be distributed on their machines - thanks to Microsoft being convicted under the government's definition of monopoly.
HOWEVER, Microsoft with this new scheme IS trying to use government force to support its monopoly position. This is because the new USB devices and software can not legally be reverse-engineered because of the DMCA and because they will patent their new handling of the USB system.
So while Linux is still a competitor to MS, MS is now not only a convicted monopolist according to the government's definition, it is now a monopolist by MY definition.
"But what if your own OS license won't allow you to comply with Microsoft's terms? Well, too bad then. Just remember that it's your own license that's stopping you - not Microsoft."
No - the government is stopping you - because Microsoft will be using IP laws to enforce a monopoly position.
So much for IP laws being for the benefit of inventors.
They NEVER were and NEVER WILL BE used to protect inventors - only monopolists.
Besides which, you're wrong anyway because the scheme can be licensed by any Linux distributor just like SUSE and Mandrake have proprietary extensions to their GPL'd distros. You just wouldn't be able to download them from such distros, you'd have to pay for those versions of the distro.
Which of course would make those distros less desireable than the downloaded versions which in turn would be less useful, which would hurt Linux - which again is Microsoft's intention.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's correct.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) for you humans, it's we Transhumans who will do the dominating. (Not that we care about that, it's just as Linus said - "an unintended side effect.")
And yes, we WILL solve all your problems.
Permanently.
Have a nice day.
It's not the SOFTWARE that will do the acting.
It's the director who directs human actors who will direct the tweaking of the software to get exactly the effects he wants - including emotional ones.
It will be HIS emotions, not the software's, that you see on the screen.
This has nothing to do with getting virtual actors to actually act. That would require AI - and yes, that IS and will continue to be extremely hard to achieve - at least until somebody figures out the core issue which is conceptual processing.
"Even given the technology, how many people/effects teams out there are going to have the talent and skill necessary to create and animate a convincing CG actor doing a good, convincing CG performance? Plus you'll still need good voice actors."
You're forgetting technological improvement. And it won't take "decades" (well, maybe one or two.) The computer hardware and software available by another ten or twenty years will be so good any director will be able to order up any kind of character he wants, AND tweak scenes as he likes, AND generate voiceovers with any emotional content he wants.
Of course, this will result in a lot of bad movies as bad directors ignore the interplay of real actors for their own obsessive interpretation of the movie (see: Lucas, George).
However, good directors will be able to produce great movies exactly as they want them for less money.
Net effect will be like the introduction of word processing on computers: some great documents, and a lot of over-fonted crap.
So the studio pays less money for the RIGHTS to the actor's APPEARANCE, i.e. computer-animated image.
No need for the actor to even show up.
Actors will like that, too - well, some of them, but a lot of them would really prefer to actually act than take money for nothing, because acting is an emotional necessity for them.
However, this will be merely a transitional phase. Eventually, the overwhelming economic sense of simply generating any kind of actor you want will put actors out of the movie business. They will have to return to the physical stage in theater - which will be a benefit for theater (or maybe not.)
"Or are there 100 million insane people in usa all working for the federal government?"
Yes.
By George, I think he's got it!
Absolutely.
/. are accusing Groklaw of being biased. Oh, yes, the Windows trolls, no doubt.
O'Gara appears to be leading the SCO cheerleading team (I thought Enderle was the head cheerleader).
Her polemics against IBM in the article clearly spell out her bias.
And yet some morons here on
Groklaw at least puts up the REAL DOCUMENTS for everyone to read and provides decent legal analysis (for a paralegal, anyway) and the comments also include useful questions and explanations. The polemics come from recognition of the legal and ethical absurdity of the entire SCO operation.
This article is just paid FUD.
"If SCO wins in any of its legal claims"
If that's what you're worried about, the only way that's going to happen is if George Bush (at Bill Gates' order) calls an air strike on IBM HQ with B-52's to root out "Al Qaeda terrorists".
Read my lips (to quote his father). SCO HAS NO CASE. NONE. PERIOD.
And if you can't read the legal and technical analyses in Groklaw, you're too dumb to figure out why SCO has no case anyway.
This isn't a "journalist".
This is some bitch who appears to be working for SCO's PR team based on her polemics against IBM in the article.
Nothing "journalistic" about it (unless of course you have a low opinion of journalists in general as I do.)
This so-called "report" is actually a polemic against IBM by this "Maureen O'Gara" who sounds like she's on SCO's payroll - or at least on their PR team.
Just another SCO PR move.
Nothing to see here, move along.
That's what I thought. OP was asking for some way to verify that the tool "caught it all". By definition, it did, since without the tool, there's no way to verify at all.
Obviously the tool was tested on some test cases before he used it on something like this.
Linux is "advertised" by every tech publication on the planet, which is what is read by corporate IT types (the ones that can read, anyway.)
Aside from some hardware driver issues which are also irrelevant to IT shops since they won't buy anything that doesn't run the OS completely anyway, there are no hardware issues for Linux.
Why do you think MS keeps pushing phoney "TCO" ads attacking Linux? Because they haven't got anything else to say bad about Linux - and what they are saying is bullshit.
That's why I want to see his results in that case.
Was he retained by the DOJ to COVER UP the situation, or was he retained by someone in the DOJ actually investigating the situation?
What am I thinking? He was retained by the DOJ.
Ergo, he was either paid to cover it up or he was handed a bunch of snow and couldn't come to any true conclusion.
Now if he had actually concluded the DOJ had defrauded the INSLAW firm, yes, he would be dead by an Israeli or FBI or CIA bullet (or he would have "committed suicide") by now.
"It balances out, because he's working against another guy doing exactly the same thing."
Correction, please. It SHOULD balance out.
That's theory.
In reality, it never does balance out - except in cases where a major corporation is opposing a local jurisdiction that can't match the legal funding or manpower.
In most other cases, you have one lawyer (or law firm, again depending on funding) opposing a state-funded operation (which might, however, be incompetent, I'll give you that.)
There's a reason the criminal conviction rate in Federal Court exceeds 98% - and it's not that everybody is guilty.
"Furthermore, I am satisfied that he did whatever is necessary to ensure that "no matches" means that there were in fact no matches and not simply that the filter itself failed to detect them"
Excuse me, but if your only tool says "no match", how do you then in any particular case verify that it is correct - since that's the only tool you have?
Are you suggesting he manually examine everything as verification?
Makes no sense.
Here's a better idea!
Everybody on Slashdot download the PDF and email it to Rob with the note: "Have a nice day, Rob!"
"I have also been retained by the Department of Justice on its investigation of the INSLAW matter. In 1992 (and later in 1995) my task in that engagement was to investigate alleged copyright theft and subsequent cover-up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the United States Customs Service, and the Defense Intelligence Agency."
Now THAT would be an interesting read.
Anybody got a link to the results?
1) Monopolies ARE illegal - what do you think MS was convicted of? Jaywalking?
2) Monopolies which are not NATURAL monopolies ARE automatically bad because they are coercive distortions of the free market (leaving aside the fact that while we have a state we have no free market) - and even a natural monopoly would be bad if it lasted very long, which most don't.
Another Windows troll.
"If you think the rules protect "monopolists", you should lobby to change the rules.'
Right, I can match Gates' political contributions.
Even if I could, it would be irrelevant, because I would be bribing Congressmen to go with freedom and that's fundamentally opposed to their nature.
And I didn't miss your point. Your point was that the GPL license is bad because it prevents people from licensing proprietary technologies. And I said it does NOT - it merely requires you to buy a different version of the software if you want to use the proprietary product. The problem is thus with the proprietary license, NOT the GPL.
You are saying that Microsoft should force a hardware standard on the industry that requires proprietary licensing so that any open standard is at a disadvantage. Then you blame this on open standards, in effect.
Sorry, still bullshit.
I know a Windows troll when I see one.
if he can prove Microsoft is looking for security flaws in an "structured" way.
Pardon me while I laugh myself into a coma.
1) The point is that users aren't trusted. MS is selling this as a way to prevent "trusted" users from walking off with corporate data. Assigning rights to trusted users is an administration problem, so they want corporations to be able to bypass that by making the USB hardware unusable on corporate PCs entirely if the corporation so desires.
2) Cringely told you the benefits - namely the USB makers get to sell another billion devices, the corporations get to eliminate a supposed security hole, and MS gets to hurt Linux.
"MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be."
Bullshit. They're scared shitless of Linux on the desktop. It's already a foregone conclusion they're going to lose the server market in the next five or ten years. Desktop is right behind.
Modded "Insightful"??? What, ALL the Windows trolls climb on this one?
As others have pointed out, providing information on the specs is useless if the standard is proprietary, patented or copyrighted, and protected by the DMCA.
Which is why Sender ID is being dumped by most players.
It's not development time, the point is MS wants to PREVENT any Linux development of this (of course, it will be done anyway, but it won't be LEGAL - and for the average user who buys at WalMart or CompUSA that means they won't see Linux there.)
You're sorta both right.
Microsoft has not actually been a TRUE monopoly because it can't use government force to restrict Linux. It has TRIED to be a true monopoly by using restrictive contracts with hardware suppliers which appears to be failing as more and more of them allow Linux to be distributed on their machines - thanks to Microsoft being convicted under the government's definition of monopoly.
HOWEVER, Microsoft with this new scheme IS trying to use government force to support its monopoly position. This is because the new USB devices and software can not legally be reverse-engineered because of the DMCA and because they will patent their new handling of the USB system.
So while Linux is still a competitor to MS, MS is now not only a convicted monopolist according to the government's definition, it is now a monopolist by MY definition.
"But what if your own OS license won't allow you to comply with Microsoft's terms? Well, too bad then. Just remember that it's your own license that's stopping you - not Microsoft."
No - the government is stopping you - because Microsoft will be using IP laws to enforce a monopoly position.
So much for IP laws being for the benefit of inventors.
They NEVER were and NEVER WILL BE used to protect inventors - only monopolists.
Besides which, you're wrong anyway because the scheme can be licensed by any Linux distributor just like SUSE and Mandrake have proprietary extensions to their GPL'd distros. You just wouldn't be able to download them from such distros, you'd have to pay for those versions of the distro.
Which of course would make those distros less desireable than the downloaded versions which in turn would be less useful, which would hurt Linux - which again is Microsoft's intention.
Sorry, your argument is bullshit.
Laptop running Windows:
"I yam that I yam and that's all that I yam" - BSOD...
Laptop running Linux:
"Buy me a hamburger today and I will gladly display an X Window on Tuesday!"