You don't get it. If Bell did not come up with the basic foundation, you wouldnt have the ability to have any different sets of numbers. Plus, analogies go only so far. The way the internet works, we have root servers. They have to be situated somewhere. In this case, they are situated in the US where the base technology was invented. DNS does NOT work without TCP/IP. TCP/IP works without DNS.
As for where the CRT was made, yea, everyone can go look it up at good ole wikipedia. But in your fervor you seem to have missed the big "if" and that I was making a hypothetical to demonstrate a point. Where the CRT was actually developed totally is not the point.
All of which is irrelevant as both DNS and the Web rely on the underlying US developments; e.g., TCP/IP et al. That's just the bottom line.
Kind of like if Europe came up with the color TV, yet the basic cathode ray tube (CRT, i.e., B&W TV) was developed in the US, the color TV could not exist but for the underlying foundation in CRT tech.
Granted, Europe and T.B.Lee really are responsible for making the internet explode and become much more useful (at least in my opinion), but it is still fundamentally built atop the the basic internet. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be a fuss.
Actually, the comment was not meant to be a slight on ID or Doom 3. I think the fact that you guys got it working well on the Mac/PPC *is* a feather in your cap. Espeicially when you consider just how different the development/platforms are as between Windows and OS X.
The comment was to show that Game developers are likely to move to Intel as fast as possible and will concentrate their development there because 1) Intel has a pretty good shot at offering better performance for games, and 2) PPC adds costs to your development and it is more difficult to get a broad array of PPC machines to work well for games.
Of course, that's my speculation. You certainly will have a far better insight on those items. Anyway, it seems at least some game developers are eager to move over to the Intel processor and I think it's fair to speculate that it may mean they move away from the PPC side of things (on OS X) sooner rather than later.
Regardless, I certainly did not mean my comments as a put down on ID or Doom. I've always had the upmost respect for you guys and the way you really brought game development to a new level. The way you approached the original Doom and game development back in the NeXT days was beyond impressive and I am a big fan.
Hoping this finds you happy and well John. Best, John
Sorry about the misleading title. (A case of fingers before brain) There are illustrations from the patent, not photos. (Perhaps this can be corrected). Anyway, my apologies on that.
"If you want an evironment where The Voice Of God comes down and tells everyone stop their C/C++ crap and go write Objective C programs, use OS X. It's never going to happen with Linux."
This comes off a lot like, "who cares if it's better, we're all used to something worse and we plan on sticking with it." Which is very much the same argument made by Windows advocates against Linux.
This UI and development environment seems so much better than the standard KDE/GNOME stuff, I've always wondered why this was not championed as a default desktop environment for Linux. There is also some OS X compatibility there as well as far as getting a single code base to compile for both environments. That, the unified display postscript, the great development environment, etc. seem to make it a natural and *sane* front end to the otherwise fragmented UI world of Linux.
With the relative compatibility to the OS X/OPENSTEP libraries and code re-use, there could be a real network effect by making this a default environment for Linux and other Unixes.
Anyone else notice ever since IBM sold off its hard drive business, the rate of drive capacity increases for 3.5" and 2.5" drives has gone to heck? We've barely moved from 320GB to 400GB in roughly that time frame. Its just as bad for laptop drives only going from 60/80GB to 100GB in quite some time.
The only place where there has been some rapid increase is in the iPod 1.8" and 1" size drives. Perhaps it's because there will be much greater volume at these sizes, but one wonders why the slow down. The more conspiracy minded would say that there is not as much incentive to keep the increases going forward at the same pace as IBM once did.
I for one really need more space on my laptop. (No, not for pr0n, but between my MP3s and email alone I'm out over 60GBs).
Anyone else notice ever since IBM sold off its hard drive business, the rate of drive capacity increases for 3.5" and 2.5" drives has gone to heck? We've barely moved from 320GB to 400GB in roughly that time frame. Its just as bad for laptop drives only going from 60/80GB to 100GB in quite some time.
The only place where there has been some rapid increase is in the iPod 1.8" and 1" size drives. Perhaps it's because there will be much greater volume at these sizes, but one wonders why the slow down. The more conspiracy minded would say that there is not as much incentive to keep the increases going forward at the same pace as IBM once did.
I for one really need more space on my laptop. (No, not for pr0n, but between my MP3s and email alone I'm out over 60GBs).
The shady thing is that not all of Verizon's customer service agents are above board with this. When you call them and ask has Bluetooth been disabled and does it fully work, they say "no," which is technically true (there is minimal support for a headset, which "fully" works), but the customer gets a rude surprise when they order the phone and they cannot do a simple address book synch.
Apparently these carriers want to make more money selling you software to sync your address or make you pay for ringtones instead of using your MP3s--you know, things that Bluetooth was designed to help you do.
There is no doubt I will not buy the 650 if they cripple its Bluetooth on Verizon/Sprint or any other network (which is sad as Verizon seems to have the best coverage in the NY area). Although the techies will know, you have to think that the carriers basically can work in an oligopoly like manner and not care and just "coincidentally" all adopt a similar stance. Heck, I'm wishing for too much in them getting their act together on this issue when we still are generations behind Europe and Japan and can't get a simple flat-rate plan like we can for land-lines. The entire thing seems to run like the used-car industry.
In a former life I used to develop under NeXTstep and then OPENSTEP. I freely grant that I do not have great and deep experience in GNUstep development. I have some understand of what is going on simply because it remains so similar to OPENSTEP and OS X development. Also, I still play around developing little things here and there under OS X just as a hobby.
All that being said, for that mumbo jumbo article, yes, I compiled several of the GNUstep applications (that are linked in the article) without incident under OSX.
Your point regarding GNUstep not being 100% compatible is well taken. But it is a far way along. And in some instances a developer is able to keep a single codebase and compile to the two different platforms (GNUstep and Cocoa), NIB files withstanding for now. It's likely this kind of compatibility become more the case as GNUstep continues to evolve, simply because the GNUstep team has been narrowing that gap steadily for some time.
As for your Mac Office not being 100% compatible. Well, if you're going to be pedantic about it, Office for windows is not 100% compatible with itself. First it's not compatible as between different versions (e.g., 97 vs. XP). Also, even with the same versions, because of system/font variances et. al., it will also have issues. All that being said, in my experience, which is not statistically relevant, the variances between the Mac version of Office and Windows version is not significantly greater than the variances between Windows versions. The variances in compatibility between OpenOffice and MS Office are far greater, again, in my experience.
I wrote an article on this a while back. Someone else in this thread asked why would anyone lock themselves into a proprietary development platform when Linux is available. Well, it ain't necessarily so proprietary.
Beyond the obvious allure, i.e., OS X is the only easy to use desktop Unix that natively supports the major productivity applications (i.e., Microsoft Office). That combination is just not available. Yea, OpenOffice is nice, but for those that *need* 100% compatibility, it's not ready for prime time. Just like linux for the desktop.
Anyway, ever since NeXT opened the developer spec for OPENSTEP, GNUstep has been doing a great job of recreating a compile compatible version. What this means is that Cocoa really isn't as proprietary as you might think because it sticks to the OPENSTEP spec. The result is apps developed for GNUstep can be compiled for OS X's cocoa with relatively little fuss or muss. In essence GNUstep is someone Mac compatible.
Personally, I wish people would dump GNOME and KDE and adopt GNUstep with display ghostscript, a unified class structure, a great GUI, and Linux underpinnings; it is OS X for Linux. Ok, it's more like NeXTSTEP for Linux. Anyway, if anyone takes it mainstream it could mean big problems for Apple.
I think everyone can legitimately confuse evolutionary and revolutionary. Basically the only difference is degree and time. Certain things have evolved over the last 100 years or so. But I bet if we take a car today and compare it to a car from about a century ago, we would find the differences to be revolutionary.
The reality is that people have different thresholds for that degree and time frame. Ergo we have marketing people telling us we're going through our one zillionth revolution, and 20'something geek-know-it-alls that would condemn a teleporter as obvious in hindsight to start trek.
From the decision in case you didn't read it:
"An investigator who sells personal information sells the information for the value of the information itself, not to take advantage of the person's reputation or prestige. The investigator does not capitalize upon the goodwill value associated with the information but rather upon the client's willingness to pay for the information. In other words, the benefit derived from the sale in no way relates to the social or commercial standing of the person whose information is sold."
It has to do with "standing of the person." So yea, it does have to do with celebrity.
Similarly, if you read section V of the decision, you'll see it's not limited to a commercial purpose, but any deceptive practice in commerce. And if you've studied the commerce clause you know that spreads to about everything in practice. So no, you don't have to be paid to make the call, there just has to be some commercial harm (lost time/revenue, which has been found to suffice).
Although most of the decision is sound, I think that Duggan et al. got Question 4 of the decision wrong and a bunch of the reasoning of Question 5 wrong. Since they were wholesale changing the law on 4, there's no reason to artificially reserve the misappropriation of a name or likeness to a person's reputation or prestige, i.e., to celebrities. Jeezus, how many celebrities are in NH anyway, 2? They go to pains to talk about how widespread and damaging identity theft is and then close of the cause of action to a scant few. While Question 5 seems to cast an overly broad net. Jeez, anytime you make a call under a false pretext you're subject to a deceptive practices act!? No more calling the video store and asking "how late are you open" when all you wanted to know is if they're open right now. Jeez, no more prank phone calls unless you truly do want them to let Prince Albert out of his can.
It's tough to take anything they say too seriously when they seem not to have bothered to do the most BASIC research and/or fact checking. They cite incorrect durations for both patents and copyrights. A rather impressive feat.
Design patents have a term of 14 years. Utility patents have a term of 20 years from filing. They had it reverse. Also, the current term for copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years, not 50 years--this was changed several years ago (is the piece that old?)--and I believe one of the reasons Disney and others had an excuse to request extensions of copyright law (yea right to "harmonize" the old and new law/copyright term).
That's in the first 4 pages of chapter 1. Perhaps they are typos and not indications of the intellectual rigor that went into the book.
Re:Antitrust immunity probably not a defense here
on
Kazaa Fights Back
·
· Score: 1
If no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits, then the justice department would not have been investigating the industry for antitrust violations. Or the government would have to admit that it is completely unreasonable.:) When the PRE case went up to the supremes, they were adjudicating on the basis of a "sham" antitrust suit. I don't think that applies to an industry that has been repeatedly probed for antitrust problems by the governement. That being said, KaZaa may well lose on the merits, but more than likely will clear the "sham" hurdle espoused by the PRE case. Assuming enough money and will by both parties, this case should go through trial.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get it. If Bell did not come up with the basic foundation, you wouldnt have the ability to have any different sets of numbers. Plus, analogies go only so far. The way the internet works, we have root servers. They have to be situated somewhere. In this case, they are situated in the US where the base technology was invented. DNS does NOT work without TCP/IP. TCP/IP works without DNS.
As for where the CRT was made, yea, everyone can go look it up at good ole wikipedia. But in your fervor you seem to have missed the big "if" and that I was making a hypothetical to demonstrate a point. Where the CRT was actually developed totally is not the point.
All of which is irrelevant as both DNS and the Web rely on the underlying US developments; e.g., TCP/IP et al. That's just the bottom line.
Kind of like if Europe came up with the color TV, yet the basic cathode ray tube (CRT, i.e., B&W TV) was developed in the US, the color TV could not exist but for the underlying foundation in CRT tech.
Granted, Europe and T.B.Lee really are responsible for making the internet explode and become much more useful (at least in my opinion), but it is still fundamentally built atop the the basic internet. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be a fuss.
Actually, the comment was not meant to be a slight on ID or Doom 3. I think the fact that you guys got it working well on the Mac/PPC *is* a feather in your cap. Espeicially when you consider just how different the development/platforms are as between Windows and OS X.
The comment was to show that Game developers are likely to move to Intel as fast as possible and will concentrate their development there because 1) Intel has a pretty good shot at offering better performance for games, and 2) PPC adds costs to your development and it is more difficult to get a broad array of PPC machines to work well for games.
Of course, that's my speculation. You certainly will have a far better insight on those items. Anyway, it seems at least some game developers are eager to move over to the Intel processor and I think it's fair to speculate that it may mean they move away from the PPC side of things (on OS X) sooner rather than later.
Regardless, I certainly did not mean my comments as a put down on ID or Doom. I've always had the upmost respect for you guys and the way you really brought game development to a new level. The way you approached the original Doom and game development back in the NeXT days was beyond impressive and I am a big fan.
Hoping this finds you happy and well John.
Best,
John
Sorry about the misleading title. (A case of fingers before brain) There are illustrations from the patent, not photos. (Perhaps this can be corrected). Anyway, my apologies on that.
"If you want an evironment where The Voice Of God comes down and tells everyone stop their C/C++ crap and go write Objective C programs, use OS X. It's never going to happen with Linux." This comes off a lot like, "who cares if it's better, we're all used to something worse and we plan on sticking with it." Which is very much the same argument made by Windows advocates against Linux.
This UI and development environment seems so much better than the standard KDE/GNOME stuff, I've always wondered why this was not championed as a default desktop environment for Linux. There is also some OS X compatibility there as well as far as getting a single code base to compile for both environments. That, the unified display postscript, the great development environment, etc. seem to make it a natural and *sane* front end to the otherwise fragmented UI world of Linux.
With the relative compatibility to the OS X/OPENSTEP libraries and code re-use, there could be a real network effect by making this a default environment for Linux and other Unixes.
Anyone else notice ever since IBM sold off its hard drive business, the rate of drive capacity increases for 3.5" and 2.5" drives has gone to heck? We've barely moved from 320GB to 400GB in roughly that time frame. Its just as bad for laptop drives only going from 60/80GB to 100GB in quite some time.
The only place where there has been some rapid increase is in the iPod 1.8" and 1" size drives. Perhaps it's because there will be much greater volume at these sizes, but one wonders why the slow down. The more conspiracy minded would say that there is not as much incentive to keep the increases going forward at the same pace as IBM once did.
I for one really need more space on my laptop. (No, not for pr0n, but between my MP3s and email alone I'm out over 60GBs).
Anyone else notice ever since IBM sold off its hard drive business, the rate of drive capacity increases for 3.5" and 2.5" drives has gone to heck? We've barely moved from 320GB to 400GB in roughly that time frame. Its just as bad for laptop drives only going from 60/80GB to 100GB in quite some time.
The only place where there has been some rapid increase is in the iPod 1.8" and 1" size drives. Perhaps it's because there will be much greater volume at these sizes, but one wonders why the slow down. The more conspiracy minded would say that there is not as much incentive to keep the increases going forward at the same pace as IBM once did.
I for one really need more space on my laptop. (No, not for pr0n, but between my MP3s and email alone I'm out over 60GBs).
Apparently Verizon crippled its first Bluetooth phone (Motorola v710). See here:
http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/v710.html
The shady thing is that not all of Verizon's customer service agents are above board with this. When you call them and ask has Bluetooth been disabled and does it fully work, they say "no," which is technically true (there is minimal support for a headset, which "fully" works), but the customer gets a rude surprise when they order the phone and they cannot do a simple address book synch.
Apparently these carriers want to make more money selling you software to sync your address or make you pay for ringtones instead of using your MP3s--you know, things that Bluetooth was designed to help you do.
There is no doubt I will not buy the 650 if they cripple its Bluetooth on Verizon/Sprint or any other network (which is sad as Verizon seems to have the best coverage in the NY area). Although the techies will know, you have to think that the carriers basically can work in an oligopoly like manner and not care and just "coincidentally" all adopt a similar stance. Heck, I'm wishing for too much in them getting their act together on this issue when we still are generations behind Europe and Japan and can't get a simple flat-rate plan like we can for land-lines. The entire thing seems to run like the used-car industry.
In a former life I used to develop under NeXTstep and then OPENSTEP. I freely grant that I do not have great and deep experience in GNUstep development. I have some understand of what is going on simply because it remains so similar to OPENSTEP and OS X development. Also, I still play around developing little things here and there under OS X just as a hobby.
All that being said, for that mumbo jumbo article, yes, I compiled several of the GNUstep applications (that are linked in the article) without incident under OSX.
Your point regarding GNUstep not being 100% compatible is well taken. But it is a far way along. And in some instances a developer is able to keep a single codebase and compile to the two different platforms (GNUstep and Cocoa), NIB files withstanding for now. It's likely this kind of compatibility become more the case as GNUstep continues to evolve, simply because the GNUstep team has been narrowing that gap steadily for some time.
As for your Mac Office not being 100% compatible. Well, if you're going to be pedantic about it, Office for windows is not 100% compatible with itself. First it's not compatible as between different versions (e.g., 97 vs. XP). Also, even with the same versions, because of system/font variances et. al., it will also have issues. All that being said, in my experience, which is not statistically relevant, the variances between the Mac version of Office and Windows version is not significantly greater than the variances between Windows versions. The variances in compatibility between OpenOffice and MS Office are far greater, again, in my experience.
As always, YMMV.
I wrote an article on this a while back. Someone else in this thread asked why would anyone lock themselves into a proprietary development platform when Linux is available. Well, it ain't necessarily so proprietary.
Beyond the obvious allure, i.e., OS X is the only easy to use desktop Unix that natively supports the major productivity applications (i.e., Microsoft Office). That combination is just not available. Yea, OpenOffice is nice, but for those that *need* 100% compatibility, it's not ready for prime time. Just like linux for the desktop.
Anyway, ever since NeXT opened the developer spec for OPENSTEP, GNUstep has been doing a great job of recreating a compile compatible version. What this means is that Cocoa really isn't as proprietary as you might think because it sticks to the OPENSTEP spec. The result is apps developed for GNUstep can be compiled for OS X's cocoa with relatively little fuss or muss. In essence GNUstep is someone Mac compatible.
Personally, I wish people would dump GNOME and KDE and adopt GNUstep with display ghostscript, a unified class structure, a great GUI, and Linux underpinnings; it is OS X for Linux. Ok, it's more like NeXTSTEP for Linux. Anyway, if anyone takes it mainstream it could mean big problems for Apple.
I think everyone can legitimately confuse evolutionary and revolutionary. Basically the only difference is degree and time. Certain things have evolved over the last 100 years or so. But I bet if we take a car today and compare it to a car from about a century ago, we would find the differences to be revolutionary. The reality is that people have different thresholds for that degree and time frame. Ergo we have marketing people telling us we're going through our one zillionth revolution, and 20'something geek-know-it-alls that would condemn a teleporter as obvious in hindsight to start trek.
"This has nothing to do with celebrity."
From the decision in case you didn't read it: "An investigator who sells personal information sells the information for the value of the information itself, not to take advantage of the person's reputation or prestige. The investigator does not capitalize upon the goodwill value associated with the information but rather upon the client's willingness to pay for the information. In other words, the benefit derived from the sale in no way relates to the social or commercial standing of the person whose information is sold."
It has to do with "standing of the person." So yea, it does have to do with celebrity.
Similarly, if you read section V of the decision, you'll see it's not limited to a commercial purpose, but any deceptive practice in commerce. And if you've studied the commerce clause you know that spreads to about everything in practice. So no, you don't have to be paid to make the call, there just has to be some commercial harm (lost time/revenue, which has been found to suffice).
Although most of the decision is sound, I think that Duggan et al. got Question 4 of the decision wrong and a bunch of the reasoning of Question 5 wrong. Since they were wholesale changing the law on 4, there's no reason to artificially reserve the misappropriation of a name or likeness to a person's reputation or prestige, i.e., to celebrities. Jeezus, how many celebrities are in NH anyway, 2? They go to pains to talk about how widespread and damaging identity theft is and then close of the cause of action to a scant few. While Question 5 seems to cast an overly broad net. Jeez, anytime you make a call under a false pretext you're subject to a deceptive practices act!? No more calling the video store and asking "how late are you open" when all you wanted to know is if they're open right now. Jeez, no more prank phone calls unless you truly do want them to let Prince Albert out of his can.
It's tough to take anything they say too seriously when they seem not to have bothered to do the most BASIC research and/or fact checking. They cite incorrect durations for both patents and copyrights. A rather impressive feat.
Design patents have a term of 14 years. Utility patents have a term of 20 years from filing. They had it reverse. Also, the current term for copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years, not 50 years--this was changed several years ago (is the piece that old?)--and I believe one of the reasons Disney and others had an excuse to request extensions of copyright law (yea right to "harmonize" the old and new law/copyright term).
That's in the first 4 pages of chapter 1. Perhaps they are typos and not indications of the intellectual rigor that went into the book.
If no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits, then the justice department would not have been investigating the industry for antitrust violations. Or the government would have to admit that it is completely unreasonable. :) When the PRE case went up to the supremes, they were adjudicating on the basis of a "sham" antitrust suit. I don't think that applies to an industry that has been repeatedly probed for antitrust problems by the governement. That being said, KaZaa may well lose on the merits, but more than likely will clear the "sham" hurdle espoused by the PRE case. Assuming enough money and will by both parties, this case should go through trial.