Hacking into your own devices is the only way to get anything useful done.
Define useful.
For many the default capabilities of the device and the default development tools/APIs will suffice. So, I wouldn't say hacking is the only way to get anything useful done.
People are so quick to make broad blanket statements and stereotypes...why is that?
Here is my list of interface devices that should be standard IMHO (in no particular order):
1. Touch pad with gestures that allow the screen to be manipulated (rotate, zoom etc).
2. Touch screen with same capabilities (this would be rarely used - as someone mentioned, doing so with peanut butter on your fingers will mar the view - but would come in handy when quickly trying to located something via the gui). I think GUIs will continue to evolve to make using the touchscreen more efficient - in particular the ability to page quickly through files on the machine a la OSX Leopard stacks and directory preview in the finder.
3. Eye tracking technology - something that can track the position of your focal point to move the pointer to that location (this would allow your fingers to remain on the home row - for those of us who touch type). This could eliminate the need for a touch screen if the interface is done right.
4. Mouse - I disagree with the article, a mouse will continue to be useful as a pointing device, particularly for those of us who play FPSs - unless, of course some other first-person/weapon interface comes along that is superior to that. Maybe that will evolve into something like the Wii controller/namchuk combination to replace the keyboard/mouse combo used today. The current Wii controllers are not good enough to meet the demands of FPS play - too laggy - but I am sure the technology will improve.
As a gamer, I was caught in that never-ending upgrade cycle too. Then I decided to look at things differently.
I started by building my own game system. I picked the parts, and furthermore, I made sure I could upgrade the thing if needed. That machine is still in my network - and has gone through several upgrades over the years - much less costly than buying a new PC from scratch.
Secondly, I decided to replace all the workstations in my house (Windows and Linux) with Apple - exactly because they will last seemingly forever. I expect to recoup the costs I spent up front by not having to upgrade for some time. As an added, unintended result - my users (wife and kids) have stopped complaining...it just works for them - all I had to do was install their software and leave it alone.
Now I am starting to look at ultra low energy consumption and long power-on time for a portable that I can stuff in my backpack -- that may or may not be an Apple.
Not being in Beta didn't prevent Hotmail from changing their retention policies for free accounts without emailing the primary accounts used to open them...
(Back in the day you could let your hotmail account go out of date, then re-establish it - and bingo - all your saved email was there waiting for you. To re-establish it you had to have access to the primary external mail account to get the reset password - so no issue with an outsider re-establishing and getting access to your email. Then they changed the policy and wiped all your saved emails when your account went out of date. You could still re-establish it, but everything was missing. Interestingly this policy change happened immediately after they were acquired by MS.)
What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows...
Every action is preceded by thought - ergo evil lurks in wait. That is why you shouldn't pay attention so much to what corporations and people say as much as examine what they do - then you will have a clearer picture of their intentions.
Also, your example fails: what if I own the car? My intention is to break the glass, and I broke it. What of it (maybe I locked my keys in the car, or maybe I am sponsoring a 'car bash' - money collected going to charity)?
Evil is the intention to hurt someone else (monetarily, physically, emotionally). There has to be at least a second actor in the play...
If you were to post this article and replace Gmail with Microsoft's Hotmail it would be the end of the world and slashdoters would be rising up in the cafeteria to stab them with their plastic forks.
That should read 'plastic spork' -- or better yet Spork of the Gods!
There is no nuance involved. It is simple really - do you think you should be able to patent your recipe for chicken salad, or a mathematical equation you created to solve a problem?
If you answered no to that question, then you have to say no for patenting instructions for a computer.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
I was thinking MSM was some MicroSoft subsidiary; thought they finally came to their senses (or hell had frozen over)...then I read the article. Too good to be true.
Did they patent the instructions encoded on punch cards for the Jacquard Loom or Hollerith calculating machines? No. Did they patent the machines and methods (e.g. calculators and punched card designs)? Yes.
The idea of patenting computer instructions is a recent idea - and a stupid one. It is just another way to play the system for untoward advantage.
It is simple really:
Instructions should be covered by copyright - period. The various computers and peripherals that these instructions address should be covered by patents.
End of story.
Idiots are destabilizing the system for their own gain by characterizing software algorithms as patentable. There is no precedence for this and no good reason to change the characterization of these works.
The endgame here is that matter will be software, and software can be physically represented in matter.
It is irritating when people espouse some belief in technology/science that is totally without merit. At the most fundamental level, a computer is merely a special case implementation of a Turing machine (non-infinite). Human readable software code is translated to machine code, and further to microcode that does a few defined activities that involve reading instructions, adding numbers, and writing output. Furthermore data and instructions are not mutually exclusive.
Whatever is presented in 'matter' is the result of those instructions sending low level instructions to interface devices connected to machines designed to perform the given task (laser etching etc).
As a result - why would we patent the instructions? The patents should be for the physical devices that do the work (the computer, the laser etcher etc); the instructions are already covered by copyright.
Another example, suppose I am selling music for player-pianos (both the sheet music and the rolls of per. The music is already copyrighted - should I also patent the instructions on the player piano music roll that drives the piano?
Did they patent the instructions for the Jacquard loom punch cards, or the calculations encoded in Hollerith punch cards? No. Similarly we shouldn't patent instructions for a computer.
The trouble is that software blurs the distinction between a device (patent) and a work (copyright). The distinction used to be easy. If you had a new type of engine, you got a patent. If you wrote a book, you got a copyright. But software is kinda like writing a book (so it should be copyright), yet it is used to build the internals of an infinitely modifiable machine (so it should be patented).
What you are talking about are instructions for the computer processor - and instructions are most certainly not to be confused with bricks. The computer itself is patentable. The instructions should fall under copyright. Just because the computer is reading the instructions, in addition to humans, doesn't mean they're not words in any case.
Keep the KISS principle in mind. Don't make this more difficult than it has to be.
Also in Ubuntu you can do (assuming you are logged in as root):
cd/; rm -r *...and the shell will happily carry out your instructions - erasing your root partition. It is a feature of Unix/Linux to assume the user wants to do something , even something potentially damaging - and not complain unless an error causes the command to fail. With the GUI window manager you have the option of having additional layers validation for the end user.
It is a difference in interface philosophy. One is for naive users, and the other is for experts.
Additionally an autonomous robot millions of miles away requires special handling because replacement parts are expensive and distant. On the other hand, I could wipe my Linux install, and rebuild it in the course of a few hours - and maybe that is what I intended to do. Vista assumes everyone is a naive user - that is the issue many people have with it.
Why is anyone discussing these nuances WRT the 'three laws' of robotics - the three laws were a thought experiment that the author showed fail!
The complexities involved don't lend themselves to simple 'laws'. It is a sophisticated problem that requires a sophisticated problem particularly when we start talking about human life.
Also - a key point -- these apps that are installed for MAC only have to deal with ONE architecture....not a bazillion architectures (and variations thereof if you include hardware and OS).
This is a problem for the maintainers of the code you are trying to download (e.g. latest untested code) - you need to convince them that it is worth their while to build an installable version of their application using one, or more, of the standard installers (apt, yum, rpm) for your given platform (intel, solaris, ibm etc).
Good luck with that.
If you don't like living within the walls of the distribution (and these walls are variable - e.g. Debian's three distribution model) you are now using - you have essentially two choices:
1. Find a distribution that meets your needs (I like Slackware because there is a very large and well tested selection of apps for it in their package system - slapt/tar).
2. Roll your own (I've done that too when necessary - usually on a non-Slackware system).
Otherwise - get off the bleeding edge and be happy with a stable version that may be several generations behind the state of the art.
I wish more folks would activate their sound/microphones. It is much easier to chat via voice than to try to keep up with 20 people typing away...and with voice I don't even have to be looking at the screen to respond.
Slashdot Mirror
Hacking into your own devices is the only way to get anything useful done.
Define useful.
For many the default capabilities of the device and the default development tools/APIs will suffice. So, I wouldn't say hacking is the only way to get anything useful done.
People are so quick to make broad blanket statements and stereotypes...why is that?
If you knew how to touch type, you wouldn't be hunting and pecking...
Unless they move us from cubicles into offices with doors, I don't want to have anything to do with voice recognition technology.
Here is my list of interface devices that should be standard IMHO (in no particular order):
1. Touch pad with gestures that allow the screen to be manipulated (rotate, zoom etc).
2. Touch screen with same capabilities (this would be rarely used - as someone mentioned, doing so with peanut butter on your fingers will mar the view - but would come in handy when quickly trying to located something via the gui). I think GUIs will continue to evolve to make using the touchscreen more efficient - in particular the ability to page quickly through files on the machine a la OSX Leopard stacks and directory preview in the finder.
3. Eye tracking technology - something that can track the position of your focal point to move the pointer to that location (this would allow your fingers to remain on the home row - for those of us who touch type). This could eliminate the need for a touch screen if the interface is done right.
4. Mouse - I disagree with the article, a mouse will continue to be useful as a pointing device, particularly for those of us who play FPSs - unless, of course some other first-person/weapon interface comes along that is superior to that. Maybe that will evolve into something like the Wii controller/namchuk combination to replace the keyboard/mouse combo used today. The current Wii controllers are not good enough to meet the demands of FPS play - too laggy - but I am sure the technology will improve.
Interesting viewpoint.
As a gamer, I was caught in that never-ending upgrade cycle too. Then I decided to look at things differently.
I started by building my own game system. I picked the parts, and furthermore, I made sure I could upgrade the thing if needed. That machine is still in my network - and has gone through several upgrades over the years - much less costly than buying a new PC from scratch.
Secondly, I decided to replace all the workstations in my house (Windows and Linux) with Apple - exactly because they will last seemingly forever. I expect to recoup the costs I spent up front by not having to upgrade for some time. As an added, unintended result - my users (wife and kids) have stopped complaining...it just works for them - all I had to do was install their software and leave it alone.
Now I am starting to look at ultra low energy consumption and long power-on time for a portable that I can stuff in my backpack -- that may or may not be an Apple.
If you watch Modern Times you will also note this loss of humanity as the movie progresses.
They borrowed admirably from Charles Chaplin's work for Wall-E.
The autopilot's eye was the same eye used by HAL in 2001: A Space Oddessy
When you get older it will feel like it was 'just yesterday...'
Script Kiddie gets over on system! Film at eleven!
There is a YUM package for a MicroSloth product? Will the wonders never cease?
Not being in Beta didn't prevent Hotmail from changing their retention policies for free accounts without emailing the primary accounts used to open them...
(Back in the day you could let your hotmail account go out of date, then re-establish it - and bingo - all your saved email was there waiting for you. To re-establish it you had to have access to the primary external mail account to get the reset password - so no issue with an outsider re-establishing and getting access to your email. Then they changed the policy and wiped all your saved emails when your account went out of date. You could still re-establish it, but everything was missing. Interestingly this policy change happened immediately after they were acquired by MS.)
What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows...
Every action is preceded by thought - ergo evil lurks in wait. That is why you shouldn't pay attention so much to what corporations and people say as much as examine what they do - then you will have a clearer picture of their intentions.
Also, your example fails: what if I own the car? My intention is to break the glass, and I broke it. What of it (maybe I locked my keys in the car, or maybe I am sponsoring a 'car bash' - money collected going to charity)?
Evil is the intention to hurt someone else (monetarily, physically, emotionally). There has to be at least a second actor in the play...
If you were to post this article and replace Gmail with Microsoft's Hotmail it would be the end of the world and slashdoters would be rising up in the cafeteria to stab them with their plastic forks.
That should read 'plastic spork' -- or better yet Spork of the Gods!
...online secrets.
Now there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one...
There is no nuance involved. It is simple really - do you think you should be able to patent your recipe for chicken salad, or a mathematical equation you created to solve a problem?
If you answered no to that question, then you have to say no for patenting instructions for a computer.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
I was thinking MSM was some MicroSoft subsidiary; thought they finally came to their senses (or hell had frozen over)...then I read the article. Too good to be true.
Did they patent the instructions encoded on punch cards for the Jacquard Loom or Hollerith calculating machines? No. Did they patent the machines and methods (e.g. calculators and punched card designs)? Yes.
The idea of patenting computer instructions is a recent idea - and a stupid one. It is just another way to play the system for untoward advantage.
It is simple really:
Instructions should be covered by copyright - period. The various computers and peripherals that these instructions address should be covered by patents.
End of story.
Idiots are destabilizing the system for their own gain by characterizing software algorithms as patentable. There is no precedence for this and no good reason to change the characterization of these works.
The endgame here is that matter will be software, and software can be physically represented in matter.
It is irritating when people espouse some belief in technology/science that is totally without merit. At the most fundamental level, a computer is merely a special case implementation of a Turing machine (non-infinite). Human readable software code is translated to machine code, and further to microcode that does a few defined activities that involve reading instructions, adding numbers, and writing output. Furthermore data and instructions are not mutually exclusive.
Whatever is presented in 'matter' is the result of those instructions sending low level instructions to interface devices connected to machines designed to perform the given task (laser etching etc).
As a result - why would we patent the instructions? The patents should be for the physical devices that do the work (the computer, the laser etcher etc); the instructions are already covered by copyright.
Another example, suppose I am selling music for player-pianos (both the sheet music and the rolls of per. The music is already copyrighted - should I also patent the instructions on the player piano music roll that drives the piano?
Did they patent the instructions for the Jacquard loom punch cards, or the calculations encoded in Hollerith punch cards? No. Similarly we shouldn't patent instructions for a computer.
The trouble is that software blurs the distinction between a device (patent) and a work (copyright). The distinction used to be easy. If you had a new type of engine, you got a patent. If you wrote a book, you got a copyright. But software is kinda like writing a book (so it should be copyright), yet it is used to build the internals of an infinitely modifiable machine (so it should be patented).
What you are talking about are instructions for the computer processor - and instructions are most certainly not to be confused with bricks. The computer itself is patentable. The instructions should fall under copyright. Just because the computer is reading the instructions, in addition to humans, doesn't mean they're not words in any case.
Keep the KISS principle in mind. Don't make this more difficult than it has to be.
Also in Ubuntu you can do (assuming you are logged in as root):
cd /; rm -r * ...and the shell will happily carry out your instructions - erasing your root partition. It is a feature of Unix/Linux to assume the user wants to do something , even something potentially damaging - and not complain unless an error causes the command to fail. With the GUI window manager you have the option of having additional layers validation for the end user.
It is a difference in interface philosophy. One is for naive users, and the other is for experts.
Additionally an autonomous robot millions of miles away requires special handling because replacement parts are expensive and distant. On the other hand, I could wipe my Linux install, and rebuild it in the course of a few hours - and maybe that is what I intended to do. Vista assumes everyone is a naive user - that is the issue many people have with it.
for the second 'problem':
s\problem\solution\
Why is anyone discussing these nuances WRT the 'three laws' of robotics - the three laws were a thought experiment that the author showed fail!
The complexities involved don't lend themselves to simple 'laws'. It is a sophisticated problem that requires a sophisticated problem particularly when we start talking about human life.
I am comfortable in both systems, and as necessary I will calculate conversions between them. Why the big fuss over 50 year old data?
Stop being a cry-baby.
Also - a key point -- these apps that are installed for MAC only have to deal with ONE architecture....not a bazillion architectures (and variations thereof if you include hardware and OS).
This is a problem for the maintainers of the code you are trying to download (e.g. latest untested code) - you need to convince them that it is worth their while to build an installable version of their application using one, or more, of the standard installers (apt, yum, rpm) for your given platform (intel, solaris, ibm etc).
Good luck with that.
If you don't like living within the walls of the distribution (and these walls are variable - e.g. Debian's three distribution model) you are now using - you have essentially two choices:
1. Find a distribution that meets your needs (I like Slackware because there is a very large and well tested selection of apps for it in their package system - slapt/tar).
2. Roll your own (I've done that too when necessary - usually on a non-Slackware system).
Otherwise - get off the bleeding edge and be happy with a stable version that may be several generations behind the state of the art.
I wish more folks would activate their sound/microphones. It is much easier to chat via voice than to try to keep up with 20 people typing away...and with voice I don't even have to be looking at the screen to respond.