I had some trouble getting the document so I've put a copy here.
I remember reading about this back around 1994, 5, or 6. I thought the bill had been killed in Congress, but clearly I was wrong. From what I recall it is a very bad bill, but I haven't read it in over a year. If I can I will submit a review or an annotated version to TECHNOCRAT.NET or SlashDot. Of course, I have no idea if it will go through on either site.
Is any one working on creating GUI's that are as cool/neat/whatever as those that Flash sites have? Are there any design principles that can enhance productivity, either on the desktop or in a handheld interface to a real world system?
Maybe I watch SciFi too much, but their interstitial interface eye-candy is really appealing. (And I don't mean themes, damnit!)
My first impression is that it looks like Apple finished the Berlin project. (Just had to say that.;)
Regarding anti-aliased fonts: There's actually a simple way to do that, but it eats RAM like a wumpus. The simple way is not to use fonts at all, but instead to create pixmaps (e.g. XPM format) that have anti-aliased text. This would only be useful on a system with lots(lots) of RAM and then only useful for largely static content like menus, dialogs etc.
Regaring themes: (By Jove, I'm getting sick of that word!) There's more involved in emulating the Mac interface than drawing pretty pictures, even if you manage to get the translucency. One of the best features of the Mac is its respect of screen real-estate. For starters, you'd have to code an app to place it's menubar at the top of the screen, but then the inconsistency across various apps would defeat this.
Themes look nice, but there's more to a GUI than looks. (Beauty is only skin deep, eh? Why do I feel compelled to say this to geeks? Geeks my age (I won't say) certainly appreciated that. Maybe the difference is that 'geekness' is now the 'cool' thing, whereas it used to be the 'right' thing?)
Well, I've got a library to write; "Next workspace!":-)
Re:Random RISC OS trivia by an ex-user
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 1
From what you describe and what I remember, the early versions of OS/2 worked this way. I quit buying it after the first edition called 'warp', so I don't know if that has changed. Also, I don't recall how the filesystem was structured, but I think most of an app's files were found in a single directory.
I haven't played with it much, but dfm is supposed to be like OS/2's desktop.
But I think there's a difference between the Bell monopoly and the Microsoft monopoly. The Bell monopoly was far more capable of becoming a natural monopoly because of network effects. Microsoft didn't know what a network was until the mid-nineties, though they seem to have understood network effects. (Maybe they still don't know what a network is? Heh, heh.:)
Strangely, the government granted AT&T a fiat monopoly which explicitly prevented anyone else from competing. So far as I know, they didn't do this with Microsoft.
You might say Microsoft earned a monopoly while AT&T was given a monopoly. Of course, that's assuming that Microsoft didn't steal anything (or otherwise violate anyone's rights) and you'd also have to ignore the effect of IBM choosing MS-DOS as an operating system
There was an article by Ayn Rand entitled (IIRC), "The Property Status of Airwaves". If I have a copy of it, I can't find it, so I'm working from memory here.
She stated that the FCC regards all bandwidths as its property, which it lets broadcasters use - if they abide by its every fiat. She saw a number of problems with this including the possibility of censorship or favoritism.
Her solution was that the bandwidths be homesteaded and be regarded as private property, with all that that implies. Broadcasting in someone elses bandwidth would be theft. Broadcasting slanderous or fraudulent claims would be prosecuted as such.
(What follows are my own thoughts, not her's.)
Under this system, (explicit) government censorship would be impossible, because there would be no license to revoke. Illegal methods of censorship, such as murder or bandwidth flooding, are still possible, but that would be an overt act and surely people would act to overthrow a government that would resort to such methods. Less overtly, the government could 'fail' to protect the rights of a broadcaster, which would 'permit' another entity with greater broadcasting power to seize control. I don't know what can be done to prevent these 'planned failures'. I also do not know what could be done about people who, failing to maintain broadcast capabilities, would not sell their claims to bandwidths; A sufficiently monied and motivated fool could buy large parts of the spectrum and leave the air dead.
If the bandwidths were private property, the governments function would be merely to keep public record of ownership and protect that property. This same principle could be applied to IP addresses and domain-names. The government's only acts would be to keep record and protect. At least with regard to domain names, most of the disputes would be easily solved. Someone with a valid IP address would step foward to lay claim to a name. (A commercial entity could not register in the org tld, because that would be fraudulent.) Name squatting would be limited by the need to have a valid IP, but name speculating would not be. (Ain't I a clever wordsmith!). Domain names would not be regarded as even comparable to trademarks just as call letters are not. Come to think of it, there might be a good analogy there: frequency is to call letters as IP addresses are to domain-names. Of course, it's not a perfect analogy. However, if time-domain broadcasting ever takes off, that could change.
Of course, I'm thinking from within the USA, and the internet in worldwide, so there's lot's of things I haven't considered here. IANA and NetworkSolutions seem to have worked, in the sense of not censoring content; perhaps there we have a good model of non-government regulation that needs to be studied further. But of course, IANA et al. have their authority from DARPA or some other parts of governments, so this is more complicated than I care to consider in just this post.
I hope that Dr. Farber is able to bring some wisdom to the FCC instead of being touted as an approving seer when the FCC does something bad. Hopefully, he will be courageous enough to survive and change that pandemonium, or to expose it when needed, or to abandon it and disavow it when he can do no more.
The XPM library is supposedly going to be included in 4.0. (No need to track another library.) I think there will also be more support for X apps to be run over the web, but that might be a seperate project. If this does take place, it could provide serious leverage for OS's that use X for the primary windowing system (as opposed to the X Servers that run on MS products). Remember X was designed for network computing. I'd expect to see a lot of action on this front.
I was being lazy about the £. I don't often use it, and had to look up the code for this post. Sorry.
The credit Babbage receives in the history of computing is still undeserved. He did not finish his work, but instead went on to denounce the government for refusing to fund science. In 1830, he published Decline of Science in Britain. But science was hardly on the decline, though government funding was. For example, the next year Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction.
Scientific progress often continues despite government funding.
Babbage persuaded the British government to give him 17,000 lbs. (Wage at the time was 2lbs./week) to build his Difference Engine. When he had spent the money, the engine had still not been built. Instead of trying to finish the job he tried to get more funding for the government to create the 'Analytical Engine'. Since he had failed to produce any results, the government did not grant the funding.
When the Difference Engine was built nearly 20 years later, it was by two Swedish engineers, Pehr Georg and Edward Georg Scheutz at the cost of 566 lbs.
They managed to sell two of these devices, both to governments. The Engine was little better than a mechanical abacus and the mathematical tables of the time did a much better job at a lower cost.
Hmm... I wonder if I can get windows for my home office? Or maybe for my car? Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Even better!
Windows for Exterior Walls!
Aren't trademarks on common words not allowed? Seems like 'Windows' would have been defenestrated years ago. Maybe it wasn't because a computer window is not like a architectual window. But then again, windowing in GUI's has been around since...GUI's were invented (IIRC). Isn't that enough to get it tossed out the court... well, you know.
Unless you count a classic method of leaving a bar, it seems like the Russian trademark should hold more beer^H^H^H^Hwater.
Please understand, I have no objections to genetically engineered foods. And I strongly doubt that Monsanto intends to make dangerous foods. What concerns me is the cavalier attitude of their PR guy towards liability and that it may represent the company.
"It's not my responsibility to decide if this product is safe," which seems to be Monsanto's position That's exactly my concern. It is their responsibility, just as it is the responsibility of a gun owner to take reasonable precautions (e.g., not leaving it publicly accessible) to prevent misuse of his gun.
I think your interpretation of my interpretation is far from the mark. Their position seems to be, "We'll do as we please (the rights of others be damned)." It doesn't seem to be, "Let's damn the rights of others." My implied accusation is one of criminal negligence, not attempted murder.
I did rationally consider the situation, and came to the conclusion that at least their PR guy seemed perfectly willing to act in a reckless manner that could endanger the life of every one of their customers. On the basis of that conclusion and given that I do not know what to do about the actual, daily, widespread violations of individual rights, I am very upset, angry, and sad. If I knew what to do, I'd do it; but I don't, so I screamed my head off (at least metaphorically) and then posted to slashdot asking for advice.
** A Monsanto official told the NEW YORK TIMES that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job," Angell said.
I have built an atomic bomb. I should not have to vouchsafe that it will not detonate. My interest is in creating the most powerful atomic bomb possible. Assuring its safety is the NRC's job.
What can one do about this other than scream one's head off? Really, if anyone has an answer, please tell me.
DISCLAIMER: I have not really built an atomic bomb.
Closed-source software companies care about cross-platform binaries. It could also reduce server load for Linux distributors. Sun's Java would face stern competition.
The problem might be Netscape. Netscape doesn't recognize stylesheets unless JavaScript is turned on. It's the number one problem as far as I'm concerned.
Good question about the CD's. Why do they have to mix the data and software?
On a related note, I keep wondering what kind of crap Gates is going to pull with Corbis. Who ever heard of such a thing as exclusive rights to digital reproductions of great works of art? Talk about claiming to own things you didn't create, hmph!
This is from a story I submitted that was rejected, maybe this is a better place for it. (It would be nice if the submit.pl could say just one word about the reason for rejection, so that I may learn how to write better submissions.)
"I was working at my box and listening to CNN. A subordinate clause spoken there indicated that Microsoft intends to push Windows Media Player over mp3 because of the copyright protections it affords. I tried to find a press release on microsoft.com, but found very little. What I did find were claims to compression superiority over mp3 and general references to pay-per-view media formats and the like. The compressi on stats were based on conversions of WAV's and PCM's to both formats with Microsoft claiming 50% greater compression at the same quality level. The pay-per-view idea reminds me of RMS's 'Right to Read' essay. Regardless of what happens with Yahoo! and Real Networks, if an open source competitor doesn't appear, this could threaten the viability of free software in the desktop market."
When I cut, pasted and previewed just now, I found errors in what was displayed. Such as the failure to acknowledge the closing tag at 'claims'. I kluged it for this post. There was also a stray caret-M which MS uses for EOL. I wonder why we haven't seen recent sources for slashdot.;)
Slashdot Mirror
I had some trouble getting the document so I've put a copy here.
I remember reading about this back around 1994, 5, or 6. I thought the bill had been killed in Congress, but clearly I was wrong. From what I recall it is a very bad bill, but I haven't read it in over a year. If I can I will submit a review or an annotated version to TECHNOCRAT.NET or SlashDot. Of course, I have no idea if it will go through on either site.
Whether or not this is true, I have a question.
Is any one working on creating GUI's that are as cool/neat/whatever as those that Flash sites have? Are there any design principles that can enhance productivity, either on the desktop or in a handheld interface to a real world system?
Maybe I watch SciFi too much, but their interstitial interface eye-candy is really appealing. (And I don't mean themes, damnit!)
There should be no need for licensing.
Chalupa is an actual word in Mexican Spanish that names an actual food. IIRC, it is a food very similar to what Taco Bell sells under the same name.
(Darn it, I'd better disclaim.) I'm not Mexican, I don't work for Taco Bell, yadda, yadda...;)
My first impression is that it looks like Apple finished the Berlin project. (Just had to say that. ;)
:-)
Regarding anti-aliased fonts: There's actually a simple way to do that, but it eats RAM like a wumpus. The simple way is not to use fonts at all, but instead to create pixmaps (e.g. XPM format) that have anti-aliased text. This would only be useful on a system with lots(lots) of RAM and then only useful for largely static content like menus, dialogs etc.
Regaring themes: (By Jove, I'm getting sick of that word!) There's more involved in emulating the Mac interface than drawing pretty pictures, even if you manage to get the translucency. One of the best features of the Mac is its respect of screen real-estate. For starters, you'd have to code an app to place it's menubar at the top of the screen, but then the inconsistency across various apps would defeat this.
Themes look nice, but there's more to a GUI than looks. (Beauty is only skin deep, eh? Why do I feel compelled to say this to geeks? Geeks my age (I won't say) certainly appreciated that. Maybe the difference is that 'geekness' is now the 'cool' thing, whereas it used to be the 'right' thing?)
Well, I've got a library to write; "Next workspace!"
From what you describe and what I remember, the early versions of OS/2 worked this way. I quit buying it after the first edition called 'warp', so I don't know if that has changed. Also, I don't recall how the filesystem was structured, but I think most of an app's files were found in a single directory.
I haven't played with it much, but dfm is supposed to be like OS/2's desktop.
But I think there's a difference between the Bell monopoly and the Microsoft monopoly. The Bell monopoly was far more capable of becoming a natural monopoly because of network effects. Microsoft didn't know what a network was until the mid-nineties, though they seem to have understood network effects. (Maybe they still don't know what a network is? Heh, heh. :)
Strangely, the government granted AT&T a fiat monopoly which explicitly prevented anyone else from competing. So far as I know, they didn't do this with Microsoft.
You might say Microsoft earned a monopoly while AT&T was given a monopoly. Of course, that's assuming that Microsoft didn't steal anything (or otherwise violate anyone's rights) and you'd also have to ignore the effect of IBM choosing MS-DOS as an operating system
I'm sure I'll get some flames for this, but . . .
There was an article by Ayn Rand entitled (IIRC), "The Property Status of Airwaves". If I have a copy of it, I can't find it, so I'm working from memory here.
She stated that the FCC regards all bandwidths as its property, which it lets broadcasters use - if they abide by its every fiat. She saw a number of problems with this including the possibility of censorship or favoritism.
Her solution was that the bandwidths be homesteaded and be regarded as private property, with all that that implies. Broadcasting in someone elses bandwidth would be theft. Broadcasting slanderous or fraudulent claims would be prosecuted as such.
(What follows are my own thoughts, not her's.)
Under this system, (explicit) government censorship would be impossible, because there would be no license to revoke. Illegal methods of censorship, such as murder or bandwidth flooding, are still possible, but that would be an overt act and surely people would act to overthrow a government that would resort to such methods. Less overtly, the government could 'fail' to protect the rights of a broadcaster, which would 'permit' another entity with greater broadcasting power to seize control. I don't know what can be done to prevent these 'planned failures'. I also do not know what could be done about people who, failing to maintain broadcast capabilities, would not sell their claims to bandwidths; A sufficiently monied and motivated fool could buy large parts of the spectrum and leave the air dead.
If the bandwidths were private property, the governments function would be merely to keep public record of ownership and protect that property. This same principle could be applied to IP addresses and domain-names. The government's only acts would be to keep record and protect. At least with regard to domain names, most of the disputes would be easily solved. Someone with a valid IP address would step foward to lay claim to a name. (A commercial entity could not register in the org tld, because that would be fraudulent.) Name squatting would be limited by the need to have a valid IP, but name speculating would not be. (Ain't I a clever wordsmith!). Domain names would not be regarded as even comparable to trademarks just as call letters are not. Come to think of it, there might be a good analogy there: frequency is to call letters as IP addresses are to domain-names. Of course, it's not a perfect analogy. However, if time-domain broadcasting ever takes off, that could change.
Of course, I'm thinking from within the USA, and the internet in worldwide, so there's lot's of things I haven't considered here. IANA and NetworkSolutions seem to have worked, in the sense of not censoring content; perhaps there we have a good model of non-government regulation that needs to be studied further. But of course, IANA et al. have their authority from DARPA or some other parts of governments, so this is more complicated than I care to consider in just this post.
I hope that Dr. Farber is able to bring some wisdom to the FCC instead of being touted as an approving seer when the FCC does something bad. Hopefully, he will be courageous enough to survive and change that pandemonium, or to expose it when needed, or to abandon it and disavow it when he can do no more.
The XPM library is supposedly going to be included in 4.0. (No need to track another library.) I think there will also be more support for X apps to be run over the web, but that might be a seperate project. If this does take place, it could provide serious leverage for OS's that use X for the primary windowing system (as opposed to the X Servers that run on MS products). Remember X was designed for network computing. I'd expect to see a lot of action on this front.
I was being lazy about the £. I don't often use it, and had to look up the code for this post. Sorry.
The credit Babbage receives in the history of computing is still undeserved. He did not finish his work, but instead went on to denounce the government for refusing to fund science. In 1830, he published Decline of Science in Britain. But science was hardly on the decline, though government funding was. For example, the next year Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction.
Scientific progress often continues despite government funding.
Yes. I was being lazy. Sorry, if I offended anyone.
I will be more diligent in the future.
Regarding Babbage, see my other post.
Nay on Babbage. Seemy other post.
We would be where we are today or further along.
Babbage persuaded the British government to give him 17,000 lbs. (Wage at the time was 2lbs./week) to build his Difference Engine. When he had spent the money, the engine had still not been built. Instead of trying to finish the job he tried to get more funding for the government to create the 'Analytical Engine'. Since he had failed to produce any results, the government did not grant the funding.
When the Difference Engine was built nearly 20 years later, it was by two Swedish engineers, Pehr Georg and Edward Georg Scheutz at the cost of 566 lbs.
They managed to sell two of these devices, both to governments. The Engine was little better than a mechanical abacus and the mathematical tables of the time did a much better job at a lower cost.
Hmm... I wonder if I can get windows for my home office? Or maybe for my car? Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Even better!
... well, you know.
Windows for Exterior Walls!
Aren't trademarks on common words not allowed? Seems like 'Windows' would have been defenestrated years ago. Maybe it wasn't because a computer window is not like a architectual window. But then again, windowing in GUI's has been around since...GUI's were invented (IIRC). Isn't that enough to get it tossed out the court
Unless you count a classic method of leaving a bar, it seems like the Russian trademark should hold more beer^H^H^H^Hwater.
Waiter! There's a bug in my Windows!
I have been wondering...
Where did all the money supposedly spent on fixing this 'problem' really go?
Hmm...
More importantly, to what extent am I joking?
Diesel engine on fast food grease pits has been done. Go to http://www.veggievan.org. The guy who did it is a friend of mine. It's a great story.
# hwclock
Sat Jan 1 00:00:00 2000 -0.000000
#
Whoo hooo!
Happy New Year!
And I resolve to use dict before posting and not after.
s/sphinchter/sphincter/
Can I say I was trying to be ironic?
Hemos, Hemos, Hemos,...
You must remember to put the tilde in your new years resolution and learn to spell.
El Ano Neuvo == The Neuvo anal sphinchter.
El Año Nuevo == The New Year
Please understand, I have no objections to genetically engineered foods. And I strongly doubt that Monsanto intends to make dangerous foods. What concerns me is the cavalier attitude of their PR guy towards liability and that it may represent the company.
"It's not my responsibility to decide if this product is safe," which seems to be Monsanto's position
That's exactly my concern. It is their responsibility, just as it is the responsibility of a gun owner to take reasonable precautions (e.g., not leaving it publicly accessible) to prevent misuse of his gun.
I think your interpretation of my interpretation is far from the mark. Their position seems to be, "We'll do as we please (the rights of others be damned)." It doesn't seem to be, "Let's damn the rights of others." My implied accusation is one of criminal negligence, not attempted murder.
I did rationally consider the situation, and came to the conclusion that at least their PR guy seemed perfectly willing to act in a reckless manner that could endanger the life of every one of their customers. On the basis of that conclusion and given that I do not know what to do about the actual, daily, widespread violations of individual rights, I am very upset, angry, and sad. If I knew what to do, I'd do it; but I don't, so I screamed my head off (at least metaphorically) and then posted to slashdot asking for advice.
I have built an atomic bomb. I should not have to vouchsafe that it will not detonate. My interest is in creating the most powerful atomic bomb possible. Assuring its safety is the NRC's job.
What can one do about this other than scream one's head off? Really, if anyone has an answer, please tell me.
DISCLAIMER: I have not really built an atomic bomb.
Closed-source software companies care about cross-platform binaries. It could also reduce server load for Linux distributors. Sun's Java would face stern competition.
The problem might be Netscape. Netscape doesn't recognize stylesheets unless JavaScript is turned on. It's the number one problem as far as I'm concerned.
Good question about the CD's. Why do they have to mix the data and software?
On a related note, I keep wondering what kind of crap Gates is going to pull with Corbis. Who ever heard of such a thing as exclusive rights to digital reproductions of great works of art? Talk about claiming to own things you didn't create, hmph!
"I was working at my box and listening to CNN. A subordinate clause spoken there indicated that Microsoft intends to push Windows Media Player over mp3 because of the copyright protections it affords. I tried to find a press release on microsoft.com, but found very little. What I did find were claims to compression superiority over mp3 and general references to pay-per-view media formats and the like. The compressi on stats were based on conversions of WAV's and PCM's to both formats with Microsoft claiming 50% greater compression at the same quality level. The pay-per-view idea reminds me of RMS's 'Right to Read' essay. Regardless of what happens with Yahoo! and Real Networks, if an open source competitor doesn't appear, this could threaten the viability of free software in the desktop market."
When I cut, pasted and previewed just now, I found errors in what was displayed. Such as the failure to acknowledge the closing tag at 'claims'. I kluged it for this post. There was also a stray caret-M which MS uses for EOL. I wonder why we haven't seen recent sources for slashdot.
You've gotta love the dark-on-dark text too! I've even seen Linux-related sites with that. ( I forget which ones. Hint: I haven't been back.)
Maybe something need to be done to reach the people who are teaching this nonsense.