just to help their little experiment be successful.
Exactly! While it's fashionable to bash the recording companies, sometimes it helps to encourage them when they're making a positive step. So far I've seen complaints about the artists chosen, the assumed recording quality of the mp3's, demands for different formats, moans about the price, and demonization of the company and industry in general. All the usual responses I see every time here on Slashdot when DRM and media gets mentioned.
I don't like DRM'd music, e-books, or software. Fine, so when I get a chance to purchase them without DRM, I do. I use my consumer dollars to reward those who make it easy on me, who don't put enormous restrictions on what I can do with my purchases, and who charge a fair price. These are businesses, and the one rule they all follow is "money talks." This is an experiment, and if you want them to move more to where you want them, ranting and raving isn't working - financial incentives do.
So, we going to raise our children in an environment where they are forbidden by authority to express any unpopular sentiment.
Absolutely. It's called "being a parent." There's a lot of things that children aren't allowed to do, including expressing unpopular sentiments. It can be a sentiment that's unpopular with the parents, and they won't appreciate it.
Clue: Children do not have the rights of adults. Really. We, and every society, places limits on what children are allowed to do, as opposed to adults. Until they become adults, they have a limited subset of rights.
If it wasn't Ken Starr who was the lawyer, this whole thread would be "Kid does something stupid, parents make a federal case out of it."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Carl Sagan
Someone should send this quote to all the people who bought into this claim, and reported it. Someone makes a claim, does a "demonstration", and it gets reported as an advance. Didn't anyone in the media (including Techworld), bother to do some background checks? Standard things like checking the credentials of the person making the claim, checking with experts in the field? Apparently not. That would be standard journalism practice, and we know how discredited that is these days!
As has been pointed out here and on other forums, it's a scam. Is it possible to store 256 GB, etc. on paper? Sure it is. There was a time when computer data was stored on paper - punch cards and paper tape systems. Is it likely to be done on the size of paper mentioned with anything resembling today's best technology? No.
An extraordinary claim has been made - and there is no ordinary proof, let alone extraordinary proof. But, I do have a bridge to sell, and I think I see some potential buyers!
Is the danger overhyped? Possibly, or maybe not. That's why it needs to be studied.
I'm old enough to remember something very similar to this back when gene splicing first became practical. Recombinant technology had a lot of hype around its promise, while at the same time there was an equal amount of hype about its dangers. Depending on which "expert" you were listening to, it was either going to solve all our problems or wipe humanity off the planet.
The compromise was to put stringent safeguards on it. Twenty years later, we can look back and see that a lot of them were unnecessary, and that much of the hype was overblown on both sides. I think we're going to see something similar arising from nanotechnology. Yes, there's a lot of promise, and yes, there are some dangers. Until we better understand the technology, it's better to put in some safeguards, with the idea in mind that we can always relax them or tighten them.
It's always instructive to look back, and to take some lessons from the past. Banning a technology outright because of fear doesn't work. Someone will eventually use it. At the same time, embracing a technology unreservedly also doesn't work. There are many examples of it blowing up in someone's face after-the-fact. It's not anti-technology to be aware of potential dangers and to take steps to mitigate them as you move forward. But neither should the dangers prevent you from moving forward.
Sadly, this story isn't a surprise at all. Having spent some time working in healthcare IT, the only thing about this that's moderately surprising is the scale, not that it's happened.
Many of the people I've talked to in the field have similar stories to my own experience. Executives making a decision based on either financial interest; a consultant's recommendation; or buying the sales rep's pitch, and contravening any internal IT objections. The result is almost always a disaster, with IT people having to try to make a square peg fit into a round hole. The blame then falls on everyone but the executive who made the decision in the first place. The solution always seems to be to try to fit a different square peg into a round hole.
The end result is a lot of money and time wasted. The only difference is the scale.
Anyway, why not have a rarely updated, minimal branch
for ancient hardware, like anything over 3 years old?
Anything over three years old is "Ancient" to you? Obviously, you must work somewhere where you get a new computer every year, or don't work in a corporate environment. Most of the employers I've had tended to use "if it still runs, it doesn't need replacing" system. It. Is. Not. Fun. to have to explain to the accounting division that you really, really, do need a new computer when yours is "just three years old" and "hasn't been depreciated fully."
The attitude of "just get new hardware!" is sad, since one of the "selling points" of Linux a few years ago was that it could run on old hardware. It seems there's a migration of thought in Linux circles towards what I hated most about Windows, which is to throw hardware solutions at software problems. Rather than write software to run small and tight, just throw more powerful processors, bigger storage, and more memory at it, and if you can't, well, it sucks to be you. I didn't like it from Microsoft, so why should I like it in Linux?
You know sometimes I wish I could just goto Help -> Check for Updates in Firefox on Linux as easily as I can on MS Windows.
It's not just checking for updates. I've found it's often much faster and simpler to use the Windows version of some OSS projects for evaluation. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, people are going to tell me how "simple" it is to do this with Linux and give me a set of procedures for their distro. What I want is to be able to download it, install it, and go. I don't want to be downloading distro-specific libraries, etc., etc., etc., particularly when all I'm trying to do is see if application X has the promised features/capabilities I need, and then have to reverse the procedure if it doesn't.
The only people who were surprised that podcasting TV shows about videogames didn't take off were the people who had the idea in the first place. I don't know if I'm typical (but apparently I am), but watching downloaded TV shows about videogames ranks at the bottom of my list of recreational "things to do." Up near the top of my is actually playing the videogames, followed by downloading mods to the games, and browsing news sites announcing new games. Somehow, I never get around to watching television shows featuring videogames, let alone downloading them and watching them on the computer I'm using to... well... play the games on.
I don't know if this could be considered "phishing" in the sense that I'm trying to lure people into giving me their information. It's right out there for all to see without going through all the bothersome effort of setting up a fake website and sending out the e-mails! Just some browsing, and then setting up the bank transfers and charging purchases!
And to think of all the effort that's being wasted on setting up phishing schemes, when Broward County will do all the work instead!
It's easy to blow this off as "another bunch of lawyers bulls^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing copyright law." Read the questions in the Federal Register!
I've seen enough "copyright=bad" or "copyright!=bad, implementation=bad", etc. posts on Slashdot over the years. Well, this is your chance to actually comment to people who are making the regulations and laws!
Here are some of the issues they're looking at:
Should non-physical or ''virtual'' libraries or archives be included within the ambit of section 108?
Access to Digital Copies Made under Subsections 108(b) and (c). Are there conditions under which electronic access to digital preservation or replacement copies should be permitted under subsections 108 (b) or (c) outside the premises of libraries or archives (e.g., via e-mail or the Internet or lending of a CD or DVD)? If so, what conditions or restrictions should apply?
They talk about archiving web pages, and this is a key question: Should ''no archive'' meta-tags, robot.txt files, or similar technologies that block sites or pages from being crawled be respected?
There are a lot more, and they touch on almost all the issues that have provoked a lot of discussion and outright flame wars around the Internet. I'm still reading through it, but the key point is that we need to pay attention to this. This is at the point where they are considering things which may end up in regulation and law, and silence or ignoring it is going to cause a lot of problems down the line.
FTA: giving a digital mapping of a face that would form part of a fool-proof security system.
I have yet to hear of a "fool-proof" security system of any sort. I've heard many security schemes touted over the years as being "unbreakable" or "fool-proof", and yet somehow someone manages to break them or fool them. This is what happens when PR hype takes over instead of substantive information.
This is an interesting technology that may have applications down the line, but it's still new, hasn't been given a wide range of testing, and appears to be something that can be spoofed by facial changes. The PR hack at the university needs to switch to decaf.
There's an awful lot of the web that doesn't need XML and CSS, and there's always Lynx. I run FlashBlocker in FireFox as it is.:)
The reason I made that comment is because I've done it. Yes, I do have an old 486/33 computer sitting here running DOS and Win 3.11. I use it for some of the old games. I can still get on with Explorer 5, Netscape 4.7, Lynx and Eudora. I don't need the huge AV overhead, since it's pretty damn good "security by obscurity" - quite simply put, most of the new worms/viruses simply fail or can't install on a 16-bit OS. Right now, I getting ready to fool around with Puppy Linux on it, just to see what happens.
I'm not saying it's desirable, or even fast at it. Just that it can be done. The sad part is that it's faster than my new computer when it comes to booting up and then loading up a word processor to write a letter.
Of course they're able to do their average things now, that's why they're stuck doing average things.
So, if I were to take the newest, hottest dual core processor, load up with RAM, a massive hard-drive, top-of-the-line video card, etc., etc. and hand it over to the average user, they'd do "exceptional things?"
Please! They'd browse the web, type a letter, send e-mail, fool around with the photos or graphics from their digital camera, and play games. Just about any computer since the mid-'90's can do those fairly well. Even an old 486/33 computer can do it. They aren't going to suddenly start programming or using their computers for power computing.
What drives their purchases are price, and can it perform those basic requirements in a reasonable manner. That the OS, application, or whatever they have on it are what drive the processor/memory/video/storage needs.
While I share some of the exasperation of the article's authors about the "need for speed" that Vista is requiring, at the same time, I recognize that this is nothing new or limited to Microsoft.
This has been a function of all operating systems that use a GUI. It's been that way since they started. OSS is no less guilty - look at the specs for running Gnome or KDE, and compare the recent releases with the earlier versions. Compare hardware specs between Mac OS versions. Windows versions. In each one, the need for "more & faster" is consistent.
I like a nice, straightforward UI too, but it's not just the "public" and "marketing" people who are demanding more eye candy. It's the people who develop them as well - just look at the various reviews, with the "ooh...shiny!" comments from various people even on this board. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a complaint about the processor/graphics requirements answered here with "just upgrade" - for Linux users.
What about lack of choice? Well, this criticism would be valid, if Microsoft wasn't giving you the option to turn off the "Aqua" interface. Which it is. I can think of many points to slam MS about (and have), but that their newest OS needs a more powerful computer to run is unfortunately not one of them. It doesn't mean that I'm going to run out and buy it, or buy/build a new computer just to get it, but any computer I do build would be capable of running it anyways - as well as the newest version of KDE or Gnome or...
I hear this a lot, but I have yet to understand why EVERYONE needs to use the same interface or things are bad.
That's why UIs have customization functions. My (fill in an OS/UI) does not look like yours on my computer, but should "out of the box", and have general consistent control features. That's been one of the gripes about Linux for a long time, that X distro's UI is different from Y's distro. It's even a gripe against Microsoft, when they've changed their UI. It's one of the complaints I heard a lot in the changeover from Windows 3x to Windows 95 and now in the beta reviews of Vista.
This is actually nothing new, it's something that's been running for over two decades in various application wars and OS wars. WordPerfect was good example of an application which changed all the "standard commands" that most geeks were used to. F3 for Help instead of F1. F1 for cancel instead of ESC, and so on.
Consistency is not a bad thing, particularly if you have to support it. Yes, it's wonderful if you want to customize your own or choose a particular look, but the underlying functions should have a standard default that can be used, which is consistent. It makes things easier for everyone.
But whenever I'm doing something that involved more than just popping it open and tossing out a quick letter, Microsoft Word is the way to go.
Exactly what I've kept running into with Open Office when I've been doing some consulting gigs for transcription groups. These are serious "power users" - huge numbers of templates, macros, abbreviation expanders, and so on. There's a lot of things I like about OO versus Office, from the security standpoint in how document templates are done, and the potential in it's format. Unfortunately, creating macros, using abbreviation expanders, and a number of other things that OO has made cumbersome - if they can be done at all - pretty much ends up making any decisions a choice between MS Office and WordPerfect, with MS Office getting the usual nod. Not because they love MS (they don't), or they aren't willing to learn (they are) - but because it would be a PITA to get OO to be anywhere near as functional for them.
I like Open Office for my own use, and yes, I encourage people to use it. On the other hand, for straightforward general word processing, I prefer AbiWord - it's got a smaller footprint and does everything I need to do. Right now though, Open Office really falls into the middle ground - more advanced features than AbiWord (or WordPad), but still not as power-user capable as MS Office. No, I don't like saying that.
As a result, his analysis comes out confused and unfocused.
I kept trying to figure out what the point was, and what I came out with was "all three have good points, all three have bad points." Which pretty much anyone who's worked with all three at one time or another will say. There are things that XP is better at, or at least the only option. There are things that Mac OSX is better at. There are things that (fill in a Linux distro here) is better at. To me, an analysis should start with "What exactly do you want to do?" Then you can figure out which OS works best for you.
Putting up strawmen and knocking them down is not "brutal honesty". OK, if tax software is critical to you, then yeah, XP is likely to be your choice. But that doesn't mean that Linux isn't a better choice if tax software isn't critical. It's the same across all the OS's.
I guess the truth is: That if you post an article on your web site to slashdot, your web site will serve up really ugly "Maximum connections exceeded" and "mysql server has gone away." messages!
It's still charity work to demand that someone who wrote a neat little tool be so kind as to make it easily available to you.
If they want it used, yes. It may be the neatest little tool in existence, but if I can't figure out how to install it or use it effectively because decent documentation isn't provided, then it's worthless.
Strictly speaking, FOSS is "charity"! Think about it. You're donating time, code and not expecting remuneration. Charitable giving defined. If you want say the limits of OSS projects do not include making their products accessible, then you've just made a wonderful argument for MS's continuation and not using OSS in government, education, libraries, and businesses. Seriously. Like it or not, the laws require reasonable accomodations, and accessibility. Since the attitude is "well, just do it yourself if you want it" after the fact, instead of considering it during development, means that it can't be used in those facilities. Since MS is more than happy to point out their accessibility options, they get it by default.
Not to bash biology and medicine, but we need breakthru's in physics and AI to progress to the next stage. We need phyz to break free of oil, and AI to allow things such as solar farms and efficient remote construction in space.
No, the physics to 'break free of oil' are pretty well set, it's now more in engineering, to make it cost-effective and practical. "AI's" possibly, but you're assuming cheap ground-to-space launching to begin with, and the issues of getting power back from space - and no, it's not as simplistic a solution as you might think.
Oil isn't just for energy. It's also a basic feedstock for the chemical industry. That's where biology will be important. Production of feedstock chemicals, as well as alternatives for fuels are just a part of what will be happening.
Biology right now is where physics was almost a century ago. Theoretical boundaries, and the tools to actually test them are now coming onto the scene. The practical and ethical sides are still being developed. A little over 20 years ago, if I wanted to sequence a gene, I was looking at months, if not years of work to do it. Now, it doesn't take much time at all. Determining what it does, and how it does it is now the tough part. This is followed by the part of deciding what you're going to do with it - or if you should do anything.
Improving documentation would benefit everyone, not just the disabled. I've lost count of the number of software or hardware documentation sets that serve up fuzzy screenshots or poorly scanned pages as "documentation". I don't appreciate having to use my picture editing software to enhance the page just so I can at least read it. Text documentation seems to fall into two categories: Either it's been written by someone who has no clue about the software or hardware, but has been tasked to write it; or it's been written by someone who knows it inside and out, assumes that everyone shares their base knowledge and writes cryptic notes which are obvious to them but leave most saying "WTF?"
It's not "charity work", it's a problem for FOSS and closed source. Better documentation helps all of us, regardless.
20 years ago, the novel Dream Park came out, where people played in a virtual reality combined with D&D style gaming. This is a step towards that, although not with all the cool toys in the novel.
Still, I think this is something we're going to see evolving. This isn't going to replace computer games, but might work as a supplement or a "next step up." I know there are times when I've wondered what it would be like to "play it the a real setting", and see if I could figure it out in real time, without "saves" or "replays". There are already "adventure role-playing games" being run like this, and adding the higher-tech might just be what the hardcore gamer would graduate to - and get them actually doing something besides exercising their fingers.:-)
I applaud your effort, and wish you all the best. Now, what hardware should you be requesting? Take the best you can get, and set a cut-off for what you won't take.
I've seen people try to unload a PS/2 they found in storage. Figure you should to be looking at upper P-II's, and P-III's, and some earlier Athlons. Try for the range between 500-1000MHz. Anything before then is likely to have even more issues with lifespan than it's worth. Ideally, you want at least 256MB of RAM, and 6-10GB hard drives, more is better
For testing, I like a utility called #1-TuffTest , which runs a complete diagnostic set on the system, runs off a floppy, and is pretty cheap to boot. While it won't do everything, it's a good, solid checker after seeing if the thing turns on to begin with.:-)
Even the ones that "fail" are still useful for spare parts. Hard drive gone? Well, the RAM is probably still good, and can be used to upgrade another computer, and power supplies are always useful.
For an operating system, I say "whatever". Seriously. Despite all the slams, Windows 98SE wasn't that bad, and can run most of the stuff out there, Windows XP is an option. Ubuntu is a good Linux distro. You may even want a mix, or try dual-boot. For software, I prefer FireFox for web browsing, Thunderbird for e-mail, AbiWord for wordprocessing. Yes, Open Office is an option as well. If you go with Windows, you'll get IE anyways.
As to what to teach them, teach them the basics. Teach them how a computer works- use the broken ones for teaching tools, just the general outline. They don't need to know the details of FPU's, on-die cache, etc. etc. Just what a CPU is, and what it does. What a modem does. What RAM is and what it does. What a hard drive does, what a modem does. Later on, they can move into the more detailed stuff if they want to. Teach them how to navigate the UI and call up programs, and get them to use it - along with that, how to learn further. Teach them how to set up the computer - the basics, like how to hook up the monitor, the keyboard, mouse, printer, and modem. Anyone who's interested can move further into helping test and refurbish the computers, but that gets you through the basics that they'll need.
FTA "reduced need to hack around quirks in older browsers, however, means that existing pages written specifically for older browsers may render differently in IE7. In addition, IE7 includes a number of new security features which may have impact on binary extensions such as toolbars, browser helper objects, and ActiveX controls."
I'm still scratching my head over this. From what I think this says, it means that the pages that relied on the MS specific stuff for IE5x and 6 won't look the same when viewed with IE7. Which doesn't say anything about following standards, or comparing it to how the page looks using FireFox and Opera. And, the new "security measures" will screw up all the toolbars, objects, and ActiveX that they've encouraged web developers to use. Gee, wasn't this why I switched to FireFox in the first place?
As long as they have an iron grip on the desktop OS, and insist on intertwining it into their OS, of course it has a "bright future." It doesn't mean that it's going to be any more secure (although hope reigns eternal), or be compliant with standards. I'm still trying to work out what the hell they meant.
Slashdot Mirror
just to help their little experiment be successful.
Exactly! While it's fashionable to bash the recording companies, sometimes it helps to encourage them when they're making a positive step. So far I've seen complaints about the artists chosen, the assumed recording quality of the mp3's, demands for different formats, moans about the price, and demonization of the company and industry in general. All the usual responses I see every time here on Slashdot when DRM and media gets mentioned.
I don't like DRM'd music, e-books, or software. Fine, so when I get a chance to purchase them without DRM, I do. I use my consumer dollars to reward those who make it easy on me, who don't put enormous restrictions on what I can do with my purchases, and who charge a fair price. These are businesses, and the one rule they all follow is "money talks." This is an experiment, and if you want them to move more to where you want them, ranting and raving isn't working - financial incentives do.
So, we going to raise our children in an environment where they are forbidden by authority to express any unpopular sentiment.
Absolutely. It's called "being a parent." There's a lot of things that children aren't allowed to do, including expressing unpopular sentiments. It can be a sentiment that's unpopular with the parents, and they won't appreciate it.
Clue: Children do not have the rights of adults. Really. We, and every society, places limits on what children are allowed to do, as opposed to adults. Until they become adults, they have a limited subset of rights.
If it wasn't Ken Starr who was the lawyer, this whole thread would be "Kid does something stupid, parents make a federal case out of it."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Carl Sagan
Someone should send this quote to all the people who bought into this claim, and reported it. Someone makes a claim, does a "demonstration", and it gets reported as an advance. Didn't anyone in the media (including Techworld), bother to do some background checks? Standard things like checking the credentials of the person making the claim, checking with experts in the field? Apparently not. That would be standard journalism practice, and we know how discredited that is these days!
As has been pointed out here and on other forums, it's a scam. Is it possible to store 256 GB, etc. on paper? Sure it is. There was a time when computer data was stored on paper - punch cards and paper tape systems. Is it likely to be done on the size of paper mentioned with anything resembling today's best technology? No.
An extraordinary claim has been made - and there is no ordinary proof, let alone extraordinary proof. But, I do have a bridge to sell, and I think I see some potential buyers!
Is the danger overhyped? Possibly, or maybe not. That's why it needs to be studied.
I'm old enough to remember something very similar to this back when gene splicing first became practical. Recombinant technology had a lot of hype around its promise, while at the same time there was an equal amount of hype about its dangers. Depending on which "expert" you were listening to, it was either going to solve all our problems or wipe humanity off the planet.
The compromise was to put stringent safeguards on it. Twenty years later, we can look back and see that a lot of them were unnecessary, and that much of the hype was overblown on both sides. I think we're going to see something similar arising from nanotechnology. Yes, there's a lot of promise, and yes, there are some dangers. Until we better understand the technology, it's better to put in some safeguards, with the idea in mind that we can always relax them or tighten them.
It's always instructive to look back, and to take some lessons from the past. Banning a technology outright because of fear doesn't work. Someone will eventually use it. At the same time, embracing a technology unreservedly also doesn't work. There are many examples of it blowing up in someone's face after-the-fact. It's not anti-technology to be aware of potential dangers and to take steps to mitigate them as you move forward. But neither should the dangers prevent you from moving forward.
Sadly, this story isn't a surprise at all. Having spent some time working in healthcare IT, the only thing about this that's moderately surprising is the scale, not that it's happened.
Many of the people I've talked to in the field have similar stories to my own experience. Executives making a decision based on either financial interest; a consultant's recommendation; or buying the sales rep's pitch, and contravening any internal IT objections. The result is almost always a disaster, with IT people having to try to make a square peg fit into a round hole. The blame then falls on everyone but the executive who made the decision in the first place. The solution always seems to be to try to fit a different square peg into a round hole.
The end result is a lot of money and time wasted. The only difference is the scale.
Anyway, why not have a rarely updated, minimal branch for ancient hardware, like anything over 3 years old?
Anything over three years old is "Ancient" to you? Obviously, you must work somewhere where you get a new computer every year, or don't work in a corporate environment. Most of the employers I've had tended to use "if it still runs, it doesn't need replacing" system. It. Is. Not. Fun. to have to explain to the accounting division that you really, really, do need a new computer when yours is "just three years old" and "hasn't been depreciated fully."
The attitude of "just get new hardware!" is sad, since one of the "selling points" of Linux a few years ago was that it could run on old hardware. It seems there's a migration of thought in Linux circles towards what I hated most about Windows, which is to throw hardware solutions at software problems. Rather than write software to run small and tight, just throw more powerful processors, bigger storage, and more memory at it, and if you can't, well, it sucks to be you. I didn't like it from Microsoft, so why should I like it in Linux?
You know sometimes I wish I could just goto Help -> Check for Updates in Firefox on Linux as easily as I can on MS Windows.
It's not just checking for updates. I've found it's often much faster and simpler to use the Windows version of some OSS projects for evaluation. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, people are going to tell me how "simple" it is to do this with Linux and give me a set of procedures for their distro. What I want is to be able to download it, install it, and go. I don't want to be downloading distro-specific libraries, etc., etc., etc., particularly when all I'm trying to do is see if application X has the promised features/capabilities I need, and then have to reverse the procedure if it doesn't.
The only people who were surprised that podcasting TV shows about videogames didn't take off were the people who had the idea in the first place. I don't know if I'm typical (but apparently I am), but watching downloaded TV shows about videogames ranks at the bottom of my list of recreational "things to do." Up near the top of my is actually playing the videogames, followed by downloading mods to the games, and browsing news sites announcing new games. Somehow, I never get around to watching television shows featuring videogames, let alone downloading them and watching them on the computer I'm using to... well... play the games on.
search and rescue..
"Well, we're lost. I hope someone is looking for us." (slap) "Damn bugs!"
I don't know if this could be considered "phishing" in the sense that I'm trying to lure people into giving me their information. It's right out there for all to see without going through all the bothersome effort of setting up a fake website and sending out the e-mails! Just some browsing, and then setting up the bank transfers and charging purchases!
And to think of all the effort that's being wasted on setting up phishing schemes, when Broward County will do all the work instead!
It's easy to blow this off as "another bunch of lawyers bulls^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing copyright law." Read the questions in the Federal Register!
I've seen enough "copyright=bad" or "copyright!=bad, implementation=bad", etc. posts on Slashdot over the years. Well, this is your chance to actually comment to people who are making the regulations and laws!
Here are some of the issues they're looking at:
Should non-physical or ''virtual'' libraries or archives be included within the ambit of section 108?
Access to Digital Copies Made under Subsections 108(b) and (c). Are there conditions under which electronic access to digital preservation or replacement copies should be permitted under subsections 108 (b) or (c) outside the premises of libraries or archives (e.g., via e-mail or the Internet or lending of a CD or DVD)? If so, what conditions or restrictions should apply?
They talk about archiving web pages, and this is a key question: Should ''no archive'' meta-tags, robot.txt files, or similar technologies that block sites or pages from being crawled be respected?
There are a lot more, and they touch on almost all the issues that have provoked a lot of discussion and outright flame wars around the Internet. I'm still reading through it, but the key point is that we need to pay attention to this. This is at the point where they are considering things which may end up in regulation and law, and silence or ignoring it is going to cause a lot of problems down the line.
FTA: giving a digital mapping of a face that would form part of a fool-proof security system.
I have yet to hear of a "fool-proof" security system of any sort. I've heard many security schemes touted over the years as being "unbreakable" or "fool-proof", and yet somehow someone manages to break them or fool them. This is what happens when PR hype takes over instead of substantive information.
This is an interesting technology that may have applications down the line, but it's still new, hasn't been given a wide range of testing, and appears to be something that can be spoofed by facial changes. The PR hack at the university needs to switch to decaf.
There's an awful lot of the web that doesn't need XML and CSS, and there's always Lynx. I run FlashBlocker in FireFox as it is. :)
The reason I made that comment is because I've done it. Yes, I do have an old 486/33 computer sitting here running DOS and Win 3.11. I use it for some of the old games. I can still get on with Explorer 5, Netscape 4.7, Lynx and Eudora. I don't need the huge AV overhead, since it's pretty damn good "security by obscurity" - quite simply put, most of the new worms/viruses simply fail or can't install on a 16-bit OS. Right now, I getting ready to fool around with Puppy Linux on it, just to see what happens.
I'm not saying it's desirable, or even fast at it. Just that it can be done. The sad part is that it's faster than my new computer when it comes to booting up and then loading up a word processor to write a letter.
Of course they're able to do their average things now, that's why they're stuck doing average things.
So, if I were to take the newest, hottest dual core processor, load up with RAM, a massive hard-drive, top-of-the-line video card, etc., etc. and hand it over to the average user, they'd do "exceptional things?"
Please! They'd browse the web, type a letter, send e-mail, fool around with the photos or graphics from their digital camera, and play games. Just about any computer since the mid-'90's can do those fairly well. Even an old 486/33 computer can do it. They aren't going to suddenly start programming or using their computers for power computing.
What drives their purchases are price, and can it perform those basic requirements in a reasonable manner. That the OS, application, or whatever they have on it are what drive the processor/memory/video/storage needs.
While I share some of the exasperation of the article's authors about the "need for speed" that Vista is requiring, at the same time, I recognize that this is nothing new or limited to Microsoft.
This has been a function of all operating systems that use a GUI. It's been that way since they started. OSS is no less guilty - look at the specs for running Gnome or KDE, and compare the recent releases with the earlier versions. Compare hardware specs between Mac OS versions. Windows versions. In each one, the need for "more & faster" is consistent.
I like a nice, straightforward UI too, but it's not just the "public" and "marketing" people who are demanding more eye candy. It's the people who develop them as well - just look at the various reviews, with the "ooh...shiny!" comments from various people even on this board. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a complaint about the processor/graphics requirements answered here with "just upgrade" - for Linux users.
What about lack of choice? Well, this criticism would be valid, if Microsoft wasn't giving you the option to turn off the "Aqua" interface. Which it is. I can think of many points to slam MS about (and have), but that their newest OS needs a more powerful computer to run is unfortunately not one of them. It doesn't mean that I'm going to run out and buy it, or buy/build a new computer just to get it, but any computer I do build would be capable of running it anyways - as well as the newest version of KDE or Gnome or...
I hear this a lot, but I have yet to understand why EVERYONE needs to use the same interface or things are bad.
That's why UIs have customization functions. My (fill in an OS/UI) does not look like yours on my computer , but should "out of the box", and have general consistent control features. That's been one of the gripes about Linux for a long time, that X distro's UI is different from Y's distro. It's even a gripe against Microsoft, when they've changed their UI. It's one of the complaints I heard a lot in the changeover from Windows 3x to Windows 95 and now in the beta reviews of Vista.
This is actually nothing new, it's something that's been running for over two decades in various application wars and OS wars. WordPerfect was good example of an application which changed all the "standard commands" that most geeks were used to. F3 for Help instead of F1. F1 for cancel instead of ESC, and so on.
Consistency is not a bad thing, particularly if you have to support it. Yes, it's wonderful if you want to customize your own or choose a particular look, but the underlying functions should have a standard default that can be used, which is consistent. It makes things easier for everyone.But whenever I'm doing something that involved more than just popping it open and tossing out a quick letter, Microsoft Word is the way to go.
Exactly what I've kept running into with Open Office when I've been doing some consulting gigs for transcription groups. These are serious "power users" - huge numbers of templates, macros, abbreviation expanders, and so on. There's a lot of things I like about OO versus Office, from the security standpoint in how document templates are done, and the potential in it's format. Unfortunately, creating macros, using abbreviation expanders, and a number of other things that OO has made cumbersome - if they can be done at all - pretty much ends up making any decisions a choice between MS Office and WordPerfect, with MS Office getting the usual nod. Not because they love MS (they don't), or they aren't willing to learn (they are) - but because it would be a PITA to get OO to be anywhere near as functional for them.
I like Open Office for my own use, and yes, I encourage people to use it. On the other hand, for straightforward general word processing, I prefer AbiWord - it's got a smaller footprint and does everything I need to do. Right now though, Open Office really falls into the middle ground - more advanced features than AbiWord (or WordPad), but still not as power-user capable as MS Office. No, I don't like saying that.
As a result, his analysis comes out confused and unfocused.
I kept trying to figure out what the point was, and what I came out with was "all three have good points, all three have bad points." Which pretty much anyone who's worked with all three at one time or another will say. There are things that XP is better at, or at least the only option. There are things that Mac OSX is better at. There are things that (fill in a Linux distro here) is better at. To me, an analysis should start with "What exactly do you want to do?" Then you can figure out which OS works best for you.
Putting up strawmen and knocking them down is not "brutal honesty". OK, if tax software is critical to you, then yeah, XP is likely to be your choice. But that doesn't mean that Linux isn't a better choice if tax software isn't critical. It's the same across all the OS's.
I guess the truth is: That if you post an article on your web site to slashdot, your web site will serve up really ugly "Maximum connections exceeded" and "mysql server has gone away." messages!
It's still charity work to demand that someone who wrote a neat little tool be so kind as to make it easily available to you.
If they want it used, yes. It may be the neatest little tool in existence, but if I can't figure out how to install it or use it effectively because decent documentation isn't provided, then it's worthless.
Strictly speaking, FOSS is "charity"! Think about it. You're donating time, code and not expecting remuneration. Charitable giving defined. If you want say the limits of OSS projects do not include making their products accessible, then you've just made a wonderful argument for MS's continuation and not using OSS in government, education, libraries, and businesses. Seriously. Like it or not, the laws require reasonable accomodations, and accessibility. Since the attitude is "well, just do it yourself if you want it" after the fact, instead of considering it during development, means that it can't be used in those facilities. Since MS is more than happy to point out their accessibility options, they get it by default.
Not to bash biology and medicine, but we need breakthru's in physics and AI to progress to the next stage. We need phyz to break free of oil, and AI to allow things such as solar farms and efficient remote construction in space.
No, the physics to 'break free of oil' are pretty well set, it's now more in engineering, to make it cost-effective and practical. "AI's" possibly, but you're assuming cheap ground-to-space launching to begin with, and the issues of getting power back from space - and no, it's not as simplistic a solution as you might think.
Oil isn't just for energy. It's also a basic feedstock for the chemical industry. That's where biology will be important. Production of feedstock chemicals, as well as alternatives for fuels are just a part of what will be happening.
Biology right now is where physics was almost a century ago. Theoretical boundaries, and the tools to actually test them are now coming onto the scene. The practical and ethical sides are still being developed. A little over 20 years ago, if I wanted to sequence a gene, I was looking at months, if not years of work to do it. Now, it doesn't take much time at all. Determining what it does, and how it does it is now the tough part. This is followed by the part of deciding what you're going to do with it - or if you should do anything.
Improving documentation would benefit everyone, not just the disabled. I've lost count of the number of software or hardware documentation sets that serve up fuzzy screenshots or poorly scanned pages as "documentation". I don't appreciate having to use my picture editing software to enhance the page just so I can at least read it. Text documentation seems to fall into two categories: Either it's been written by someone who has no clue about the software or hardware, but has been tasked to write it; or it's been written by someone who knows it inside and out, assumes that everyone shares their base knowledge and writes cryptic notes which are obvious to them but leave most saying "WTF?"
It's not "charity work", it's a problem for FOSS and closed source. Better documentation helps all of us, regardless.
20 years ago, the novel Dream Park came out, where people played in a virtual reality combined with D&D style gaming. This is a step towards that, although not with all the cool toys in the novel.
Still, I think this is something we're going to see evolving. This isn't going to replace computer games, but might work as a supplement or a "next step up." I know there are times when I've wondered what it would be like to "play it the a real setting", and see if I could figure it out in real time, without "saves" or "replays". There are already "adventure role-playing games" being run like this, and adding the higher-tech might just be what the hardcore gamer would graduate to - and get them actually doing something besides exercising their fingers. :-)
I applaud your effort, and wish you all the best. Now, what hardware should you be requesting? Take the best you can get, and set a cut-off for what you won't take.
I've seen people try to unload a PS/2 they found in storage. Figure you should to be looking at upper P-II's, and P-III's, and some earlier Athlons. Try for the range between 500-1000MHz. Anything before then is likely to have even more issues with lifespan than it's worth. Ideally, you want at least 256MB of RAM, and 6-10GB hard drives, more is better
For testing, I like a utility called #1-TuffTest , which runs a complete diagnostic set on the system, runs off a floppy, and is pretty cheap to boot. While it won't do everything, it's a good, solid checker after seeing if the thing turns on to begin with. :-)
Even the ones that "fail" are still useful for spare parts. Hard drive gone? Well, the RAM is probably still good, and can be used to upgrade another computer, and power supplies are always useful.
For an operating system, I say "whatever". Seriously. Despite all the slams, Windows 98SE wasn't that bad, and can run most of the stuff out there, Windows XP is an option. Ubuntu is a good Linux distro. You may even want a mix, or try dual-boot. For software, I prefer FireFox for web browsing, Thunderbird for e-mail, AbiWord for wordprocessing. Yes, Open Office is an option as well. If you go with Windows, you'll get IE anyways.
As to what to teach them, teach them the basics. Teach them how a computer works- use the broken ones for teaching tools, just the general outline. They don't need to know the details of FPU's, on-die cache, etc. etc. Just what a CPU is, and what it does. What a modem does. What RAM is and what it does. What a hard drive does, what a modem does. Later on, they can move into the more detailed stuff if they want to. Teach them how to navigate the UI and call up programs, and get them to use it - along with that, how to learn further. Teach them how to set up the computer - the basics, like how to hook up the monitor, the keyboard, mouse, printer, and modem. Anyone who's interested can move further into helping test and refurbish the computers, but that gets you through the basics that they'll need.
FTA "reduced need to hack around quirks in older browsers, however, means that existing pages written specifically for older browsers may render differently in IE7. In addition, IE7 includes a number of new security features which may have impact on binary extensions such as toolbars, browser helper objects, and ActiveX controls."
I'm still scratching my head over this. From what I think this says, it means that the pages that relied on the MS specific stuff for IE5x and 6 won't look the same when viewed with IE7. Which doesn't say anything about following standards, or comparing it to how the page looks using FireFox and Opera. And, the new "security measures" will screw up all the toolbars, objects, and ActiveX that they've encouraged web developers to use. Gee, wasn't this why I switched to FireFox in the first place?
As long as they have an iron grip on the desktop OS, and insist on intertwining it into their OS, of course it has a "bright future." It doesn't mean that it's going to be any more secure (although hope reigns eternal), or be compliant with standards. I'm still trying to work out what the hell they meant.