(to be said whilst waving a single hand in a sign of dismissal)
I read it; I'll now ignore it. Wake me when something more substantial comes along.
Processor Technology SOL-20
on
First Computers
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yep, that machine cooked! (not)
It was a kit computer, but It was pre-built when I received it (I'm not a chiphead). It was an S-100 system that handled 8K static Memory cards (and they cost about $500 a pop!). The BIOS was on ROM, everything else loaded from Tape. SOL Integer Basic tool up 5K, leaving me with 3K to program. When I finally got another 8K board I could move up to SOL Advanced Basic that handled these cool things called strings and arrays, but I never saw a use for them.
It's pretty funny how efficient you can be with 3K of space! And all in all, it was a good machine to learn on. The real maple side panels were cool as well.
The only downside to the machine was a faulty solder point or something inside on a cap or resistor (I used to know which one) that would cause the machine to halt during boot. Giving the machine a loving boot to the side fixed it. I always liked having to 'boot' my machine:)
(And for those of you looking to set your dial on the WayBack Machine, 1978 would be about right)
This could result in high-resolution 7"-thick rear-projection TV costing around $1000 by next Christmas
I'm really a non-fan of rear-projection TVs, with their odd image quality and limited viewing angles. I wonder how long it will take this technology to be adapted to large-format, flat panel displays? I for one would be a big fan of a $1,000 42" flat panel display.
Yes, some of the initiatives have cack'ed, but not all. While I am pleased that several of the aforementioned initiatives either fizzled out or were stillborn, that does not remove the continuing assault upon the privaacy rights of US citizens by their own goverment. What's worse is when such initiatives trample upon the rights of those of us living elsewhere
As for the Cisco Example, I've not heard that the initiative was dropped, but it hasn't gone away
One of your more salient points is that "the U.S government is still subject to a little democrating oversight". It certainly would be nice were it subject to more.
Although I can understand the concern of having the Chineese government push privacy-eroding standards into networking protocols, how is this any different than the US-backed standards such as the "Fritz chip" (I believe), or key-escrow standards, or the requirement to adopt standards or technology that allow Federal Snooping Bodies to monitor internet traffic from their office Lay-Z-Boys?
The Chineese aren't the only sharks in the ocean. The US Government doesn't seem to be promoting much better; they just have the luxury of wrapping themselves in the Stars & Stripes whilst they do it.
560 square feet sounds way more impressive than a mere 52 square meters.
Well, sure. 62 square yards also sounds better than 52 square meters. However 52 square meters = 5,200 square decimeters! That beats your paltry 560 american feet any day!!
"They will be in an advisory capacity. We're still running the school," said Ellen Savitz, the district's chief development officer. "There's no fear of a corporation somehow overtaking the educational focus."
Well, I for one am HAPPY that Microsoft, through their completely benign efforts, will help push the technology direction of this school. Thank goodness, I say!
So, there will be no restrictions against running machines with other O/S's on them? No problems with students handing in presentations on say KPresenter or KWord, Open Office, or just plain HTML.
This is not even touching upon the complete lack of security around wireless protocols upon which confidential student information may be moving.
I certainly hope that MS's role remains consultative, and that they don't try and coerce or blackmail the school into the exclusive use of certain MS-centric solutions for the Student learning enviornments. If it were my kid, I would want them to learn about all kinds computers, not just the ones that run Windows.
Even if all of the computers were running Windows (possible), then the kids should still be exposed to non-MS products for using and programming computers. Give them the chance now to see that there are choices.
I'm sorry, but this is a pretty bad example. One of the responsibilities associated with Driving Permits is to obey posted speed limits. You agreed to this before receiving said permit. You also know what they look like (since it's on the Driver's written exam)
In this instance, the terms of the agreement are neither clear nor available.
If you read back to the original article, the user was NOT given the opportunity to not agree to the terms, since no licensing agreement was available.
If you are referring to ignorance of a clause in a 2,000-line click-through agreement, then I hope that a high-court challenge invalidates their use; These agreements are insane and must be stopped. I don't have to agree to this sort of crap when I bought my toaster or when I buy a book (or even a car or a HOUSE for Pete's sake), so it needs to go!
Your statement could be read as a premise; "Closed Source is to Military Uses as Open Source is to Peaceful uses". While those within (and peripheral to) the Open Source community would like to hold on to the rather lofty notion that Open Source work will be used "only for good", that cannot be said with any degreee of certainty.
And although I might appear naive in saying this, just because DARPA may internalize some of the results into "Closed source", it won't nessesarily be used for military purposes.
Also, if the work is being done as part of an Open Source initiative, should not the open source community be able to verify that the code does not creep in to closed source DARPA projects? I feel a DARPA code review coming on!;)
Given the problems encountered by Mark West when DARPA pulled its funding on the OpenBSD project, are you concerned about what strings may be attached to such funding for ReiserFS, be they implied or explicit?
This is not a troll for flames, but wouldn't movie theatres be prime candidates DRM-based media distribution?
I believe that a fairly rigid agreement exists between the film distributor and the various theatres regarding the procurement, showing, and return (or destruction) of these movies. I imagine that such an agreement would be in place to protect the property of the distributor (one-sided, to be sure).
The article discusses a pirate copy made from "film print [...] with surround sound" So, either Matrix:RL was distributed as Digital-only, or it was shipped in the can, and the Digital Surround sound is on the firm. In either case, there is still an amount of digital data being pushed around; enough that DRM could be put in place.
Such DRM could be used to control presentation of the movie; the media would be 'keyed' to each individual theatre (and I'm sure this would be a logistical hassle, but that's an aside). The movie (digital audio or full presentation) could be 'time-locked'. Also, the media projectors would not be allowed to copy the movie to another type of media; only project it.
Also, since some DRM and digital information is being provided, would it not be possible to introduce some 'watermarking' so that the original media holder could be tracked?
(This is my first post to slashdot, so please forgive any transgressions on my part)
Slashdot Mirror
Bah!
(to be said whilst waving a single hand in a sign of dismissal)
I read it; I'll now ignore it. Wake me when something more substantial comes along.
Yep, that machine cooked! (not)
:)
It was a kit computer, but It was pre-built when I received it (I'm not a chiphead). It was an S-100 system that handled 8K static Memory cards (and they cost about $500 a pop!). The BIOS was on ROM, everything else loaded from Tape. SOL Integer Basic tool up 5K, leaving me with 3K to program. When I finally got another 8K board I could move up to SOL Advanced Basic that handled these cool things called strings and arrays, but I never saw a use for them.
It's pretty funny how efficient you can be with 3K of space! And all in all, it was a good machine to learn on. The real maple side panels were cool as well.
The only downside to the machine was a faulty solder point or something inside on a cap or resistor (I used to know which one) that would cause the machine to halt during boot. Giving the machine a loving boot to the side fixed it. I always liked having to 'boot' my machine
(And for those of you looking to set your dial on the WayBack Machine, 1978 would be about right)
This could result in high-resolution 7"-thick rear-projection TV costing around $1000 by next Christmas
I'm really a non-fan of rear-projection TVs, with their odd image quality and limited viewing angles. I wonder how long it will take this technology to be adapted to large-format, flat panel displays? I for one would be a big fan of a $1,000 42" flat panel display.
Yes, some of the initiatives have cack'ed, but not all. While I am pleased that several of the aforementioned initiatives either fizzled out or were stillborn, that does not remove the continuing assault upon the privaacy rights of US citizens by their own goverment. What's worse is when such initiatives trample upon the rights of those of us living elsewhere
As for the Cisco Example, I've not heard that the initiative was dropped, but it hasn't gone away
One of your more salient points is that "the U.S government is still subject to a little democrating oversight". It certainly would be nice were it subject to more.
Although I can understand the concern of having the Chineese government push privacy-eroding standards into networking protocols, how is this any different than the US-backed standards such as the "Fritz chip" (I believe), or key-escrow standards, or the requirement to adopt standards or technology that allow Federal Snooping Bodies to monitor internet traffic from their office Lay-Z-Boys?
The Chineese aren't the only sharks in the ocean. The US Government doesn't seem to be promoting much better; they just have the luxury of wrapping themselves in the Stars & Stripes whilst they do it.
560 square feet sounds way more impressive than a mere 52 square meters.
Well, sure. 62 square yards also sounds better than 52 square meters. However 52 square meters = 5,200 square decimeters! That beats your paltry 560 american feet any day!!
With thanks to the Google Calculator
"They will be in an advisory capacity. We're still running the school," said Ellen Savitz, the district's chief development officer. "There's no fear of a corporation somehow overtaking the educational focus."
Well, I for one am HAPPY that Microsoft, through their completely benign efforts, will help push the technology direction of this school. Thank goodness, I say!
So, there will be no restrictions against running machines with other O/S's on them? No problems with students handing in presentations on say KPresenter or KWord, Open Office, or just plain HTML.
This is not even touching upon the complete lack of security around wireless protocols upon which confidential student information may be moving.
I certainly hope that MS's role remains consultative, and that they don't try and coerce or blackmail the school into the exclusive use of certain MS-centric solutions for the Student learning enviornments. If it were my kid, I would want them to learn about all kinds computers, not just the ones that run Windows.
Even if all of the computers were running Windows (possible), then the kids should still be exposed to non-MS products for using and programming computers. Give them the chance now to see that there are choices.
I'm sorry, but this is a pretty bad example. One of the responsibilities associated with Driving Permits is to obey posted speed limits. You agreed to this before receiving said permit. You also know what they look like (since it's on the Driver's written exam)
In this instance, the terms of the agreement are neither clear nor available.
If you read back to the original article, the user was NOT given the opportunity to not agree to the terms, since no licensing agreement was available.
If you are referring to ignorance of a clause in a 2,000-line click-through agreement, then I hope that a high-court challenge invalidates their use; These agreements are insane and must be stopped. I don't have to agree to this sort of crap when I bought my toaster or when I buy a book (or even a car or a HOUSE for Pete's sake), so it needs to go!
Your statement could be read as a premise; "Closed Source is to Military Uses as Open Source is to Peaceful uses". While those within (and peripheral to) the Open Source community would like to hold on to the rather lofty notion that Open Source work will be used "only for good", that cannot be said with any degreee of certainty.
;)
And although I might appear naive in saying this, just because DARPA may internalize some of the results into "Closed source", it won't nessesarily be used for military purposes.
Also, if the work is being done as part of an Open Source initiative, should not the open source community be able to verify that the code does not creep in to closed source DARPA projects? I feel a DARPA code review coming on!
Given the problems encountered by Mark West when DARPA pulled its funding on the OpenBSD project, are you concerned about what strings may be attached to such funding for ReiserFS, be they implied or explicit?
This is not a troll for flames, but wouldn't movie theatres be prime candidates DRM-based media distribution?
I believe that a fairly rigid agreement exists between the film distributor and the various theatres regarding the procurement, showing, and return (or destruction) of these movies. I imagine that such an agreement would be in place to protect the property of the distributor (one-sided, to be sure).
The article discusses a pirate copy made from "film print [...] with surround sound" So, either Matrix:RL was distributed as Digital-only, or it was shipped in the can, and the Digital Surround sound is on the firm. In either case, there is still an amount of digital data being pushed around; enough that DRM could be put in place.
Such DRM could be used to control presentation of the movie; the media would be 'keyed' to each individual theatre (and I'm sure this would be a logistical hassle, but that's an aside). The movie (digital audio or full presentation) could be 'time-locked'. Also, the media projectors would not be allowed to copy the movie to another type of media; only project it.
Also, since some DRM and digital information is being provided, would it not be possible to introduce some 'watermarking' so that the original media holder could be tracked?
(This is my first post to slashdot, so please forgive any transgressions on my part)