TAGS does not take into account local variables and scope. It also does not give help on function definitions and has limited functionality, however search and replace across multiple files is very nice. Also, C mode (I think) uses regular expressions to skip forward and back statements so it makes mistakes and can be annoying. It does block traversing quite well.
I'm working on an extension to C mode to fix this. TAGS is pretty good, but it misses some potentially important things. Of course,it is quite fast, which is advantageous but it is not something that Emacs itself runs. It is a shell command. Anyway, I finished most of the parser this morning, so I'll be testing it later.
However, some of the features you mentioned have the real potential to be intrusive. Popping up new frames can be very distracting. However, the echo area is quite restrictive, so ehn, whaddya gonna do? =)
I put this in an assignment for an Artificial Intelligence course. It was a Java applet that implemented the A-star search algorithm that we had to modify. The code was pure garbage, and the teaching assistant that marked it was also the one who picked it off the web in order for us to modify it. I was not amused. So, I stated my position in a rather forward manner...
// what the hell is with this magic number crap? ///me slaps original programmer around with a hammer.
...
// This is a butt ugly hack, but given the utterly shit // code that surrounds it, it should feel right at home.
...
// I don't know why I had to set a number to tell me what // finishCell to use, but I did. I simply do not have the // time to wade my way through this crap program to figure it // out. I got better things to do, like pull my fingernails // out and then bathe my hand in lye.
...
// I added this awful, awful hack. I am ashamed to have written code like this.
I also wrote a letter to the prof and TA on behalf of the other multitudes of students who thought the same thing I did. Needless to say, I got a bad mark (didn't care anyway) and the TA hates me now. Turns out they really do read the comments! =)
Plan 9 From Outer Space is a once in a lifetime experience. Battlefield Earth doesn't come close to it. The special effects in B.E. are passable. They are really not that bad. Granted, the plot holes in B.E. are big enough the allow the first 8 plans to slide through, but the movie as a whole, cannot hold a candle to the ineptitude of Plan 9.
I will certainly agree that B.E. is the worst movie I have seen in full release. Ever. The dialogue is awful, the story stupid and don't forget about the aforementioned plot holes. But Plan 9 was something magical. It was in the right place at the right time, so to speak. A dead actor as the star, a swedish wrestler as the lead cop (who can barely speak intelligible English) and a transvestite as a director. With exchanges like:
Eros: You do not need guns. Jeff Trent: Maybe we think we do.
it's hard to say BE is a Plan 9 equivalent. The thing is, I can watch Plan 9 many times and never get tired of the silliness. I'm sure once was enough for many of those who saw B.E..
B.E. has the Plan 9 spirit. It is not, however, a modern Plan 9 From Outer Space.
Going to see a bad movie once is typical. However, I think Manos, The Hands Of Fate and Glen or Glenda (even when MST'ed) are the two worst "films" I've ever seen and yet I have seen both of them multiple times because I watch them with people who have not seen it before and get their reactions. It can be most entertaining. Especially if you are slightly sadistic and like to watch them suffer =)
Just a note (because IANAL almost goes without saying anymore):
How about it be assumed that whoever posts is not a lawyer, thus eliminating the "IANAL" acronyms and instead, but "IAAL" for "I am a lawyer" for the rare person who has the credentials.
Of course, there are some issues with this, but really, if you're taking serious legal advice off a public forum, you need more than just legal help.
I think people have a very misguided view of what is going on and are attacking the wrong aspect of the entire thing.
First of all, to all the whining over getting mp3's off the 'Net for free, I should inform you that with the current legal system that most of the world uses, copying music and distributing it (even if you're not making money) is a violation of copyright. Get over it. You're crooks. Not violent criminals, just IP crooks. To the argument regarding copying music as not being theft because it deprives no one of any good, you are correct. It is not theft. This is a bad term. That is why they made the term "copyright infringement" and that is what you are violating when you copy/distribute music.
On the flip side of this argument is the issue of democracy and coporatism. The whole idea of being able to download stuff off the 'Net and listen to it is the most appealing aspect of the entire experience. It is very easy, and people like that. I don't think people are realizing that they are saying something with this, because they never back it up with anything but bitching when confronted by issues such as lawsuits to Napster from big bands. It's not whether or not the band should or shouldn't do that. I'm sorry to inform you that this is entirely the wrong issue to attack.
What you should be noticing is that with all this downloading, you, as the people living in a democratic society (theoretically, anyway) don't like the current laws. What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst. However, you still acting like teenagers (and if most of you are, grow up - fast!). You gave go to tell the representatives in government that you do not like it.
Ok - I can hear the nay-sayers already. However, think about this: the corporations that are pissing you off so much understand this basic principle. Use (for abuse) the system. They already went to the government and got stuff like the DMCA passed and now, they are attacking you with it. They use money and ideas like "Our customers support us on this" to do so. You shouldn't stand for this. Right now, we live in a coporate democracy because people don't say or do anything about what irks them. They seem to think that just because they think it is right, it is right and thus, it will prevail. Sorry, man, but you have got to do something about it. Is the system broke? Damn right it is. Can we fix it? Yes, but it's gonna be a helluva a fight.
Bitching at Metallica is as useless as Metallica is right now (sorry - had to get in a cheap shot =)). They are simply doing what is within their rights. They are exercising it like any citizen should be able to. As much as I think they aren't helping the situtation at all (Hey Lars, James! You used to be good. Step back and fsck'ing think what you are doing!), they are doing what our society allows them to do by what we have defined as a society.
(This may be a bit North american-centric, but lots still holds for European countries as well. Corporations are going global, you know.)
Katz got one thing right in the article - Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.
Is it just me or is most of the stuff that Neilson says just common sense?
You're probably right, but never forget that common sense is not common. This leads to the next point...
Don't get me wrong, his ideas are great for people who are clueless (and there are a lot of them), but I wouldn't call his notions revolutionary.
Sometimes things like this just need to written down. Sure, lots of people know about it, but the act of telling someone by writing it down makes a nice reference for those in or out of the know.
I also agree with you about the lowest common denominator. You don't always have to pander to it (although, my new site design has graphics, I did make it lynx friendly, but have yet to put it up).
Yes, it is very cool. There is only one thing that has to be done with the AMD processors and that's getting SMP going. If the Duron had SMP capabilities, it would be the coolest consumer chip out there.
Sure, maybe you can do it with a Celeron, but it's not an explicit selling feature. It's not touted as SMP - it can only be hacked into it. I think SMP is the way to go for more capable machines in terms of multi-tasking without having to optimize the living hell out of everything. Plus, imagine all the fun you can have programming parallel algorithms! Woo-hoo!
Affordable SMP - that would be the very cool thing. None-the-less, I'll probably buy a Duron, if I get the money.
I think you are severly underestimating the abilities of those studying this. Considering genetic research has done "miracles" in the last 20 years with regards to how much it has learned about DNA, how long do you seriously think it will be before lots of practical applications come out of it?
Both computational study and genetic study are new fields. Electricty was a new field 200 years ago. Look what we have now. I know this is a tired argument, but it's very true and must be respected.
There's more to it than doing actual computation. These are arguments that have been had a thousand times over in the past: "I don't see the benefit right now, so what's the point?" It may be excessively useful, it may not. The point is, we have to find out.
Even if DNA computing proves to be too cumbersome to implement, we can still gain lots from it - for example, perhaps hidden deep within it is another model of computation. Maybe we can find something that's better then a Turing machine (i.e., it can check another program for infinite loops and find them). Hell, it may prove to be a useful storage device.
DNA does operations on data. It does remarkable things with them and it can do a lot of things at once. Studying this is not a bad idea, but so is putting all or eggs in one basket. If totally concentrated on shrinking die/chip sizes, we'll probably regret it at some point. Push the limits. It's fun!:)
Given a set of cities and routes/distances between them, is there a path that visits every city only once? If so (and there is more than one), which one is the shortest?
It's called the Travelling Salesman Problem because back when salesmen did lots of travelling by car (may be done now too, I don't know), they wanted to maximize their time and minimize their costs. Solving this problem does that.
You can easily model the problem as a graph or network of nodes/vertices (cities) and edges (routes) with weights (distances).
This problem is NP-complete, which means there is no known efficient algorithm to solve it. As soon as the number of vertices gets high, the problem gets really nasty to solve (exponential) and you have to start using heuritics, etc. to find a solution. The highest number of vertices in a solved problem of this nature is something around 13,000. It was done with massively parallel computation and heuristics using convential computation techniques (i.e., not DNA).
Stability: I don't know. I would think the industry doesn't like to switch formats a lot, lest they confuse the consumer and have trouble selling anything. Considering VHS has been around for so long, if they are serious about DVDs, the standard won't change very soon.
(more conjecture)
If the movie industry (read: major studios) could absolutely and unequivocally control the distribution of their movies, then we'd probably be able to buy anything. Maybe they should grab some bandwidth in the "500 channel" future of television. They didn't mind VHS because the quality degrades when you copy it but DVD brings up real problems so, they throw in the CSS thing and, well, insult most of us.
This leads into the issue of boycotting. I really can't decide what to do here. I love DVD quality and enjoy watching movies, but I really don't like the idea of having to use liscensed players/software (although I do have a DVD decoder card in my system since it really helps) and I absolutely hate the idea that I can't take this disc around the world and watch it wherever I go. I know you can't do that with VHS, but you can at least convert it.
I haven't bought some DVDs in some time, as I've been wrestling with the issues. I do maintain we should be able to write free software, if we so desire, to play DVDs with or without a decoder card and that I shouldn't have to purchase my DVD collection again should I choose to move to Europe or wherever.
For the time being, I'm going to refrain from purchasing much of anything DVD related.
You've pretty much nailed the reason I don't like buying CD's anymore. I want to support the artist but I don't want to support the record company.
Going one step further - I don't even want the CD's. I like MP3's much more than CD's. I have to store CD's in some kludgy rack beside my computer desk here. I don't have to with MP3's. Not only that, I can store a lot more MP3's on a CD (should I decide to burn them) than regular old Red Book Audio. Plus, I can get the ones I want on the CD.
I don't download lots of MP3's. I trade some with my friends, but it usually stops there. Most of the time, I end up listening to the stuff once then delete it (hmmm... a lot like warez...). For the stuff I do really like, I would buy the CD, but like I said - I don't want it and I don't want to give the record company money.
So, there's the dilemma. The only solution I see is somehow getting money directly to the artist. That would be nice. Problem is, the record company does all the promotion and distribution of the artist at the moment. Morally, I suppose, I'm obligated to give them something. Well, I guess I can live with that on my conscience since the general concensus is that record companies are just assholes.
Maybe I'll try to track down some artists who have internet fan sites, etc., and see what the implications of me sending them a cheque directly are.
Support the artists you like. Don't just give away something they've worked hard at to create. Ah, screw the sermon. You've heard it before. Those of you who are disrespectful asses know who you are.
Let me explain why I do not follow/practice any religion but agree with a good chunk of what you are saying. From experience, many people share this view to some degree.
First of all, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to the following of religious beliefs and I do not hold it against people when they say they are. I hold things against people when they are bull-headed and just plain assholes about their beliefs. You do not sound like that type of person.
You are correct that there are many strawmen in the science vs. religion debate. You are correct that signing up for a religion (Christianity) is not necessarily voluteering for the "Army of Jesus". You are also correct that there are many thought provoking theological, philosophical and scientific books written from a Christian point of view, that following a religion has you accepting a set of principles and devoting your life to them.
I grew up a Lutheran, going to church, getting confirmed - the whole bit. I was kind of forced into it and resented it because of that. However, maturity and reflection made me forgive my grandmother/parents for that (there's a complicated story I'll avoid here). I also believe that the morals instilled in me from my church-going youth are very good things. I think they are fundamentally sound beliefs that transcend most different types of religions and is something most humans tend to follow (don't kill, steal, hurt others, be malicious, take your neighbour's wife, etc.).
From what I got (and keep getting is that), following the teachings of Jesus Christ (or whomever is the spokesperson for the religion) will enhance your life. In this mix is the notion that worshiping a higher entity that created all the universe is needed. To me, this feels extremely "tacked on". I get great pleasure in helping others and being just-all-round nice to people. I really fail to see how belief in a higher being will make it any better.
If there is no God, per se, the point of worship is moot. It doesn't matter if you have faith in whether or not he exists - you won't be going to His Kingdom, as there is not one. If there is a God, then will I go to Hell if I am a general all round good person but just didn't believe in Him? If belief in God is required for enterance into His Kingdom, that sounds awfully self-righteous.
Perhaps this is the faith thing I'm supposed to have for God. Regardless, I still find this egotisical. Am I just very well grounded and happy with myself, not needing guidance from belief that there is something out there far more powerful than I could ever hope to be that can help, nay, is needed by me to feel better? I don't know - it would take a lifetime to answer a question like that. I've always noticed that for those who don't wish to think, a higher entity makes things easier to explain. For those who want to discover the workings of complex things outside our current knowledge, belief in a God makes it seem more attainable, that is, God can inspire and perhaps guide.
Quite frankly, I don't need that kind of inspiration or guidance. I do quite well with the belief in myself (not that religious people don't belive in themselves, just probably not as much as I do).
That's probably the real irony here - God is what you make of Him... and He's having a good laugh about it:)
I can see where you are coming from and want to agree, but cannot.
Ideas and expressions are closely related, as you said. However, they can be seperated. Take, for instance, a cover of a song. The underlying structure of the melody, feel, etc. are essentially the same, i.e., it's recognizable, but the expression of the notes are different than someone else's performance. Put 1000 guitarists in a room, get them all to play Stairway To Heaven and you'll get 1000 different interpretations - I can almost guarantee that.
As for your calculus example, all you need to do to get around the original expression of the idea is to change the notation. You're using the same idea but just saying it differently. Another example is movies: the idea of a deranged killer that is seemingly unstoppable has been expressed god knows how many times.
Copyrights are given (in music) to protect not only your physical representation of the music (the CD), but also the performace of the song. That's why you get royalties from airtime as well as sales.
The original poster was right in saying ideas are not the same as expressions. However, people don't seem to care about that and laws like the DMCA raise the question as to whether or not we make laws for the people or for the people that make lots of money. Now that we have a very easy way of distributing intangibles to a massive number of people and everyone seems to like it, should we deny them of it? (The counter to that is, is it good for them in the long run?)
Maybe this is the first step toward a less profit-oriented society (I, for one, hope so). Who knows.... Regardless, it's gonna be interesting.
The deal is speed == big_shiny_object so it sells.
However, I agree with you. Now that we've hit the 1000 MHz level, maybe the industry can concentrate less on clock speed and move onto cool architectural enhancements. The next big step is not 2 GHz, but 10 GHz, IMO, since "factor of" jumps are more impressive than "multiple of" jumps.
Maybe they could come up with a line of chips with interesting features besides clock speed, keeping clock-speed oriented stuff the consumer line. However, that could fragment things, but it would still be kinda fun. I'd love to play around with something like that.
IMO, this Linux is not going to be the "Linux for the desktop," but as a hacker's distribution, it's pretty cool.
Amen brother. This is why I like to use Slackware - it's just fun. I've tried other distros and they just aren't as enjoyable for people who love to tinker. (I do not, however, get into distro wars. Everyone has it's place.)
I agree that Slackware is not "Linux for the desktop". It's not as slick, initially, as RedHat, Debian, etc., simply because of package manangement. I use pkgtool every now and then, but I certainly don't rely on it. However, I get the impression many people who use Slackware aren't interested in package management all that much. However, I could be terribly wrong (that's just the impression I get).
I love hacking away on Slackware. I don't see myself switching anytime soon. Thanks, Patrick V.!
Personally, I enjoy the rc.d scripts right where they are in Slackware, but that's why there are different distros - everyone has different tastes and needs. Chacon son gout...
From the brief description of the contracts, it seems that an artist would have to be a moron to actually sign with a major record company.
Yes and no. (love those kinda answers, huh?:)
It is pretty crazy to agree to such terms as we outlined (they are really awful if you read the whole contract). However, the Catch-22 here is that it is almost impossible to effectively distribute an album without a major label. The only semi-effective way to do it is to sell CDs at your live shows yourself (after printing them yourself). If you can sell something like 10,000 CDs from playing relatively small venues, you might be able to bring some bargining power to the table with a record company.
Again, I could go on forever here. I think you can see where this is headed (hint: monopoly...).
This is why I think mp3's kick ass. All out distribution without a record company (or even a record company website). Why do you think record companies are mad when their artists release mp3's? It's no wonder they want to stop/control mp3's - loss of distribution stranglehold.
I took a music production/business course from Sept 1994 to April 1996, so hopefully my info is not too out of date.
The cost of a producing a CD is cheap. This includes CD, jewel case, ink, paper, etc. Probably $1.50 US max. Unless the artist is a multi-million album seller, the artist makes very little in royalties from CD's (more on this later). My figures were about $1.00 US a sale. Maybe $1.50. We'll be generous - $2.00. If the artist is big, this can vary wildly, because the artist has real negotiating power when making up a recording contract.
As for the rest (~$15.00 US), that's due to the record company and middlemen. Maybe you should ask record stores how much they pay for CD's from the manufacturer. From my music course days, the record company makes at least $5.00 a sale (more on this in a sec).
Sounds pretty crappy huh? Well, get this...
Say I'm a "starving artist" and a major record company wishes to sign me to their label. Cool. I'm in the big time. Let's even say you have your own studio. Now, what will the record company offer in a standard contract?
creation of masters (what all the CDs/tapes/albums) are stamped from
distribution of material
You know what the best part is? They own your copyright. Thus, if you become successful, to have control of your songs, you have to buy them back from the record company. That basically sucks and is the same as the software industry. The difference is you are writing the music for yourself and others, whereas you write software for other people. It's similar, but much more personal with music...
Anyway, sparing some gory contract details that I don't recall exactly, it breaks down to this: you pay back the record company out of your royalties. This is the part that really blows.
Let's say I got a loan from the record company for $200,000 US to create and distribute my album that I recorded. I hand over the master recordings to them so they can make the CDs. I now no longer own copyright on them but I get $2 from each sale. After 100,000 CD sales I still have nothing in royalties because that $200,000 in royalty money goes back to pay the record company. I only get money after the 100,000th sale. I don't think it's hard to image that 100,000 sales is tough for a nobody artist and $200,000 is a low estimate on the creation/distribution of records. Note that the record company makes $7 a CD for the first 100,000 sales.
It gets worse: standard contracts have you signed for a few albums - not one. So you can get really in debt if you aren't successful. Add in the cost of a producer, engineer, studio, incremental royalties and it just goes to shit.
There are ways around this, but it's not real easy (hint: proven self-distribution). This is probably not all that far from reality now-a-days. Btw, the artists can make good money via live performances, I believe.
Just a little FYI. (if this is way different now, please fill me/us in)
Perhaps I am in a vast minority here, but I don't think the show has really been as bad as people seem to think. I've seen every episode this year (except the flying football limb thing - damn!) and I've been laughing the whole time.
The show is a different flavour of goofy. I've seen the old ones a zillion times and yes, when Conon was a producer/writer, it was downright wacky. It still is. I'll be quite honest in saying that I'm glad the show is not exactly the same as it was in the 3-4-5 seasons. That gets tiresome.
People said the episode where Maude dies wasn't funny. I must have missed something - that eulogy was hilarious! Plus, the fact she was killed by t-shirt cannons. That's just silly. Also, the other week the episode with the horse and the Comic Book Guy wearing the "Worst Episode Ever" t-shirt. Classic.
I don't know. I think everyone who says "This season sucks!" after every season since number 5 (or 6) just doesn't get it, but it is totally subjective, after all. Oh well - I think you're missing out. Of course, that happens with lots of TV shows and the writers of The Simpsons know it. You can tell in the way they do things now, by making total fun of the entire process of their art. In all honesty, the show is crazier now than it was when it started. Sometimes, they do anti-Simpsons episodes - just 'cause. That's why it's funny. Maybe they are trying to make the "This season sucks!" people mad. I find it very amusing.
K&R is Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie. They are the ones who wrote the only book I (and probably you) will ever need on C: The C Programming Language, as they are the ones who created the language.
They also did lots of development on Unix in the early days, if I recall correctly.
I never thought I'd be the one coming to BGates' defense, but... do you know how much money BG gave to charities last year? I read the other day that it was something like $16 BILLION!
I can smell the tax benefits from here:-)
Sure his company may make crappy software, but I would say that he has done more for improving the world that we live in than, say, RMS, ESR, or any of the other idols of the/. "community"
If they or I had that kinda money, I'd probably do the same. Point is, they/I don't have that much (although maybe they could give more to charity, but I'm not accusing them or anything. OTOH, I have no money, so the point is moot).
Very true. It's too bad my question didn't get asked (My last name is Wozniak and people seem to think we're related, as I work in computers). Oh well.
I actually had the nickname "Fuzzie Wuzzie", a derivative from Woz. That was grade 5 & 6 for you.
Perhaps more interesting than the nicknames/sayings that come from "Woz", are the number of ways it gets misspelled. Here are a couple common ones and a not so common one (sometime in sorta-regex form):
W[a|o]sniak - pretty standard.
W[a|o]snik - this one really gets me as it is pronounced Woz-knee-ack
Wasoriak - this one made an appeaarance at our family reunion. The park we were at put it on the sign announcing our reservation!
Due to the fact I have to always spell my name over the phone, I am considering changing my last name to Wozniak-double-you-oh-zed-en-eye-eh-kay (note Canadian-isms in there). Wouldn't that be fun.
Steve, if you're reading this, please put up a post saying that we're not related!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
TAGS does not take into account local variables and scope. It also does not give help on function definitions and has limited functionality, however search and replace across multiple files is very nice. Also, C mode (I think) uses regular expressions to skip forward and back statements so it makes mistakes and can be annoying. It does block traversing quite well.
I'm working on an extension to C mode to fix this. TAGS is pretty good, but it misses some potentially important things. Of course,it is quite fast, which is advantageous but it is not something that Emacs itself runs. It is a shell command. Anyway, I finished most of the parser this morning, so I'll be testing it later.
However, some of the features you mentioned have the real potential to be intrusive. Popping up new frames can be very distracting. However, the echo area is quite restrictive, so ehn, whaddya gonna do? =)
Woz
I put this in an assignment for an Artificial Intelligence course. It was a Java applet that implemented the A-star search algorithm that we had to modify. The code was pure garbage, and the teaching assistant that marked it was also the one who picked it off the web in order for us to modify it. I was not amused. So, I stated my position in a rather forward manner...
/me slaps original programmer around with a hammer.
// what the hell is with this magic number crap?
//
...
// This is a butt ugly hack, but given the utterly shit
// code that surrounds it, it should feel right at home.
...
// I don't know why I had to set a number to tell me what
// finishCell to use, but I did. I simply do not have the
// time to wade my way through this crap program to figure it
// out. I got better things to do, like pull my fingernails
// out and then bathe my hand in lye.
...
// I added this awful, awful hack. I am ashamed to have written code like this.
I also wrote a letter to the prof and TA on behalf of the other multitudes of students who thought the same thing I did. Needless to say, I got a bad mark (didn't care anyway) and the TA hates me now. Turns out they really do read the comments! =)
Woz
Plan 9 From Outer Space is a once in a lifetime experience. Battlefield Earth doesn't come close to it. The special effects in B.E. are passable. They are really not that bad. Granted, the plot holes in B.E. are big enough the allow the first 8 plans to slide through, but the movie as a whole, cannot hold a candle to the ineptitude of Plan 9.
I will certainly agree that B.E. is the worst movie I have seen in full release. Ever. The dialogue is awful, the story stupid and don't forget about the aforementioned plot holes. But Plan 9 was something magical. It was in the right place at the right time, so to speak. A dead actor as the star, a swedish wrestler as the lead cop (who can barely speak intelligible English) and a transvestite as a director. With exchanges like:
Eros: You do not need guns.
Jeff Trent: Maybe we think we do.
it's hard to say BE is a Plan 9 equivalent. The thing is, I can watch Plan 9 many times and never get tired of the silliness. I'm sure once was enough for many of those who saw B.E..
B.E. has the Plan 9 spirit. It is not, however, a modern Plan 9 From Outer Space.
Woz
Going to see a bad movie once is typical. However, I think Manos, The Hands Of Fate and Glen or Glenda (even when MST'ed) are the two worst "films" I've ever seen and yet I have seen both of them multiple times because I watch them with people who have not seen it before and get their reactions. It can be most entertaining. Especially if you are slightly sadistic and like to watch them suffer =)
Woz
Just a note (because IANAL almost goes without saying anymore):
How about it be assumed that whoever posts is not a lawyer, thus eliminating the "IANAL" acronyms and instead, but "IAAL" for "I am a lawyer" for the rare person who has the credentials.
Of course, there are some issues with this, but really, if you're taking serious legal advice off a public forum, you need more than just legal help.
Woz
"If it's in a book, it's gotta be true!" --Milhouse Van Houten
I think people have a very misguided view of what is going on and are attacking the wrong aspect of the entire thing.
First of all, to all the whining over getting mp3's off the 'Net for free, I should inform you that with the current legal system that most of the world uses, copying music and distributing it (even if you're not making money) is a violation of copyright. Get over it. You're crooks. Not violent criminals, just IP crooks. To the argument regarding copying music as not being theft because it deprives no one of any good, you are correct. It is not theft. This is a bad term. That is why they made the term "copyright infringement" and that is what you are violating when you copy/distribute music.
On the flip side of this argument is the issue of democracy and coporatism. The whole idea of being able to download stuff off the 'Net and listen to it is the most appealing aspect of the entire experience. It is very easy, and people like that. I don't think people are realizing that they are saying something with this, because they never back it up with anything but bitching when confronted by issues such as lawsuits to Napster from big bands. It's not whether or not the band should or shouldn't do that. I'm sorry to inform you that this is entirely the wrong issue to attack.
What you should be noticing is that with all this downloading, you, as the people living in a democratic society (theoretically, anyway) don't like the current laws. What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst. However, you still acting like teenagers (and if most of you are, grow up - fast!). You gave go to tell the representatives in government that you do not like it.
Ok - I can hear the nay-sayers already. However, think about this: the corporations that are pissing you off so much understand this basic principle. Use (for abuse) the system. They already went to the government and got stuff like the DMCA passed and now, they are attacking you with it. They use money and ideas like "Our customers support us on this" to do so. You shouldn't stand for this. Right now, we live in a coporate democracy because people don't say or do anything about what irks them. They seem to think that just because they think it is right, it is right and thus, it will prevail. Sorry, man, but you have got to do something about it. Is the system broke? Damn right it is. Can we fix it? Yes, but it's gonna be a helluva a fight.
Bitching at Metallica is as useless as Metallica is right now (sorry - had to get in a cheap shot =)). They are simply doing what is within their rights. They are exercising it like any citizen should be able to. As much as I think they aren't helping the situtation at all (Hey Lars, James! You used to be good. Step back and fsck'ing think what you are doing!), they are doing what our society allows them to do by what we have defined as a society.
(This may be a bit North american-centric, but lots still holds for European countries as well. Corporations are going global, you know.)
Katz got one thing right in the article - Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.
Just think about it - carefully.
Woz
Is it just me or is most of the stuff that Neilson says just common sense?
You're probably right, but never forget that common sense is not common. This leads to the next point...
Don't get me wrong, his ideas are great for people who are clueless (and there are a lot of them), but I wouldn't call his notions revolutionary.
Sometimes things like this just need to written down. Sure, lots of people know about it, but the act of telling someone by writing it down makes a nice reference for those in or out of the know.
I also agree with you about the lowest common denominator. You don't always have to pander to it (although, my new site design has graphics, I did make it lynx friendly, but have yet to put it up).
Woz
Yes, it is very cool. There is only one thing that has to be done with the AMD processors and that's getting SMP going. If the Duron had SMP capabilities, it would be the coolest consumer chip out there.
Sure, maybe you can do it with a Celeron, but it's not an explicit selling feature. It's not touted as SMP - it can only be hacked into it. I think SMP is the way to go for more capable machines in terms of multi-tasking without having to optimize the living hell out of everything. Plus, imagine all the fun you can have programming parallel algorithms! Woo-hoo!
Affordable SMP - that would be the very cool thing. None-the-less, I'll probably buy a Duron, if I get the money.
Woz
I think you are severly underestimating the abilities of those studying this. Considering genetic research has done "miracles" in the last 20 years with regards to how much it has learned about DNA, how long do you seriously think it will be before lots of practical applications come out of it?
Both computational study and genetic study are new fields. Electricty was a new field 200 years ago. Look what we have now. I know this is a tired argument, but it's very true and must be respected.
Woz
There's more to it than doing actual computation. These are arguments that have been had a thousand times over in the past: "I don't see the benefit right now, so what's the point?" It may be excessively useful, it may not. The point is, we have to find out.
:)
Even if DNA computing proves to be too cumbersome to implement, we can still gain lots from it - for example, perhaps hidden deep within it is another model of computation. Maybe we can find something that's better then a Turing machine (i.e., it can check another program for infinite loops and find them). Hell, it may prove to be a useful storage device.
DNA does operations on data. It does remarkable things with them and it can do a lot of things at once. Studying this is not a bad idea, but so is putting all or eggs in one basket. If totally concentrated on shrinking die/chip sizes, we'll probably regret it at some point. Push the limits. It's fun!
Woz
Given a set of cities and routes/distances between them, is there a path that visits every city only once? If so (and there is more than one), which one is the shortest?
It's called the Travelling Salesman Problem because back when salesmen did lots of travelling by car (may be done now too, I don't know), they wanted to maximize their time and minimize their costs. Solving this problem does that.
You can easily model the problem as a graph or network of nodes/vertices (cities) and edges (routes) with weights (distances).
This problem is NP-complete, which means there is no known efficient algorithm to solve it. As soon as the number of vertices gets high, the problem gets really nasty to solve (exponential) and you have to start using heuritics, etc. to find a solution. The highest number of vertices in a solved problem of this nature is something around 13,000. It was done with massively parallel computation and heuristics using convential computation techniques (i.e., not DNA).
Woz
Stability: I don't know. I would think the industry doesn't like to switch formats a lot, lest they confuse the consumer and have trouble selling anything. Considering VHS has been around for so long, if they are serious about DVDs, the standard won't change very soon.
(more conjecture)
If the movie industry (read: major studios) could absolutely and unequivocally control the distribution of their movies, then we'd probably be able to buy anything. Maybe they should grab some bandwidth in the "500 channel" future of television. They didn't mind VHS because the quality degrades when you copy it but DVD brings up real problems so, they throw in the CSS thing and, well, insult most of us.
This leads into the issue of boycotting. I really can't decide what to do here. I love DVD quality and enjoy watching movies, but I really don't like the idea of having to use liscensed players/software (although I do have a DVD decoder card in my system since it really helps) and I absolutely hate the idea that I can't take this disc around the world and watch it wherever I go. I know you can't do that with VHS, but you can at least convert it.
I haven't bought some DVDs in some time, as I've been wrestling with the issues. I do maintain we should be able to write free software, if we so desire, to play DVDs with or without a decoder card and that I shouldn't have to purchase my DVD collection again should I choose to move to Europe or wherever.
For the time being, I'm going to refrain from purchasing much of anything DVD related.
Woz
You've pretty much nailed the reason I don't like buying CD's anymore. I want to support the artist but I don't want to support the record company.
Going one step further - I don't even want the CD's. I like MP3's much more than CD's. I have to store CD's in some kludgy rack beside my computer desk here. I don't have to with MP3's. Not only that, I can store a lot more MP3's on a CD (should I decide to burn them) than regular old Red Book Audio. Plus, I can get the ones I want on the CD.
I don't download lots of MP3's. I trade some with my friends, but it usually stops there. Most of the time, I end up listening to the stuff once then delete it (hmmm... a lot like warez...). For the stuff I do really like, I would buy the CD, but like I said - I don't want it and I don't want to give the record company money.
So, there's the dilemma. The only solution I see is somehow getting money directly to the artist. That would be nice. Problem is, the record company does all the promotion and distribution of the artist at the moment. Morally, I suppose, I'm obligated to give them something. Well, I guess I can live with that on my conscience since the general concensus is that record companies are just assholes.
Maybe I'll try to track down some artists who have internet fan sites, etc., and see what the implications of me sending them a cheque directly are.
Support the artists you like. Don't just give away something they've worked hard at to create. Ah, screw the sermon. You've heard it before. Those of you who are disrespectful asses know who you are.
Woz
gzw@home.com
Let me explain why I do not follow/practice any religion but agree with a good chunk of what you are saying. From experience, many people share this view to some degree.
:)
First of all, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to the following of religious beliefs and I do not hold it against people when they say they are. I hold things against people when they are bull-headed and just plain assholes about their beliefs. You do not sound like that type of person.
You are correct that there are many strawmen in the science vs. religion debate. You are correct that signing up for a religion (Christianity) is not necessarily voluteering for the "Army of Jesus". You are also correct that there are many thought provoking theological, philosophical and scientific books written from a Christian point of view, that following a religion has you accepting a set of principles and devoting your life to them.
I grew up a Lutheran, going to church, getting confirmed - the whole bit. I was kind of forced into it and resented it because of that. However, maturity and reflection made me forgive my grandmother/parents for that (there's a complicated story I'll avoid here). I also believe that the morals instilled in me from my church-going youth are very good things. I think they are fundamentally sound beliefs that transcend most different types of religions and is something most humans tend to follow (don't kill, steal, hurt others, be malicious, take your neighbour's wife, etc.).
From what I got (and keep getting is that), following the teachings of Jesus Christ (or whomever is the spokesperson for the religion) will enhance your life. In this mix is the notion that worshiping a higher entity that created all the universe is needed. To me, this feels extremely "tacked on". I get great pleasure in helping others and being just-all-round nice to people. I really fail to see how belief in a higher being will make it any better.
If there is no God, per se, the point of worship is moot. It doesn't matter if you have faith in whether or not he exists - you won't be going to His Kingdom, as there is not one. If there is a God, then will I go to Hell if I am a general all round good person but just didn't believe in Him? If belief in God is required for enterance into His Kingdom, that sounds awfully self-righteous.
Perhaps this is the faith thing I'm supposed to have for God. Regardless, I still find this egotisical. Am I just very well grounded and happy with myself, not needing guidance from belief that there is something out there far more powerful than I could ever hope to be that can help, nay, is needed by me to feel better? I don't know - it would take a lifetime to answer a question like that. I've always noticed that for those who don't wish to think, a higher entity makes things easier to explain. For those who want to discover the workings of complex things outside our current knowledge, belief in a God makes it seem more attainable, that is, God can inspire and perhaps guide.
Quite frankly, I don't need that kind of inspiration or guidance. I do quite well with the belief in myself (not that religious people don't belive in themselves, just probably not as much as I do).
That's probably the real irony here - God is what you make of Him... and He's having a good laugh about it
I can see where you are coming from and want to agree, but cannot.
Ideas and expressions are closely related, as you said. However, they can be seperated. Take, for instance, a cover of a song. The underlying structure of the melody, feel, etc. are essentially the same, i.e., it's recognizable, but the expression of the notes are different than someone else's performance. Put 1000 guitarists in a room, get them all to play Stairway To Heaven and you'll get 1000 different interpretations - I can almost guarantee that.
As for your calculus example, all you need to do to get around the original expression of the idea is to change the notation. You're using the same idea but just saying it differently. Another example is movies: the idea of a deranged killer that is seemingly unstoppable has been expressed god knows how many times.
Copyrights are given (in music) to protect not only your physical representation of the music (the CD), but also the performace of the song. That's why you get royalties from airtime as well as sales.
The original poster was right in saying ideas are not the same as expressions. However, people don't seem to care about that and laws like the DMCA raise the question as to whether or not we make laws for the people or for the people that make lots of money. Now that we have a very easy way of distributing intangibles to a massive number of people and everyone seems to like it, should we deny them of it? (The counter to that is, is it good for them in the long run?)
Maybe this is the first step toward a less profit-oriented society (I, for one, hope so). Who knows.... Regardless, it's gonna be interesting.
Woz
The deal is speed == big_shiny_object so it sells.
However, I agree with you. Now that we've hit the 1000 MHz level, maybe the industry can concentrate less on clock speed and move onto cool architectural enhancements. The next big step is not 2 GHz, but 10 GHz, IMO, since "factor of" jumps are more impressive than "multiple of" jumps.
Maybe they could come up with a line of chips with interesting features besides clock speed, keeping clock-speed oriented stuff the consumer line. However, that could fragment things, but it would still be kinda fun. I'd love to play around with something like that.
Woz
IMO, this Linux is not going to be the "Linux for the desktop," but as a hacker's distribution, it's pretty cool.
Amen brother. This is why I like to use Slackware - it's just fun. I've tried other distros and they just aren't as enjoyable for people who love to tinker. (I do not, however, get into distro wars. Everyone has it's place.)
I agree that Slackware is not "Linux for the desktop". It's not as slick, initially, as RedHat, Debian, etc., simply because of package manangement. I use pkgtool every now and then, but I certainly don't rely on it. However, I get the impression many people who use Slackware aren't interested in package management all that much. However, I could be terribly wrong (that's just the impression I get).
I love hacking away on Slackware. I don't see myself switching anytime soon. Thanks, Patrick V.!
Woz
Personally, I enjoy the rc.d scripts right where they are in Slackware, but that's why there are different distros - everyone has different tastes and needs. Chacon son gout...
/bin
/lib/libc.so.6 (0x4001c000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000) /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4001c000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000) /lib/libcrypt.so.1 (0x4001c000) /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40049000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
:) It also says so on their site http://www.slackware.com if you scroll down and read the news about Slack 7.0.
As for glibc, I just did:
# cd
# ldd *
and I got:
[snip]
touch:
libc.so.6 =>
umount:
libc.so.6 =>
uname:
libcrypt.so.1 =>
libc.so.6 =>
..etc.
So yes, Slackware uses glibc2
Woz
From the brief description of the contracts, it seems that an artist would have to be a moron to actually sign with a major record company.
:)
Yes and no. (love those kinda answers, huh?
It is pretty crazy to agree to such terms as we outlined (they are really awful if you read the whole contract). However, the Catch-22 here is that it is almost impossible to effectively distribute an album without a major label. The only semi-effective way to do it is to sell CDs at your live shows yourself (after printing them yourself). If you can sell something like 10,000 CDs from playing relatively small venues, you might be able to bring some bargining power to the table with a record company.
Again, I could go on forever here. I think you can see where this is headed (hint: monopoly...).
This is why I think mp3's kick ass. All out distribution without a record company (or even a record company website). Why do you think record companies are mad when their artists release mp3's? It's no wonder they want to stop/control mp3's - loss of distribution stranglehold.
Woz
gzw@home.com
The cost of a producing a CD is cheap. This includes CD, jewel case, ink, paper, etc. Probably $1.50 US max. Unless the artist is a multi-million album seller, the artist makes very little in royalties from CD's (more on this later). My figures were about $1.00 US a sale. Maybe $1.50. We'll be generous - $2.00. If the artist is big, this can vary wildly, because the artist has real negotiating power when making up a recording contract.
As for the rest (~$15.00 US), that's due to the record company and middlemen. Maybe you should ask record stores how much they pay for CD's from the manufacturer. From my music course days, the record company makes at least $5.00 a sale (more on this in a sec).
Sounds pretty crappy huh? Well, get this...
Say I'm a "starving artist" and a major record company wishes to sign me to their label. Cool. I'm in the big time. Let's even say you have your own studio. Now, what will the record company offer in a standard contract?
You know what the best part is? They own your copyright. Thus, if you become successful, to have control of your songs, you have to buy them back from the record company. That basically sucks and is the same as the software industry. The difference is you are writing the music for yourself and others, whereas you write software for other people. It's similar, but much more personal with music...
Anyway, sparing some gory contract details that I don't recall exactly, it breaks down to this: you pay back the record company out of your royalties. This is the part that really blows.
Let's say I got a loan from the record company for $200,000 US to create and distribute my album that I recorded. I hand over the master recordings to them so they can make the CDs. I now no longer own copyright on them but I get $2 from each sale. After 100,000 CD sales I still have nothing in royalties because that $200,000 in royalty money goes back to pay the record company. I only get money after the 100,000th sale. I don't think it's hard to image that 100,000 sales is tough for a nobody artist and $200,000 is a low estimate on the creation/distribution of records. Note that the record company makes $7 a CD for the first 100,000 sales.
It gets worse: standard contracts have you signed for a few albums - not one. So you can get really in debt if you aren't successful. Add in the cost of a producer, engineer, studio, incremental royalties and it just goes to shit.
There are ways around this, but it's not real easy (hint: proven self-distribution). This is probably not all that far from reality now-a-days. Btw, the artists can make good money via live performances, I believe.
Just a little FYI. (if this is way different now, please fill me/us in)
Woz
gzw@home.com
Perhaps I am in a vast minority here, but I don't think the show has really been as bad as people seem to think. I've seen every episode this year (except the flying football limb thing - damn!) and I've been laughing the whole time.
The show is a different flavour of goofy. I've seen the old ones a zillion times and yes, when Conon was a producer/writer, it was downright wacky. It still is. I'll be quite honest in saying that I'm glad the show is not exactly the same as it was in the 3-4-5 seasons. That gets tiresome.
People said the episode where Maude dies wasn't funny. I must have missed something - that eulogy was hilarious! Plus, the fact she was killed by t-shirt cannons. That's just silly. Also, the other week the episode with the horse and the Comic Book Guy wearing the "Worst Episode Ever" t-shirt. Classic.
I don't know. I think everyone who says "This season sucks!" after every season since number 5 (or 6) just doesn't get it, but it is totally subjective, after all. Oh well - I think you're missing out. Of course, that happens with lots of TV shows and the writers of The Simpsons know it. You can tell in the way they do things now, by making total fun of the entire process of their art. In all honesty, the show is crazier now than it was when it started. Sometimes, they do anti-Simpsons episodes - just 'cause. That's why it's funny. Maybe they are trying to make the "This season sucks!" people mad. I find it very amusing.
But that's just me...
Woz
gzw@home.com
K&R is Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie. They are the ones who wrote the only book I (and probably you) will ever need on C: The C Programming Language, as they are the ones who created the language.
They also did lots of development on Unix in the early days, if I recall correctly.
Woz
gzw@home.com
I never thought I'd be the one coming to BGates' defense, but... do you know how much money BG gave to charities last year? I read the other day that it was something like $16 BILLION!
:-)
/. "community"
I can smell the tax benefits from here
Sure his company may make crappy software, but I would say that he has done more for improving the world that we live in than, say, RMS, ESR, or any of the other idols of the
If they or I had that kinda money, I'd probably do the same. Point is, they/I don't have that much (although maybe they could give more to charity, but I'm not accusing them or anything. OTOH, I have no money, so the point is moot).
Woz
gzw@home.com
I actually had the nickname "Fuzzie Wuzzie", a derivative from Woz. That was grade 5 & 6 for you.
Perhaps more interesting than the nicknames/sayings that come from "Woz", are the number of ways it gets misspelled. Here are a couple common ones and a not so common one (sometime in sorta-regex form):
Due to the fact I have to always spell my name over the phone, I am considering changing my last name to Wozniak-double-you-oh-zed-en-eye-eh-kay (note Canadian-isms in there). Wouldn't that be fun.
Steve, if you're reading this, please put up a post saying that we're not related!
Geoff Wozniak, aka, Woz