I have a great deal of respect for RMS but his comment about pirated software kind of took my breath away. I can't believe he said that. Wow. Sheesh. Jeeezus.
Many countries that are close to China do have concerns about Chinese imperialistic tendencies. Tibet was "rejoined" with China. Taiwan as a "Runaway Province" certainly has major concerns. Vietnam, India, and Russia have had border disputes (and in some cases, armed conflicts) with China. The Spratley Islands (possible oil producing area) have been claimed and possessed by China despite the strong objections of several neighboring countries.
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Although Kubrick is one of the greatest directors, my vote for the best goes to Akira Kurosawa. Unfortunately, Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune (who appeared in several Kurosawa films) also recently passed away. Kurosawa films that I liked the most are, "Rashomon", "Seven Samurai", "Yojimbo", and "Ran".
The following is some info for those not familiar with Kurosawa's films. "Rashomon" showed a rape and murder thru the perspective (flashbacks) of several of the participants. The storyline in "Seven Samurai" was reused in the "Magnificent Seven"; hired pros come to protect a village from bandits. "Yojimbo" was the precursor to the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns; mysterious loner appears in a town with two warring factions. "Ran" was King Lear set in Japan.
Please don't get me wrong, Kubrick was great. IMHO, Kurosawa was just a bit better.
I remember this as well. For a while the US gov (at least DoD) had a ban on purchasing products from Toshiba. At that time, Toshiba was selling probably the best portable PC's that were available. IIRC, Toshiba's products were not used to make US submarine props. The equipment they sold simply allowed the USSR to make props that were of a much higher precision. Combine this with the info passed on by the Walker's, and USSR's subs got a lot better.
We had a slightly different type of computer art gallery when I was in grad school. It consisted of various mistakes that were made when we generated plots and images. You know the type: the computer did what I told it to do, not what I wanted it to do. Some of the screwed up plots turned out to fairly artistic, so we started putting them up on a bulletin board. Our two main profs also put up artistic plots that they generated by mistake.
My ballpark answer to your 1st question would be, around the mid-to-late 1950's. This guess-timate is based on several factors. Univac started delivering commercially available computer in the early 50's. IBM followed a few years later and sold mainframes in volume (100's per year) around the mid-50's. Around this time, the 1st all transitor computers were developed and started appearing by 1960.
Now these computers were extremely slow, but the shear number of them would would make up for this deficiency.
Another question would be, "When was the time when the fastest commercially available computer had the same processing power as a 233Mz Pentinum?" The answer to that one would be, around the late 60's (I think). BTW, the Cray I (which appeared around 1977???) had a "speed" of about 150 mega-flops.
The Washington Post reported today that the collection of license photos and other driver id info is being funded by the US Secret Service. A small company in New Hampshire is building the database. Some members of the US Congress have also been involved in helping to set up the arrangement.
A State judge in S. Carolina ruled that this database system is, "no more intrusive on the privacy of an individual than showing the driver's license itself."
To me this is not about the intrinsic value of one's PI but is instead a typical ploy/ruse by a US Federal Agency to gain regulatory control. While the SEC may feel justified in their ruling, I feel that this opens up Pandora's box with respect to PI and the internet. It is pretty obvious that this is only going to be resolved by a higher court decision.
Another example of this type of decision making is the FCC case concerning calls to one's ISP; are these calls local or long distance connections. If they are local, then the states and local governments have jurisdiction. If they are long distance, then the FCC takes control.
The US government (Secret Service) also better take a look at the SEC's ruling. They have been funding the development of a national database of driver's license photos. Some company, funded by the Feds, has purchased millions of driver id photos (and other info) from a few states. Hmmm, I wonder if this has intrinsic value?
I generally agree will your comment except for some issues concerning colored/negro/black/african americans. Ever hear of the NAACP? The C stands for Colored. How about the United Negro College Fund? What you miss is that the use of a particular term is historical and reflects upon the culture of a particular time frame. At a certain time, the terms are not negative. However, if that population suffers continual discrimination and prejudice, then those terms eventually take on a negative tone. At that point a new term is coined and adopted for use.
Another example of this is latino/hispanic etc...
The term colored people is of current interest. One phrase being used today is "People of Color" to refer to all non-whites. I personally dislike this term (and don't flame me about this, I qualify for this term). So even a "negative" term can return to exulted status.
So back to your point. Geek/Nerd can have negative connotations. Rather than coming up with a new phrase, I would rather see these terms become more positive. And the only way for that to happen is for the popular image of a geek/nerd to become better.
Heads up your ass? HUYA! Has a nice ring to it.:-)
I don't think that you understand the basis for why there is an anti-trust case against Microsoft. Being an monopoly does not automatically invoke anti-trust proceedings. However, using monopoly power in one realm (i.e., desktop OS) to stiffle competition in another (applications) is illegal. Frankly, Microsoft could (and should) have been procecuted on additional charges besides Netscape.
Hence (and I am only assuming this), the DoJ is considering the release/licensing of the OS as a means limiting this type of abuse of their desktop OS monopoly.
I agree with your complaint about Linux killing Unix. Linux is simply one of the many variants of "Unix" that has existed. I have worked on computers running SunOS, Solaris, AIX, Linux, IRIX, HP-UX, and Ultrix. All somewhat similar and all somewhat different. Their common heritage traces back to some variant of BSD or SYSV (probably should also include OSF/1). Just listing them reminds of the Unix holy wars that were fought.
Now for a caveat. Unix is a trademark that is controlled by some consortium (X/Open?). So maybe they are saying that Linux will kill th consortium.
There seems to be some misconception about why the DoJ would raised the issue of different modem speeds. If one has been following Boiles cross-examination of the MS witnesses, one realizes that the DoJ is systematically trying to destroy their credibility. Furthermore, the DoJ is also trying to show that MS has exhibited a pattern of evasiveness and deceit in their testimonies (written and oral). The flawed tapes and the hidden modem differences all move towards this goal. Remember, this is all cummulative in it's effect.
In contrast, MS's cross-examination of DoJ witnesses seemed to be primarily concentrated on disputing (or correcting) individual little points of contention. Furthermore, while the DoJ witnesses were from a wide-range of organizations, MS's witnesses are almost exclusively MS employees. If one destroys the credibility of the MS witnesses, you destroy the credibility of MS. This will then make life tough for MS if this gets to an Appeals Court.
The DoJ can still call two more witnesses. If too many bogus technical claims are made, I would suggest that the DoJ do their own technical demonstrations (video presentation of course). And yes, sorry MS, you are not allowed to be there when the DoJ sets up or films their demo.
I been looking at this one also and have finally come to the conclusion that the information in the patent abstracts are rather too abstract. More info, that should be in the full patent description, is needed to fully assess the applicability of the two patents.
Let me try to explain. If the patents are too generic in terms of what they cover (transmission protocol, procedures, etc), then prior art may be claimed. However, if the protocols, procedures, etc... are very specific, and applicable for this case, then prior art may not be valid. Saying that I will transmit data versus saying that I will transmit compressed digital audio signals using a client/server protocol are two different beasts. I would speculate that these patents go into much more specific detail into the procedures for conducting this transaction.
The flip side of this, is that the patents may only be valid for only very specific situations. This leads to another question that I have. Suppose a patent says that one performs steps, A, B, C, and D. Is the patent still valid if only steps A, B, and D are performed? In this case, the missing step C is the monetary transfer part.
Finally, one should keep in mind that the individual steps, A, B, C, and D can have prior art. However, putting them all together can be new and therefore patentable.
The two patent abstracts (can't find the whole documents) indicate a method for transmitting desired digital or audio signals. This is from the 1st patent abstract:
The method comprises the steps of transferring money via a telecommunications line to the first party from the second party.
I think that this kills sightsounds' 1st patent. They then make a subtle change in the 2nd patent.
Then, there is the step of selling electronically by the first party to the second party through telecommunications lines, the desired digital video or digital audio signals in the first memory.
Hmmm, what exactly does "selling" mean? (now I sound like Clinton and Gates) Got to see the rest of the patent before passing judgement.
I'm not a big fan of the USPTO nor of the seemingly carte blanch way that computer related ideas are being patented. However, a major problem related to these patents is the result of the US Federal courts, not the USPTO. The USPTO is simply following the direction of the courts rulings.
For instance, in a significant case, Federal courts have ruled that methods for conducting business can be patented. This case involved online commerce. What is the ramification of this ruling? It probably means that everything that you have seen on the web that is related to e-commerce is patentable, has been patented, or is patent pending.
Secure online payments? Patented. Online shopping carts? Patented. Airline bonus mileage for using e-commerce? Patented. And yes, selling music online using mp3? Patented.
Finally, one must keep in mind that most of these patents are actually very specific in what they cover. Change a few things around, and the patent may not necessarily apply anymore. Hence, one should be careful when one screams, "prior art!" Yes, parts of the patent are prior art. Look at any patent on file at the USPTO web site; there are dozens of patents referenced. However, it is the *combination* of existing ideas (prior art) that makes up the new patent.
I believe that many of us think that the patenting of software and algorithms is getting out of control. To fully appreciate the severity of the problem, one should go to the US Patent and Trademark Office Web site. Once there, one can then do an advanced search
Trying entering an/microsoft or ttl/"data compression". It get pretty depressing to see what has been patented. Here's one of my favorites from microsoft.
Activation control of a speech recognizer through use of a pointing device
Abstract
A speech recognition system includes a facility for toggling the state of the speech recognition system solely in response to a user using a pointing input device, such as a mouse. In one embodiment of the present invention, a user designates a predetermined area of a display surface on a video display to be a hot region. When a mouse cursor points to a location within the hot region, the speech recognition system is put in a listening state wherein the speech recognition system is listening for and processing audio input. When the mouse cursor is moved so as to no longer lie within the designated hot region, the state of the speech recognition system is changed back to the state that immediately preceded the listening state. Blah, blah, blah, you get the idea.
BTW, this was applied for in 1995 and was awarded in 1999. There is probably some similar patent except that the user has to click a mouse button.
Things are going to get worse. The courts and the computer industry are going to be tied up in patent disputes for a long time. Want some career advice? Become a patent lawyer specializing in computers.
While most of the discussion so far has been on the computer applications of firewire, another probably more important issue is it's impact on embedded consumer appliances. And the appliance at the forefront is digital television. Please read the linked story in the eetimes article.
Sony is a leading proponent of using firewire in connecting digital settop boxes and digital TV receivers. Sony has also already licenced firewire for a very cheap royalty fee. There is more at stake with firewire than just computers.
Finally, I had to chuckle when I read that the some companies (e.g., Microsoft and Intel) were kind of miffed about Apple's firewire licencing deal. Et tu Brutus?
BTW, isn't Apple trying to get quicktime adopted as an MPEG standard? Are we going to have this type of discussion again?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a great deal of respect for RMS but his comment about pirated software kind of took my breath away. I can't believe he said that. Wow. Sheesh. Jeeezus.
Sometimes you just have to keep your mouth shut.
Many countries that are close to China do have concerns about Chinese imperialistic tendencies. Tibet was "rejoined" with China. Taiwan as a "Runaway Province" certainly has major concerns. Vietnam, India, and Russia have had border disputes (and in some cases, armed conflicts) with China. The Spratley Islands (possible oil producing area) have been claimed and possessed by China despite the strong objections of several neighboring countries.
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Although Kubrick is one of the greatest directors, my vote for the best goes to Akira Kurosawa. Unfortunately, Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune (who appeared in several Kurosawa films) also recently passed away. Kurosawa films that I liked the most are, "Rashomon", "Seven Samurai", "Yojimbo", and "Ran".
The following is some info for those not familiar with Kurosawa's films. "Rashomon" showed a rape and murder thru the perspective (flashbacks) of several of the participants. The storyline in "Seven Samurai" was reused in the "Magnificent Seven"; hired pros come to protect a village from bandits. "Yojimbo" was the precursor to the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns; mysterious loner appears in a town with two warring factions. "Ran" was King Lear set in Japan.
Please don't get me wrong, Kubrick was great. IMHO, Kurosawa was just a bit better.
I remember this as well. For a while the US gov (at least DoD) had a ban on purchasing products from Toshiba. At that time, Toshiba was selling probably the best portable PC's that were available. IIRC, Toshiba's products were not used to make US submarine props. The equipment they sold simply allowed the USSR to make props that were of a much higher precision. Combine this with the info passed on by the Walker's, and USSR's subs got a lot better.
We had a slightly different type of computer art gallery when I was in grad school. It consisted of various mistakes that were made when we generated plots and images. You know the type: the computer did what I told it to do, not what I wanted it to do. Some of the screwed up plots turned out to fairly artistic, so we started putting them up on a bulletin board. Our two main profs also put up artistic plots that they generated by mistake.
My ballpark answer to your 1st question would be, around the mid-to-late 1950's. This guess-timate is based on several factors. Univac started delivering commercially available computer in the early 50's. IBM followed a few years later and sold mainframes in volume (100's per year) around the mid-50's. Around this time, the 1st all transitor computers were developed and started appearing by 1960.
Now these computers were extremely slow, but the shear number of them would would make up for this deficiency.
Another question would be, "When was the time when the fastest commercially available computer had the same processing power as a 233Mz Pentinum?" The answer to that one would be, around the late 60's (I think). BTW, the Cray I (which appeared around 1977???) had a "speed" of about 150 mega-flops.
The Washington Post reported today that the collection of license photos and other driver id info is being funded by the US Secret Service. A small company in New Hampshire is building the database. Some members of the US Congress have also been involved in helping to set up the arrangement.
A State judge in S. Carolina ruled that this database system is, "no more intrusive on the privacy of an individual than showing the driver's license itself."
Stay tuned folks, this one is going to get ugly.
To me this is not about the intrinsic value of one's PI but is instead a typical ploy/ruse by a US Federal Agency to gain regulatory control. While the SEC may feel justified in their ruling, I feel that this opens up Pandora's box with respect to PI and the internet. It is pretty obvious that this is only going to be resolved by a higher court decision.
Another example of this type of decision making is the FCC case concerning calls to one's ISP; are these calls local or long distance connections. If they are local, then the states and local governments have jurisdiction. If they are long distance, then the FCC takes control.
The US government (Secret Service) also better take a look at the SEC's ruling. They have been funding the development of a national database of driver's license photos. Some company, funded by the Feds, has purchased millions of driver id photos (and other info) from a few states. Hmmm, I wonder if this has intrinsic value?
I generally agree will your comment except for some issues concerning colored/negro/black/african americans. Ever hear of the NAACP? The C stands for Colored. How about the United Negro College Fund? What you miss is that the use of a particular term is historical and reflects upon the culture of a particular time frame. At a certain time, the terms are not negative. However, if that population suffers continual discrimination and prejudice, then those terms eventually take on a negative tone. At that point a new term is coined and adopted for use.
Another example of this is latino/hispanic etc...
The term colored people is of current interest. One phrase being used today is "People of Color" to refer to all non-whites. I personally dislike this term (and don't flame me about this, I qualify for this term). So even a "negative" term can return to exulted status.
So back to your point. Geek/Nerd can have negative connotations. Rather than coming up with a new phrase, I would rather see these terms become more positive. And the only way for that to happen is for the popular image of a geek/nerd to become better.
Heads up your ass? HUYA! Has a nice ring to it.:-)
I don't think that you understand the basis for why there is an anti-trust case against Microsoft.
Being an monopoly does not automatically invoke anti-trust proceedings. However, using monopoly power in one realm (i.e., desktop OS) to stiffle competition in another (applications) is illegal. Frankly, Microsoft could (and should) have been procecuted on additional charges besides Netscape.
Hence (and I am only assuming this), the DoJ is considering the release/licensing of the OS as a means limiting this type of abuse of their desktop OS monopoly.
I agree with your complaint about Linux killing Unix. Linux is simply one of the many variants of "Unix" that has existed. I have worked on computers running SunOS, Solaris, AIX, Linux, IRIX, HP-UX, and Ultrix. All somewhat similar and all somewhat different. Their common heritage traces back to some variant of BSD or SYSV (probably should also include OSF/1). Just listing them reminds of the Unix holy wars that were fought.
Now for a caveat. Unix is a trademark that is controlled by some consortium (X/Open?). So maybe they are saying that Linux will kill th consortium.
There seems to be some misconception about why the DoJ would raised the issue of different modem speeds. If one has been following Boiles cross-examination of the MS witnesses, one realizes that the DoJ is systematically trying to destroy their credibility. Furthermore, the DoJ is also trying to show that MS has exhibited a pattern of evasiveness and deceit in their testimonies (written and oral). The flawed tapes and the hidden modem differences all move towards this goal. Remember, this is all cummulative in it's effect.
In contrast, MS's cross-examination of DoJ witnesses seemed to be primarily concentrated on disputing (or correcting) individual little points of contention. Furthermore, while the DoJ witnesses were from a wide-range of organizations, MS's witnesses are almost exclusively MS employees. If one destroys the credibility of the MS witnesses, you destroy the credibility of MS. This will then make life tough for MS if this gets to an Appeals Court.
The DoJ can still call two more witnesses. If too many bogus technical claims are made, I would suggest that the DoJ do their own technical demonstrations (video presentation of course). And yes, sorry MS, you are not allowed to be there when the DoJ sets up or films their demo.
I been looking at this one also and have finally come to the conclusion that the information in the patent abstracts are rather too abstract. More info, that should be in the full patent description, is needed to fully assess the applicability of the two patents.
Let me try to explain. If the patents are too generic in terms of what they cover (transmission protocol, procedures, etc), then prior art may be claimed. However, if the protocols, procedures, etc... are very specific, and applicable for this case, then prior art may not be valid. Saying that I will transmit data versus saying that I will transmit compressed digital audio signals using a client/server protocol are two different beasts. I would speculate that these patents go into much more specific detail into the procedures for conducting this transaction.
The flip side of this, is that the patents may only be valid for only very specific situations. This leads to another question that I have. Suppose a patent says that one performs steps, A, B, C, and D. Is the patent still valid if only steps A, B, and D are performed? In this case, the missing step C is the monetary transfer part.
Finally, one should keep in mind that the individual steps, A, B, C, and D can have prior art. However, putting them all together can be new and therefore patentable.
The two patent abstracts (can't find the whole documents) indicate a method for transmitting desired digital or audio signals. This is from the 1st patent abstract:
The method comprises the steps of transferring money via a telecommunications line to the first party from the second party.
I think that this kills sightsounds' 1st patent. They then make a subtle change in the 2nd patent.
Then, there is the step of selling electronically by the first party to the second party through telecommunications lines, the desired digital video or digital audio signals in the first memory.
Hmmm, what exactly does "selling" mean? (now I sound like Clinton and Gates) Got to see the rest of the patent before passing judgement.
I'm not a big fan of the USPTO nor of the seemingly carte blanch way that computer related ideas are being patented. However, a major problem related to these patents is the result of the US Federal courts, not the USPTO. The USPTO is simply following the direction of the courts rulings.
For instance, in a significant case, Federal courts have ruled that methods for conducting business can be patented. This case involved online commerce. What is the ramification of this ruling? It probably means that everything that you have seen on the web that is related to e-commerce is patentable, has been patented, or is patent pending.
Secure online payments? Patented. Online shopping carts? Patented. Airline bonus mileage for using e-commerce? Patented. And yes, selling music online using mp3? Patented.
Finally, one must keep in mind that most of these patents are actually very specific in what they cover. Change a few things around, and the patent may not necessarily apply anymore. Hence, one should be careful when one screams, "prior art!" Yes, parts of the patent are prior art. Look at any patent on file at the USPTO web site; there are dozens of patents referenced. However, it is the *combination* of existing ideas (prior art) that makes up the new patent.
I believe that many of us think that the patenting of software and algorithms is getting out of control. To fully appreciate the severity of the problem, one should go to the US Patent and Trademark Office Web site. Once there, one can then do an advanced search
Trying entering an/microsoft or ttl/"data compression". It get pretty depressing to see what has been patented. Here's one of my favorites from microsoft.
Activation control of a speech recognizer through use of a pointing device
Abstract
A speech recognition system includes a facility for toggling the state of the speech recognition system solely in response to a user using a pointing input device, such as a mouse. In one embodiment of the present invention, a user designates a predetermined area of a display surface on a video display to be a hot region. When a mouse cursor points to a location within the hot region, the speech recognition system is put in a listening state wherein the speech recognition system is listening for and processing audio input. When the mouse cursor is moved so as to no longer lie within the designated hot region, the state of the speech recognition system is changed back to the state that immediately preceded the listening state. Blah, blah, blah, you get the idea.
BTW, this was applied for in 1995 and was awarded in 1999. There is probably some similar patent except that the user has to click a mouse button.
Things are going to get worse. The courts and the computer industry are going to be tied up in patent disputes for a long time. Want some career advice? Become a patent lawyer specializing in computers.
While most of the discussion so far has been on the computer applications of firewire, another probably more important issue is it's impact on embedded consumer appliances. And the appliance at the forefront is digital television. Please read the linked story in the eetimes article.
Sony is a leading proponent of using firewire in connecting digital settop boxes and digital TV receivers. Sony has also already licenced firewire for a very cheap royalty fee. There is more at stake with firewire than just computers.
Finally, I had to chuckle when I read that the some companies (e.g., Microsoft and Intel) were kind of miffed about Apple's firewire licencing deal. Et tu Brutus?
BTW, isn't Apple trying to get quicktime adopted as an MPEG standard? Are we going to have this type of discussion again?