So, if you combine this latest development with Qualcomm's pdQ, you could do some pretty awesome stuff. How much voice data could you fit in 350 MB? Using a good modern codec, I suppose it would be about 500-1000. Sync that with your PC and you could have a complete voice recording of every phone call you ever made.
This is really a sweet development. Currently, some really cool apps (like the jMax sound processing system) have been "ported to Linux" via Java. However, because the best they can do is include instructions for downloading the blackdown port of the JDK in the README, they are very difficult to get working. A decent port like this could pave the way for a Linux JRE which is exactly what we need for end-user applications. The JRE has done much to ease adoption of Java on Win32, for example.
What will the NSA say when they find out that _foreigners_ can crack the good ole American code? Or even win a signed copy of Cryptonomicon?? What is this country coming to?
This is an important, perhaps even landmark event. We all know that the mainstream media doesn't "get it" but now I think it's pretty clear that they simply have no interest in the world as we experience it.
Usually, when these things happen, we just whine about how alternative and non-mainstream our culture is. But I think it's time to seriously consider whether or not the mainstream is actually worth interacting with.
If so, then I think we need to organize a concerted campaign to combat the kind of superficial and distorting content that MTV is pushing.
If not, then we need to seriously think about ways that we can insulate ourselves from the negative impact of things like this MTV "special." Is it time to defend ourselves and our "culture?"
I don't claim to know the answer to this question, but I think it's something important to discuss and consider carefully.
It sure worked for MP3.com - early traders after their IPO suggested that it was a good investment because they thought MP3.com owned the MP3 "technology"
I don't think that any good will come from letting mindless, spineless bureaucrats make the decision as to what constitutes an application and what the OS. At least as MS stands now, many of these decisions get made by engineers. I'll take that over politicos any day.
On the other hand, I wish that most users would have some appreciation for the vast complexity of even apparently "simple" pieces of software.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the software industry had the same stringent standards as other industries, 99% of software would not exist.
If users weren't so rabidly feature-hungry, we wouldn't be in this mess. Unfortunately, users expect that each new version of software will have 23,456,236,263 (I counted) new features in it or they won't buy it.
After all, we might get hit by a huge tidal wave generated by godzilla playing in the ocean.
While it is true that it may be easier to smuggle chemical weapons into the US than to launch a missile, that is no excuse for having no defense against a missile attack.
I was surprised to see so many posts about how we should not proceed with missile defense, because then we will do stupid things because we will feel invulnerable.
This makes no sense. I'll just make a few brief arguments:
1) Mutually assured destruction is a doctrine that only applies in a situation where (sub-point a) there are a small number of superpowers with nuclear weapons and (sub-point b) the two superpowers are rational enough not to want MAD
Now, this no longer applies. There are too many "superpowers" (if you insist on counting places like Russia). Worse, there are superpowers that are simply not rational. Take China for instance. Mao was once quoted as saying that he was not afraid of nuclear war. Why? Because China had so many people, nuclear war would only destroy the capitalist superstructure and ensure the victory of the proletariat. Not good.
2) The real threat is not from other "superpowers" but from rogue states and terrorists.
Think about it. Some fundamentalist jihad warrior out there decides that he wants to destroy NYC. Sure, we could threaten to retaliate against his home country or something like that, but in many cases terrorists are increasingly alienated from their westernizing homes. So, this nut case wants to take down NYC, and we are basically powerless to stop him. Think about what the destruction of NYC would mean to the US. Now, since there is simply no way to deterr this kind of behaviour, wouldn't you like at least some way to defend ourselves?
Last point, 3) you don't leave your house unlocked just because you have an alarm system. Further (call it 3a if you want), you don't go around antagonizing gang members just because you have police in your community.
Good thing that only Americans are able to do things with cryptography. I mean, if we were allowed to export our expertise, those _foreigners_ would be able to... hey, wait a mintue...
Criticality is the point at which a nuclear chain reaction becomes self-sustaining, similar to what happens inside a nuclear reactor.
Anyone care to explain what that means? Anyone out there with some real nuclear plant experience that can give us the lowdown on what really happened (or may have happened). All I got from the article was "something really bad happened, and it has major political ramifications for Japan" - what's up with that?
Hey, I'm living in New Haven, CT and as far as I can tell there is no residential broadband - cable or DSL anywhere. Anyone out there know of a good resource or (even better) a company that provides service in my area?
The purpose of bills like this is to win big political points for their author. Now, before we get all huffy about how 'users' out there in non-/. land are soooo stupid, think for a second.
If, after Sen. McCain announces this bill, a huge outpouring of support from highly vocal and important voters (I think/.ers count as highly vocal, at least) suddenly materializes, you think other politicians won't notice? you think they'll feel more confidant in their pro-internet-tax positions?
We should strive to reward politicians who say good things as much as we complain about politicians (and even Evil Empires) who do bad things. That's how things get done in this country. It does no good to cynically undermine every halfway-good thing just because it's only halfway.
you're right on, but I think there's more to it than that. One of the big consequences of OSS is that it eliminates "security through obscurity." In general, we all agree that this is a Good Thing (tm) because in the long run it promotes the discovery of security holes that might otherwise lay dormant. However, this means that we are going to have to accept the fact that Linux will LOSE EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGE of this sort vs. NT. Why? because these challenges are fundamentally misguided. Finding bugs in NT is frustrating and hard, because most people don't have the source code. However, I'd much rather have lamerz trying script-based attacks on my machine than have some serious hacker able to reformat my hard drive because there has been a backdoor overrun exploit in Windows since 3.1 - that's ultimately worse, and these lame hacking contests miss the point.
That said, I think it's important that we try as best we can to write apps that make it easier and easier to prevent the 3l33t d00dz from running script attacks against vanilla linux boxes run by newbie administrators who just switched from NT.
You're wrong. Saying Not everyone uses their computers for the same thing.
Is like saying "Not everybody uses their car to drive to the same place." A computer is a tool, a general information transport. Applications are destinations.
This actually goes one step further, and allows any program to transfer data to any other, by sending XML 'streams' of data.
Sounds like a great idea. In fact, why not build a tool that could use the configuration information in a database to generate legacy config-files in the fly. Sure it would be annoying, but only one person would have to write down the style of the, say httpd.conf, file once. This way, every app does not need to be rewritten.
I think that Microsoft's support of XML (part of a company-wide move to start using Internet protocols - HTTP is the next big one - and standards for moving information) will be a huge step forward for XML and the internet generally.
I have worked with the MS XML team and they are top-notch. They've already demonstrated really top work there. The principle of abstracting data from layout from logic is something that the web sorely needs right now, and if MS ships XML support in both its dev tools and its browser (remember that IE has huge market share) it will produce a lot of momentum behind a really useful standard.
Again, this seems to me to be another case of "oh wait, Microsoft is doing X **KNEE KICK** MS is bad! X is bad!"-itis.
And yes, I am aware that MS is likely to try to de-commodotize XML, etc. so don't flame me. I think that the strategies that MS has used in the past to kill standards is not going to work on the web. Witness their great java success.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if you combine this latest development with Qualcomm's pdQ, you could do some pretty awesome stuff. How much voice data could you fit in 350 MB? Using a good modern codec, I suppose it would be about 500-1000. Sync that with your PC and you could have a complete voice recording of every phone call you ever made.
Cool, huh?
Chill. I was kidding.
This is really a sweet development. Currently, some really cool apps (like the jMax sound processing system) have been "ported to Linux" via Java. However, because the best they can do is include instructions for downloading the blackdown port of the JDK in the README, they are very difficult to get working. A decent port like this could pave the way for a Linux JRE which is exactly what we need for end-user applications. The JRE has done much to ease adoption of Java on Win32, for example.
What will the NSA say when they find out that _foreigners_ can crack the good ole American code? Or even win a signed copy of Cryptonomicon?? What is this country coming to?
(also, first post correct grammar first)
For anyone who has an interest in the subject:
http://www.theonion.com/oni on3311/microsoftpatents.html
Once again, for those that don't already know, proof that The Onion is the font of all wisdom.
This is an important, perhaps even landmark event. We all know that the mainstream media doesn't "get it" but now I think it's pretty clear that they simply have no interest in the world as we experience it.
Usually, when these things happen, we just whine about how alternative and non-mainstream our culture is. But I think it's time to seriously consider whether or not the mainstream is actually worth interacting with.
If so, then I think we need to organize a concerted campaign to combat the kind of superficial and distorting content that MTV is pushing.
If not, then we need to seriously think about ways that we can insulate ourselves from the negative impact of things like this MTV "special." Is it time to defend ourselves and our "culture?"
I don't claim to know the answer to this question, but I think it's something important to discuss and consider carefully.
E
It sure worked for MP3.com - early traders after their IPO suggested that it was a good investment because they thought MP3.com owned the MP3 "technology"
Geeks make a few bucks of dumb suits. Story at 10
I suppose a company like Metacrawler ought to copyright the use of the META tag. And what about HREF inc? I bet they're going to be way pissed :)
I don't think that any good will come from letting mindless, spineless bureaucrats make the decision as to what constitutes an application and what the OS. At least as MS stands now, many of these decisions get made by engineers. I'll take that over politicos any day.
How soon for a cute Sun Ultra in a VW bug case with flourescent lights?
Agreed, but historically this approach to marketing software has not been successful.
On the other hand, I wish that most users would have some appreciation for the vast complexity of even apparently "simple" pieces of software.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the software industry had the same stringent standards as other industries, 99% of software would not exist.
If users weren't so rabidly feature-hungry, we wouldn't be in this mess. Unfortunately, users expect that each new version of software will have 23,456,236,263 (I counted) new features in it or they won't buy it.
how much money do you think the founder of Sony was worth? Who do you think takes a cut of that money when he dies?
not a counter-argument.
After all, we might get hit by a huge tidal wave generated by godzilla playing in the ocean.
While it is true that it may be easier to smuggle chemical weapons into the US than to launch a missile, that is no excuse for having no defense against a missile attack.
I was surprised to see so many posts about how we should not proceed with missile defense, because then we will do stupid things because we will feel invulnerable.
This makes no sense. I'll just make a few brief arguments:
1) Mutually assured destruction is a doctrine that only applies in a situation where
(sub-point a) there are a small number of superpowers with nuclear weapons
and (sub-point b) the two superpowers are rational enough not to want MAD
Now, this no longer applies. There are too many "superpowers" (if you insist on counting places like Russia). Worse, there are superpowers that are simply not rational. Take China for instance. Mao was once quoted as saying that he was not afraid of nuclear war. Why? Because China had so many people, nuclear war would only destroy the capitalist superstructure and ensure the victory of the proletariat. Not good.
2) The real threat is not from other "superpowers" but from rogue states and terrorists.
Think about it. Some fundamentalist jihad warrior out there decides that he wants to destroy NYC. Sure, we could threaten to retaliate against his home country or something like that, but in many cases terrorists are increasingly alienated from their westernizing homes. So, this nut case wants to take down NYC, and we are basically powerless to stop him. Think about what the destruction of NYC would mean to the US. Now, since there is simply no way to deterr this kind of behaviour, wouldn't you like at least some way to defend ourselves?
Last point, 3) you don't leave your house unlocked just because you have an alarm system. Further (call it 3a if you want), you don't go around antagonizing gang members just because you have police in your community.
#include "all the standard idealistic posts about how we should create a new open-source standard for X (where, in this case, X = games) ".h
Can't help but wonder how much money the welfare state just made from this great man's death...
Good thing that only Americans are able to do things with cryptography. I mean, if we were allowed to export our expertise, those _foreigners_ would be able to... hey, wait a mintue...
Anyone care to explain what that means? Anyone out there with some real nuclear plant experience that can give us the lowdown on what really happened (or may have happened). All I got from the article was "something really bad happened, and it has major political ramifications for Japan" - what's up with that?
Hey, I'm living in New Haven, CT and as far as I can tell there is no residential broadband - cable or DSL anywhere. Anyone out there know of a good resource or (even better) a company that provides service in my area?
Thanks
The purpose of bills like this is to win big political points for their author. Now, before we get all huffy about how 'users' out there in non-/. land are soooo stupid, think for a second.
/.ers count as highly vocal, at least) suddenly materializes, you think other politicians won't notice? you think they'll feel more confidant in their pro-internet-tax positions?
If, after Sen. McCain announces this bill, a huge outpouring of support from highly vocal and important voters (I think
We should strive to reward politicians who say good things as much as we complain about politicians (and even Evil Empires) who do bad things. That's how things get done in this country. It does no good to cynically undermine every halfway-good thing just because it's only halfway.
you're right on, but I think there's more to it than that. One of the big consequences of OSS is that it eliminates "security through obscurity." In general, we all agree that this is a Good Thing (tm) because in the long run it promotes the discovery of security holes that might otherwise lay dormant. However, this means that we are going to have to accept the fact that Linux will LOSE EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGE of this sort vs. NT. Why? because these challenges are fundamentally misguided. Finding bugs in NT is frustrating and hard, because most people don't have the source code. However, I'd much rather have lamerz trying script-based attacks on my machine than have some serious hacker able to reformat my hard drive because there has been a backdoor overrun exploit in Windows since 3.1 - that's ultimately worse, and these lame hacking contests miss the point.
That said, I think it's important that we try as best we can to write apps that make it easier and easier to prevent the 3l33t d00dz from running script attacks against vanilla linux boxes run by newbie administrators who just switched from NT.
You're wrong. Saying
Not everyone uses their computers for the same thing.
Is like saying "Not everybody uses their car to drive to the same place." A computer is a tool, a general information transport. Applications are destinations.
Sounds like a great idea. In fact, why not build a tool that could use the configuration information in a database to generate legacy config-files in the fly. Sure it would be annoying, but only one person would have to write down the style of the, say httpd.conf, file once. This way, every app does not need to be rewritten.
I think that Microsoft's support of XML (part of a company-wide move to start using Internet protocols - HTTP is the next big one - and standards for moving information) will be a huge step forward for XML and the internet generally.
I have worked with the MS XML team and they are top-notch. They've already demonstrated really top work there. The principle of abstracting data from layout from logic is something that the web sorely needs right now, and if MS ships XML support in both its dev tools and its browser (remember that IE has huge market share) it will produce a lot of momentum behind a really useful standard.
Again, this seems to me to be another case of "oh wait, Microsoft is doing X **KNEE KICK** MS is bad! X is bad!"-itis.
And yes, I am aware that MS is likely to try to de-commodotize XML, etc. so don't flame me. I think that the strategies that MS has used in the past to kill standards is not going to work on the web. Witness their great java success.
Eric