Yes. History has shown that if you give people an inch, they go the whole way. If they want to be successful (both image-wise AND legal) they need to pursue ALL cases of piracy.....even if it's older bootlegs.
Is that the same inch that was given with VCRs? Cassette tapes? P/DVRs? How about CDRs and CDRWs, DVD-R/RWs...
Are we getting close here? History has shown the exact OPPOSITE of what you suggest. And for every one of these telling tales, the industry has made more money.
I recently had to write a C# interface to OpenLDAP. The easiest way I could find was to use Novell's LDAP library for C#. But it is built on Mono, and I didn't have time to crunch through the thousands of lines of code and rebuild the binary for Microsoft's.NET framework.
Interestingly enough, the only thing I needed was the Mono.Security.dll file, which is referenced from the Novell LDAP binary. So even though the Novell binary and Mono.Security.dll were written and compiled against Mono, having just that one dll in my referenced path allowed me to write my entire app in Microsoft.NET - zero recompiling, zero fuss. Point is, interoperability worked really nicely for me.
Mod parent up. It's true that controlling the execution of the web means being able to keep down competitors. Let Google do search, but keep it away from MS's major cash cows.
Two Factor Authentication, MS style (with apologies to Monty Python).
More like:
"What... is your full name?"
"What... is your 36 character license key?"
"We're sorry, your 36 character license key was found in our database of pirated keys. Your full name has now been added to our list of pirates. Expect to hear from our lawyers."
I'm not sure why this is so interesting. Creating a working robot is no easy feat. So when doing so you're going to want the maximum amount of flexibility allowable.
That may include being able to modify the underlying kernel of the OS running in/on your robot.
MS doesn't provide any avenue for that. You also don't get much selection over what comes with your software. Guess what - robots don't need MS Messenger installed on them. Windows doesn't fit onto a 16MB install. Linux can.
It's flexibility in an incredibly complex field. You wouldn't install MacOSX or BeOS on robots either.
Drilling and repetitive tasks constitute most of the language learning.
Not to start a flame war here, but in fact, this is wrong. The most commonly used language learning method in the world, called the Direct Method - or more correctly, the Berlitz Method - is also the most commonly copied language teaching method in the world. Although not often employed by high schools and colleges, some of the biggest name language schools in the world use this method. These include Wall Street, Berlitz, etc.
So standard drilling and repetition does not, in fact, constitute most language learning. And any serious language school will tell you that.
I worked for the largest language school in the world for 5 years, during which we rolled out a series of e-learning applications. I can tell you the following things:
1) Technology should be used to supplement langauge lessons - never teach them. Distance learning can be done via webcam if absolutely necessary, and you can take advantage of existing technologies for that. Look into Placeware or more likely WebEx.
2) You can license existing e-learning platforms from companies like Auralog, they sell on a sliding scale.
3) Students love to be able to see schedules and homework assignments online. Computer software applications also make great supplements for at-home practice. Also consider setting up a community bulletin board for students to communicate with eachother in their non-native tongue.
I know none of this is revolutionary thinking - but it is sage advice for teaching language with technology. My company tried to teach through technology alone and it failed - the lesson learned was even eLearning needed to be a supplement - not the basis for learning.
Raskin has been suggesting for years now that the MacOS has failed the interface test. My impression is that he would prefer an entirely different machine that may perhaps be radically different than what we have now.
This is an interesting point - we have had, in essence, the same UI experience since Windows 3.x, GeoWindows, and the original Apple user interfaces - it's all, at this point - increased productivity features and eye candy.
Moving away from this UI-locked experience requires radically different thought. While not touting the technology-forward-seeing abilities of movie producers and directors, you'll notice that most "UI" in future computers stand more for "User Interaction" than "User Interface" - that is, interaction becomes more integrated with daily life. Computers track eye movements, "read" thoughts, anticipate needs, and almost always have overly-simplistic and well thought out data displays (my favorites are displays on panes of glass.)
Point is, as pretty as the Mac OSX interface is (and it is...) making it prettier and reevaluating the decades-old principals of PC user interfaces and user interactions are completely different topics.
I work for a company... (Berlitz)... whose sole business is teaching foreign languages. With 500 locations in 60 countries, every piece of software I write has to be
a) multilingual b) EU/other compliant
We go through several hurdles and spend lots and lots of time making sure our tax codes are compliant, software respects foreign privacy laws, etc.
It sucks big time, but I have an appreciation for the difficulty in internationalization of software. I gotta get a job at a US only company...
Bad music?
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?
Bad music? How about DRM isn't going to help sell more of ANY music. At all. Ever. The less you give, the less you empower your customers, the less they trust you, the less you make.
Being an AdWords subscriber, I recieved the image AdWords posting email today in my inbox. From the email:
"We're excited to introduce image ads, an additional ad format that combines the appeal of pictures with proven AdWords targeting technology. Now you can show your product images, company branding or other creative elements on relevant content sites throughout the Google Network."
"Content" pages do not include search pages. Content pages are Google advertising subscriber pages like, say... Slashdot.
So don't fret, they won't clutter the Google search engine interface.
This has GOT to be illegal. Right? RIGHT? The simple fact that a corporation had any insight into political draft documents and help write them shows intense political and corporate based motivation for law.
Lobbyists are one thing. Talking in someone's ear, buying them lunch, being recieved by a politician to discuss your views and desires. But to have actual direct input into policy making as the VP of a for-profit organization must be illegal and if it is not should be made so immediately.
This makes me nothing short of sick, SICK. And it has nothing to do with P2P, it has everything to do with for-profit agencies running the government. I mean damn, if the MPAA and RIAA are allowed to write policy and law, it will soon become government "against the people."
No - nor did I mean to make that point. But virtual divorce I meant hiding it to the full extent of the law while being completely available to you and I. Sort of like OSX...
Heck. Linux wouldn't exist without the command line. It isn't, at its core, visually based. But in order to get it mainstream, it needs to be able to remain hidden if people want it that way.
And yeah, Windows 95/98 were in the same position. But 8 years go.
It's a shame that we keep going back to this. I think there is something here that we can all agree on. Linux - in order to reach true desktop user status - needs to be able to divorce itself in some virtual fashion from the command line. That is - what happens behind the scenes must stay there, and have a pretty GUI on top of every piece of Linux. Heck, my sister was even intimidated by the boot output on my Gentoo distro, simply because it was just lines and lines of text. (Yes, I am aware I can install a boot screen.)
Simply said, I cannot wait until linux has the ability to be a command-line only OS and at the same time, a GUI only OS. Mandrake comes damn close. So do some others. It's right around the corner now...
Slashdot Mirror
Is that the same inch that was given with VCRs? Cassette tapes? P/DVRs? How about CDRs and CDRWs, DVD-R/RWs...
Are we getting close here? History has shown the exact OPPOSITE of what you suggest. And for every one of these telling tales, the industry has made more money.
I recently had to write a C# interface to OpenLDAP. The easiest way I could find was to use Novell's LDAP library for C#. But it is built on Mono, and I didn't have time to crunch through the thousands of lines of code and rebuild the binary for Microsoft's .NET framework.
Interestingly enough, the only thing I needed was the Mono.Security.dll file, which is referenced from the Novell LDAP binary. So even though the Novell binary and Mono.Security.dll were written and compiled against Mono, having just that one dll in my referenced path allowed me to write my entire app in Microsoft .NET - zero recompiling, zero fuss. Point is, interoperability worked really nicely for me.
Mod parent up. It's true that controlling the execution of the web means being able to keep down competitors. Let Google do search, but keep it away from MS's major cash cows.
Two Factor Authentication, MS style (with apologies to Monty Python).
More like:
"What... is your full name?"
"What... is your 36 character license key?"
"We're sorry, your 36 character license key was found in our database of pirated keys. Your full name has now been added to our list of pirates. Expect to hear from our lawyers."
Is it April 1? I mean, I just woke up from a nap, but I didn't think I was asleep for that long...
I'm not sure why this is so interesting. Creating a working robot is no easy feat. So when doing so you're going to want the maximum amount of flexibility allowable. That may include being able to modify the underlying kernel of the OS running in/on your robot. MS doesn't provide any avenue for that. You also don't get much selection over what comes with your software. Guess what - robots don't need MS Messenger installed on them. Windows doesn't fit onto a 16MB install. Linux can. It's flexibility in an incredibly complex field. You wouldn't install MacOSX or BeOS on robots either.
It's on NYT too... but I just couldn't do that to everyone :)
Drilling and repetitive tasks constitute most of the language learning.
Not to start a flame war here, but in fact, this is wrong. The most commonly used language learning method in the world, called the Direct Method - or more correctly, the Berlitz Method - is also the most commonly copied language teaching method in the world. Although not often employed by high schools and colleges, some of the biggest name language schools in the world use this method. These include Wall Street, Berlitz, etc.
So standard drilling and repetition does not, in fact, constitute most language learning. And any serious language school will tell you that.
I worked for the largest language school in the world for 5 years, during which we rolled out a series of e-learning applications. I can tell you the following things:
1) Technology should be used to supplement langauge lessons - never teach them. Distance learning can be done via webcam if absolutely necessary, and you can take advantage of existing technologies for that. Look into Placeware or more likely WebEx.
2) You can license existing e-learning platforms from companies like Auralog, they sell on a sliding scale.
3) Students love to be able to see schedules and homework assignments online. Computer software applications also make great supplements for at-home practice. Also consider setting up a community bulletin board for students to communicate with eachother in their non-native tongue.
I know none of this is revolutionary thinking - but it is sage advice for teaching language with technology. My company tried to teach through technology alone and it failed - the lesson learned was even eLearning needed to be a supplement - not the basis for learning.
Best Luck!
GeoWorks! Sigh... I knew it sounded wrong. Used to own it too... way back round my first PC. Shoulda known better.
It's a Gmail thing. Hold down SHIFT while clicking the mail message - opens in a new window.
Touche.
Raskin has been suggesting for years now that the MacOS has failed the interface test. My impression is that he would prefer an entirely different machine that may perhaps be radically different than what we have now.
This is an interesting point - we have had, in essence, the same UI experience since Windows 3.x, GeoWindows, and the original Apple user interfaces - it's all, at this point - increased productivity features and eye candy.
Moving away from this UI-locked experience requires radically different thought. While not touting the technology-forward-seeing abilities of movie producers and directors, you'll notice that most "UI" in future computers stand more for "User Interaction" than "User Interface" - that is, interaction becomes more integrated with daily life. Computers track eye movements, "read" thoughts, anticipate needs, and almost always have overly-simplistic and well thought out data displays (my favorites are displays on panes of glass.)
Point is, as pretty as the Mac OSX interface is (and it is...) making it prettier and reevaluating the decades-old principals of PC user interfaces and user interactions are completely different topics.
Wish I had mod points - this is the most insightful one worded response I've seen in a long time.
I work for a company... (Berlitz)... whose sole business is teaching foreign languages. With 500 locations in 60 countries, every piece of software I write has to be
a) multilingual
b) EU/other compliant
We go through several hurdles and spend lots and lots of time making sure our tax codes are compliant, software respects foreign privacy laws, etc.
It sucks big time, but I have an appreciation for the difficulty in internationalization of software. I gotta get a job at a US only company...
When are record companies going to realize that DRM isn't going to help them sell more of the bad music that dominates the airwaves?
Bad music? How about DRM isn't going to help sell more of ANY music. At all. Ever. The less you give, the less you empower your customers, the less they trust you, the less you make.
That would be a Hyperpolysyllabic Sesquipedalianism
Wohoo! Rutgers and Coke. Just in case you missed it in the dining halls, check out the 20 foot coke sign at the stadium...
Being an AdWords subscriber, I recieved the image AdWords posting email today in my inbox. From the email:
"We're excited to introduce image ads, an additional ad format that combines the appeal of pictures with proven AdWords targeting technology. Now you can show your product images, company branding or other creative elements on relevant content sites throughout the Google Network."
"Content" pages do not include search pages. Content pages are Google advertising subscriber pages like, say... Slashdot.
So don't fret, they won't clutter the Google search engine interface.
Endor's Game! That's like my favorite Sci-Fi series! It's what, 3, 4 books? Awesome. Kudos on the good reference :)
Wow.
This has GOT to be illegal. Right? RIGHT? The simple fact that a corporation had any insight into political draft documents and help write them shows intense political and corporate based motivation for law.
Lobbyists are one thing. Talking in someone's ear, buying them lunch, being recieved by a politician to discuss your views and desires. But to have actual direct input into policy making as the VP of a for-profit organization must be illegal and if it is not should be made so immediately.
This makes me nothing short of sick, SICK. And it has nothing to do with P2P, it has everything to do with for-profit agencies running the government. I mean damn, if the MPAA and RIAA are allowed to write policy and law, it will soon become government "against the people."
No - nor did I mean to make that point. But virtual divorce I meant hiding it to the full extent of the law while being completely available to you and I. Sort of like OSX...
Heck. Linux wouldn't exist without the command line. It isn't, at its core, visually based. But in order to get it mainstream, it needs to be able to remain hidden if people want it that way.
And yeah, Windows 95/98 were in the same position. But 8 years go.
Na. This year Linux will come much more into the mainstream. Average Joes will start to know what Linux is, and become less scared of it.
Let that happen, and perhaps next year will be Linux's year. This year learn, next year explode.
It's a shame that we keep going back to this. I think there is something here that we can all agree on. Linux - in order to reach true desktop user status - needs to be able to divorce itself in some virtual fashion from the command line. That is - what happens behind the scenes must stay there, and have a pretty GUI on top of every piece of Linux. Heck, my sister was even intimidated by the boot output on my Gentoo distro, simply because it was just lines and lines of text. (Yes, I am aware I can install a boot screen.)
Simply said, I cannot wait until linux has the ability to be a command-line only OS and at the same time, a GUI only OS. Mandrake comes damn close. So do some others. It's right around the corner now...