You are basically making the ultimate end-to-end argument -- that is, the physical network into your house and the transmission of data over it should be simple and robust enough to allow higher-level protocols and applications to do whatever they want; be it send video, data, phone conversations, or whatever. If this were the case, various providers could all adapt their high-level applications to use the same low-level infrastructure (i.e. one single cable running into your house could provide TV, radio, Internet, and phone services).
This isn't exactly a useful comment, of course, but I just thought it was interesting - uber-e2e.
This summer, Network Solutions touched off a controversy when it warned customers with delinquent payments that it would auction off their domain names to recoup losses.
Why don't they just release the names back to the public, with the caveat that the next owner must pay-off whatever delinquent balance is outstanding on the domain? I mean, at $35/yr, you're not going to be able to run up that big a tab before getting your domain yanked from you:)
Why Open Source doesn't patent is because they usually don't intend to sue.
That's my point... they can hold the patent without caring who infringes on it... the only time it becomes an issue is when someone else tries to patent the same technology in order to agressively control it; they won't be able to get the patent because it will already be in the hands of someone who is more than happy to let the technology be used freely.
The problem with lots of patents is that you don't have to prove you did it first, you just have to get the patent first... so why don't all the unique Open Source products out there grab up some patents real quick like? They don't have to enforce them, just make sure no one else can get a patent for the same idea and screw the rest of us over...
Well, they could always say to the developers "Hey, we've got this great distribution method in place already that'll triple the number of people who buy your game. Don't waste your time coming up with your own distribution scheme, just let us handle it and we'll split the profits on every game sold". That'd be one way to get revenues on each title sold, provided enough developers opt in on it. Of course, they're not going to make nearly as much as Sony, who can force every developer to pay regardless, but they may be able to at least turn a profit. I'd be interested in hearing what Indrema actually intends, though, of course:)
Never mind "live", how about "decent"? CBC's coverage could be three months delayed and I'd still prefer it to the patently pathetic job NBC is doing...
Actually, Open Source doesn't mean you can't make money selling it. Witness Red Hat; a company that has taken an Open Source product, wrapped it up in a way that the average person can use, and made money selling it. You would conceivably get the same effect with open source games; sure, most "hard-core" Linux users who grab this thing will scour the net, compile our own binaries, and not pay a cent. However, if this truly catches on in the console market, then you're going to have a whole-bunch of Nintendo kiddies who have no clue or desire to compile and configure their own games. They'll buy the nicely wrapped versions provided at market.
You're not really counting solely on superior hardware to make this thing work, are you? This kind of bet has failed so many times in the past it would be hard to ennumerate them all here. Obviously you're going to have to grab enough of a user-base that developers are going to jump at the chance to support your console. So what is the killer feature that will be so irresistible to gamers and developers alike that we're going to take a chance on an unknown console instead of putting our money down on a tried-and-true PlayStation 2?
Of course, all of those other consoles out there also have developers who are willing to make games for their proprietary formats. It's going to be hard to sell a console that requires targetted development of games; given how little Linux gaming support there is currently. This is an issue with Linux as a whole, though, not just the console.
Actually when a computer fades into the functionality of the appliance, we call it a microprocessor or a microcontroller, depending on the context. Sure, the integrated cell-phone, MP3 player, or whatever shouldn't be called computers. But if it gets to run an OS and lets you install custom software, and has userdefined functionality, then it had better be a computer...
I know we all like to hide ourselves away in a little defensive world where beautiful women are, to make up for it, dumb as a brick. Unfortunately I will have to punch a hole in your shielding; many top-models have IQs that are probably higher than your own, just like any typical cross-section of humanity. There's nothing in the "beauty" genes that precludes having some "smart" genes too. No doubt a fair-share of those women really are dumber than bricks, but plenty could probably beat you hands down in any intellectual contest you'd care to name. I'm sorry you've never met any attractive geek chics, but maybe they were just avoiding you...
Troll? Expand your moderation horizons. Explore the delights of "Funny" and "Insightful".
Re:Are we sure of all the health ramifications?
on
Wearable Computers
·
· Score: 1
The thing that scares me is how a while ago in Taos new mexico lots of people were hearing a noise that wasn't detectable by an occiliscope.
For a while this was attributed to the ELF submarine communication station in the area, but I think they ruled that out. A decent but out of date article on this topic can be found here if you're interested.
I think I dated the Geek Chic on the cover of their webpage... oh, no wait... now I remember... she laughed in my face before hopping into her Porsche and taking off.
Well if you're spoofing the packet and the source address then you may as well change the address each time, making it harder for the server to tell if all of those packets are really coming from the same place. If you also vary the time between the transmission of each spoofed packet, and make sure your sequencing numbers aren't obviously produced by the same machine, then there's not much of a pattern for a production server to find. Keep in mind that a commercial server may be taking a thousand "honest" hits every few seconds as well as trying to weed out the bad ones.
Actually, read my own comments and you'll see I'm not one of those who like to draw a line by age. However, it does get tedious to use words that don't exist in the language; and anyhow, "teenager" is a perfectly accurate description of age; negative or positive connotations attributed to it are not my fault. And realistically, the younger you are, the more likely you are to be aware of newer technology as you are being exposed to it with less preconceived prejudice. And "grown-ups" can be anyone, young or old, who has no clue about what's going on in the world:)
Not to mention the fact that, if anyone is going to find a way onto the web, it'll be someone under 18 first. Public Internet access, dedicated Internet appliances, and all other forms of "alternate" Internet access are going to fall into the hands of teenagers LONG before it becomes popular with adults. Grown-ups tend to ignore all the changes going on around them, but kids are in-tune. If there's a way onto the web in a community, however arcane or hidden, it'll be the kids who find it first.
Unforutnately, it doesn't seem that any schools have learned the lesson so clearly pointed out in the parent comment.
Humans are violent creatures. Anyone who doubts that can leave now and get a job in a burger joint (if you're lucky). What makes us "civilized" is the ability to redirect our violent tendencies into actions and channels that use up the energy without actually having to physically harm anyone. You start plugging these outlets up one by one, and you are going to increase the chance that someone flips out and resorts to a gun -- you sure as hell are not going to stop it.
We've gone back to holding our under 18's responsible for their actions (more and more trials as adults, etc.), but we've forgotten to give back their priviledges. Would this be an issue if an employee at a business had a personal/non-profit website? Would we even bother to argue this point? Not a chance. This violates the First Amendment is so many ways it's scary that it gets any consideration at all; yet here we are, having to speak up just to defend a right that is so innate in this country.
Sadly, this entire issue boils down to a familiar theme, and it has nothing to do with the First Amendment: it's discrimination. We're questioning the RIGHT of this group to be defended by our Constitution. We're uncertain as to whether or not they QUALIFY as people. No wonder so many children are growing up fucked; try treating them like a HUMAN BEING. You might be surprised.
The really stupid part of this whole thing is that, given the current precedents as far as domain names go, AOL would have had no problem legally gaining rights to that domain name. AOL is one of those world recognizable trademarks, and they probably wouldn't have had to be in court for more than a week to get it legally transferred to their ownership. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are still very sympathetic to a company's right to protect its trademark, and AOL's public image would not have been impacted much by this kind of trial (other than to piss off even more the people who already hate AOL anyway).
NOW, however, they have gone and stolen the domain, bypassing the courts, and setting themselves up for a MAJOR PR disaster. If this manages to go to trial, I'm sure it will be a notorious battle that will seriously tarnish AOL's image. It's one thing to initiate a court proceeding to fight for your trademark -- it's quite another to be taken to court for what amounts to theft and a serious abuse of power. We probably couldn't have tied the noose any better for AOL than they've done for themselves! Now we just have to get this article up front on Slashdot where people can start reading it:)
Canada might take a more enlightened approach to protecting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, but apparently it is not to be.
I hate to point out the inherent hypocrisy of the article, which assumes that Canadian government should defend American rights, but in a more enlightened manner. There is no "Constitution" in Canada; nothing like what the States has, anyhow. And if there were, it would have a very different idea of what it considers basic rights. Anyway, Canada has always been trying to oppose music piracy (e.g. Canadian recordable media levy tax) -- just that nobody cared or noticed until it became an issue in the States.
Once again the entire issue is based on an inherent prejudice in our society that the youth are somehow second-class citizens. Apparently at that magical age of 18, you can suddenly ethically decide to become a pervert. You cannot, however, drink to celebrate the occasion. And you'll have to be a local pervert, because it'll be another seven years before you can rent a car to get out of town and hustle your smut somewhere else...
Slashdot Mirror
You are basically making the ultimate end-to-end argument -- that is, the physical network into your house and the transmission of data over it should be simple and robust enough to allow higher-level protocols and applications to do whatever they want; be it send video, data, phone conversations, or whatever. If this were the case, various providers could all adapt their high-level applications to use the same low-level infrastructure (i.e. one single cable running into your house could provide TV, radio, Internet, and phone services).
This isn't exactly a useful comment, of course, but I just thought it was interesting - uber-e2e.
This summer, Network Solutions touched off a controversy when it warned customers with delinquent payments that it would auction off their domain names to recoup losses.
:)
Why don't they just release the names back to the public, with the caveat that the next owner must pay-off whatever delinquent balance is outstanding on the domain? I mean, at $35/yr, you're not going to be able to run up that big a tab before getting your domain yanked from you
Why Open Source doesn't patent is because they usually don't intend to sue.
That's my point... they can hold the patent without caring who infringes on it... the only time it becomes an issue is when someone else tries to patent the same technology in order to agressively control it; they won't be able to get the patent because it will already be in the hands of someone who is more than happy to let the technology be used freely.
The problem with lots of patents is that you don't have to prove you did it first, you just have to get the patent first... so why don't all the unique Open Source products out there grab up some patents real quick like? They don't have to enforce them, just make sure no one else can get a patent for the same idea and screw the rest of us over...
Well, they could always say to the developers "Hey, we've got this great distribution method in place already that'll triple the number of people who buy your game. Don't waste your time coming up with your own distribution scheme, just let us handle it and we'll split the profits on every game sold". That'd be one way to get revenues on each title sold, provided enough developers opt in on it. Of course, they're not going to make nearly as much as Sony, who can force every developer to pay regardless, but they may be able to at least turn a profit. I'd be interested in hearing what Indrema actually intends, though, of course :)
Never mind "live", how about "decent"? CBC's coverage could be three months delayed and I'd still prefer it to the patently pathetic job NBC is doing...
Actually, Open Source doesn't mean you can't make money selling it. Witness Red Hat; a company that has taken an Open Source product, wrapped it up in a way that the average person can use, and made money selling it. You would conceivably get the same effect with open source games; sure, most "hard-core" Linux users who grab this thing will scour the net, compile our own binaries, and not pay a cent. However, if this truly catches on in the console market, then you're going to have a whole-bunch of Nintendo kiddies who have no clue or desire to compile and configure their own games. They'll buy the nicely wrapped versions provided at market.
You're not really counting solely on superior hardware to make this thing work, are you? This kind of bet has failed so many times in the past it would be hard to ennumerate them all here. Obviously you're going to have to grab enough of a user-base that developers are going to jump at the chance to support your console. So what is the killer feature that will be so irresistible to gamers and developers alike that we're going to take a chance on an unknown console instead of putting our money down on a tried-and-true PlayStation 2?
Definitely a question that needs answering, considering the "normal development of PC games for Linux" has been, at best, horrendously slow.
Of course, all of those other consoles out there also have developers who are willing to make games for their proprietary formats. It's going to be hard to sell a console that requires targetted development of games; given how little Linux gaming support there is currently. This is an issue with Linux as a whole, though, not just the console.
Actually when a computer fades into the functionality of the appliance, we call it a microprocessor or a microcontroller, depending on the context. Sure, the integrated cell-phone, MP3 player, or whatever shouldn't be called computers. But if it gets to run an OS and lets you install custom software, and has userdefined functionality, then it had better be a computer...
I know we all like to hide ourselves away in a little defensive world where beautiful women are, to make up for it, dumb as a brick. Unfortunately I will have to punch a hole in your shielding; many top-models have IQs that are probably higher than your own, just like any typical cross-section of humanity. There's nothing in the "beauty" genes that precludes having some "smart" genes too. No doubt a fair-share of those women really are dumber than bricks, but plenty could probably beat you hands down in any intellectual contest you'd care to name. I'm sorry you've never met any attractive geek chics, but maybe they were just avoiding you...
Troll? Expand your moderation horizons. Explore the delights of "Funny" and "Insightful".
The thing that scares me is how a while ago in Taos new mexico lots of people were hearing a noise that wasn't detectable by an occiliscope.
For a while this was attributed to the ELF submarine communication station in the area, but I think they ruled that out. A decent but out of date article on this topic can be found here if you're interested.
I think I dated the Geek Chic on the cover of their webpage... oh, no wait... now I remember... she laughed in my face before hopping into her Porsche and taking off.
Well if you're spoofing the packet and the source address then you may as well change the address each time, making it harder for the server to tell if all of those packets are really coming from the same place. If you also vary the time between the transmission of each spoofed packet, and make sure your sequencing numbers aren't obviously produced by the same machine, then there's not much of a pattern for a production server to find. Keep in mind that a commercial server may be taking a thousand "honest" hits every few seconds as well as trying to weed out the bad ones.
Keep it up, high schools of America. More Columbines will pop up all over the place and will just as easily be forgotten after 15 minutes.
Did it really take a whole 15 minutes?
Actually, read my own comments and you'll see I'm not one of those who like to draw a line by age. However, it does get tedious to use words that don't exist in the language; and anyhow, "teenager" is a perfectly accurate description of age; negative or positive connotations attributed to it are not my fault. And realistically, the younger you are, the more likely you are to be aware of newer technology as you are being exposed to it with less preconceived prejudice. And "grown-ups" can be anyone, young or old, who has no clue about what's going on in the world :)
I submit! Out posted...
It's only karma whoring when you actually put an tag in there to make it convenient for people to click on the link.
Not to mention the fact that, if anyone is going to find a way onto the web, it'll be someone under 18 first. Public Internet access, dedicated Internet appliances, and all other forms of "alternate" Internet access are going to fall into the hands of teenagers LONG before it becomes popular with adults. Grown-ups tend to ignore all the changes going on around them, but kids are in-tune. If there's a way onto the web in a community, however arcane or hidden, it'll be the kids who find it first.
Unforutnately, it doesn't seem that any schools have learned the lesson so clearly pointed out in the parent comment.
Humans are violent creatures. Anyone who doubts that can leave now and get a job in a burger joint (if you're lucky). What makes us "civilized" is the ability to redirect our violent tendencies into actions and channels that use up the energy without actually having to physically harm anyone. You start plugging these outlets up one by one, and you are going to increase the chance that someone flips out and resorts to a gun -- you sure as hell are not going to stop it.
We've gone back to holding our under 18's responsible for their actions (more and more trials as adults, etc.), but we've forgotten to give back their priviledges. Would this be an issue if an employee at a business had a personal/non-profit website? Would we even bother to argue this point? Not a chance. This violates the First Amendment is so many ways it's scary that it gets any consideration at all; yet here we are, having to speak up just to defend a right that is so innate in this country.
Sadly, this entire issue boils down to a familiar theme, and it has nothing to do with the First Amendment: it's discrimination. We're questioning the RIGHT of this group to be defended by our Constitution. We're uncertain as to whether or not they QUALIFY as people. No wonder so many children are growing up fucked; try treating them like a HUMAN BEING. You might be surprised.
The really stupid part of this whole thing is that, given the current precedents as far as domain names go, AOL would have had no problem legally gaining rights to that domain name. AOL is one of those world recognizable trademarks, and they probably wouldn't have had to be in court for more than a week to get it legally transferred to their ownership. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are still very sympathetic to a company's right to protect its trademark, and AOL's public image would not have been impacted much by this kind of trial (other than to piss off even more the people who already hate AOL anyway). :)
NOW, however, they have gone and stolen the domain, bypassing the courts, and setting themselves up for a MAJOR PR disaster. If this manages to go to trial, I'm sure it will be a notorious battle that will seriously tarnish AOL's image. It's one thing to initiate a court proceeding to fight for your trademark -- it's quite another to be taken to court for what amounts to theft and a serious abuse of power. We probably couldn't have tied the noose any better for AOL than they've done for themselves! Now we just have to get this article up front on Slashdot where people can start reading it
Canada might take a more enlightened approach to protecting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, but apparently it is not to be.
I hate to point out the inherent hypocrisy of the article, which assumes that Canadian government should defend American rights, but in a more enlightened manner. There is no "Constitution" in Canada; nothing like what the States has, anyhow. And if there were, it would have a very different idea of what it considers basic rights. Anyway, Canada has always been trying to oppose music piracy (e.g. Canadian recordable media levy tax) -- just that nobody cared or noticed until it became an issue in the States.
Once again the entire issue is based on an inherent prejudice in our society that the youth are somehow second-class citizens. Apparently at that magical age of 18, you can suddenly ethically decide to become a pervert. You cannot, however, drink to celebrate the occasion. And you'll have to be a local pervert, because it'll be another seven years before you can rent a car to get out of town and hustle your smut somewhere else...