You are correct: it is within their legal right to do so. It might even make business sense to do this.
However, Google has a corporate motto that goes something like "don't be evil"...
It certainly seems sneaky and even rude to use a tactic that you condemn others for using. Thus, from a moral standpoint (or a PR-standpoint if you prefer), I don't think Google should give preference to their own pages in their search engine. They should let their search algorithm treat their own pages normally.
That couldn't happen legally. The content on wikipedia has already been released into the commons. The copyright clearly states that derivative works must remain open. Wikipedia (or Wikimedia, or whoever) does not have exclusive control over the content, and thus have no legal ability to sell it to anyone else.
If any company tried to take control like that, someone else could just fork the content and offer it for free again.
Is it just me, or is it kinda suspicious that these companies are only getting angry now. I mean, iTunes/iPod is new and hip, but it's been around long enough for other companies to notice patent violations earlier. Seems like these companies only decided to file suits once they saw how much money was being made off the idea (whereas their somewhat similar patent was a total waste...). On a first pass, it sounds like silly lawsuits that will go nowhere.
Sounds like a good idea. Wouldn't it be even simpler to have the browser pop up an annoying dialog that says "This is the first time you've visited this secure site!" every time you enter a new HTTPS... obviously for sites you visit often, you'd only see this dialog once and it wouldn't be annoying. If you ever end up on your banking home page and the dialog box pops up (because the domain name and/or IP are wrong), then you'd take a second look at the web address (hopefully).
I've often thought it was weird that the credit card company would call me, and ask all kinds of questions to make sure I'm really me, before they would tell me/ask me something (like make sure that it was really me who made a big purchase or whatever).
I usually ask them to give me some info from my file to prove that they actually are the credit card company they appear to be, or I call them back using the number in the official documentation.
I think passwords/authentication have to work in both directions. Perhaps e-banking would be more secure if the banking site had to show you proof of authenticity (for example, you ask the system a question about your file, and see if it responds correctly). In practice, this might involve some additional headaches, but I think it could work.
Perhaps the simplest scheme is that you enter your login info, but if you then complete a transaction without getting back the "correct" authentication answer, you call your bank immediately... they block the transaction, you change your password, and it is flagged immediately as a scam.
I just wanted to add to this comment...
I don't know if I'm interpreting the mood of the post properly, but it seems to be disparaging the Liberals for bowing under pressure so easily. As far as I'm concerned, however, a government should not be criticized for doing what the people want! The fact that the Liberals give into public pressure is a sign that democracy is working.
That's why I like being Canadian.
Keep in mind that 99% of Canadians (home users and businesses) use MS Office, so if the US Gov sends a few million $ into Canada, it's hardly noticeable in the grand scheme of things.
5. Reverse request. Thanks for suggesting feature X. Please let us know when you've finished coding it, so that we can merge it into the official release of this open source project.
Many posters are already bashing the concept of a 3D desktop. But if you listen to Jonathan Schwartz's description you will see that looking glass is not trying to be the definitive 'next-generation' desktop. Rather, it is an experiment, that is leveraging a collaborative, open-source development model in order to discover the next-generation desktop. I applaud their vision: they are generating an open, cute toy in the hopes of encouraging programmers to get involved, and help develop future GUIs. This project will help us figure out what features are useful innovations, and what features are just eye-candy that is wasting the CPU/GPU's energy.
You clearly enjoy programming... and you are willing to put morals/enjoyment above job security. So may I suggest that you try joining an open-source programming effort for awhile? I think you will find it rewarding.
Yes and no. The "shadow effect" as you call it, only occurs for objects that are very large compared to the wavelength of the light/radiation. Thus, a jet will cast a shadow if sunlight hits it.
Very small objects (small compared to the wavelength of light) don't cast shadows: they diffract and scatter light. The article is discussing reducing light scattering at this size-scale.
When it comes to macroscopic objects (like jets) the article is thus only applicable to light on the order or radio waves, in which case there isn't really any shadow-projection.
Thus, the two regimes you speak of are indeed two separate issues: but they never occur together. For a particular wavelength, you'll have to worry about shaodwing... at longer wavelengths, you'll have to worry about scattering.
I don't mean to nit-pick, but for fun I just contacted Veeco/DI for a quote. They will sell me a wafer with 500 probes for 3672.55 US$. Since each probe has 4 tips on it, that's a lithography cost of 1.83 US$ per tip. That's for generic SiN tips (specialty and ultra-sharp ones cost more, of course).
So I under-estimated, and you over-estimated. I still think my point holds: the current costs would drop dramatically if the technology was scaled up to make a commodity (like hard drives). The tolerances on making SPM tips are much lower than making transistors. I can see this technology becoming very affordable.
You are right. As is often the case, seemingly "mean" or even "unethical" business practices should highlight not that companies are 'evil,' but rather that the laws should be reconsidered.
MS has the ability (in terms of money and laws) to pursue these kinds of strategies. But if we the people do not like these strategies, we should strongly consider pushing for laws that force companies to act ethically.
I don't expect this technology to be on the shelf anytime soon (maybe in 8 years though).
However, in response to your question: I wonder if "atomic force probes" are easier to manufacture than "arrays of carbon nanotubes"?
The answer is: "yes." Trying to line up carbon nanotubes is difficult, and most importantly, is starting from scratch. No one knows how to do it, and so it is all very experimental and tricky. Manufacturing a huge array of atomic force probes, however, is a natural extension of the lithography industry that currently exists to make microchips of all sorts. In fact, the alignment tolerance for making these probes are easy compared to making a CPU chip. Where I work, we buy wafers with hundreds of these probes on them for ~30$. They are only that expensive because we (academic research) are such a limited market. If they were mass produced for use in an end-consumer product, they would be dirt cheap.
Most posters seem unimpressed with the storage density they are reporting, but I'd like to point out a couple of things. (Note that I use atomic force microscopes in my "job" -- I do academic research.)
Firstly, the storage density they are reporting is for a prototype setup, and it's already as good as curent HD technology. The exciting thing is not the value they currently have, but rather the fact that this technology can be pushed very very far. Thus, comparing this new technology to a mature technology (magnetic disks) is not really fair. I do believe that if this new technology is investigated for 10 years, it could outperform magnetic drivers in terms of storage density.
Secondly, the data transfer rate can be much higher with this new technology. The millipede project uses an array of thousands of AFM-like tips, which means that in principle 1000 bits of data are read at a time (compared to, for example, 4 bits read at one time in a magnetic disk drive with 4 platters). We all know that HD access is a major bottleneck in modern computers. This new concept could immediately speed that up by 2 orders of magnitude. I think that's worthy of consideration!
That having been said: don't hold your breath. MEMS is a rapidly evolving field, but it will be awhile before it can really beat out the mature magnetic technology. The article also doesn't give any details on how this new technology works. The potential is great, but alot of work has to be done.
Actually there are contemporary classical music pieces that have no notes in them. The idea is that the nervous sounds of the audience are actually the piece you are supposed to be listening to.
Not really my kinda music, frankly. In other news, I found an article that talks about non-audible music that can still affect mood. Don't know if I buy that.
In a certain sense I agree with you. I want more people to use linux, and it is a disservice to those students if we force them to use linux to further our own personal opinions or political goals. Ultimately, for them to succeed in the world (at least the current world), they will need to learn MS Windows.
On the other hand, let's give students the credit they deserve. If you provide students with learning both on Windows and linux, they will have a greater skill set when they go onto university and workplace. Since linux can dual-boot, I don't see any problem with teaching them how to use different operating systems. And once they've learned two different OS+GUIs, it won't be hard for them to adapt to new technology (e.g.: they won't be intimidated by a Mac).
I'm a total newbie to linux, so I'm not qualified to give detailed advice. What I will say, however, is that after playing with lots and lots of different distros, I find Mandrakelinux to be the simplest and most user-friendly introduction to linux. So I would recommend installing Mandrake to give the teachers and students a good flavour for linux with an easy transition. It comes with just about everything you need to get up and working fast.
this may seem slightly off-topic, but one of the reasons I love thunderbird is Portable thunderbird. The ability to port the entire application wherever I want is great. You don't just have to run it off a USB-key: I run it off of a shared network drive and it works great (I can access it on any computer easily, and I don't have to use the email application otherwise supplied at work).
Now the on-topic part: I think this new groupware standard has the possibility of allowing moderately techno-savvy computer users (and business-people) to access what they need in a portable fashion. Portable Thunderbird + Portable Sunbird + Good Groupware Standards will allow much simpler connectivity when you're on the road and forced to use someone else's computer.
I want Sunbird to be as powerful (and portable) as thunderbird, and I think this standard is a step in the right direction.
I didn't know what it was either. Apparently it's software that helps manage to efforts of groups of people, allowing them to collaborate on projects. So it's exactly what's needed for a distributed OSS project.
Refer to useability first for some details.
call me lazy, but one of the things that makes Google so powerful is the "one-stop-shopping" effect. There are indeed many different search engines that accomplish many different things, but what Google does is make it more efficient to find what you want as fast as possible (especially on topics that perhaps you don't search all the time).
Google search is great because the added functionality does not get in the way of the basic functionality. A simple search is still clean and efficient. The added power is available to people who need it (i.e.: people who want a given feature will learn to use it).
Compare this to bloated software, where new features ruin the experience of using the application (longer load times, flashy panels getting in your way, etc.). I like Google because everything they add is neat and useful, and because these additions do not cripple or change the functionality that already exists.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct: it is within their legal right to do so. It might even make business sense to do this.
However, Google has a corporate motto that goes something like "don't be evil"...
It certainly seems sneaky and even rude to use a tactic that you condemn others for using. Thus, from a moral standpoint (or a PR-standpoint if you prefer), I don't think Google should give preference to their own pages in their search engine. They should let their search algorithm treat their own pages normally.
That couldn't happen legally. The content on wikipedia has already been released into the commons. The copyright clearly states that derivative works must remain open. Wikipedia (or Wikimedia, or whoever) does not have exclusive control over the content, and thus have no legal ability to sell it to anyone else.
If any company tried to take control like that, someone else could just fork the content and offer it for free again.
Is it just me, or is it kinda suspicious that these companies are only getting angry now. I mean, iTunes/iPod is new and hip, but it's been around long enough for other companies to notice patent violations earlier. Seems like these companies only decided to file suits once they saw how much money was being made off the idea (whereas their somewhat similar patent was a total waste...). On a first pass, it sounds like silly lawsuits that will go nowhere.
Sounds like a good idea. Wouldn't it be even simpler to have the browser pop up an annoying dialog that says "This is the first time you've visited this secure site!" every time you enter a new HTTPS... obviously for sites you visit often, you'd only see this dialog once and it wouldn't be annoying. If you ever end up on your banking home page and the dialog box pops up (because the domain name and/or IP are wrong), then you'd take a second look at the web address (hopefully).
I've often thought it was weird that the credit card company would call me, and ask all kinds of questions to make sure I'm really me, before they would tell me/ask me something (like make sure that it was really me who made a big purchase or whatever).
I usually ask them to give me some info from my file to prove that they actually are the credit card company they appear to be, or I call them back using the number in the official documentation.
I think passwords/authentication have to work in both directions. Perhaps e-banking would be more secure if the banking site had to show you proof of authenticity (for example, you ask the system a question about your file, and see if it responds correctly). In practice, this might involve some additional headaches, but I think it could work.
Perhaps the simplest scheme is that you enter your login info, but if you then complete a transaction without getting back the "correct" authentication answer, you call your bank immediately... they block the transaction, you change your password, and it is flagged immediately as a scam.
Thoughts?
I just wanted to add to this comment... I don't know if I'm interpreting the mood of the post properly, but it seems to be disparaging the Liberals for bowing under pressure so easily. As far as I'm concerned, however, a government should not be criticized for doing what the people want! The fact that the Liberals give into public pressure is a sign that democracy is working. That's why I like being Canadian.
Keep in mind that 99% of Canadians (home users and businesses) use MS Office, so if the US Gov sends a few million $ into Canada, it's hardly noticeable in the grand scheme of things.
you forgot:
5. Reverse request. Thanks for suggesting feature X. Please let us know when you've finished coding it, so that we can merge it into the official release of this open source project.
Many posters are already bashing the concept of a 3D desktop. But if you listen to Jonathan Schwartz's description you will see that looking glass is not trying to be the definitive 'next-generation' desktop. Rather, it is an experiment, that is leveraging a collaborative, open-source development model in order to discover the next-generation desktop. I applaud their vision: they are generating an open, cute toy in the hopes of encouraging programmers to get involved, and help develop future GUIs. This project will help us figure out what features are useful innovations, and what features are just eye-candy that is wasting the CPU/GPU's energy.
You clearly enjoy programming... and you are willing to put morals/enjoyment above job security. So may I suggest that you try joining an open-source programming effort for awhile? I think you will find it rewarding.
Yes and no. The "shadow effect" as you call it, only occurs for objects that are very large compared to the wavelength of the light/radiation. Thus, a jet will cast a shadow if sunlight hits it.
Very small objects (small compared to the wavelength of light) don't cast shadows: they diffract and scatter light. The article is discussing reducing light scattering at this size-scale.
When it comes to macroscopic objects (like jets) the article is thus only applicable to light on the order or radio waves, in which case there isn't really any shadow-projection.
Thus, the two regimes you speak of are indeed two separate issues: but they never occur together. For a particular wavelength, you'll have to worry about shaodwing... at longer wavelengths, you'll have to worry about scattering.
I don't mean to nit-pick, but for fun I just contacted Veeco/DI for a quote. They will sell me a wafer with 500 probes for 3672.55 US$. Since each probe has 4 tips on it, that's a lithography cost of 1.83 US$ per tip. That's for generic SiN tips (specialty and ultra-sharp ones cost more, of course).
So I under-estimated, and you over-estimated. I still think my point holds: the current costs would drop dramatically if the technology was scaled up to make a commodity (like hard drives). The tolerances on making SPM tips are much lower than making transistors. I can see this technology becoming very affordable.
You are right. As is often the case, seemingly "mean" or even "unethical" business practices should highlight not that companies are 'evil,' but rather that the laws should be reconsidered.
MS has the ability (in terms of money and laws) to pursue these kinds of strategies. But if we the people do not like these strategies, we should strongly consider pushing for laws that force companies to act ethically.
I don't expect this technology to be on the shelf anytime soon (maybe in 8 years though).
However, in response to your question:
I wonder if "atomic force probes" are easier to manufacture than "arrays of carbon nanotubes"?
The answer is: "yes." Trying to line up carbon nanotubes is difficult, and most importantly, is starting from scratch. No one knows how to do it, and so it is all very experimental and tricky. Manufacturing a huge array of atomic force probes, however, is a natural extension of the lithography industry that currently exists to make microchips of all sorts. In fact, the alignment tolerance for making these probes are easy compared to making a CPU chip. Where I work, we buy wafers with hundreds of these probes on them for ~30$. They are only that expensive because we (academic research) are such a limited market. If they were mass produced for use in an end-consumer product, they would be dirt cheap.
Most posters seem unimpressed with the storage density they are reporting, but I'd like to point out a couple of things. (Note that I use atomic force microscopes in my "job" -- I do academic research.)
Firstly, the storage density they are reporting is for a prototype setup, and it's already as good as curent HD technology. The exciting thing is not the value they currently have, but rather the fact that this technology can be pushed very very far. Thus, comparing this new technology to a mature technology (magnetic disks) is not really fair. I do believe that if this new technology is investigated for 10 years, it could outperform magnetic drivers in terms of storage density.
Secondly, the data transfer rate can be much higher with this new technology. The millipede project uses an array of thousands of AFM-like tips, which means that in principle 1000 bits of data are read at a time (compared to, for example, 4 bits read at one time in a magnetic disk drive with 4 platters). We all know that HD access is a major bottleneck in modern computers. This new concept could immediately speed that up by 2 orders of magnitude. I think that's worthy of consideration!
That having been said: don't hold your breath. MEMS is a rapidly evolving field, but it will be awhile before it can really beat out the mature magnetic technology. The article also doesn't give any details on how this new technology works. The potential is great, but alot of work has to be done.
Actually there are contemporary classical music pieces that have no notes in them. The idea is that the nervous sounds of the audience are actually the piece you are supposed to be listening to. Not really my kinda music, frankly. In other news, I found an article that talks about non-audible music that can still affect mood. Don't know if I buy that.
In a certain sense I agree with you. I want more people to use linux, and it is a disservice to those students if we force them to use linux to further our own personal opinions or political goals. Ultimately, for them to succeed in the world (at least the current world), they will need to learn MS Windows.
On the other hand, let's give students the credit they deserve. If you provide students with learning both on Windows and linux, they will have a greater skill set when they go onto university and workplace. Since linux can dual-boot, I don't see any problem with teaching them how to use different operating systems. And once they've learned two different OS+GUIs, it won't be hard for them to adapt to new technology (e.g.: they won't be intimidated by a Mac).
I'm a total newbie to linux, so I'm not qualified to give detailed advice. What I will say, however, is that after playing with lots and lots of different distros, I find Mandrakelinux to be the simplest and most user-friendly introduction to linux. So I would recommend installing Mandrake to give the teachers and students a good flavour for linux with an easy transition. It comes with just about everything you need to get up and working fast.
this may seem slightly off-topic, but one of the reasons I love thunderbird is Portable thunderbird. The ability to port the entire application wherever I want is great. You don't just have to run it off a USB-key: I run it off of a shared network drive and it works great (I can access it on any computer easily, and I don't have to use the email application otherwise supplied at work). Now the on-topic part: I think this new groupware standard has the possibility of allowing moderately techno-savvy computer users (and business-people) to access what they need in a portable fashion. Portable Thunderbird + Portable Sunbird + Good Groupware Standards will allow much simpler connectivity when you're on the road and forced to use someone else's computer. I want Sunbird to be as powerful (and portable) as thunderbird, and I think this standard is a step in the right direction.
I didn't know what it was either. Apparently it's software that helps manage to efforts of groups of people, allowing them to collaborate on projects. So it's exactly what's needed for a distributed OSS project. Refer to useability first for some details.
It seems like the perfect platform for running some emulator software and storing hundreds of ROMs of classic games.
call me lazy, but one of the things that makes Google so powerful is the "one-stop-shopping" effect. There are indeed many different search engines that accomplish many different things, but what Google does is make it more efficient to find what you want as fast as possible (especially on topics that perhaps you don't search all the time).
Google search is great because the added functionality does not get in the way of the basic functionality. A simple search is still clean and efficient. The added power is available to people who need it (i.e.: people who want a given feature will learn to use it).
Compare this to bloated software, where new features ruin the experience of using the application (longer load times, flashy panels getting in your way, etc.). I like Google because everything they add is neat and useful, and because these additions do not cripple or change the functionality that already exists.