..is this one: One of the challenges of creating the Code Morphing software was to make the Crusoe processor, in many cases, bug-compatible with the x86 so that it would generate the so-called Blue Screen of Death at many of the same times an x86 processor would. LOL! true compatibility, right down to the native faults in the binaries. ___
I would direct your attention to the second page of this Byte Article on what's ahead for Netscape, Apple, micros~1, and Palm.
The article talks about what's coming out in ms Office 2001 and how ms is using their desktop monopoly to force their way into PDA market (something their OS software hasn't allowed them to do).
From the article: Ah, but what if you have a Palm organizer? Isn't this new-fangled PIM redundant, since you're already working with a (portable, don't forget) calendar, to-do list and contact list? It seems that way to me, but Microsoft says the new application will synchronize with Palm's address book, tasks, and notes. E-mail remains a problem. Clearly, the mail integration offered by Office 2001 is its main selling point when compared to the Palm solution. Still, if you have a Palm, it seems that Office 2001 will complicate your life rather than simplify it.
[sigh].
This is an omission of choice for purely marketing reasons. ms knows how important the PDA and wireless market will be. They know they have a poor product in their OS. They know they need at least a 40 share to be relevant to the platform in the future. So they ignore the overwhelming demands of their users to "just make it easy" and choose to intentianly place roadblocks between Office and Palm. Forcing their users to stay locked into the "ms way" and punish the users that don't. ___
Re:Can't believe anybody is still not filtering them out.
It's not the blipvert (I have must ad sites rerouted to 127.0.0.1 so they never load) as much as the extra click to load the next page. It's to the point now where I'll load the entire article in multiple windows just so I can skim back and forth across the text. This article wasn't bad, it was juse one click, but others I'v read are split across 5 or more pages. ___
Q:And just what law would you quote as a precidence for your case? In what case has any court upheld personal information being the copyright holder of the individual and thus allowing them to use a EULA?
A:None.
I think your idea is not only very plausable, but very inforceable if the law would recognize your personal data as your copyright. It's sad, really, but at the moment (In USA) it becomes the property of the collector building your digital biography. What's more is you have no recourse when the data is incomplete, incorrect, or just flat out false. ___
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy2000/appa.pdf discusses the methodology employed to gather information for their report, and I have to say I'm disappointed that they collected no data on the selling of tracking information between sites. ___
Re:We used to joke that the launch date -- which I distinctly remember being announced as 1994 -- slips at a rate of slightly more than one year per year.
Not unlike micros~1 vaporware projections.;)
gilroy, I do have one question that I'm hoping you might be able to shed some light on. You mentioned many of the other strugles the project had to overcome, was the fabrication of the spheres to such a tight tolerance among these challanges? ___
Re:The manufacturing process of atomic bombs has required a similar degree of accuracy for decades.
40 Atoms? There was nothing in existance in the 40s or 50s to measure such deviations. While I would agree that perhaps 1 or 2 tenths would have been achievable, I doubt very much that +-20 atoms was achievable on anything 30 years ago. ___
From the article:Each gyro is made of a special kind of glass - fused quartz, made when quartz crystals are melted-- machined to a diameter of 3.81 cm (1.5 in), and then polished to within 40 atoms - less than a millionth of an inch - of a perfect sphere. That's equivalent to the Earth's surface being polished so round that mountain peaks and ocean trenches are within 5 meters (16 ft) of the same level. Only neutron stars are thought to be smoother, because gravity flattens everything on the surface.
Wow! fabrication of these spheres alone is worth applause regardless of the outcome of the mission. I can't imagine what process they employ to achieve such tolerances. This type of nanoscale acuracy on something so large is truly amazing. ___
From a competitive prospective, you couldn't be more correct. Going forward, there are going to be shortages and market jumps in one subsystem or another. The OS that adapts quickly with the right solution will be prefered.
What the middleman does is take inventory in large blocks. It's cheaper for the mfg. to sell to 10 middlemen than to 500,000 individuals. The middleman takes the profit when the market is strong, and suffers with huge inventory when the market lags. He adds no value to product production, but the middleman is the prefered customer for the mfg because when you only have 10 customers that have to buy your product, you can acuratly predict large purchases and manage capitol with confidence. ___
Recently, our beloved Emmett was buying a Britney Spears CD single at the record store and he had only $6. When he found the price had gone up a dime (and he was forced to take 10 pennies from the 'have a penny leave a penny' tray) Emmet was heard to say "These prices are Skyrocketing!"
Later, that same afternoon, while cruising in his AMC pacer with Britney pounding through the sub woofers, our beloved Emmett rolled through the drive through for a super size number 6 with an extra order of fries and noticed that the price had gone up from 6 to 6.10, Emmett was heard to say, "These prices are Skyrocketing!"
Keep in mind that this story reports on the analysis of just one, allbeit the largest, DRAM company, Micron Technology. There will be oportinity for other DRAM mfg. to get production into place to try and meet demand.
From the article: Contract prices for the standard 64-MB chip, now at $6, will rise about a dime, Thomas Weisel Partners analyst Eric Ross said. Micron's inventory has been halved to two to three weeks worth from six to seven weeks in March, he said.
This is hardly a panic in the market and will only serve as a window to other lower cost fabs to grab some share from Micron. ___
From the article: Intellectual-property (IP) issues related to the technology may become a sticking point. Most companies that claimed IP rights within the JPEG2000 committee have offered licensing at no cost -- "meaning no fee, no royalties," said Ricoh's Boliek.
If this really is a "clean" spec, then it looks like this could be an oportunity for Mozilla to take the lead in image processing. It better be squeeky clean or else, in 5 years, we'll end up right back into the same GIF/PNG debate of today. ___
Re:Freely interchanging the two terms muddies the water of the privacy debate in a harmful way.
Then allow me to clear the waters and clarify the need for both.
Today, at least in the united states of america, there is no law preventing me from collecting and redistibuting a digital biography on any persons activity in the comunity. This data may consist of seemingly irrelevant facts about you and your daily life, but distrobution of this data, or tracking data, has value to the right person in the right market.
The cost of keeping, maintaining and distrubuting this data falls every year, and the laws to address this problem continue to be ignored. As tracking data continues to be collected without the expressed consent of the person being tracked, what is a person to do?
Opt out. Remain anonymous when possible. This is the only tool a person has against keeping bad information from proliforating without his or her consent. There is no legal recourse for an individual whos tracking data is incorrect, incomplete, or patently false. There is also no legal recourse for an individual to try and stop the distrobution of this data. One's only hope is to keep it to a minimum.
I favor laws asking companies to ask the consent of the user before collecting and redistributing tracking data. I favor laws giving the user an oportunity to view and dispute the data being collected about her. When these laws are in place, I'll gladly use my GUID with confedence that I have legal recourse to protect my digital biography. Intill then, anonymity is the only tool. ___
Re:We have a right to privacy AND anonymity. I couldn't agree with you more.
The bottom line is, users have absolutly no protection from companies keeping a full digital biography and tracking data on every person in the world. If they keep a digital biography of me and they do it wrong, and sell it to other companies, and then to others I, as a common user, have absolutly no recourse under the law to stop seagrams from distributing this bad data for fun and profit.
This is why anonymity on public internetworking is not only prefered, but it's vital to an individual who values quality of life and a small amount of privacy. ___
It's with great pleasure that I violate the copyright of this clueless little wannabe dweeb.
Let me now turn to my fifth point. We must restrict the anonymity behind which people hide to commit crimes.
Anonymity must not be equated with privacy. As citizens, we have a right to privacy. We have no such right to anonymity.
Privacy is getting your e-mail address taken off of "spam" mailing lists; privacy is making sure some hacker doesn't have access to your social security number or your mother's maiden name. On line, privacy is assuring that what you do, so long as it is legal, is your own business and may not be exploited by others.
Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you are. There is no such right. This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
Anonymity, disguised as privacy, is still anonymity, and it must not be used to strip others of their rights, including their right to privacy or their property rights. We need to create a standard that balances one's right to privacy with the need to restrict anonymity, which shelters illegal activity.
We cannot suggest that the ready and appropriate distinctions we make between privacy and anonymity in the physical world are irrelevant in the digital world. To do so would be to countenance anarchy. To do so would undermine the very basis of our civilized society.
In the appropriation of intellectual property, myMP3.com, Napster, and Gnutella (which has stolen from the breakfasts of 100 million European children even its name) are, in my opinion, the ringleaders, the exemplars of theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful appropriation of someone else's property.
What individuals might do unthinkingly for pleasure, in my view, they do with forethought for profit, justifying with weak and untenable rationale their theft of the labor and genius of others.
They rationalize what they do with a disingenuous appeal to utopianism: Everything on the Internet should be free.
Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which is free is free only because someone else has paid for it. What of the extraordinary gifts of software and whole operating systems of which we sometimes read?
They are rare, and sometimes they are loss leaders. Some of the donors may regret their generosity when later they are confronted with their children's college tuition and orthodontic bills, but yes, they have given, and they have given freely.
There is a difference, however, between giving and taking. Had those donors been compelled to do what they have done, it would be a tale not of generosity but of coercion, not of liberality but of servitude. Those whose intellectual property is simply appropriated on the Internet or anywhere else, are forced to labor without choice or recompense, for the benefit of whoever might wish to take a piece of their hide.
If this is a principle of the New World, it is suspiciously like the Old World principle called slavery.
It is against this that we have initiated legal action. It is not, and will not be, because we wish to suppress ingenious methods by which our products may be delivered, but because we wish to maintain rightful control and receive fair compensation.
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can devastate a musician who sells a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans in some small and little known community.
And these would only be the first casualties. The rest would follow as the very basis of the New Economy was undermined.
Undermined - by whom?
Well, not by most people, who have stated in overwhelming majorities time and again that they would be perfectly happy to pay a fair price for what they receive, but by a very small segment who would profit by cultivating and taking advantage of each person's least admirable qualities.
And while it is often true that ambiguity exists at the core of a controversy, here, however, is perhaps the clearest exception to date to that general rule of ambiguity, for the dangers are obvious, the issues familiar, the principles long established and for good reason.
To those who would abandon or subvert those principles, I say we are right with the Constitution, in which protection for intellectual property is founded; right with the common law; right with precedent and right with what is fair and just.
But being fair, or being just, in a battle for survival is often not enough.
World War II was won by the Allied forces, not only because we were right, but also because we had more men and women, more weaponry and more money, and that money in turn would train more men and women and build more weaponry.
But being fair, and being just, is what allowed our civilized society to survive and prosper, while that of our conquering ally, the Soviet Union, cracked, crumbled and collapsed because it attempted to perpetuate a society that was fundamentally unjust, and unfair.
And if the Internet should require an unjust and unfair paradigm in order to perpetuate itself, then it too will crack, crumble and collapse, and it won't take five decades of Cold War politics for it happen.
That is why it is in your interest to join our fight to protect and defend the property rights of creators everywhere. And that is why we are bringing our fight to the court of justice and to the court of public opinion.
We will fight our battle in the marketplace as well, by bringing our products to consumers with innovative, legal, consumer-preferred solutions. And we will work with the research laboratories of technology companies throughout the world, so that we may better protect our property and promote our purpose.
Let this be our notice then to all those who hold fairness in contempt, who devalue and demean the labor and genius of others, that because we have considered our actions well and because we are followers without reticence of a clear and just principle, we will not retreat.
For in the end, this is not only a fight about the protection of music or movies, software code or video games. Nor is it a fight about technology's promise or its limitations. This is, at its core, quite simply about right and wrong.
Thank you for letting me speak from the heart.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for profit desereve neither freedom nor profit. ___
I would suspect a fair number of these people also chastise Microsoft for leaving the default setting of MS software products for the least security, and thus requiring user effort to secure the machines.
I would direct your attention to this article about yet another microsoft scripting virus spreading across networks even as we speek. The original lovebug caused more than 10 billion in lost productivity and damaged data worldwide. This new one (and it's many variants) could double that 10B number before this is all over.
Given the above situation, using the word microsoft and security in the same thought is utterly laughable. What they know about secutity wouldn't fit up a knats ass.
I would submit that the transport security layer is statistically irrelevant when contrasted with such gross neglagence in the applications layer.
On the issue of TCP/IP being open, your forgeting that the reason the *BSD TCP/IP stack is so good is that it has 30+ years of expierience. Something MS is just starting to comprehend today, and will not fully apreciate for another 30 years.
Personaly, I have set a goal for micros~1. I'll consider deploying their products on my network when they're products cause less than a billion dollars a year in damages. Happily, at the current rate, I won't be doing any ms product evaluations for another 10+ years.;) ___
Slashdot Mirror
. .is this one: One of the challenges of creating the Code Morphing software was to make the Crusoe processor, in many cases, bug-compatible with the x86 so that it would generate the so-called Blue Screen of Death at many of the same times an x86 processor would.
LOL!
true compatibility, right down to the native faults in the binaries.
___
The article talks about what's coming out in ms Office 2001 and how ms is using their desktop monopoly to force their way into PDA market (something their OS software hasn't allowed them to do).
From the article:
Ah, but what if you have a Palm organizer? Isn't this new-fangled PIM redundant, since you're already working with a (portable, don't forget) calendar, to-do list and contact list? It seems that way to me, but Microsoft says the new application will synchronize with Palm's address book, tasks, and notes. E-mail remains a problem. Clearly, the mail integration offered by Office 2001 is its main selling point when compared to the Palm solution. Still, if you have a Palm, it seems that Office 2001 will complicate your life rather than simplify it.
[sigh].
This is an omission of choice for purely marketing reasons. ms knows how important the PDA and wireless market will be. They know they have a poor product in their OS. They know they need at least a 40 share to be relevant to the platform in the future. So they ignore the overwhelming demands of their users to "just make it easy" and choose to intentianly place roadblocks between Office and Palm. Forcing their users to stay locked into the "ms way" and punish the users that don't.
___
It's not the blipvert (I have must ad sites rerouted to 127.0.0.1 so they never load) as much as the extra click to load the next page. It's to the point now where I'll load the entire article in multiple windows just so I can skim back and forth across the text. This article wasn't bad, it was juse one click, but others I'v read are split across 5 or more pages.
___
Or do you hate reading technical articles intentialy split across multiple pages to increase banner views?
___
A:None.
I think your idea is not only very plausable, but very inforceable if the law would recognize your personal data as your copyright. It's sad, really, but at the moment (In USA) it becomes the property of the collector building your digital biography. What's more is you have no recourse when the data is incomplete, incorrect, or just flat out false.
___
1) My name is ESR and I'm voting republican. /. poll.
2) My name is Hemos and I've never been in a
3) I'm from the government and here to help.
;)
___
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy2000/appa.pdf discusses the methodology employed to gather information for their report, and I have to say I'm disappointed that they collected no data on the selling of tracking information between sites.
___
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/p rivacy2000/privacy2000.pdf
___
LinuxTelephony
openphone.org
Packetizer.com
SpeakFreely.org
Voxilla.org
___
Not unlike micros~1 vaporware projections. ;)
gilroy, I do have one question that I'm hoping you might be able to shed some light on. You mentioned many of the other strugles the project had to overcome, was the fabrication of the spheres to such a tight tolerance among these challanges?
___
40 Atoms? There was nothing in existance in the 40s or 50s to measure such deviations. While I would agree that perhaps 1 or 2 tenths would have been achievable, I doubt very much that +-20 atoms was achievable on anything 30 years ago.
___
Wow! fabrication of these spheres alone is worth applause regardless of the outcome of the mission. I can't imagine what process they employ to achieve such tolerances. This type of nanoscale acuracy on something so large is truly amazing.
___
Stayed 2 years behind the "curve" is the only way to do powerfull computing at a reasonable price.
___
___
What the middleman does is take inventory in large blocks. It's cheaper for the mfg. to sell to 10 middlemen than to 500,000 individuals. The middleman takes the profit when the market is strong, and suffers with huge inventory when the market lags. He adds no value to product production, but the middleman is the prefered customer for the mfg because when you only have 10 customers that have to buy your product, you can acuratly predict large purchases and manage capitol with confidence.
___
Later, that same afternoon, while cruising in his AMC pacer with Britney pounding through the sub woofers, our beloved Emmett rolled through the drive through for a super size number 6 with an extra order of fries and noticed that the price had gone up from 6 to 6.10, Emmett was heard to say, "These prices are Skyrocketing!"
___
From the article:
Contract prices for the standard 64-MB chip, now at $6, will rise about a dime, Thomas Weisel Partners analyst Eric Ross said. Micron's inventory has been halved to two to three weeks worth from six to seven weeks in March, he said.
This is hardly a panic in the market and will only serve as a window to other lower cost fabs to grab some share from Micron.
___
If this really is a "clean" spec, then it looks like this could be an oportunity for Mozilla to take the lead in image processing. It better be squeeky clean or else, in 5 years, we'll end up right back into the same GIF/PNG debate of today.
___
Then allow me to clear the waters and clarify the need for both.
Today, at least in the united states of america, there is no law preventing me from collecting and redistibuting a digital biography on any persons activity in the comunity. This data may consist of seemingly irrelevant facts about you and your daily life, but distrobution of this data, or tracking data, has value to the right person in the right market.
The cost of keeping, maintaining and distrubuting this data falls every year, and the laws to address this problem continue to be ignored. As tracking data continues to be collected without the expressed consent of the person being tracked, what is a person to do?
Opt out. Remain anonymous when possible. This is the only tool a person has against keeping bad information from proliforating without his or her consent. There is no legal recourse for an individual whos tracking data is incorrect, incomplete, or patently false. There is also no legal recourse for an individual to try and stop the distrobution of this data. One's only hope is to keep it to a minimum.
I favor laws asking companies to ask the consent of the user before collecting and redistributing tracking data. I favor laws giving the user an oportunity to view and dispute the data being collected about her. When these laws are in place, I'll gladly use my GUID with confedence that I have legal recourse to protect my digital biography. Intill then, anonymity is the only tool.
___
If they can go after Napster, they can and will do the same to MIME atachments as an "unlicensed distribution method for copyrighted materials".
___
unlicensed distribution.
___
I couldn't agree with you more.
The bottom line is, users have absolutly no protection from companies keeping a full digital biography and tracking data on every person in the world. If they keep a digital biography of me and they do it wrong, and sell it to other companies, and then to others I, as a common user, have absolutly no recourse under the law to stop seagrams from distributing this bad data for fun and profit.
This is why anonymity on public internetworking is not only prefered, but it's vital to an individual who values quality of life and a small amount of privacy.
___
Let me now turn to my fifth point. We must restrict the anonymity behind which people hide to commit crimes.
Anonymity must not be equated with privacy. As citizens, we have a right to privacy. We have no such right to anonymity.
Privacy is getting your e-mail address taken off of "spam" mailing lists; privacy is making sure some hacker doesn't have access to your social security number or your mother's maiden name. On line, privacy is assuring that what you do, so long as it is legal, is your own business and may not be exploited by others.
Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you are. There is no such right. This is nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.
Anonymity, disguised as privacy, is still anonymity, and it must not be used to strip others of their rights, including their right to privacy or their property rights. We need to create a standard that balances one's right to privacy with the need to restrict anonymity, which shelters illegal activity.
We cannot suggest that the ready and appropriate distinctions we make between privacy and anonymity in the physical world are irrelevant in the digital world. To do so would be to countenance anarchy. To do so would undermine the very basis of our civilized society.
In the appropriation of intellectual property, myMP3.com, Napster, and Gnutella (which has stolen from the breakfasts of 100 million European children even its name) are, in my opinion, the ringleaders, the exemplars of theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful appropriation of someone else's property.
What individuals might do unthinkingly for pleasure, in my view, they do with forethought for profit, justifying with weak and untenable rationale their theft of the labor and genius of others.
They rationalize what they do with a disingenuous appeal to utopianism: Everything on the Internet should be free.
Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which is free is free only because someone else has paid for it. What of the extraordinary gifts of software and whole operating systems of which we sometimes read?
They are rare, and sometimes they are loss leaders. Some of the donors may regret their generosity when later they are confronted with their children's college tuition and orthodontic bills, but yes, they have given, and they have given freely.
There is a difference, however, between giving and taking. Had those donors been compelled to do what they have done, it would be a tale not of generosity but of coercion, not of liberality but of servitude. Those whose intellectual property is simply appropriated on the Internet or anywhere else, are forced to labor without choice or recompense, for the benefit of whoever might wish to take a piece of their hide.
If this is a principle of the New World, it is suspiciously like the Old World principle called slavery.
It is against this that we have initiated legal action. It is not, and will not be, because we wish to suppress ingenious methods by which our products may be delivered, but because we wish to maintain rightful control and receive fair compensation.
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can devastate a musician who sells a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans in some small and little known community.
And these would only be the first casualties. The rest would follow as the very basis of the New Economy was undermined.
Undermined - by whom?
Well, not by most people, who have stated in overwhelming majorities time and again that they would be perfectly happy to pay a fair price for what they receive, but by a very small segment who would profit by cultivating and taking advantage of each person's least admirable qualities.
And while it is often true that ambiguity exists at the core of a controversy, here, however, is perhaps the clearest exception to date to that general rule of ambiguity, for the dangers are obvious, the issues familiar, the principles long established and for good reason.
To those who would abandon or subvert those principles, I say we are right with the Constitution, in which protection for intellectual property is founded; right with the common law; right with precedent and right with what is fair and just.
But being fair, or being just, in a battle for survival is often not enough.
World War II was won by the Allied forces, not only because we were right, but also because we had more men and women, more weaponry and more money, and that money in turn would train more men and women and build more weaponry.
But being fair, and being just, is what allowed our civilized society to survive and prosper, while that of our conquering ally, the Soviet Union, cracked, crumbled and collapsed because it attempted to perpetuate a society that was fundamentally unjust, and unfair.
And if the Internet should require an unjust and unfair paradigm in order to perpetuate itself, then it too will crack, crumble and collapse, and it won't take five decades of Cold War politics for it happen.
That is why it is in your interest to join our fight to protect and defend the property rights of creators everywhere. And that is why we are bringing our fight to the court of justice and to the court of public opinion.
We will fight our battle in the marketplace as well, by bringing our products to consumers with innovative, legal, consumer-preferred solutions. And we will work with the research laboratories of technology companies throughout the world, so that we may better protect our property and promote our purpose.
Let this be our notice then to all those who hold fairness in contempt, who devalue and demean the labor and genius of others, that because we have considered our actions well and because we are followers without reticence of a clear and just principle, we will not retreat.
For in the end, this is not only a fight about the protection of music or movies, software code or video games. Nor is it a fight about technology's promise or its limitations. This is, at its core, quite simply about right and wrong.
Thank you for letting me speak from the heart.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for profit desereve neither freedom nor profit.
___
Notice:"The price of tea in china has changed, Windows will now restart so this change can take effect."
___
I would direct your attention to this article about yet another microsoft scripting virus spreading across networks even as we speek. The original lovebug caused more than 10 billion in lost productivity and damaged data worldwide. This new one (and it's many variants) could double that 10B number before this is all over.
Given the above situation, using the word microsoft and security in the same thought is utterly laughable. What they know about secutity wouldn't fit up a knats ass.
I would submit that the transport security layer is statistically irrelevant when contrasted with such gross neglagence in the applications layer.
On the issue of TCP/IP being open, your forgeting that the reason the *BSD TCP/IP stack is so good is that it has 30+ years of expierience. Something MS is just starting to comprehend today, and will not fully apreciate for another 30 years.
Personaly, I have set a goal for micros~1. I'll consider deploying their products on my network when they're products cause less than a billion dollars a year in damages. Happily, at the current rate, I won't be doing any ms product evaluations for another 10+ years. ;)
___