Please people, the RIAA has nothing to do with music, they are part of a different industry.
The RIAA represents one aspect of the copyright industry.
It is their job manipulate the legal system to increase profits for their industry because the basis for their industry (and their means of manufacturing scarity) is entirely through the privledges they have obtained in the copyright laws.
I was part of a class that allowed me to work on some PS1 development kits. These were special kits for hobbyists and even then they were thousands of dollars. Getting a PS2 setup, if it is even possible for an amateur developer will be expensive and difficult. I suggest some alternatives:
1) Check out dreamcast development. It is geared much more towards hobbyists, etc. (At least thats what Ive been told).
2) Dont do any coding. Thats monkey work.:) Instead, if you are allowed, put together a detailed a design doc, perhaps some technical docs on the algorithms, etc that you would have to use to implement your game.
3) Use the SDL. Check out http://www.libsdl.org/. Far simpler to get up and running, free, and really decent quality. Make a pac man clone or something SIMPLER. Remember the project will be more about learning the SDL then writing the game. These things take more time then you can imagine, and with a full course load... I have made the mistake of trying to do an original, complex game... and its NOT pretty what happens to you.
It is inappropriate to purchase anything from Amazon if you disagree with their one-click patent. It is our job as consumers to make informed and pro-active purchases.
I'd supply some links to slashdot articles, but the search doesn't seem to be working right now:(
So what we get is the dictatorship of the majority. Most people are stupid, so they deserve stupid laws.
Your opinion shows just how good the right wing propaganda machine is (especially in the US). They would like everyone to believe as you do, when it is much more likely that the DMCA and similar laws were fueled with the money of the distributors and publishers. These laws tend to favour (Canadian, eh?) a small elite rather than just any old individual.
The system I would prefer is a combination of Mojonation and online tipping. Basically, here's how it would work:
To pay for infrastructure you have a system much like Mojonation (http://mojonation.net) - every network action costs a bit of mojo, but it is simple to gain more by sharing some of your own machines resources (disk space, cpu, etc).
To pay for content have a "tip" or gratuity system in which everything that can be replicated for free costs nothing. However, a simple, international interface would allow you to tip the direct creator of the content. You pay what you want, when you want, for only the things you want. The consumer can never be "ripped" off.
I suppose then the content distributions sites would most likely be paid by the content creators. The creators are paying for the distributors ability to get their content into as many hands and eyeballs as possible.
You don't even want to know what I'd do to the copyright laws and patent system....
Try setting your monitors color depth and resolution to the one you use in game. I couldn't get my B&W to work on Win2000 until I changed the resolution manually.
Thanks Beboxer, beautiful post. I am fed up with all the negativity surrounding the comments on a Jon Katz post. It really sickens me. It's amazing how poorly Slashdot readers are able to discuss some of the idea presented.
Depending on your nature vs nurture attitude I think you can reinterpret Jon's metaphor and your extension of it.
Within a few decades of his death, the movement of people who believed in Jesus's 'Open Source for the Soul'...was swarmed with fakers and poseurs...You can expect the same thing to happen with the Open Source movement...it will increasingly be swarmed with people using it for their own selfish ends. Human nature.
I think that society has changed considerably since 2000 years ago. Remember we are not socialized the same way, we have vastly higher quality lives, etc. I don't doubt that we would have to change society a great deal more before people stop "faking and posing" but I don't think people will react to Open Source as they did to the religious beliefs of a 2000 year old revolutionary.
I have hope that Open Source, and our current society will go places unlike previous historical examples... or perhaps it might just allow the next Open Source based society to really make "giant leap forward".
Maybe the American's should learn something from Canadian's... the American Way seems to be a morally devoid cash-grubbing self-centered existance. Canadian's still have some traces of socialist views (even with being constantly bombarded with American media).
Can some American's explain why the "American Dream" is attractive? I don't understand why you would be proud to find your happiness and "freedom" through money and power. I suppose the Dream has been corrupted by corporate propaganda, but perhaps the dream was flawed to begin with. It's a new century, let's throw out the old dreams, and construct societies that we are proud to be a part of.
The most important thing to teach your student is that s/he (I'll use he from now on) can do anything. This means:
He can be a geek and learn math and computers.
He can be a jock and get involved in sports.
He can be an artist and paitn, sculpt, etc.
He can be a writer, poet or director.
He can be a musician, a traveller, and a dreamer.
He can be a friend and a hero.
He should learn that its OK to be something other than a prodigy. This means:
He can be stupid.
He can be silly, embarrassed, and ashamed.
He should learn that other people can be all of things too.
He should learn that being happy is learning to love life; your's and every other life.
He should learn to find joy in the little things.
He should learn to never stop asking, "Why?"
He should learn that almost everything he knows he ahas been taught rather than experiencing it himself, and should take that into consideration when he thinks he "knows" something.
Most importantly I would teach him about heroes. People that he can respect and admire. Fictional and historical. Western culture is a lack of hero's in it's entertainment - check out Hayao Myazaki's films (http://www.nausicaa.net/) or give him The Lord of The Rings.
I recently did a scultpure that utilized the tricks that Edward Land did... if you don't know about Land's experiment, you should. It's an eye-opening (sorry) experience.
Check out a write I did he re. View a short animation that explains it all here (Shockwave required).
Another really trippy experiment to try is this:
Grab a friend and go to a mirror. Then have your friend face you, and look at your eyes (one and then the other). Then look into the mirror at your reflection, and look from one eye to the other. Notice a difference? This will freak you out.
Email me if you want to know whats going on.... I dont want to spoil it, its too freaky.:)
Hmm. Good examples of strange C# design decisions Mike.
I've tried to think of an example of when you would want to only shadow a method, but nothing useful comes to mind. However, I freely admit that I haven't done enough generic programming and "real" virtual polymorphic coding. However perhaps the idea is only that compiler would just throw compile errors without the keyword (so the override keyword just helps other programmers realize what is going on).
Your example:
Imagine a programmer wants to extend a component Doohickey for which he has the API but not the source, and he shadows a method he didn't know existed in his implementation, called Thingamajig. Imagine his surprise when he passes a Thingamajig to a method processDooHickey( DooHickey ), and it behaves very strangely and not at all like he coded.
Not a good example. In Java (and C#) the public methods would be documented (through JavaDoc or whatever C# is calling their autodoc feature) and the private methods wouldn't have that problem. In any case C# must give some sort of compile time warning...
However, unless there are really good compile warnings/errors, I agree the override keyword does not seem well thought out.
As for types, I'm 100% behind you - strongly typed languages are so much nicer to work with (although Java makes casting a nightmare - which BTW sounds like it will be a much easier task with C#).
"Unsafe code" also sounds like a nightmare, but I never have to use it. I think it will only be used in extreme circumstances (small memory footprint devices, etc) where the GC would not perform as well - and in these cases C# has an advantage over Java, by providing the flexibility needed without defining all sorts of work arounds (Jini, etc).
As for the Haskell example... LOL. Great question, I wish I could have taken your class.:)
However, it's hard to say without testing, but from what I've read there seems to be some sort of memory "sandbox" idea, preventing C# from blowing up when one adds "unsafe code". 'Course I don't really belive anything like that would work, but hey, I'll give them the benifit of the doubt until I try it.
I can't answer for Tim but I would guess that he did not know about GJ (or any other generic programming initiative for Java) when he wrote the article. I didn't know about it either. Until GJ or NextGen are part of the standard java library I don't think Java measures up - and I think Tim would still fault Java for being so utterly slow (I know I would - from my days programming with Swing, etc).
Anyways, I wish the best of luck to GJ and NextGen, and I'll be sure to to check them out for my next Java project.
In any case, I don't know for sure that C# is a good language - I havent used it. I have read over all the material that has been linked to from Slashdot, and this preliminary investigation seems to show that it has potential. (I love the fact that they are concentrating more on components and object interactions.)
Rather than evaluate how C# might help them most/.ers only want to start comparing it to what is already out there ("so what if it can do blah, I can already do blah by blah blah blah in the blah language.")
The fact is, when it comes down to it, every high level language concept can be done in assembly or machine code. Big deal. The important part is how does the high-level language make the programmers life easier (and thus improve their productivity).
Stop your bitching, start thinking how C# might make you a better programmer. Tim Sweeney has written an article that you need to read. Although (from what I can tell) C# doesn't meet all his ideas of a "next generation" programming language, it is closer than C++ or Java. A quote for the whiners:
Assembly programmers didn't realize they needed processor-independence; it doesn't seem like a practical concept when your life's work is focused on micro-optimizing individual CPU instructions and register usage. C programmers didn't realize they needed objects because, after all, the world is made of functions and data structures! This seems silly nowadays, but at the time, C programmers had become so accustomed to the strengths and limitations of their language that they thought: since it's so difficult to express object-orientation in C, object-orientation must be a flawed concept. It wasn't then clear that C was simple a poor language for object orientation.
Similarly, most programmers don't see the fatal flaws in C++ and Java. People tend to look at the failings of C++ frameworks, component-based software, and binary platform independence, and deduce that those concepts are flawed. It isn't clear to most people that C++ and Java are simply poor languages for frameworks, and parametric polymorphism, and binary portability. Most programmers never switch languages. Either they don't want to, or the circumstances of their job don't allow them the luxury.
It amazes me that a system hasn't been put into place that solves a majority of the copyright, digital "stealing" problems that have cropped up in the last while. If I had more experience (and influence) in the area I would do the following:
Make all ideas, works of art, scientific papers, etc freely available over the 'Net. Perhaps a company run database, or even a government run idea warehouse.
Mark or somehow identify all content with digital signatures.
Implement a convenient, simple digital transaction system that allows micro, small or large payments.
Let the people decide who gets paid. Yes, this is not how things work right now and it would take some time before it really got into societies "unwritten rules". However there is precedent - people give to charities all the time, and we don't think twice about tipping at a restaurant. In fact to encourage people spending money on artists (and scientists) they could be given tax breaks (like charitable donations).
As for record companies - keep em, but change their role. They are very useful - as promoters. In this new system they would be hired as promoters. Artists could spend however much money they want promoting themselves (by hiring the record companies). People like to own things (go consumer society!) and will gladly pay money for tangibles (provided by the old record companies).
This system puts the consumer in charge of the artist, whose in charge of the record companies. This is how it should be.
Brave New World by Huxley sums up the fears fairly well.
Nope. Brave New World describes a govenment mandated class system, not a free enterprise class system. In BNW humans are created less equal than others (worker drones), not more equal (as in a commercially genetically modified world).
Basically BNW is about a society that rejects emotion to preserve stability, not about creating a legion of smart, healthy babies.
For years I heard that the brain *never* regenerates cells. The brain cells that you're born with are the only ones you will ever get. Now, it is known that is completely wrong. The brain does have the ability to regenerate brain cells that are lost.
Well, actually the brain is rather odd in that it doesn't have the same regenerative capacities as the peripheral nervous system. A patient with brain damage never recovers fully. Sometimes new dendrites (branches) are formed by remaining neurons to help, sometimes the patient can learn other ways of completing the same task, but generally there is little regrowth of damaged tissue. However you are right in saying that new brain cells are produced (there are many theories describing the purpose of these new [and sometimes temporany] cells), however full regrowth of damaged tissues has not been observed.
Jon, I think your statistics and numbers do not reflect a growing trend of technology destroying leisure time, but instead reflect the cultural effect of specialization (I will explain later) and poor business practice.
I could use some of your own stats to refute you, but I'd rather talk about my ideas then disagree with yours.:)
There has been a strong trend for people to specialize in today's work place - and not in a positive manner. Geek's are told they can't draw or play football, jock's are told they can't paint or use computers, etc. The categorization of youth puts up fence's that do not really exist. When these fenced mind's enter the work force they believe that their job is everything, and that they don't have the ability or time to do anything else (ie leisure activities). Many worker's delude themselves that because this is the *only* thing they are good at (or interested in) that they should spend excessive amounts of time at work. Excessive amounts of anything is just not healthy!
Businesses are not helping matter's either. They know they have a pretty sweet deal, and continue to set standards where employee's are expected to work overtime. What gall's me is that studies and common sense suggest that getting enough rest and leisure time creates more productive workers. If attitudes do not change soon, I would be in support of more strict government legisation of leisure time (eg: 4 day work week).
Anyways - I think that technology can be used as a tool to either increase or decrease your leisure time, but to blame technology is just too simple and reactionary.
For example, if I want to do research on 3rd world countries, I doubt I'm going to have a whole lot of luck finding a webpage filled with news of (say) somalia that somebody maintains on his own. He's going to want compensation, otherwise, he's not going to have the time nor the energy to make the site worth anything.
Check out the Somali News Page by Yasin Ahmed Hassan [http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e3hassan/news.html]( brought to you by Google).
Jon, I think you need to elborate more on your perceived differences between post-modernism and interactivity... or at least the relationship between them.
I think that what you're calling "interactivity" is nothing more than post-modernism creeping into the most banal of media events - the Oscars. It only took 20 years for it to sink in. (Post modernism is hard to define, but it is generally accepted that one characteristic of a post modern work is that it shows its construction to the audience... basically it reveals its pipes and duct tape, the structure of its formal qualities, etc).
I am at a loss when you say that the Oscars (and other films) are interactive because of the post modern qualities. Why is this so? I just do not same share the same definition of interactivity.
It seems that you are focusing to closely on the power relationship between audience and performer/artist (you discuss the idea that by showing the workings of the Oscars the audience is empowered). I do not think this is the key aspect of interactivity, but hey, maybe that's what your going on about. It's hard to tell,... you have to be a great deal more clear Jon.
You are going to have to try again. Rethink your ideas and clarify what you are trying to express. Email me, or update this post.
You do not know enough about the human brain if you are trying to compare machine intelligence to human intelligence.
There are many things I could point out, but one that you should definitely consider is that your brain consists of approximately 100 billion neurons. Todays best CPUs have somewhere near 20 million transistors. What Kurzweil says in his book is that in the year 2040, CPUs will have the same number of functional parts as the human brain and can therefore be more easily compared to the human brain.
Thanks for the pointers... however, I guess I should have qualified my (random) comments a bit more... (and read the article more carefully:)
I am fully aware of BeOS and have a grasp of some of the other projects you and others mentioned... Hurd is interesting, and I assume you could use the "capabilities" of Eros to provide similar functionality.
I guess I just want my dream OS now... I guess it's time to start coding:)
And I still have a sneaky suspicion that current projects are not quite what I want... I don't see any mention of background AI/learning algorithms that automatically troubleshoot and (inobtrusively, intelligently) anticipate my every move. Drool.
Of course Unix, like any other modern OS, must change over time to accommodate new technologies and methodologies, but I see Unix being more able to adapt in todays fast changing Information Technology world than other operating systems based on monolithic kernels.
That's funny, I thought that Unix was based on a monolithic kernel... silly semantics
I would love to see some of the best coders and operating systems people put together a new OS from scratch using the latest techniques. Ideally this would create an ultra stable and very modular system. I would happily give up some extra CPU cycles for increased modularity and the ability to easily swap in and out OS components so that I could customize my OS to the task at hand. I find it rather ridiculous that I run the same OS when I am playing games, running a web server or working with Photoshop (etc). Rather than having a generically-good OS I would prefer a highly optimized OS for the task(s) at hand.
How often do I run run a game, Photoshop, compiler, and web server concurrently on my home box? Give me adaptibility and modularity or give me death!
Will you subscribe to the same set of standards set forth in your Slashdot editorial? Will you release "Gee ks" (or other writing that you have written and is not already available) on the web, free to download?
Will you open up your own intellectual property so that we can "pirate" it?
A much more difficult question, when it actually applies to your own livelihood. I think you should set an example... and I think you could still make money.
I like the idea of a gift/reward economy (my own description, not necessarily related to other gift economies) where I have free access to your ideas, when I benefit from or enjoy those ideas (or expressions of ideas, as some have rightly pointed out) I can reward you materially (typically with money).
Shareware basically works on this principle, and it is possible to make money using this strategy. However, it is not as ingrained a custom in our consumer society as I wish it would be. Perhaps this could change. The potential for abuse looms, but if technology could make the reward/gift a simple task, I would hope that the majority would not mind paying (what they could afford, or perceived the value of the idea to be).
Right now I already do this in a commerical setting. I am a rabid Phish fan, and own most of their albums. However I rarely listen to the CDs as I have gigs of live shows on mp3 that I prefer. hish encourges their live shows to be taped and freely distributed. I only wish there was a way for me to send them more money for all of the enjoyment I have received listening to their music.
Slashdot Mirror
Please people, the RIAA has nothing to do with music, they are part of a different industry.
The RIAA represents one aspect of the copyright industry.
It is their job manipulate the legal system to increase profits for their industry because the basis for their industry (and their means of manufacturing scarity) is entirely through the privledges they have obtained in the copyright laws.
I was part of a class that allowed me to work on some PS1 development kits. These were special kits for hobbyists and even then they were thousands of dollars. Getting a PS2 setup, if it is even possible for an amateur developer will be expensive and difficult. I suggest some alternatives:
:) Instead, if you are allowed, put together a detailed a design doc, perhaps some technical docs on the algorithms, etc that you would have to use to implement your game.
1) Check out dreamcast development. It is geared much more towards hobbyists, etc. (At least thats what Ive been told).
2) Dont do any coding. Thats monkey work.
3) Use the SDL. Check out http://www.libsdl.org/. Far simpler to get up and running, free, and really decent quality. Make a pac man clone or something SIMPLER. Remember the project will be more about learning the SDL then writing the game. These things take more time then you can imagine, and with a full course load... I have made the mistake of trying to do an original, complex game... and its NOT pretty what happens to you.
4) Good luck!
sunset in israel was at 6:50pm on the 11th. israel is 7 hours ahead of EST.
if the video was taken around 11[am] our time (which seems to be just about the right time). that would make it 6 pm their time
and thus... sunset....
NOT around 3pm as some of the videos show.
So, either CNN knows how to defy Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.....
Or they reused at least *some* old footage.
It is inappropriate to purchase anything from Amazon if you disagree with their one-click patent. It is our job as consumers to make informed and pro-active purchases.
:(
I'd supply some links to slashdot articles, but the search doesn't seem to be working right now
Your opinion shows just how good the right wing propaganda machine is (especially in the US). They would like everyone to believe as you do, when it is much more likely that the DMCA and similar laws were fueled with the money of the distributors and publishers. These laws tend to favour (Canadian, eh?) a small elite rather than just any old individual.
The system I would prefer is a combination of Mojonation and online tipping. Basically, here's how it would work:
To pay for infrastructure you have a system much like Mojonation (http://mojonation.net) - every network action costs a bit of mojo, but it is simple to gain more by sharing some of your own machines resources (disk space, cpu, etc).
To pay for content have a "tip" or gratuity system in which everything that can be replicated for free costs nothing. However, a simple, international interface would allow you to tip the direct creator of the content. You pay what you want, when you want, for only the things you want. The consumer can never be "ripped" off.
I suppose then the content distributions sites would most likely be paid by the content creators. The creators are paying for the distributors ability to get their content into as many hands and eyeballs as possible.
You don't even want to know what I'd do to the copyright laws and patent system....
~Squiggle
Try setting your monitors color depth and resolution to the one you use in game. I couldn't get my B&W to work on Win2000 until I changed the resolution manually.
Hope that helps,
~Squiggle
Thanks Beboxer, beautiful post. I am fed up with all the negativity surrounding the comments on a Jon Katz post. It really sickens me. It's amazing how poorly Slashdot readers are able to discuss some of the idea presented.
~Squiggle
Depending on your nature vs nurture attitude I think you can reinterpret Jon's metaphor and your extension of it.
...was swarmed with fakers and poseurs...You can expect the same thing to happen with the Open Source movement...it will increasingly be swarmed with people using it for their own selfish ends. Human nature.
Within a few decades of his death, the movement of people who believed in Jesus's 'Open Source for the Soul'
I think that society has changed considerably since 2000 years ago. Remember we are not socialized the same way, we have vastly higher quality lives, etc. I don't doubt that we would have to change society a great deal more before people stop "faking and posing" but I don't think people will react to Open Source as they did to the religious beliefs of a 2000 year old revolutionary.
I have hope that Open Source, and our current society will go places unlike previous historical examples... or perhaps it might just allow the next Open Source based society to really make "giant leap forward".
~Squiggle
Maybe the American's should learn something from Canadian's... the American Way seems to be a morally devoid cash-grubbing self-centered existance. Canadian's still have some traces of socialist views (even with being constantly bombarded with American media).
Can some American's explain why the "American Dream" is attractive? I don't understand why you would be proud to find your happiness and "freedom" through money and power. I suppose the Dream has been corrupted by corporate propaganda, but perhaps the dream was flawed to begin with. It's a new century, let's throw out the old dreams, and construct societies that we are proud to be a part of.
~Squiggle
The most important thing to teach your student is that s/he (I'll use he from now on) can do anything. This means:
He can be a geek and learn math and computers.
He can be a jock and get involved in sports.
He can be an artist and paitn, sculpt, etc.
He can be a writer, poet or director.
He can be a musician, a traveller, and a dreamer.
He can be a friend and a hero.
He should learn that its OK to be something other than a prodigy. This means:
He can be stupid.
He can be silly, embarrassed, and ashamed.
He should learn that other people can be all of things too.
He should learn that being happy is learning to love life; your's and every other life.
He should learn to find joy in the little things.
He should learn to never stop asking, "Why?"
He should learn that almost everything he knows he ahas been taught rather than experiencing it himself, and should take that into consideration when he thinks he "knows" something.
Most importantly I would teach him about heroes. People that he can respect and admire. Fictional and historical. Western culture is a lack of hero's in it's entertainment - check out Hayao Myazaki's films (http://www.nausicaa.net/) or give him The Lord of The Rings.
~Squiggle
I recently did a scultpure that utilized the tricks that Edward Land did... if you don't know about Land's experiment, you should. It's an eye-opening (sorry) experience.
:)
Check out a write I did he re. View a short animation that explains it all here (Shockwave required).
Another really trippy experiment to try is this:
Grab a friend and go to a mirror. Then have your friend face you, and look at your eyes (one and then the other). Then look into the mirror at your reflection, and look from one eye to the other. Notice a difference? This will freak you out.
Email me if you want to know whats going on.... I dont want to spoil it, its too freaky.
Hmm. Good examples of strange C# design decisions Mike.
:)
I've tried to think of an example of when you would want to only shadow a method, but nothing useful comes to mind. However, I freely admit that I haven't done enough generic programming and "real" virtual polymorphic coding. However perhaps the idea is only that compiler would just throw compile errors without the keyword (so the override keyword just helps other programmers realize what is going on).
Your example:
Imagine a programmer wants to extend a component Doohickey for which he has the API but not the source, and he shadows a method he didn't know existed in his implementation, called Thingamajig. Imagine his surprise when he passes a Thingamajig to a method processDooHickey( DooHickey ), and it behaves very strangely and not at all like he coded.
Not a good example. In Java (and C#) the public methods would be documented (through JavaDoc or whatever C# is calling their autodoc feature) and the private methods wouldn't have that problem. In any case C# must give some sort of compile time warning...
However, unless there are really good compile warnings/errors, I agree the override keyword does not seem well thought out.
As for types, I'm 100% behind you - strongly typed languages are so much nicer to work with (although Java makes casting a nightmare - which BTW sounds like it will be a much easier task with C#).
"Unsafe code" also sounds like a nightmare, but I never have to use it. I think it will only be used in extreme circumstances (small memory footprint devices, etc) where the GC would not perform as well - and in these cases C# has an advantage over Java, by providing the flexibility needed without defining all sorts of work arounds (Jini, etc).
As for the Haskell example... LOL. Great question, I wish I could have taken your class.
However, it's hard to say without testing, but from what I've read there seems to be some sort of memory "sandbox" idea, preventing C# from blowing up when one adds "unsafe code". 'Course I don't really belive anything like that would work, but hey, I'll give them the benifit of the doubt until I try it.
I can't answer for Tim but I would guess that he did not know about GJ (or any other generic programming initiative for Java) when he wrote the article. I didn't know about it either. Until GJ or NextGen are part of the standard java library I don't think Java measures up - and I think Tim would still fault Java for being so utterly slow (I know I would - from my days programming with Swing, etc).
Anyways, I wish the best of luck to GJ and NextGen, and I'll be sure to to check them out for my next Java project.
In any case, I don't know for sure that C# is a good language - I havent used it. I have read over all the material that has been linked to from Slashdot, and this preliminary investigation seems to show that it has potential. (I love the fact that they are concentrating more on components and object interactions.)
Rather than evaluate how C# might help them most /.ers only want to start comparing it to what is already out there ("so what if it can do blah, I can already do blah by blah blah blah in the blah language.")
The fact is, when it comes down to it, every high level language concept can be done in assembly or machine code. Big deal. The important part is how does the high-level language make the programmers life easier (and thus improve their productivity).
Stop your bitching, start thinking how C# might make you a better programmer. Tim Sweeney has written an article that you need to read. Although (from what I can tell) C# doesn't meet all his ideas of a "next generation" programming language, it is closer than C++ or Java. A quote for the whiners:
Assembly programmers didn't realize they needed processor-independence; it doesn't seem like a practical concept when your life's work is focused on micro-optimizing individual CPU instructions and register usage. C programmers didn't realize they needed objects because, after all, the world is made of functions and data structures! This seems silly nowadays, but at the time, C programmers had become so accustomed to the strengths and limitations of their language that they thought: since it's so difficult to express object-orientation in C, object-orientation must be a flawed concept. It wasn't then clear that C was simple a poor language for object orientation.
Similarly, most programmers don't see the fatal flaws in C++ and Java. People tend to look at the failings of C++ frameworks, component-based software, and binary platform independence, and deduce that those concepts are flawed. It isn't clear to most people that C++ and Java are simply poor languages for frameworks, and parametric polymorphism, and binary portability. Most programmers never switch languages. Either they don't want to, or the circumstances of their job don't allow them the luxury.
It amazes me that a system hasn't been put into place that solves a majority of the copyright, digital "stealing" problems that have cropped up in the last while. If I had more experience (and influence) in the area I would do the following:
Make all ideas, works of art, scientific papers, etc freely available over the 'Net. Perhaps a company run database, or even a government run idea warehouse.
Mark or somehow identify all content with digital signatures.
Implement a convenient, simple digital transaction system that allows micro, small or large payments.
Let the people decide who gets paid. Yes, this is not how things work right now and it would take some time before it really got into societies "unwritten rules". However there is precedent - people give to charities all the time, and we don't think twice about tipping at a restaurant. In fact to encourage people spending money on artists (and scientists) they could be given tax breaks (like charitable donations).
As for record companies - keep em, but change their role. They are very useful - as promoters. In this new system they would be hired as promoters. Artists could spend however much money they want promoting themselves (by hiring the record companies). People like to own things (go consumer society!) and will gladly pay money for tangibles (provided by the old record companies).
This system puts the consumer in charge of the artist, whose in charge of the record companies. This is how it should be.
Seems simple to me.
Brave New World by Huxley sums up the fears fairly well.
Nope. Brave New World describes a govenment mandated class system, not a free enterprise class system. In BNW humans are created less equal than others (worker drones), not more equal (as in a commercially genetically modified world).
Basically BNW is about a society that rejects emotion to preserve stability, not about creating a legion of smart, healthy babies.
For years I heard that the brain *never* regenerates cells. The brain cells that you're born with are the only ones you will ever get. Now, it is known that is completely wrong. The brain does have the ability to regenerate brain cells that are lost.
Well, actually the brain is rather odd in that it doesn't have the same regenerative capacities as the peripheral nervous system. A patient with brain damage never recovers fully. Sometimes new dendrites (branches) are formed by remaining neurons to help, sometimes the patient can learn other ways of completing the same task, but generally there is little regrowth of damaged tissue. However you are right in saying that new brain cells are produced (there are many theories describing the purpose of these new [and sometimes temporany] cells), however full regrowth of damaged tissues has not been observed.
Jon, I think your statistics and numbers do not reflect a growing trend of technology destroying leisure time, but instead reflect the cultural effect of specialization (I will explain later) and poor business practice.
:)
I could use some of your own stats to refute you, but I'd rather talk about my ideas then disagree with yours.
There has been a strong trend for people to specialize in today's work place - and not in a positive manner. Geek's are told they can't draw or play football, jock's are told they can't paint or use computers, etc. The categorization of youth puts up fence's that do not really exist. When these fenced mind's enter the work force they believe that their job is everything, and that they don't have the ability or time to do anything else (ie leisure activities). Many worker's delude themselves that because this is the *only* thing they are good at (or interested in) that they should spend excessive amounts of time at work. Excessive amounts of anything is just not healthy!
Businesses are not helping matter's either. They know they have a pretty sweet deal, and continue to set standards where employee's are expected to work overtime. What gall's me is that studies and common sense suggest that getting enough rest and leisure time creates more productive workers. If attitudes do not change soon, I would be in support of more strict government legisation of leisure time (eg: 4 day work week).
Anyways - I think that technology can be used as a tool to either increase or decrease your leisure time, but to blame technology is just too simple and reactionary.
Haven't used the same web I have, eh?
( brought to you by Google).
For example, if I want to do research on 3rd world countries, I doubt I'm going to have a whole lot of luck finding a webpage filled with news of (say) somalia that somebody maintains on his own. He's going to want compensation, otherwise, he's not going to have the time nor the energy to make the site worth anything.
Check out the Somali News Page by Yasin Ahmed Hassan [http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e3hassan/news.html]
Jon, I think you need to elborate more on your perceived differences between post-modernism and interactivity... or at least the relationship between them.
I think that what you're calling "interactivity" is nothing more than post-modernism creeping into the most banal of media events - the Oscars. It only took 20 years for it to sink in. (Post modernism is hard to define, but it is generally accepted that one characteristic of a post modern work is that it shows its construction to the audience... basically it reveals its pipes and duct tape, the structure of its formal qualities, etc).
I am at a loss when you say that the Oscars (and other films) are interactive because of the post modern qualities. Why is this so? I just do not same share the same definition of interactivity.
It seems that you are focusing to closely on the power relationship between audience and performer/artist (you discuss the idea that by showing the workings of the Oscars the audience is empowered). I do not think this is the key aspect of interactivity, but hey, maybe that's what your going on about. It's hard to tell,... you have to be a great deal more clear Jon.
You are going to have to try again. Rethink your ideas and clarify what you are trying to express. Email me, or update this post.
You do not know enough about the human brain if you are trying to compare machine intelligence to human intelligence.
There are many things I could point out, but one that you should definitely consider is that your brain consists of approximately 100 billion neurons. Todays best CPUs have somewhere near 20 million transistors. What Kurzweil says in his book is that in the year 2040, CPUs will have the same number of functional parts as the human brain and can therefore be more easily compared to the human brain.
Thanks for the pointers... however, I guess I should have qualified my (random) comments a bit more... (and read the article more carefully :)
:)
I am fully aware of BeOS and have a grasp of some of the other projects you and others mentioned... Hurd is interesting, and I assume you could use the "capabilities" of Eros to provide similar functionality.
I guess I just want my dream OS now... I guess it's time to start coding
And I still have a sneaky suspicion that current projects are not quite what I want... I don't see any mention of background AI/learning algorithms that automatically troubleshoot and (inobtrusively, intelligently) anticipate my every move. Drool.
That's funny, I thought that Unix was based on a monolithic kernel... silly semantics
I would love to see some of the best coders and operating systems people put together a new OS from scratch using the latest techniques. Ideally this would create an ultra stable and very modular system. I would happily give up some extra CPU cycles for increased modularity and the ability to easily swap in and out OS components so that I could customize my OS to the task at hand. I find it rather ridiculous that I run the same OS when I am playing games, running a web server or working with Photoshop (etc). Rather than having a generically-good OS I would prefer a highly optimized OS for the task(s) at hand.
How often do I run run a game, Photoshop, compiler, and web server concurrently on my home box? Give me adaptibility and modularity or give me death!
Will you subscribe to the same set of standards set forth in your Slashdot editorial? Will you release "Gee ks" (or other writing that you have written and is not already available) on the web, free to download?
Will you open up your own intellectual property so that we can "pirate" it?
A much more difficult question, when it actually applies to your own livelihood. I think you should set an example... and I think you could still make money.
I like the idea of a gift/reward economy (my own description, not necessarily related to other gift economies) where I have free access to your ideas, when I benefit from or enjoy those ideas (or expressions of ideas, as some have rightly pointed out) I can reward you materially (typically with money).
Shareware basically works on this principle, and it is possible to make money using this strategy. However, it is not as ingrained a custom in our consumer society as I wish it would be. Perhaps this could change. The potential for abuse looms, but if technology could make the reward/gift a simple task, I would hope that the majority would not mind paying (what they could afford, or perceived the value of the idea to be).
Right now I already do this in a commerical setting. I am a rabid Phish fan, and own most of their albums. However I rarely listen to the CDs as I have gigs of live shows on mp3 that I prefer. hish encourges their live shows to be taped and freely distributed. I only wish there was a way for me to send them more money for all of the enjoyment I have received listening to their music.