"Microsoft could embrace ODF. They could integrate it with Microsoft Office, eliminate.DOC, and produce the best ODF tools in the market and maintain their dominance, even in Government."
On the other hand Microsoft could add ODF as an import format by default, and make any saving go to their own formats, that's what I'm more scared about. They can implement our open formats, we can't implement their closed ones, which means Office would be seen to have all of the advantages of OpenOffice (it can open those weird dot-O-D-T files that I found on the Internets) along with its unmatchable Microsoft format support. Same goes for their other software too, like adding Ogg playing support to Media Player but forcing all ripped CDs to encrypted WMA. The masses of users that use Microsoft's bundled products because they can't be bothered to get a replacement when they already have something which (appears to) works will be locked in for a good while yet.
Since Dell are customising Ubuntu for their installations ( http://linux.dell.com/wiki/index.php/Ubuntu_7.04#Dell_Remastered_Ubuntu_7.04_ISO ) I wonder if they do, or plan to in the future, include for MP3 (via LAME, etc.), DVD decryption (via DeCSS) and other such things on their European models ( http://www.dell.co.uk/ubuntuhttp://www.dell.fr/ubuntuhttp://www.dell.de/ubuntu ), since the code is Free Software. Just because the US corporate-sponsored government makes such things illegal shouldn't make a difference to people who live in slightly more representative states, especially if things like that are major issues cited by reviewers.
The suspend issue (volume applet crashing) is a bug which Dell shouldn't have let slip, whilst the Synaptics issue is easily solvable with third party tools and has a specification here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GnomeTouchpadManager .
Yes those are problems, but seriously, the number of people who think that such things are what's holding back the fabled Linux Desktop are delusional. Firstly they should look into chaos theory, there's no way everything can be controlled and still end up with a useful system. Secondly, Windows has masses of problems, like, for instance, no DVD support. The side by side comparisons of Windows vs. Ubuntu vs. OSX are only useful as eyeball attractors for adverts, the real problem in the way of the Year of the Linux Desktop is that of positive feedback loops. People use Windows because people develop for Windows because people use Windows, people use Windows so they can use Microsoft Office because the people they know use Microsoft Office, etc. Free Software systems make a point of NOT locking their users in, thus users' choice is usually between either a Free Software system like Ubuntu which sacrifices some locked-down functionality of other systems, or using a non-free system (basically, Windows) which has some functionality Microsoft restricts from their competitors along with all of the Free Software functionality happily made available by the Free Software community (OpenDocument-compatible office suites, Ogg codecs, etc.).
This makes standards adoption the most important issue to tackle, in my opinion. If files are made available in open formats via standard protocols then the locked-down functionality of systems is minimised, and thus the choice becomes more level. Hopefully a feedback loop can be established for standards, but the whole idea of standardisation means that such a loop can be sabotaged, basically since Microsoft can easily support Ogg formats in Windows Media Player and OpenDocument in Microsoft Office, but by keeping Windows Media and proprietary Office formats (including OOXML) around they once again have the upper hand, everything that Free Software supports can be matched, but Windows Media and Office formats by their very nature can't be competed with.
I don't use any of those sites, although I do have a Mugshot account just for the lulz. What do I miss out on? Sometimes people send me links to photographs that I can't access because I don't have a Facebook account. What do I do? I say "I don't have a Facebook account" then they send me the actual file, no big deal. That's probably the only annoyance of not having all of these various accounts for me. Of course, I am missing out on the world-wide "Someone poked me I need to poke them back" morning ritual, and I sometimes have to talk to people about their lives rather than basing all of my knowledge of people on whomever they have set their "married to" field to today.
Based on my reliance on my/. RSS drip I think I'm a lot better off without them.
As far as mobile 'phones are concerned, I do have one. The main reason? So I don't end up blindly answering calls. If I am expecting a call then I can answer it whenever and it doesn't stop me going about my business wherever I want to be, if I get a call from a number I don't know or from someone I don't have time to talk to at the moment I can cut them off, or leave it ringing so they can't tell I am ignoring them. There is also the benefit of being able to say "My battery was dead" to people (although, of course, this is a disadvantage when it actually does happen).
As for other things I've bought into, well I admit that I have an MSN account hooked up to a Jabber gateway. The username's currently out of date though, since GAIM changed its name to Pidgin. I also have a blog, but that's mainly because my girlfriend wanted to stop being the audience for my generic ranting about things of little significance.
Basically I pick and choose things which are convenient for my lifestyle, and since I can contact everyone I know who uses MSN messenger, and also the few that use Yahoo messenger, through Jabber then I have no need for social networking sites which tend to change the lifestyles of people I know who use them to fit their particular site's abilities.
I remember watching an episode of the BBC's (very Microsoft dominated (as in, something major happens with Linux or Ubuntu or whatever, nothing. Some low-down Microsoft employee makes a comment about something he thinks might possibly someday become slightly relevant to some tiny niche and they spend 10 minutes on it)) Click program ( http://www.bbcworld.com/click ) and they had some "experts" (read: marketing guys) saying what the benefits of dual-core CPUs could be. All they could come up with was "You can use one core to do all of your normal activities, and use the other core to run antivirus and antispyware and firewall software constantly".
"One example I like to cite is a PhD in psychology who fell for one of the Nigerian "prince" scam letters; managed to get himself published in the newspapers, because he lost six figures to the scam and he was smart enough to collect a PhD. Not stupid; but quite gullible."
Of course he's gullible. He fell for God's little "science" and "evidence" practical jokes, didn't he? Heh, I bet he also thinks dinosaurs used to walk around and stuff, before the Earth was made even!
Whilst you seem to have experienced problems, from reading the summary: "...they may be sending it to you in analog form, with associated negative effects... Outside of the lower video and audio quality that can be present on many analog feeds, third-party devices (like cableCARD TiVos) which could otherwise record a digital signal directly, will be forced to re-digitize an analog signal, with inevitable quality loss in the process." OK, I can accept that. But then "But how to know for sure if a channel is digital or analog as received?'" WTF? If you can't tell the difference then why does it matter? If you experience some channels as fuzzy, have lower quality Tivo recordings, etc. then there is a problem because you can tell the difference, if not then why care?
Plus, this is certainly not news. Ignorant people will pay for a partially digital digital TV service, just as current "high definition" services are only partially HD (for instance, the channel listings for Sky TV in the UK show the exact same schedule for "Sky One HD" as they do for "Sky One", which includes loads of repeats, for example of old Simpsons episodes, etc. which are obviously not HD. On the other hand, "BBC HD" only lists relatively new (and therefore presumably HD) programs, and shows no relation to the listings of other BBC channels, often with the same few programs being repeated on a loop. This would imply that the BBC HD channel only broadcasts HD programming, and thus is restricted to a few recent shows.)
As a side note, the number of "Get Sky HD" adverts on the regular channels is stupid. Having a computer generated swirly background does not turn a "standard definition" signal into a HD one, just like big explosions do not turn a VHS quality "This is DVD" advert into DVD quality. Those things offend me, since they assume I'm a total idiot. I prefer people to get to know me before finding that out.
When I read the title to this, "How to Stop Commercial Use of Copyleft Materials?", all I could think of was "Erm... You don't?". Copyleft means that you can share it with anyone as long as you don't personally stop them sharing it, with 'liberty or death' clauses then on top of that you're not allowed to share it with someone who is legally unable to share it for any reason (patents, trademarks, whatever). Where the hell does 'commercial use' come into that definition? Nowhere.
The dubiously named 'Creative Commons' (which merrily includes works which are legally locked down and unchangable, along with works which have their usage severely restricted (the "none commercial" terms in question)) at its most basic level, says "Do whatever the hell you want with this, as long as you give me credit for my work" (CC-Attribution). This allows 'commercial use' and doesn't place any restrictions on relicensing, which means it is not copyleft. For a software analogy this is basically one step up from putting a binary in the Public Domain, the only difference being that credit needs to be given. Notice, however, that such a thing would in no way shape or form be classed as Free Software or Open Source. Embedding it in some other software (as a plugin for example) is legally completely allowed, but it can technically be difficult, since there's no way to change or improve it to a significant extent.
The next step up says "Do whatever the hell you want with this, as long as you give me credit for my work and you make sure others can do the same" (CC-Attribution-Share Alike). This IS a copyleft license. Does it make any mention of 'commercial use'? No. From a software perspective this is basically freeware, since you can't claim it as your own and you can't change any of the terms. Once again you could embed it, but then your program would have to be under the same terms (AAA! Viral! *throws chair*)
Next comes "You can't use this for commercial purposes, you need to give me credit and you're not allowed to change these terms" (CC-Attribution-None Commercial-Share Alike). I really can't think of any accepted form of such a thing in the software world, it's essentially a proprietary license with bizzare terms, the kind of thing that is thrown around as a great free thing by click-through-EULA users, but anyone who actually reads such things feels awkward about. I'm not sure whether this is copyleft or not, since it doesn't allow everyone to share it (for example, could a magazine share it on a cover disc? Well, that could be classed as a 'commercial use' since it boosts the desirability of their commercial product)
Finally there is "You're allowed to copy this, and nothing else" (CC-Attribution-No Derivitaves-Share Alike), which is basically a classic proprietary license in the world of software. It's not copyleft, it is proprietary (do Adobe let people change the license on Flash player? No. Does that mean it's copyleft? Not in any meaningful way). On top of this can be the "none commercial" terms as well, making it another bizzare proprietary license in terms of software.
For cultural works I have yet to see a meaningful copyleft scheme, like an equivalent to the GNU GPL. The problem is that of source, which differs massively for different types of work. For example, a MIDI song could have a pretty meaningful copyleft license requiring any scores and soundfonts to be distributed along with the music, and any changes to them be under the same terms. However, such a license would be incredibly restrictive from an artistic point of view, for instance if someone wanted to combine a recording with the piece. That recording would not be allowed by the original license, making such expression illegal, or if it were allowed then there would be nothing stopping extra MIDI compositions circumventing the copyleft terms by being included in a format like Vorbis or FLAC, which would require reverse engineering to get any kind of meaningful score out of.
The same thing happens with vectors when a raster i
Can someone just stick an old circuit board on top of a rocket, point it at where the moon will be in however many days (or years, or whatever), then press the launch button, wait for the impact then collect the money?
I'd just like to say a big thankyou to Russia for making such a valuable contribution to increase the living conditions of the people of the world, for advancing the ability for man to remain prosperous in such large numbers whilst simultaneously preserving the environment of the Earth thus that future generations do not pay a price for our current lifestyles, and for all of the happiness that this device will give to the cute children of the world.
This truly is a glorious milestone in the cooperation of humanity for the betterment of all.
Leading Noveau developers have said that they prefer to work on completely unknown Nvidia drivers than slightly understood ATI ones because the underlying Nvidia technology has a much cleaner architecture and doesn't have as many awkward and confusing bits as ATI's.
I'm not knocking AMD though, as long as they deliver working cards I don't give a crap about the low level neatness. If this lets me get AiGLX enabled on my laptop so I can stop pissing around with the 3 or 4 ways I currently have of trying to get Compiz running then I'll recommend them to anyone who asks.
The artificial line between application and operating system has been blurred beyond recognition. Windows Vista includes Internet Explorer, Notepad, Word Pad, desktop search, "widgets", firewall, antivirus, update tools, media player, DRM crap, etc. which wasn't in operating systems of yesteryear, and for a lot of people such things ARE the applications they run on the operating system. You can't claim Vista should use less memory when someone has 30 Internet Explorer tabs open and is navigating YouTube streaming videos via built-in voice recognition.
Free Software distributions take this to the extreme, since everything in the system is treated equally (as packages) from the kernel right up to the various plugins for the various web browsers, and even icon themes. Thus there is usually very little reason to use something which isn't 'part of the operating system', but complaining that Abiword and Konqueror, as parts of the OS, are using too much memory, and that they should save some for running 'tasks and applications' is stupid, as is arguing that the OS is taking up hardly any memory because HAL, X.org, tracker, Gstreamer, GTK, etc. are all just 'tasks and applications' which run on top.
The truth is that there is software which runs on a computer. If the resources of that computer cannot run the software or are maxed out whilst running it, then something should to be done which is either opimise the software or get more computing resources. Since software can be changed more easily than hardware the optimisation should be going on all of the time, while the hardware upgrades (like anything) should only be undertaken when the benefits of doing so outweigh the problems it causes.
If a user is running software on/in Vista on a computer with resources that mean it only gets up to 99% usage for interactive, realtime tasks (some things, like decompression, encryption, etc. can always benefit from a speed boost) then Vista is not too bloated and their computer is not too slow FOR THAT TASK. If a user is having to wait unacceptable amounts of time for the computer to do interactive, realtime tasks (like using the GUI or commandline, playing video, VoIP, etc.) then Vista is too bloated and their computer is too slow FOR THAT TASK.
The massive problem with Windows is that it has become a one-size-fits-all solution. I regularly see cash registers running Windows, which is a completely ridiculous waste of money (not only because they are licensing a general purpose computer system to run one simple program, but because the resources of the machines do not need to be that extensive and thus smaller, cheaper embedded systems would do the same job but for much less money). That is an example of a task which has been badly optimised. A better way to approach it would be to look for the cheapest system possible that would be capable of getting the job done to an acceptable standard, where "getting the job done" is being a cash register, not running Windows. Any attempts at future-proofing using such a system will fail, since by getting an unsuitable system in the first place it is backing a methodology of getting unsuitable systems, thus the technology will be redundant with that way of thinking as a cheaper, less powerful solution would be with that way of thinking.
Desktop machines need to run massive amounts of background tasks these days, to keep up with the innovations that users expect them to be capable of. Since a fast pace is trying to be maintained there's no way to optimise everything completely, in which case everything would be hand-coded binary like with the first computers. The only optimisations that can go on are on the current layer, for instance directly accessing a graphics card would make many things quicker, but would cause so many headaches to do with different cards, updated components, etc. that it is not feasable. With so many things going on inside computers the dfferent tasks need to be compartmentalised, since hacking a daemon to be a bit quicker whilst affecting numer
When you use Windows on your work PC, use Windows on your home PC, your family's PCs use Windows, your friends' PCs use Windows, your neighbours' PCs use Windows, your kids' school uses Windows on its PCs, the 500 small-fry computer shops down the road sell and use Windows PCs, the huge multinational computer manufacturers sell and use Windows PCs, TV programs only show PCs running Windows, there are Windows adverts on TV, in magazines, on websites like Slashdot, etc. then Microsoft is great at inteoperability: Windows Media, MSN Messenger, Microsoft Office, they work on all of those systems that you see everywhere.
What about alternatives? Well, of course, the only other computer on the planet is a Mac. But that's a Mac, not a PC, they're different, the adverts say so, so they must be incompatible. I mean, expecting a Mac to be compatible with a PC (ie. Windows) is as stupid as expecting all of those Nintendo 64 cartridges to work in a Wii, or for a Playstation CD to work in an XBox. When you're brought up to *know* that computers are incompatible. That computers crash all of the time. That computers are insecure. That computers suddenly become rubbish after 2 years so you need to get a new one. Then the compatibility offered by Microsoft lock-in is the best you know, because nobody cares about all of that technical mumbo-jumbo, it's OBVIOUS that Word documents are compatible when everyone you know uses them, and Jabber certainly isn't compatible when you can't talk to your MSN friends (well, admiteddly there are MSN gateways for Jabber, but then it's just a hassle to use a different program which doesn't support all of the vast archive of animated smileys you've accrued when MSN Messenger comes by default). Who cares if you are forced to buy new versions of Windows and Office every few years? By that time your computer has mysteriously gone from being the thing your kid kept going on about and made you spend the extra hundred quid for a better something-or-other, to being rubbish piece of crap that nothing decent runs on and is a waste of money compared to the newer ones that your kid keeps going on about, trying to make you spend an extra hundred quid for a better something-or-other (and, of course, kids know more about these things), and that comes with the new Windows version and the new Office version so there's no problem.
The reason there are so many Mac-induced heart-attacks is because someone uses a Mac for the first time and they think they see how good Macs are and how bad PCs are, when in fact they are seeing what a non-Microsoft system is like. There are obviously some problems, like programs which won't run, but this is a MAC, it is different, so they're not *problems* they're just inevitable. Of course it isn't going to run the same programs, that's as stupid as expecting an XBox 360 disc to run in a Playstation 3. The reason there are less Linux-induced heart-attacks is because Linux is running ON THE SAME BOX. Common sense might suggest that being able to use the same computer as Windows used to use is an advantage to Linux, but what it actually does it make people focus on the problems more. Why the hell can't this Linux play your games? It is the same PC, and using the same logic as the Mac scenario; a Playstation 3 disc should run in a Playstation 3, an XBox disc should run in an XBox, therefore a PC-CDROM (as they are labelled) should run in a PC with a CDROM drive.
It takes some real thinking outside the box to manipulate people as well as the likes of Microsoft ("That's what computers DO silly!" *presses reset button*) and Apple ("PPC is better than Intel crap, Jobs says so and he has some kind of pie chart! Oh wait, now he says Intel is better, and he has a bar chart this time!" Pure genius, plus they realised that not all of their customers are ignorant, so they made sure to carry on offering PPC support, like their Classic support on the OSX switch and the 68k support on the PPC switch to make sure they didn't alienate anyone. Very well executed). It is in corporate interest
Not really. WINE itself can be used to run Windows-based programs, yes, but programs can also be built from source using libwine for the Windows-specific bits. That means programs are being built specifically to run on WINE, using it simply as a way of rewriting large parts of programs. That's what Google is using it for, their applications for Linux are built using libwine, they were not built using Windows functions and then dumped on top of WINE like most desktop WINE users do. Plus, to do this Google has improved WINE for all of us, which is nice (well, except for non-x86 people of course, they're still shafted like always).
At the start it looks creepy when it's moving around looking a little like a spider. Then it gets damaged and looks genuinely scary, in terms of "WHY WON'T IT DIE?!". At the end it just looks like its makers enjoy pulling the wings off flies (although I did laugh when it flipped itself upside down).
It's be interesting to see whether this modelling system could be made to learn from its experiments and failures as well as creating initial similations to work from. What I mean is, its internal simulation lets it determine effective ways to move around like brains can do, but brains are also able to factor unknown environmental effects in as well. For example someone might slip on ice and fall over, since they hadn't realised how slippery the ground would be in their internal modelling. A person would get up and start walking differently (making sure each foot was firmly planted before putting weight on it, etc.) since they would factor this into their internal simulation.
It would also be interesting to see whether this could get a type of "pain" added. This isn't to be sadistic or anything, as the machine wouldn't be made to "feel pain", I just mean that another factor could be added into the simulation, like "this leg is barely attached anymore, better not put too much stress on it" or "this area is important and delicate [eg. batteries, sensors, etc.] and thus shouldn't have too much weight put on it". I say this since in the video the robot has one leg damaged and then tries to walk by slamming its full weight down on the "stump", which does not seem a particularly amazing survival ability (for instance, natural selection seems to favour limping, which puts less stresses on damaged body parts and more on healthy ones which should be able to cope).
Doom has been ported to everything in existence, so it was only a matter of time before it became playable on Web Radio. It will be interesting to see Gloom running though, since I don't have much reason to bring one of my Amiga 1200s down from the attic these days to play it.
These terms must have changed since Google took over. I uploaded videos a while back to Google Video in favour of YouTube since I read their respective terms and saw YouTube claimed ownership whereas Google just made sure nobody could sue them for breach of contract if the site went down. I found it amusing to see a mass of videos appearing on both sites, since by submitting it to YouTube the (previous) owner would not be allowed to put it on Google Video as well, and I didn't notice a YouTube user on Google Video with 10 million videos to its name either...
The ridiculous part is that such a thing does not need to be standardised at all. Microsoft wants to keep their code secret, which is fine, but they can't simultaneously do that *and* say to every competitor that they need Microsoft's code. It is just a blatant attempt to crush their opposition and should be stopped with a "Nice try fellas" if not for anything else.
The thing is, converting documents (which is the only reason ECMA can give for its existence) is not a perpetual thing. Once a document has been converted from a binary format to an XML format that is it, done, finished. Microsoft wants to make sure they are the only ones who can do that, which is sort of acceptable since their customers went down the road of lock-in, but OOXML doesn't convert them it just wraps them up in XML. All of those stupid tags like "autoSpaceLikeWord95" which have descriptions saying "this could mean a lot of things, and is outside the scope of this spec" (which it clearly isn't, but anyway) basically mean "This bit needs fiddling with slightly", and then Microsoft doesn't want to tell anyone what that entails. The most obvious way to convert a document to an XML format would be to do the fiddling and save the output in ODF or something (and if ODF is not capable of handling such output for some reason, then propose an improvement to it), but instead the data is given a label saying "This bit needs fiddling with slightly", meaning every application which comes into contact with that document needs to know exactly what fiddling needs to be done, and Microsoft isn't letting anyone else know.
The standards bodies should throw this out, as it's compatibility features aren't complete, useful or needed, and without them it is just in blatant competition with ODF which is already the standard. If compatibility is to be done in a proprietary way that only one application suite can implement then fine, let it be done by that suite but get them to save the converted documents to ODF rather than yet another proprietary format only readable in that exact same suite, even if it is in sheep's clothing.
I was under the impression that the only actual product Real has to offer is its streaming formats, the point of which is that they are incredibly tiny and difficult to save (aside, of course, from "streamripper $(cat filename.rm)"). That is why the Linux version of Realplayer is better than the Windows one, it plays Real's formats and that's it. None of this arcade jukebox crap.
Of course, if this new player's ripping features only work for non-Real technologies then it is an advert in their favour ("If you don't want your theiving viewers to steal your videos, you'd better be using RealMedia!").
Personally I have a lot of respect for Real, as a Linux user. Of course their formats are proprietary, but if they weren't then Real would cease to exist overnight so they're not about to open them. They work hard on everything besides opening their format though (Helix player/engine, free MP3 support for patent-opressed Americans, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think so wouldn't you? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/23/138228&tid=155&tid=109
Well if you have that kind of money then go ahead. I can't say if it will be a wise investment or not though http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=IBM
"Microsoft could embrace ODF. They could integrate it with Microsoft Office, eliminate .DOC, and produce the best ODF tools in the market and maintain their dominance, even in Government."
On the other hand Microsoft could add ODF as an import format by default, and make any saving go to their own formats, that's what I'm more scared about. They can implement our open formats, we can't implement their closed ones, which means Office would be seen to have all of the advantages of OpenOffice (it can open those weird dot-O-D-T files that I found on the Internets) along with its unmatchable Microsoft format support. Same goes for their other software too, like adding Ogg playing support to Media Player but forcing all ripped CDs to encrypted WMA. The masses of users that use Microsoft's bundled products because they can't be bothered to get a replacement when they already have something which (appears to) works will be locked in for a good while yet.
The suspend issue (volume applet crashing) is a bug which Dell shouldn't have let slip, whilst the Synaptics issue is easily solvable with third party tools and has a specification here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GnomeTouchpadManager .
Yes those are problems, but seriously, the number of people who think that such things are what's holding back the fabled Linux Desktop are delusional. Firstly they should look into chaos theory, there's no way everything can be controlled and still end up with a useful system. Secondly, Windows has masses of problems, like, for instance, no DVD support. The side by side comparisons of Windows vs. Ubuntu vs. OSX are only useful as eyeball attractors for adverts, the real problem in the way of the Year of the Linux Desktop is that of positive feedback loops. People use Windows because people develop for Windows because people use Windows, people use Windows so they can use Microsoft Office because the people they know use Microsoft Office, etc. Free Software systems make a point of NOT locking their users in, thus users' choice is usually between either a Free Software system like Ubuntu which sacrifices some locked-down functionality of other systems, or using a non-free system (basically, Windows) which has some functionality Microsoft restricts from their competitors along with all of the Free Software functionality happily made available by the Free Software community (OpenDocument-compatible office suites, Ogg codecs, etc.).
This makes standards adoption the most important issue to tackle, in my opinion. If files are made available in open formats via standard protocols then the locked-down functionality of systems is minimised, and thus the choice becomes more level. Hopefully a feedback loop can be established for standards, but the whole idea of standardisation means that such a loop can be sabotaged, basically since Microsoft can easily support Ogg formats in Windows Media Player and OpenDocument in Microsoft Office, but by keeping Windows Media and proprietary Office formats (including OOXML) around they once again have the upper hand, everything that Free Software supports can be matched, but Windows Media and Office formats by their very nature can't be competed with.
Based on my reliance on my /. RSS drip I think I'm a lot better off without them.
As far as mobile 'phones are concerned, I do have one. The main reason? So I don't end up blindly answering calls. If I am expecting a call then I can answer it whenever and it doesn't stop me going about my business wherever I want to be, if I get a call from a number I don't know or from someone I don't have time to talk to at the moment I can cut them off, or leave it ringing so they can't tell I am ignoring them. There is also the benefit of being able to say "My battery was dead" to people (although, of course, this is a disadvantage when it actually does happen).
As for other things I've bought into, well I admit that I have an MSN account hooked up to a Jabber gateway. The username's currently out of date though, since GAIM changed its name to Pidgin. I also have a blog, but that's mainly because my girlfriend wanted to stop being the audience for my generic ranting about things of little significance.
Basically I pick and choose things which are convenient for my lifestyle, and since I can contact everyone I know who uses MSN messenger, and also the few that use Yahoo messenger, through Jabber then I have no need for social networking sites which tend to change the lifestyles of people I know who use them to fit their particular site's abilities.
I almost cried.
Of course he's gullible. He fell for God's little "science" and "evidence" practical jokes, didn't he? Heh, I bet he also thinks dinosaurs used to walk around and stuff, before the Earth was made even!
Plus, this is certainly not news. Ignorant people will pay for a partially digital digital TV service, just as current "high definition" services are only partially HD (for instance, the channel listings for Sky TV in the UK show the exact same schedule for "Sky One HD" as they do for "Sky One", which includes loads of repeats, for example of old Simpsons episodes, etc. which are obviously not HD. On the other hand, "BBC HD" only lists relatively new (and therefore presumably HD) programs, and shows no relation to the listings of other BBC channels, often with the same few programs being repeated on a loop. This would imply that the BBC HD channel only broadcasts HD programming, and thus is restricted to a few recent shows.)
As a side note, the number of "Get Sky HD" adverts on the regular channels is stupid. Having a computer generated swirly background does not turn a "standard definition" signal into a HD one, just like big explosions do not turn a VHS quality "This is DVD" advert into DVD quality. Those things offend me, since they assume I'm a total idiot. I prefer people to get to know me before finding that out.
The dubiously named 'Creative Commons' (which merrily includes works which are legally locked down and unchangable, along with works which have their usage severely restricted (the "none commercial" terms in question)) at its most basic level, says "Do whatever the hell you want with this, as long as you give me credit for my work" (CC-Attribution). This allows 'commercial use' and doesn't place any restrictions on relicensing, which means it is not copyleft. For a software analogy this is basically one step up from putting a binary in the Public Domain, the only difference being that credit needs to be given. Notice, however, that such a thing would in no way shape or form be classed as Free Software or Open Source. Embedding it in some other software (as a plugin for example) is legally completely allowed, but it can technically be difficult, since there's no way to change or improve it to a significant extent.
The next step up says "Do whatever the hell you want with this, as long as you give me credit for my work and you make sure others can do the same" (CC-Attribution-Share Alike). This IS a copyleft license. Does it make any mention of 'commercial use'? No. From a software perspective this is basically freeware, since you can't claim it as your own and you can't change any of the terms. Once again you could embed it, but then your program would have to be under the same terms (AAA! Viral! *throws chair*)
Next comes "You can't use this for commercial purposes, you need to give me credit and you're not allowed to change these terms" (CC-Attribution-None Commercial-Share Alike). I really can't think of any accepted form of such a thing in the software world, it's essentially a proprietary license with bizzare terms, the kind of thing that is thrown around as a great free thing by click-through-EULA users, but anyone who actually reads such things feels awkward about. I'm not sure whether this is copyleft or not, since it doesn't allow everyone to share it (for example, could a magazine share it on a cover disc? Well, that could be classed as a 'commercial use' since it boosts the desirability of their commercial product)
Finally there is "You're allowed to copy this, and nothing else" (CC-Attribution-No Derivitaves-Share Alike), which is basically a classic proprietary license in the world of software. It's not copyleft, it is proprietary (do Adobe let people change the license on Flash player? No. Does that mean it's copyleft? Not in any meaningful way). On top of this can be the "none commercial" terms as well, making it another bizzare proprietary license in terms of software.
For cultural works I have yet to see a meaningful copyleft scheme, like an equivalent to the GNU GPL. The problem is that of source, which differs massively for different types of work. For example, a MIDI song could have a pretty meaningful copyleft license requiring any scores and soundfonts to be distributed along with the music, and any changes to them be under the same terms. However, such a license would be incredibly restrictive from an artistic point of view, for instance if someone wanted to combine a recording with the piece. That recording would not be allowed by the original license, making such expression illegal, or if it were allowed then there would be nothing stopping extra MIDI compositions circumventing the copyleft terms by being included in a format like Vorbis or FLAC, which would require reverse engineering to get any kind of meaningful score out of.
The same thing happens with vectors when a raster i
Sounds like rocket science to me.
Of course it's an atom. It's on the periodic table between Neutronium and Suprise.
This truly is a glorious milestone in the cooperation of humanity for the betterment of all.
I'm not knocking AMD though, as long as they deliver working cards I don't give a crap about the low level neatness. If this lets me get AiGLX enabled on my laptop so I can stop pissing around with the 3 or 4 ways I currently have of trying to get Compiz running then I'll recommend them to anyone who asks.
You'll be able to play Compiz! Gah, this enemy window is wobbling away from me... hang on... almost got it... YES! Burn you mothe- NO CARRIER
RMS got a bit pissed off by that, but his official reason for leaving was that it wasn't "GNU/LinuXBox Live"
Please think of the children? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA07Tw4iEFw (skip to 3:16)
Free Software distributions take this to the extreme, since everything in the system is treated equally (as packages) from the kernel right up to the various plugins for the various web browsers, and even icon themes. Thus there is usually very little reason to use something which isn't 'part of the operating system', but complaining that Abiword and Konqueror, as parts of the OS, are using too much memory, and that they should save some for running 'tasks and applications' is stupid, as is arguing that the OS is taking up hardly any memory because HAL, X.org, tracker, Gstreamer, GTK, etc. are all just 'tasks and applications' which run on top.
The truth is that there is software which runs on a computer. If the resources of that computer cannot run the software or are maxed out whilst running it, then something should to be done which is either opimise the software or get more computing resources. Since software can be changed more easily than hardware the optimisation should be going on all of the time, while the hardware upgrades (like anything) should only be undertaken when the benefits of doing so outweigh the problems it causes.
If a user is running software on/in Vista on a computer with resources that mean it only gets up to 99% usage for interactive, realtime tasks (some things, like decompression, encryption, etc. can always benefit from a speed boost) then Vista is not too bloated and their computer is not too slow FOR THAT TASK. If a user is having to wait unacceptable amounts of time for the computer to do interactive, realtime tasks (like using the GUI or commandline, playing video, VoIP, etc.) then Vista is too bloated and their computer is too slow FOR THAT TASK.
The massive problem with Windows is that it has become a one-size-fits-all solution. I regularly see cash registers running Windows, which is a completely ridiculous waste of money (not only because they are licensing a general purpose computer system to run one simple program, but because the resources of the machines do not need to be that extensive and thus smaller, cheaper embedded systems would do the same job but for much less money). That is an example of a task which has been badly optimised. A better way to approach it would be to look for the cheapest system possible that would be capable of getting the job done to an acceptable standard, where "getting the job done" is being a cash register, not running Windows. Any attempts at future-proofing using such a system will fail, since by getting an unsuitable system in the first place it is backing a methodology of getting unsuitable systems, thus the technology will be redundant with that way of thinking as a cheaper, less powerful solution would be with that way of thinking.
Desktop machines need to run massive amounts of background tasks these days, to keep up with the innovations that users expect them to be capable of. Since a fast pace is trying to be maintained there's no way to optimise everything completely, in which case everything would be hand-coded binary like with the first computers. The only optimisations that can go on are on the current layer, for instance directly accessing a graphics card would make many things quicker, but would cause so many headaches to do with different cards, updated components, etc. that it is not feasable. With so many things going on inside computers the dfferent tasks need to be compartmentalised, since hacking a daemon to be a bit quicker whilst affecting numer
What about alternatives? Well, of course, the only other computer on the planet is a Mac. But that's a Mac, not a PC, they're different, the adverts say so, so they must be incompatible. I mean, expecting a Mac to be compatible with a PC (ie. Windows) is as stupid as expecting all of those Nintendo 64 cartridges to work in a Wii, or for a Playstation CD to work in an XBox. When you're brought up to *know* that computers are incompatible. That computers crash all of the time. That computers are insecure. That computers suddenly become rubbish after 2 years so you need to get a new one. Then the compatibility offered by Microsoft lock-in is the best you know, because nobody cares about all of that technical mumbo-jumbo, it's OBVIOUS that Word documents are compatible when everyone you know uses them, and Jabber certainly isn't compatible when you can't talk to your MSN friends (well, admiteddly there are MSN gateways for Jabber, but then it's just a hassle to use a different program which doesn't support all of the vast archive of animated smileys you've accrued when MSN Messenger comes by default). Who cares if you are forced to buy new versions of Windows and Office every few years? By that time your computer has mysteriously gone from being the thing your kid kept going on about and made you spend the extra hundred quid for a better something-or-other, to being rubbish piece of crap that nothing decent runs on and is a waste of money compared to the newer ones that your kid keeps going on about, trying to make you spend an extra hundred quid for a better something-or-other (and, of course, kids know more about these things), and that comes with the new Windows version and the new Office version so there's no problem.
The reason there are so many Mac-induced heart-attacks is because someone uses a Mac for the first time and they think they see how good Macs are and how bad PCs are, when in fact they are seeing what a non-Microsoft system is like. There are obviously some problems, like programs which won't run, but this is a MAC, it is different, so they're not *problems* they're just inevitable. Of course it isn't going to run the same programs, that's as stupid as expecting an XBox 360 disc to run in a Playstation 3. The reason there are less Linux-induced heart-attacks is because Linux is running ON THE SAME BOX. Common sense might suggest that being able to use the same computer as Windows used to use is an advantage to Linux, but what it actually does it make people focus on the problems more. Why the hell can't this Linux play your games? It is the same PC, and using the same logic as the Mac scenario; a Playstation 3 disc should run in a Playstation 3, an XBox disc should run in an XBox, therefore a PC-CDROM (as they are labelled) should run in a PC with a CDROM drive.
It takes some real thinking outside the box to manipulate people as well as the likes of Microsoft ("That's what computers DO silly!" *presses reset button*) and Apple ("PPC is better than Intel crap, Jobs says so and he has some kind of pie chart! Oh wait, now he says Intel is better, and he has a bar chart this time!" Pure genius, plus they realised that not all of their customers are ignorant, so they made sure to carry on offering PPC support, like their Classic support on the OSX switch and the 68k support on the PPC switch to make sure they didn't alienate anyone. Very well executed). It is in corporate interest
Not really. WINE itself can be used to run Windows-based programs, yes, but programs can also be built from source using libwine for the Windows-specific bits. That means programs are being built specifically to run on WINE, using it simply as a way of rewriting large parts of programs. That's what Google is using it for, their applications for Linux are built using libwine, they were not built using Windows functions and then dumped on top of WINE like most desktop WINE users do. Plus, to do this Google has improved WINE for all of us, which is nice (well, except for non-x86 people of course, they're still shafted like always).
At the start it looks creepy when it's moving around looking a little like a spider. Then it gets damaged and looks genuinely scary, in terms of "WHY WON'T IT DIE?!". At the end it just looks like its makers enjoy pulling the wings off flies (although I did laugh when it flipped itself upside down). It's be interesting to see whether this modelling system could be made to learn from its experiments and failures as well as creating initial similations to work from. What I mean is, its internal simulation lets it determine effective ways to move around like brains can do, but brains are also able to factor unknown environmental effects in as well. For example someone might slip on ice and fall over, since they hadn't realised how slippery the ground would be in their internal modelling. A person would get up and start walking differently (making sure each foot was firmly planted before putting weight on it, etc.) since they would factor this into their internal simulation. It would also be interesting to see whether this could get a type of "pain" added. This isn't to be sadistic or anything, as the machine wouldn't be made to "feel pain", I just mean that another factor could be added into the simulation, like "this leg is barely attached anymore, better not put too much stress on it" or "this area is important and delicate [eg. batteries, sensors, etc.] and thus shouldn't have too much weight put on it". I say this since in the video the robot has one leg damaged and then tries to walk by slamming its full weight down on the "stump", which does not seem a particularly amazing survival ability (for instance, natural selection seems to favour limping, which puts less stresses on damaged body parts and more on healthy ones which should be able to cope).
Doom has been ported to everything in existence, so it was only a matter of time before it became playable on Web Radio. It will be interesting to see Gloom running though, since I don't have much reason to bring one of my Amiga 1200s down from the attic these days to play it.
These terms must have changed since Google took over. I uploaded videos a while back to Google Video in favour of YouTube since I read their respective terms and saw YouTube claimed ownership whereas Google just made sure nobody could sue them for breach of contract if the site went down. I found it amusing to see a mass of videos appearing on both sites, since by submitting it to YouTube the (previous) owner would not be allowed to put it on Google Video as well, and I didn't notice a YouTube user on Google Video with 10 million videos to its name either...
That's not really a problem since Open Source doesn't care about Intellectual Property, Microsoft told me so.
The ridiculous part is that such a thing does not need to be standardised at all. Microsoft wants to keep their code secret, which is fine, but they can't simultaneously do that *and* say to every competitor that they need Microsoft's code. It is just a blatant attempt to crush their opposition and should be stopped with a "Nice try fellas" if not for anything else.
The thing is, converting documents (which is the only reason ECMA can give for its existence) is not a perpetual thing. Once a document has been converted from a binary format to an XML format that is it, done, finished. Microsoft wants to make sure they are the only ones who can do that, which is sort of acceptable since their customers went down the road of lock-in, but OOXML doesn't convert them it just wraps them up in XML. All of those stupid tags like "autoSpaceLikeWord95" which have descriptions saying "this could mean a lot of things, and is outside the scope of this spec" (which it clearly isn't, but anyway) basically mean "This bit needs fiddling with slightly", and then Microsoft doesn't want to tell anyone what that entails. The most obvious way to convert a document to an XML format would be to do the fiddling and save the output in ODF or something (and if ODF is not capable of handling such output for some reason, then propose an improvement to it), but instead the data is given a label saying "This bit needs fiddling with slightly", meaning every application which comes into contact with that document needs to know exactly what fiddling needs to be done, and Microsoft isn't letting anyone else know.
The standards bodies should throw this out, as it's compatibility features aren't complete, useful or needed, and without them it is just in blatant competition with ODF which is already the standard. If compatibility is to be done in a proprietary way that only one application suite can implement then fine, let it be done by that suite but get them to save the converted documents to ODF rather than yet another proprietary format only readable in that exact same suite, even if it is in sheep's clothing.
Of course, if this new player's ripping features only work for non-Real technologies then it is an advert in their favour ("If you don't want your theiving viewers to steal your videos, you'd better be using RealMedia!").
Personally I have a lot of respect for Real, as a Linux user. Of course their formats are proprietary, but if they weren't then Real would cease to exist overnight so they're not about to open them. They work hard on everything besides opening their format though (Helix player/engine, free MP3 support for patent-opressed Americans, etc.).