Although we will have to wait and see Allard certainly is saying the right things. More importantly, Sony has a slightly more powerful machine, but MS has XBox live. Any gamer knows, live is pretty sick, and PS3 has no answer to it. As more details are revealed about both systems, xbox seems to be more conducive to both large and small developers, again, bad for sony.
PS3's big plus over the xbox is Blu-ray (if it takes off). However, if the telco and cable company's multi-billion dollar push for streaming high def video over the web takes off, then hd-dvd and lu-ray will become obsolete before they hit shelfs... only good for storage.
I don't know who will win this round, but right now my money is on the xbox. Sony is loosing allot more money then MS is on each console, and the console is really that more powerful, at least according to the dozens of developers I've talked to/ worked with. I personally haven't developed for either yet, but anticipate I will sometime next year. The developers I talked too aren't in love with the cell at all. Apparently you really can't use all the cores the way you would expect.
I'm going to buy both consoles, but I'm really not the average user... it will be interesting to see how sony handles xbox's initial success this year.
"because you've already answered it by filtering down your target audience for the question. It's not "Linux guys" who are senselessly bashing MS"
Exactly. I didn't want to hear from the zealots who senselessly bash MS, I wanted to hear what the "Linux guys" thought. The ones who know their platform and why they chose it. Typically they have made a rational decision one way or the other. So you nailed it on the head as far as filtering, I wanted to filter out the zealots, and that is why I was not trolling.
That's very interesting. I have used allot of open source, and of course lots that isn't. For what I do I've never had the "need" to have source code, but there have been times I enjoyed learning how someone made an app. You know the logic behind certain functions. I've almost feel like I'm getting away with something when I review the code... must be my original software upbringing shining through.
All that said, how does it become an ethical issue for you? The way I look at it is that it's "nice" and even "helpful" to see the source, but if someone took the time to write an application it should up to them to share it. I don't know if I can say that they need to or should. Kind of like an inventor sharing his patent. I know legally they have a choice, but to win your business, for instance, it needs to be open source.
The only angle I can see to make software an ethical argument (excluding malicious software) is to clump it in with more of a philosophical generalization that would fall into something like "All of mankind should be working towards the bettering of mankind" or something along those lines. Kind of how the science community approaches things.
I don't think that is necessarily bad, just curious how it became an ethical issue for you.
Actually that is just wrong. Have you even seen Vista? Still has the start button, taskbar, minimizing windows on it, systray, etc. MS changed the color scheme, added some mouse over effects, transparencies, and some additional things (e.g. side bar or whatever its called). But there is NO mistaking it for Windows, and although some tabs have changed, and features updated, its still the basic interface.
Hypothetically: What if MS pulls it off and puts out the best OS that the Linux guys have ever seen. Let's say it's the Longhorn Server, WinFS, Monad, and everything MS has been touting works. Remember this is a hypothetical here so save the flaming/trolling for another thread.
Will the Linux guys at that point stop bashing MS? Will you consider using the MS OS? Now I understand you don't trust them, but how will you respond if you can't say their product sucks? Will the comments be, "Ya they make the best OS, but they are evil?" Or will you continue to say that "Windows is just crap because they don't share the kernel source?"
We are starting to see more and more people say that MS is doing a good job (like the parent thread here), and much to my surprise they are starting to open up their formats and products a little (not completely I know, but moving towards that direction). By all accounts it looks like for the next 18 months MS will be releasing some decent software, most of it strides ahead of the OSS available. Not to say that MS isn't catching up to SOME open source products... but that's fine, they should add the best features to their product, why wouldn't they?
Just an honest hypothetical here, I'm not trolling or anything, I'm trying to understand your stance a little better. The standard cliché response of "MS is a monopoly and EVIL" is fine, but I was hoping for more thought provoking responses.
unknown cases aren't at the heart of the issue. I read your statement as a "poimt", so if its a genuine question, forgive me.
It's about google indexing/copying work that is copyrighted, and against the copyrighters wishes. To make it worse, google then says, "well you can opt out", and when the organization that represents authors says, "ok, we opt out", google says "too bad we are going to do it anyways". That is why it is most likely going to trial.
There is a legal way of doing this, just look at Yahoo's proposal, and the author support they have received.
Fair Use has only applied when you aren't making a PROFIT from the use. Google is going to be selling search ads, and links to buy the book, all at profit. Not to mention it will indiscriminately show (partial) text of the book to anyone who at anytime. That is not fair use. And Eric knows it won't standup in court that is why he wrote that. How many times have you seen someone who is being sued write PR pieces before the trial? Google's lawyers would never let them do it if they had a shot in hell of winning.
Google's best bet is like the above post says, can the author's guild speak for the authors. Since the authors have opted to let them in other areas, I'd imagine they can.
Actually smartass lots of authors have said stop, and Eric's article is in response to the Author's Guild Suit telling them to stop, lots of authors are members. Google is quite pissed about it, hence a founder writing a story complaining.
Lessen YOUR IGNORANCE and do a search on it, Author's Guild Suit.
I'm so sick of you little ignorant piss ant trolls and your smartass comments. There are allot of good debaters on Slashdot, but you sir, are NOT one of them.
it's called the constitution, and it gives authors control over their work so that they may profit, inventors too. Eric should read it sometime. If someone plagiarizes your work online, they can be held accountable through the legal system(if you so desire). If you tell a search engine not to index your page, they can't legally index your content, and that is why google so vigorously removes sites that request (as rare as it may be) to "opt out".
Authors have told Google not to copy/index their books. Plain and simple. I don't know why Google has the notion that they know better then the creator of the content, regardless of their intent. The arrogance is remarkable, and almost surpasses Big Bill's. And it really doesn't matter if google says (or even would) increase the book sales, if the author says no, its NO. If I write a book and tell Amazon they can't sell it, they can't. Same principle applies to Google.
This is article is a billionaire boys temper tantrum.
Well actually JAckass, unlike Iraq, Iran public states it has a nuke program. They claim its only for energy, and they must be telling the truth, seeing how they sit on the worlds second largest oil supply.
While the author is smart enough not to make the statement definitive ("regarded as"), the implication is clear. Just remember, Firefox was "regarded as" bullet proof until it started gaining market share, and as soon as it did, there came the holes.
The Linux market is so incredibly tiny that no hacker looking to make money takes the time to hack Linux. The fact of the matter is Linux, by all market saturation to security flaw/bug ratios (e.g. bugtraq), is just as vulnerable as Windows and OSX.
Two exceptions for Windows that don't apply to OSX/Linux is that the Media reports MS holes, and "techies" try to come of age by bashing MS.
Look at many of the people on Slashdot, some are talented and have some good personal reasons for hating MS, first hand, but most don't. Read the posts and most of it is a bunch entry level guys just out of school trying to sound like they know what they are talking about... they just blanket bash MS with a vengeance. Others spread FUD about MS just as much as MS spreads FUD about Linux. Again, intellectually dishonest.
Media? Look at Google News, they headline MS holes for weeks, and rarely a mention of Apple's never ending software updates. Linux, well, anyone who uses it knows the answer to that, no press though.
I'm so tired of people bashing MS just for the sake of it. Admittedly MS isn't perfect, and puts out some crappy products, but not all, and the alternatives aren't all rosy like the Linux/OSX group like to pretend. The reality is MS makes a flawed product, just like OSX, and just like ALL the Linux distros. Get over it.
Alright, I'm off my soap box. Begin the/. flaming.
You are way off. This is a HUGE deal. That aside, take the amount of progress that was made in the 90's compared to this century, and its simply incredible. Its a snowball affect, and with the internet, the science is shared instantly for all scientists in the world. We are going to see lots of this stuff in practice in the next decade or so.
Well maybe not the holladeck, my guess is that will come to pass with nano paint/pictures/wall/etc., but your other list items will easily come "soon" (10-15 years). Even the flying car, I've seen some pretty cool demos, one that comes to mind is the Moller Skycar (http://www.moller.com/skycar/).
Remember the rate of progress increases each year.
sometimes you have to just stop and think about the magnitude of scale something like this is. Just incredible. We are very fortunate to live in this time, I can't wait to see what happens this century, hopefully we can avoid blowing ourselfs up before we start discovering the really cool stuff...
I strongly agree with you, well about the mood stuff. I engineered my house to be energy efficient (goal when I'm done is to be completely off the grid), and LED fit the mold. I actually use fiber optics for allot of my lighting, well accent lighting, etc. The areas where I use the most Edison bulbs is in my lab/office... like you said, it's the best working light.
That said, if the article is correct, we will get the best of both worlds pretty soon, for pretty cheap.
I can't wait until the day the masses move away from the traditional light buld. I have moved the majority of my home/office lights to leds with a combination of light tubes. I still use the traditional, but not as much, and usually for its warm glow, then its raw lighting effect.
did you not read one word in my post? HE ALREADY OWNS THE FORMAT FOR BOTH NEXT GEN DVDs. EXCLUSIVELY. Blue-ray uses Java based tech for its menus and HD-DVD uses iHD that MS and Disney made, but that has NOTHING to do with format. Its about interface and menus.
If you cutout the physical media (just downloads), then Apple and Real can now try and convince studios to only use their format. But right now, ONLY Bill Gates format is used.
Seriously, I run into people on this site who are great debaters, but others, i mean seriosuly, come on.
I cna't believe that got modded with a 5 and insightful.
News flash, HD-DVD and BR both use Billy's codec. Their format VC1, is short for Microsoft Video Codec 1, and that is almost identical to his latest.wmv format. So in short sony is already using his format. Cutting out disks doesn't increase his market, it only makes it easier for companies like apple and real to compete. As of today, HD-DVD and BR both are locked into his format.
the idea of cd media is obsolete. Soon flash drives will be 100gig, so that can take care of pc storage, and as far as the movie industry goes, an online blockbuster paper view hybrid works best for them. You pay $2 to "rent" a movie for a week and at the end of the week it expires. That is why all the telcos are spending a fortune to get fiber to everyone's doorstep. check out Verizon's FIOS service. Comcost is starting to up the anti as well, as they start to increase their compression and equipment.
Its only a matter of (short) time that people stop going to by movies at a store, and start browsing catalogs online. I say we see it in pass within 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
anyone want to buy the domain slasdot.orm?
Although we will have to wait and see Allard certainly is saying the right things. More importantly, Sony has a slightly more powerful machine, but MS has XBox live. Any gamer knows, live is pretty sick, and PS3 has no answer to it. As more details are revealed about both systems, xbox seems to be more conducive to both large and small developers, again, bad for sony.
PS3's big plus over the xbox is Blu-ray (if it takes off). However, if the telco and cable company's multi-billion dollar push for streaming high def video over the web takes off, then hd-dvd and lu-ray will become obsolete before they hit shelfs... only good for storage.
I don't know who will win this round, but right now my money is on the xbox. Sony is loosing allot more money then MS is on each console, and the console is really that more powerful, at least according to the dozens of developers I've talked to/ worked with. I personally haven't developed for either yet, but anticipate I will sometime next year. The developers I talked too aren't in love with the cell at all. Apparently you really can't use all the cores the way you would expect.
I'm going to buy both consoles, but I'm really not the average user... it will be interesting to see how sony handles xbox's initial success this year.
excellent points, two the best I've read on this topic on slashdot.
"because you've already answered it by filtering down your target audience for the question. It's not "Linux guys" who are senselessly bashing MS"
Exactly. I didn't want to hear from the zealots who senselessly bash MS, I wanted to hear what the "Linux guys" thought. The ones who know their platform and why they chose it. Typically they have made a rational decision one way or the other. So you nailed it on the head as far as filtering, I wanted to filter out the zealots, and that is why I was not trolling.
That's very interesting. I have used allot of open source, and of course lots that isn't. For what I do I've never had the "need" to have source code, but there have been times I enjoyed learning how someone made an app. You know the logic behind certain functions. I've almost feel like I'm getting away with something when I review the code... must be my original software upbringing shining through.
All that said, how does it become an ethical issue for you? The way I look at it is that it's "nice" and even "helpful" to see the source, but if someone took the time to write an application it should up to them to share it. I don't know if I can say that they need to or should. Kind of like an inventor sharing his patent. I know legally they have a choice, but to win your business, for instance, it needs to be open source.
The only angle I can see to make software an ethical argument (excluding malicious software) is to clump it in with more of a philosophical generalization that would fall into something like "All of mankind should be working towards the bettering of mankind" or something along those lines. Kind of how the science community approaches things.
I don't think that is necessarily bad, just curious how it became an ethical issue for you.
Actually that is just wrong. Have you even seen Vista? Still has the start button, taskbar, minimizing windows on it, systray, etc. MS changed the color scheme, added some mouse over effects, transparencies, and some additional things (e.g. side bar or whatever its called). But there is NO mistaking it for Windows, and although some tabs have changed, and features updated, its still the basic interface.
Hypothetically: What if MS pulls it off and puts out the best OS that the Linux guys have ever seen. Let's say it's the Longhorn Server, WinFS, Monad, and everything MS has been touting works. Remember this is a hypothetical here so save the flaming/trolling for another thread.
Will the Linux guys at that point stop bashing MS? Will you consider using the MS OS? Now I understand you don't trust them, but how will you respond if you can't say their product sucks? Will the comments be, "Ya they make the best OS, but they are evil?" Or will you continue to say that "Windows is just crap because they don't share the kernel source?"
We are starting to see more and more people say that MS is doing a good job (like the parent thread here), and much to my surprise they are starting to open up their formats and products a little (not completely I know, but moving towards that direction). By all accounts it looks like for the next 18 months MS will be releasing some decent software, most of it strides ahead of the OSS available. Not to say that MS isn't catching up to SOME open source products... but that's fine, they should add the best features to their product, why wouldn't they?
Just an honest hypothetical here, I'm not trolling or anything, I'm trying to understand your stance a little better. The standard cliché response of "MS is a monopoly and EVIL" is fine, but I was hoping for more thought provoking responses.
lol, Eustace Tilley, I think tftp just gave you what is called the proverbial bitch slap. It looks like it hurt, did it?
unknown cases aren't at the heart of the issue. I read your statement as a "poimt", so if its a genuine question, forgive me.
It's about google indexing/copying work that is copyrighted, and against the copyrighters wishes. To make it worse, google then says, "well you can opt out", and when the organization that represents authors says, "ok, we opt out", google says "too bad we are going to do it anyways". That is why it is most likely going to trial.
There is a legal way of doing this, just look at Yahoo's proposal, and the author support they have received.
at this point you are just trolling.
I disagree with your fair use interpretation.
Fair Use has only applied when you aren't making a PROFIT from the use. Google is going to be selling search ads, and links to buy the book, all at profit. Not to mention it will indiscriminately show (partial) text of the book to anyone who at anytime. That is not fair use. And Eric knows it won't standup in court that is why he wrote that. How many times have you seen someone who is being sued write PR pieces before the trial? Google's lawyers would never let them do it if they had a shot in hell of winning.
Google's best bet is like the above post says, can the author's guild speak for the authors. Since the authors have opted to let them in other areas, I'd imagine they can.
Actually smartass lots of authors have said stop, and Eric's article is in response to the Author's Guild Suit telling them to stop, lots of authors are members. Google is quite pissed about it, hence a founder writing a story complaining.
Lessen YOUR IGNORANCE and do a search on it, Author's Guild Suit.
I'm so sick of you little ignorant piss ant trolls and your smartass comments. There are allot of good debaters on Slashdot, but you sir, are NOT one of them.
it's called the constitution, and it gives authors control over their work so that they may profit, inventors too. Eric should read it sometime. If someone plagiarizes your work online, they can be held accountable through the legal system(if you so desire). If you tell a search engine not to index your page, they can't legally index your content, and that is why google so vigorously removes sites that request (as rare as it may be) to "opt out".
Authors have told Google not to copy/index their books. Plain and simple. I don't know why Google has the notion that they know better then the creator of the content, regardless of their intent. The arrogance is remarkable, and almost surpasses Big Bill's. And it really doesn't matter if google says (or even would) increase the book sales, if the author says no, its NO. If I write a book and tell Amazon they can't sell it, they can't. Same principle applies to Google.
This is article is a billionaire boys temper tantrum.
Well actually JAckass, unlike Iraq, Iran public states it has a nuke program. They claim its only for energy, and they must be telling the truth, seeing how they sit on the worlds second largest oil supply.
well put.
Bush won't backdown. I predeict the US is going to win this battle, but I wonder what they will give up in another area to let the EU save face?
I suspect we will wind up giving them money, but in what area? Maybe we will back off the Airbus stuff at the WTO? Anyone have any thoughts?
"while Linux is generally regarded as more secure". Ya, just like Firefox is more secure then IE. http://www.symantec.com/press/2005/n050919a.html
/. flaming.
While the author is smart enough not to make the statement definitive ("regarded as"), the implication is clear. Just remember, Firefox was "regarded as" bullet proof until it started gaining market share, and as soon as it did, there came the holes.
The Linux market is so incredibly tiny that no hacker looking to make money takes the time to hack Linux. The fact of the matter is Linux, by all market saturation to security flaw/bug ratios (e.g. bugtraq), is just as vulnerable as Windows and OSX.
Two exceptions for Windows that don't apply to OSX/Linux is that the Media reports MS holes, and "techies" try to come of age by bashing MS.
Look at many of the people on Slashdot, some are talented and have some good personal reasons for hating MS, first hand, but most don't. Read the posts and most of it is a bunch entry level guys just out of school trying to sound like they know what they are talking about... they just blanket bash MS with a vengeance. Others spread FUD about MS just as much as MS spreads FUD about Linux. Again, intellectually dishonest.
Media? Look at Google News, they headline MS holes for weeks, and rarely a mention of Apple's never ending software updates. Linux, well, anyone who uses it knows the answer to that, no press though.
I'm so tired of people bashing MS just for the sake of it. Admittedly MS isn't perfect, and puts out some crappy products, but not all, and the alternatives aren't all rosy like the Linux/OSX group like to pretend. The reality is MS makes a flawed product, just like OSX, and just like ALL the Linux distros. Get over it.
Alright, I'm off my soap box. Begin the
You are way off. This is a HUGE deal. That aside, take the amount of progress that was made in the 90's compared to this century, and its simply incredible. Its a snowball affect, and with the internet, the science is shared instantly for all scientists in the world. We are going to see lots of this stuff in practice in the next decade or so.
Well maybe not the holladeck, my guess is that will come to pass with nano paint/pictures/wall/etc., but your other list items will easily come "soon" (10-15 years). Even the flying car, I've seen some pretty cool demos, one that comes to mind is the Moller Skycar (http://www.moller.com/skycar/).
Remember the rate of progress increases each year.
sometimes you have to just stop and think about the magnitude of scale something like this is. Just incredible. We are very fortunate to live in this time, I can't wait to see what happens this century, hopefully we can avoid blowing ourselfs up before we start discovering the really cool stuff...
How will Vista affect this beta release?
I strongly agree with you, well about the mood stuff. I engineered my house to be energy efficient (goal when I'm done is to be completely off the grid), and LED fit the mold. I actually use fiber optics for allot of my lighting, well accent lighting, etc. The areas where I use the most Edison bulbs is in my lab/office... like you said, it's the best working light.
That said, if the article is correct, we will get the best of both worlds pretty soon, for pretty cheap.
I can't wait until the day the masses move away from the traditional light buld. I have moved the majority of my home/office lights to leds with a combination of light tubes. I still use the traditional, but not as much, and usually for its warm glow, then its raw lighting effect.
did you not read one word in my post? HE ALREADY OWNS THE FORMAT FOR BOTH NEXT GEN DVDs. EXCLUSIVELY. Blue-ray uses Java based tech for its menus and HD-DVD uses iHD that MS and Disney made, but that has NOTHING to do with format. Its about interface and menus.
If you cutout the physical media (just downloads), then Apple and Real can now try and convince studios to only use their format. But right now, ONLY Bill Gates format is used.
Seriously, I run into people on this site who are great debaters, but others, i mean seriosuly, come on.
I cna't believe that got modded with a 5 and insightful.
.wmv format. So in short sony is already using his format. Cutting out disks doesn't increase his market, it only makes it easier for companies like apple and real to compete. As of today, HD-DVD and BR both are locked into his format.
News flash, HD-DVD and BR both use Billy's codec. Their format VC1, is short for Microsoft Video Codec 1, and that is almost identical to his latest
the idea of cd media is obsolete. Soon flash drives will be 100gig, so that can take care of pc storage, and as far as the movie industry goes, an online blockbuster paper view hybrid works best for them. You pay $2 to "rent" a movie for a week and at the end of the week it expires. That is why all the telcos are spending a fortune to get fiber to everyone's doorstep. check out Verizon's FIOS service. Comcost is starting to up the anti as well, as they start to increase their compression and equipment.
Its only a matter of (short) time that people stop going to by movies at a store, and start browsing catalogs online. I say we see it in pass within 5 years.