I have several of them. Problem is 1) Logitech doesn't make these anymore, so you can't find any for sale and 2) These break really, really easily. 3 out of 5 of mine are already broken (there's three springs inside that are soldered into place to keep the puck centered. Any one of them breaks, the whole thing is unusable and as near as I can tell unrepairable)
Yes, I DO like six degrees of freedom; I consider this a prerequisite for games, and I'm actively looking for something to replace my cyberman2. Guess I'll buy some spaceballs (the joystick, not the movie).
Big difference. Physical property is zero sum -- if I take your physical property, you no longer have the use of it, so you are harmed. Intellectual property is infinite sum -- if I take a copy of your intellectual property, you still have it, and can still do anything you want with it. Where is the harm? Most IP proponents claim that their right to future earnings from their idea is diminished. There are several problems with this. First, all abstract ideas are built on previous ideas. Should all the originators of those other ideas also be compensated? Second, isn't _all_ competition essentially infringing on the IP of the first entrant into a market? Should all other companies be barred from making operating systems for PCs because M$ entered the arena first? Third, people have shared ideas freely for thousands of years; the concept of IP is an abberation that has only been around for about 150 years, arguably just since the robber barons of the industrial revolution have had the political clout to have laws passed in their favor. The DMCA, then, exists for one reason: the expand the rights of a select few with money and influence, with the inevitable side effect of diminishing the rights of everyone else. Most appalling of all is that those that profit the most from the DMCA have never created any intellectual property themselves. Their only skill lies in their ability to gain control over the ideas of others.
From http://www.rasip.fer.hr/research/compress/algorith ms/fund/ac/
The particular variant of arithmetic coding specified by the JPEG standard is subject to patents owned by IBM, AT&T, and Mitsubishi. You cannot legally use JPEG arithmetic coding unless you obtain licenses from these companies. Patent law's "experimental use" exception allows people to test a patented method in the context of scientific research, but any commercial or routine personal use is infringement.
More specifically http://www.ross.net/compression/patents_notes_from _ccfaq.html
cites several patents on algorithms. I'm not saying these SHOULD be patentable, or that they are consistent with patent law; I'm just saying that as of now, these patents are still considered valid.
If they win, it sets a precedent that it is ok to reverse engineer algorithms to acheive interoperability with other vendors software... think of Samba, for instance, and what it would mean to them.
Look at the flip side... what if M$, with it's deep pockets, actually WINS this case... that would be a big win for us, giving us a precedent that we can reverse engineer patented algorithms in order to acheive interoperabilty with other software... like Windows for example. Hmmm, good point -- even if M$ wins this case, they still lose!
Try running gzip of bzip2 on your sound files... most sound file formats are already fairly close to optimally entropy encoded, so they get bigger, not smaller...
Last time I checked, IBM's patent on arithmetic coding was still valid (it's used as the last step in many compression schemes). If that's not patenting a mathmatical algorithm, I don't know what is. Yes, generally they get around this by claiming the algorithm is implementable in hardware, even if it's more easily implemented in software, but there it is...
How absurd is it to make a patented codec part of the H.323/H.324 standard? In this case, Microsoft is wearing the white hats for a change... they needed to implemented patented algorithms to make their audio conferencing truly interoperable. And they, uh, gave that software away for free, didn't they? Sounds like Microsoft is now getting sued for doing exactly what they keep accusing Open Source of doing, doesn't it?
I don't know... anybody that requires Flash even for a simple job listing appears to have vastly overestimated the network bandwidth that's available now... or perhaps they only want to hire people that have their own T1?
NetWare's IPX and SPX protocols have always been owned by Novell.
Ever heard of the XNS protocols IPP and SPP? Ever look at how little Novell changed them when they adopted them?
Bluetooth... has been coming for several years and has almost no competition -- until now.
Ever heard of 802.11?
In a couple years, experts tell us Bluetooth will cost only $5.00, but by then SPIKE will be down to a buck. Whatever SPIKE costs, Bluetooth will always cost more.
Cringely here is confusing the total cost passed on to the consumer, project to drop to $10 for bluetooth within a few years, with the chip price. Generally, the cost passed on to the consumer is an order of magnitude higher than the chip cost; Intel expect bluetooth chips to eventually drop to the $0.25 to $0.50 range. In fact, lower cost seems to be the only point in favor of Bluetooth over 802.11! At any rate, the comment "Bluetooth will always cost more" is blatant speculation -- costs will depend on the volume of each produced.
Since when is the number of threads supported dependent on the processor? Does Linux support a different number of threads, depending on what CPU it's running on?
I'm too lazy to do the research... can anybody else come up with power consumption numbers for Bluetooth vs. SPIKE? Didn't some company come up with a chip that increases Bluetooth range?
At least not here in the states. Maybe it was worth it 10 years ago, but definately not now. 1) We're currently going through consolidation; only big ISPs will survive. You wanna compete with Microsoft, AOL/TimeWarner, and Verizon? Can you match their deep pockets? 2) You're basically forced to compete with the phone company as an ISP, while simultaneously buying service from the phone company... uh, does the phone company have a slight competitive advantage here? 3) Break-even is harsh. Do the math -- you've basically got to have at least 500 to 1000 customers just to pay for your T1 (admittedly, it's been a few years since I did these numbers). Until you get those first 1000 subscribers, you're loosing money big time every month.
On the plus side, with the dot com bust, used network equipment should be REALLY cheap right now, and interest rates are low, but I still think it will take you forever to amortize your startup costs.
Summary: definately don't do this for the money. If you can afford to lose money, and want to do it for the fun/experience of it, go ahead.
1) Poor people need food and shelter, not computers.
2) Phone service is expensive in India. The set of people who have reliable home phone service, but can't afford $500 for a desktop PC is relatively small.
3) Nobody with any sense will invest in this. Why not? At a $200 price point, margins are razor thin. The target market is people that not only can't afford a computer, but don't know how to use one. Now think, how easy is it to eat up that $5 in profit on customer support. We have the same problem with low-end computers in the US. Fact is, every system builder is targeting people that already own computers, while no one is target the low end, first-time computer buyer, for the simple and obvious reason that the cost of supporting the first-time buyer far exceeds the profit margin for a low end PC...
Developers testing thier own code is unproductive, because any situation they can think of to test, they would have already handled in the code. The proper way to test is to provide input the developer wasn't expecting; naive users are much better at this than programmers, who have learned to limit the things they do with computers so as to prevent crashes. Hence the need for Alpha and Beta releases...
Won't using proxies to filter copyrighted material just force "pirates" to encrypt the material? And can't inteligent "pirates" figure out a way to anonymously post to newsgroups, so that Dave Powell _can't_ have their name and address within 24 hours? Seem to me that all the actions they are taking against IP infringement will open work on stupid people...
Shouldn't this be (Score:5, Funny) as in "hilarious understatement" rather than (Score:5, Insightful). You, perceiving that/. is anti-microsoft is not exactly a brilliant insight, is it?
In the software industry, I've never seen an opinion discounted solely because of age. However, experience and track record does mean a lot. After you've pulled a rabbit out of a hat a few times and brought impossible projects in on schedule with few bugs, believe me, they will listen to you.
...but the Monarchy is here to stay. It is a completely constitutional and valid government intended to administer the colonies for the betterment of mother England. It wouldn't really matter if it wasn't constitutional anyways since the constitution is more or less a recommendation for laws rather than hard limits. You have no right to "equal representation" because "representation" isn't "representation" if the King says it isn't. If you refuse to pay tea taxes and stamp taxes, then you are a CRIMINAL. You just can't pick and choose the laws under which you live. And before anyone starts whining about new taxes that weren't in place when they immigrated, you need to realize that arbitrary increases in taxation are perfectly valid, legal, and binding. If you violate any of the laws of the Monarchy, then you should have your life, liberty, and property taken away by force if necessary and either fined or imprisoned, or both. Folks, you have to stop this freedom nonsense now and just live with it. Don't beat it, join it. If you can't pay then you can't enjoy. SORRY INDEPENDENCE NERDS!
Slashdot Mirror
The stupid thing uses a serial port, NOT the joystick port. Don't ask me why they couldn't do a version that plugged into the joystick port.
Yes, I DO like six degrees of freedom; I consider this a prerequisite for games, and I'm actively looking for something to replace my cyberman2. Guess I'll buy some spaceballs (the joystick, not the movie).
Big difference. Physical property is zero sum -- if I take your physical property, you no longer have the use of it, so you are harmed. Intellectual property is infinite sum -- if I take a copy of your intellectual property, you still have it, and can still do anything you want with it. Where is the harm? Most IP proponents claim that their right to future earnings from their idea is diminished. There are several problems with this. First, all abstract ideas are built on previous ideas. Should all the originators of those other ideas also be compensated? Second, isn't _all_ competition essentially infringing on the IP of the first entrant into a market? Should all other companies be barred from making operating systems for PCs because M$ entered the arena first? Third, people have shared ideas freely for thousands of years; the concept of IP is an abberation that has only been around for about 150 years, arguably just since the robber barons of the industrial revolution have had the political clout to have laws passed in their favor. The DMCA, then, exists for one reason: the expand the rights of a select few with money and influence, with the inevitable side effect of diminishing the rights of everyone else. Most appalling of all is that those that profit the most from the DMCA have never created any intellectual property themselves. Their only skill lies in their ability to gain control over the ideas of others.
The particular variant of arithmetic coding specified by the JPEG standard is subject to patents owned by IBM, AT&T, and Mitsubishi. You cannot legally use JPEG arithmetic coding unless you obtain licenses from these companies. Patent law's "experimental use" exception allows people to test a patented method in the context of scientific research, but any commercial or routine personal use is infringement.
More specifically http://www.ross.net/compression/patents_notes_from _ccfaq.html
cites several patents on algorithms. I'm not saying these SHOULD be patentable, or that they are consistent with patent law; I'm just saying that as of now, these patents are still considered valid.
If they win, it sets a precedent that it is ok to reverse engineer algorithms to acheive interoperability with other vendors software... think of Samba, for instance, and what it would mean to them.
Look at the flip side... what if M$, with it's deep pockets, actually WINS this case... that would be a big win for us, giving us a precedent that we can reverse engineer patented algorithms in order to acheive interoperabilty with other software... like Windows for example. Hmmm, good point -- even if M$ wins this case, they still lose!
Try running gzip of bzip2 on your sound files... most sound file formats are already fairly close to optimally entropy encoded, so they get bigger, not smaller...
Last time I checked, IBM's patent on arithmetic coding was still valid (it's used as the last step in many compression schemes). If that's not patenting a mathmatical algorithm, I don't know what is. Yes, generally they get around this by claiming the algorithm is implementable in hardware, even if it's more easily implemented in software, but there it is...
How absurd is it to make a patented codec part of the H.323/H.324 standard? In this case, Microsoft is wearing the white hats for a change... they needed to implemented patented algorithms to make their audio conferencing truly interoperable. And they, uh, gave that software away for free, didn't they? Sounds like Microsoft is now getting sued for doing exactly what they keep accusing Open Source of doing, doesn't it?
here
For those of you that haven't heard of them; they started the Renaissance Pleasure Faires, although now I think they're rather embarrased by them...
I don't know... anybody that requires Flash even for a simple job listing appears to have vastly overestimated the network bandwidth that's available now... or perhaps they only want to hire people that have their own T1?
Last year, they were saying the chip price for Bluetooth should drop to $5 in 2001. Anybody have up-to-date pricing info?
Try here.
Ever heard of the XNS protocols IPP and SPP? Ever look at how little Novell changed them when they adopted them?
Bluetooth... has been coming for several years and has almost no competition -- until now.
Ever heard of 802.11?
In a couple years, experts tell us Bluetooth will cost only $5.00, but by then SPIKE will be down to a buck. Whatever SPIKE costs, Bluetooth will always cost more.
Cringely here is confusing the total cost passed on to the consumer, project to drop to $10 for bluetooth within a few years, with the chip price. Generally, the cost passed on to the consumer is an order of magnitude higher than the chip cost; Intel expect bluetooth chips to eventually drop to the $0.25 to $0.50 range. In fact, lower cost seems to be the only point in favor of Bluetooth over 802.11! At any rate, the comment "Bluetooth will always cost more" is blatant speculation -- costs will depend on the volume of each produced.
Since when is the number of threads supported dependent on the processor? Does Linux support a different number of threads, depending on what CPU it's running on?
I'm too lazy to do the research... can anybody else come up with power consumption numbers for Bluetooth vs. SPIKE? Didn't some company come up with a chip that increases Bluetooth range?
Actually, the claim is true, but what you fail to realize is that this is the motto of their legal department, not their technologists.
At least not here in the states. Maybe it was worth it 10 years ago, but definately not now. 1) We're currently going through consolidation; only big ISPs will survive. You wanna compete with Microsoft, AOL/TimeWarner, and Verizon? Can you match their deep pockets? 2) You're basically forced to compete with the phone company as an ISP, while simultaneously buying service from the phone company... uh, does the phone company have a slight competitive advantage here? 3) Break-even is harsh. Do the math -- you've basically got to have at least 500 to 1000 customers just to pay for your T1 (admittedly, it's been a few years since I did these numbers). Until you get those first 1000 subscribers, you're loosing money big time every month.
On the plus side, with the dot com bust, used network equipment should be REALLY cheap right now, and interest rates are low, but I still think it will take you forever to amortize your startup costs.
Summary: definately don't do this for the money. If you can afford to lose money, and want to do it for the fun/experience of it, go ahead.
Not once in the ZDNet article, or in the /. article, does anyone mention what "ASP" stands for... is it "Application Service Provider"?
2) Phone service is expensive in India. The set of people who have reliable home phone service, but can't afford $500 for a desktop PC is relatively small.
3) Nobody with any sense will invest in this. Why not? At a $200 price point, margins are razor thin. The target market is people that not only can't afford a computer, but don't know how to use one. Now think, how easy is it to eat up that $5 in profit on customer support. We have the same problem with low-end computers in the US. Fact is, every system builder is targeting people that already own computers, while no one is target the low end, first-time computer buyer, for the simple and obvious reason that the cost of supporting the first-time buyer far exceeds the profit margin for a low end PC...
Developers testing thier own code is unproductive, because any situation they can think of to test, they would have already handled in the code. The proper way to test is to provide input the developer wasn't expecting; naive users are much better at this than programmers, who have learned to limit the things they do with computers so as to prevent crashes. Hence the need for Alpha and Beta releases...
Uh... you wouldn't happen to be a MICROSOFT developer, by any chance, would you?
Won't using proxies to filter copyrighted material just force "pirates" to encrypt the material? And can't inteligent "pirates" figure out a way to anonymously post to newsgroups, so that Dave Powell _can't_ have their name and address within 24 hours? Seem to me that all the actions they are taking against IP infringement will open work on stupid people...
Shouldn't this be (Score:5, Funny) as in "hilarious understatement" rather than (Score:5, Insightful). You, perceiving that /. is anti-microsoft is not exactly a brilliant insight, is it?
In the software industry, I've never seen an opinion discounted solely because of age. However, experience and track record does mean a lot. After you've pulled a rabbit out of a hat a few times and brought impossible projects in on schedule with few bugs, believe me, they will listen to you.
Didn't work then. Doesn't work now.