No disrespect to tfj - it was well written, but perhaps a better title than "Gaming outside the home" when gaming outside the home has been going on for ages:-)
What they say Intel did is irrelevant to them and us.
Yes, yes, China's motives are quite obvious.
But what they say intel did has some merit don't you think? After all, if Intel did something against ISOs rules, then we may be looking at WAPI as the new standard.
Short version. IEEE submitted 80211i, China submitted WAPI to ISO to be international wireless encryption standards. IEEE won, WAPI lost. China is complaining that IEEE did something bad during the lead up to the voting process. No news sources are reporting what that something was as far as I can see.
So we have nebulous claims of interference in the ISO process. No more, no less.
(I'm not sure whether I dislike/distrust Intel or China more)
I think your confusion is best shown with this paragraph:
Not to mention that many news sites also consistently push one point of view, like The Wall Street Journal pushing free-market capitalism, and the San Francisco Chronicle pushing anti-steroids-in-baseball, and The New York Times (well, now, anyway) pushing anti-Iraq-war
The site's in question were pushing one pov (anything to have a dig at the muslims). None of the examples you give are close to that - SFC, WSJ, NYT all cover a spectrum of stories.
(Your SFC example was particularly ridiculous).
I understand your point, but the simple matter is that google can't index & link to every crackpot group out there.
Lastly, you say:
Again, this is entirely beside the point: they were not dropped for being opinion or not-news, but for using what Google arbitrarily decides is "hate speech."
I'm not sure I've actually read anything from google about this - can you link to the google statement where google says the sites were kicked for being 'hate sites'
If I was an MS shill (like so many in these forums seems to be), I would be deeply, deeply ashamed that the company I pimped myself out for was incapable of distinguishing between a document format and an application.
(read the 'study')
But I am sure the shills will pipe up with "easier to use", "people are used to it", "noone forces people to use MS" and other such irrelevance.
Duh. But that's not the point. You and others are making value judgments about whether Google did the right thing in censoring viewpoints, and I am asking you where the line is between what is acceptable in your judgment, and what is not.
Oh right, I thought you asked who made the judgement, but you meant what criteria the judgment should be. Gotcha.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear when a site consistently pushes one point of view, that they're an opinion site, not a news sites. Why should google be obliged to link to every "Death to America" or "Death to Jews" or "Death to Muslims" blog out there? They're trying to reduce noise.
But obviously, you don't care, as long as the voices you disagree with are quieted, so they cannot bother you.
Do you really believe this to be censorship? Really? It's not like China, anyone can still find these sites on the 'net. They're still indexed by google, they're just not indexed by the news site 'cause they're not news.
I occasionally read counterpunch.org - they appear to have been dropped from google news as well (and a good thing, they were a pure opinion site, just like the anti-islam sites), so its not like its only voices I disagree with are being dropped.
it'll be true for the whole x86 branch. (The BSD tool sources are available for both.)
Oh - I agree that it will be true if Apple release the source. But they haven't, have they?
You're operating under this idiotic speculation from some moron in the tech press.
No, I'm not speculating in the slightest - I'm talking about now. Right now you cannot download the entire source code to darwin. Thefore darwin is not open source (even by your incorrect definition).
In any case, Darwin is more open than closed at this point.
Yes, it is. But you can't call something open source if it includes components you can't view the source on. Why don't we compromise and say darwin-ppc is open & darwin-x86 is made of open & closed components?
False analogy. Pregnancy is a binary condition. Unless Darwin has exactly one source file with all the code in it, your analogy doesn't apply.
How can you argue that OS X is not open (as it's made up of open & closed components), yet in the same breath argue Darwin-x86 is Open (even tho' it's made up of open & closed components).
*shakes head*
You're quite a fanboi being able to hold such self-contradictory thoughts in your head at once!
Essentially, Apple hasn't released the sources to the kernel for darwin x86. Noone's really disputing this, but Apple hasn't commented on why, leading many people to speculate that they'll be opened in future.
So basically, we've got a closed kernel, closed gui & some open userland. Install services for unix on XP & you have a similar experience.:-/
They draw it that line at all ends of the spectrum too you know - but I didn't hear the conservatives screaming when socialistworker.org stopped being indexed.
I am against the censorship by Google.
Its no more censorship then a supermod here making a post -1. I'm surprised you can't see that pudge.
Actually, this explains why PNG has been crippled for so very long in IE. They didn't want PNG to gain a foothold before they could introduce their unwanted Microsoft version.
Interesting - I hadn't thought of that, but you're probably right.
I don't know what Microsoft is thinking. Their own image format? That's the last thing they should be introducing right now. This company is full of lunatics.
Hmmmmn, I dunno, wma (to a minor extent) and wmv (quite a lot) have been pretty successful for their intended purpose methinks - driving consumers & software/hardware companies away from other operatins systems or server / hardware solutions.
Let's pray that none of the major camera manufacturors are suckered into partnering with MS on this picture format...
Note that software that is going to be used somewhere where fatalities are possible will tend to use similar design & qa principles to bridge building:-)
Also - I bet I can find a few collapsed bridges that have resulted in the deaths of more then 5 people.
By your reasoning, it is inevitable that bridges have design defects in them, and that at some point (in their usable specified lifetime), will collapse.
I didn't say all software will have major bugs that lead inevitabley to the collapse of the software. Just that all software will have bugs.
All bridges have defects too you know - the suspension cables will be slightly uneven, or some features of the fascade will be unsymetrical. Bridge engineers make damn sure there are no structual problems that will lead to collapse (but even they fail sometimes).
I wish software engineers would be more like bridge engineers as well, but the cost of failure (and the cost of fixing in the event of a failure) are so different between bridges & software that its not likely to change.
Vault's backend makes extensive use of features specific to Microsoft SQL Server. Contrary to popular belief, SQL isn't portable.
*shakes head* and then this:
Linux and MacOS users have problems over how end-of-line terminators show up.
Ouch!
Anyway, I do agree with the author for the most part (its all pretty 101 risk assessment stuff). It is inevitable that software will have bugs in it (especially commercial software shipped to a schedule). This is not really news tho'.
What I would like to see is some vendor honesty. How about making a list of known bugs available to your customer prior to purchase? (I know, I know, fairly warning a customer is madness, etc etc).
No I'm not. I actually hadn't heard of sig 11 before you mentioned him - I started reading/. probably in late '98, so I was lurking while he was posting, but I don't recall him.
I read his farewell thingie over at everything2... mildly interesting, but I actually think the moderation system works quite well.
With usage patterns of writing gigabytes per day, each flash-based SSD should last hundreds of years, depending on capacity. If it has a DRAM cache, it'll last even longer.
In short, MS has caught the rest of us napping, found an honest-to-god gap, and created something that fills it.
Its not a gap tho' - this format does nothing new that I can see.
It's like wmv & wma, for the consumer, they offered nothing new. However, for microsoft they provided customer lock in (yay!) and DRM for their 'partners' in the content industry.
Well, according to NE asia's may edition, the USPTO is going reexamine forgent's patent (at the behest of The public patent foundation. But that's really kind of besides the point 'cause all of MS's products are going to come under patent attacks.
There's just too many software patents out there (and too many broad ones) for MS to work their way around all of them, forgent will just buy up some company with a patent on entropy encoding & turn around & sue MS.
If jpeg patents are MS's fear, a new image format is only going to buy them a little time, but if DRM is their goal, it makes perfect sense.
Slashdot Mirror
No disrespect to tfj - it was well written, but perhaps a better title than "Gaming outside the home" when gaming outside the home has been going on for ages :-)
What they say Intel did is irrelevant to them and us.
Yes, yes, China's motives are quite obvious.
But what they say intel did has some merit don't you think? After all, if Intel did something against ISOs rules, then we may be looking at WAPI as the new standard.
since when does china care about patent law?
Nothing to do with patent law.
Short version. IEEE submitted 80211i, China submitted WAPI to ISO to be international wireless encryption standards. IEEE won, WAPI lost. China is complaining that IEEE did something bad during the lead up to the voting process. No news sources are reporting what that something was as far as I can see.
So we have nebulous claims of interference in the ISO process. No more, no less.
(I'm not sure whether I dislike/distrust Intel or China more)
Thanks for the (long) reply.
I think your confusion is best shown with this paragraph:
Not to mention that many news sites also consistently push one point of view, like The Wall Street Journal pushing free-market capitalism, and the San Francisco Chronicle pushing anti-steroids-in-baseball, and The New York Times (well, now, anyway) pushing anti-Iraq-war
The site's in question were pushing one pov (anything to have a dig at the muslims). None of the examples you give are close to that - SFC, WSJ, NYT all cover a spectrum of stories.
(Your SFC example was particularly ridiculous).
I understand your point, but the simple matter is that google can't index & link to every crackpot group out there.
Lastly, you say:
Again, this is entirely beside the point: they were not dropped for being opinion or not-news, but for using what Google arbitrarily decides is "hate speech."
I'm not sure I've actually read anything from google about this - can you link to the google statement where google says the sites were kicked for being 'hate sites'
Can we all just ignore this story until xinhua / china decide to release some information on what (specifically), the IEEE is supposed to have done?
-1 Lack of detail.
If I was an MS shill (like so many in these forums seems to be), I would be deeply, deeply ashamed that the company I pimped myself out for was incapable of distinguishing between a document format and an application.
(read the 'study')
But I am sure the shills will pipe up with "easier to use", "people are used to it", "noone forces people to use MS" and other such irrelevance.
Can I fedex you a return key? Your posts are really hard to read.
As to your little rant.
because it involves Google and Dell, is getting only a minor semi-negative buzz from the groupthink... and I find it hypocritical, that's
Bullshit.
People react to things more strongly coming from MS because they're a monopoly & have different rules.
How much do MS pay you?
there's noting more entertaining than watching the groupthink have a go at the ol' double standards,
There's nothing more entertaining then some poster on slashdot who doesn't understand that once your a monopoly, the rules change.
Oh - did I say entertaining? I meant sad.
Errr, yeah, I kinda got that it was a hydrogen/oxygen welder.
The bits I was having trouble with were:
1) torch is cold enough to touch (yet hotter then the surface of the sun!)
2) Claim that more power comes out then whats put in electricity wise.
3) Fox presenting it as something truthful (should be on some sort of consumer action/anti scam prog if you ask me)
I honestly thought it was a (extremely deadpan) joke, but if I cast my mind back to some fox "reports" I've seen I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Duh. But that's not the point. You and others are making value judgments about whether Google did the right thing in censoring viewpoints, and I am asking you where the line is between what is acceptable in your judgment, and what is not.
Oh right, I thought you asked who made the judgement, but you meant what criteria the judgment should be. Gotcha.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear when a site consistently pushes one point of view, that they're an opinion site, not a news sites. Why should google be obliged to link to every "Death to America" or "Death to Jews" or "Death to Muslims" blog out there? They're trying to reduce noise.
But obviously, you don't care, as long as the voices you disagree with are quieted, so they cannot bother you.
Do you really believe this to be censorship? Really? It's not like China, anyone can still find these sites on the 'net. They're still indexed by google, they're just not indexed by the news site 'cause they're not news.
I occasionally read counterpunch.org - they appear to have been dropped from google news as well (and a good thing, they were a pure opinion site, just like the anti-islam sites), so its not like its only voices I disagree with are being dropped.
I agree with you that my -1 analogy was flawed.
it'll be true for the whole x86 branch. (The BSD tool sources are available for both.)
Oh - I agree that it will be true if Apple release the source. But they haven't, have they?
You're operating under this idiotic speculation from some moron in the tech press.
No, I'm not speculating in the slightest - I'm talking about now. Right now you cannot download the entire source code to darwin. Thefore darwin is not open source (even by your incorrect definition).
In any case, Darwin is more open than closed at this point.
Yes, it is. But you can't call something open source if it includes components you can't view the source on. Why don't we compromise and say darwin-ppc is open & darwin-x86 is made of open & closed components?
False analogy. Pregnancy is a binary condition. Unless Darwin has exactly one source file with all the code in it, your analogy doesn't apply.
How can you argue that OS X is not open (as it's made up of open & closed components), yet in the same breath argue Darwin-x86 is Open (even tho' it's made up of open & closed components).
*shakes head*
You're quite a fanboi being able to hold such self-contradictory thoughts in your head at once!
At this point I'm totally confused on the issue.
:-/
Essentially, Apple hasn't released the sources to the kernel for darwin x86. Noone's really disputing this, but Apple hasn't commented on why, leading many people to speculate that they'll be opened in future.
So basically, we've got a closed kernel, closed gui & some open userland. Install services for unix on XP & you have a similar experience.
Who draws that line?
Google - its there aggregator after all.
They draw it that line at all ends of the spectrum too you know - but I didn't hear the conservatives screaming when socialistworker.org stopped being indexed.
I am against the censorship by Google.
Its no more censorship then a supermod here making a post -1. I'm surprised you can't see that pudge.
Man I suck... Here is the link: http://youtube.com/watch?v*snip* Don't let my inability...
Man - you do not suck, that was... worth watching.
Can you give me a little background info? WTF was it on? I see the fox logo there... I hope it was a joke?
Actually, this explains why PNG has been crippled for so very long in IE. They didn't want PNG to gain a foothold before they could introduce their unwanted Microsoft version.
Interesting - I hadn't thought of that, but you're probably right.
I don't know what Microsoft is thinking. Their own image format? That's the last thing they should be introducing right now. This company is full of lunatics.
Hmmmmn, I dunno, wma (to a minor extent) and wmv (quite a lot) have been pretty successful for their intended purpose methinks - driving consumers & software/hardware companies away from other operatins systems or server / hardware solutions.
Let's pray that none of the major camera manufacturors are suckered into partnering with MS on this picture format...
FOSS projects publish their known bugs in order to encourage outsiders to fix them and feed back the code. Different ecosystem.
Good point. YARTSOS (Yet another reason to support open software)!
True, true.
:-)
Note that software that is going to be used somewhere where fatalities are possible will tend to use similar design & qa principles to bridge building
Also - I bet I can find a few collapsed bridges that have resulted in the deaths of more then 5 people.
even international parties involved in an experimental nuclear fusion reactor project have initialled a 10bn-euro (£6.8bn) agreement on the plan.
10Bn over 35 years for cheap clean energy?
Bah! I say - much better to spend 10bn/month to secure access to limitless supplies of the cleanest energy!
Good idea! You go first.
What do you mean? Release a list of bugs in my next post prior to posting it?
I'm not a software vendor!
By your reasoning, it is inevitable that bridges have design defects in them, and that at some point (in their usable specified lifetime), will collapse.
I didn't say all software will have major bugs that lead inevitabley to the collapse of the software. Just that all software will have bugs.
All bridges have defects too you know - the suspension cables will be slightly uneven, or some features of the fascade will be unsymetrical. Bridge engineers make damn sure there are no structual problems that will lead to collapse (but even they fail sometimes).
I wish software engineers would be more like bridge engineers as well, but the cost of failure (and the cost of fixing in the event of a failure) are so different between bridges & software that its not likely to change.
Anyway, I do agree with the author for the most part (its all pretty 101 risk assessment stuff). It is inevitable that software will have bugs in it (especially commercial software shipped to a schedule). This is not really news tho'.
What I would like to see is some vendor honesty. How about making a list of known bugs available to your customer prior to purchase? (I know, I know, fairly warning a customer is madness, etc etc).
No I'm not. I actually hadn't heard of sig 11 before you mentioned him - I started reading /. probably in late '98, so I was lurking while he was posting, but I don't recall him.
I read his farewell thingie over at everything2... mildly interesting, but I actually think the moderation system works quite well.
Number of rewrites on a laptop hard disk: Until the drive mechanism dies.
Stick some dram cache on your ssd drive & it's likely to outlast a typical hdd:
In short, MS has caught the rest of us napping, found an honest-to-god gap, and created something that fills it.
Its not a gap tho' - this format does nothing new that I can see.
It's like wmv & wma, for the consumer, they offered nothing new. However, for microsoft they provided customer lock in (yay!) and DRM for their 'partners' in the content industry.
Well, according to NE asia's may edition, the USPTO is going reexamine forgent's patent (at the behest of The public patent foundation. But that's really kind of besides the point 'cause all of MS's products are going to come under patent attacks.
There's just too many software patents out there (and too many broad ones) for MS to work their way around all of them, forgent will just buy up some company with a patent on entropy encoding & turn around & sue MS.
If jpeg patents are MS's fear, a new image format is only going to buy them a little time, but if DRM is their goal, it makes perfect sense.