But I DO welcome Microsofts interference, in this case, at any rate. Because they didn't get what they want AND pointed out the major flaws in the system.
Is this a pattern for Microsoft? If, in fact Microsoft is at the root of this, could this be another SCO-like move where they essentially pay someone else to sue? It seems to be a pattern... the SCO investment is the big red example that many will hold up, but there are more examples of Microsoft using or controlling a third party as a methodology of maintaining it's monopoly.
This isn't really new stuff though, the Steel and Railroad magnates used similar tactics, as did AT&T in the 70's and early 80's, which is what eventually caused them to be broken up, that lasted 20 years, and AT&T is almost back to a single entity. They are already starting some of the same-old, same-old... Walmart started out as a "give the customer a cheaper price, and make money on a lot of little markup's instead of a few big ones.... Then something changed, That change occurs with Sam Walston... Or maybe he just got rich enough to play harder ball.... Dunno.
It makes me wonder whether or not there is a predictable situation here, once a company has hit a certain point in it's growth, does corporate mentality automatically switch into predatory practices, rather than competing through more morally acceptable techniques?
Though, in some cases, the predatory practices were there from the start.
The company filing the lawsuit has ex-MicroSofties on its payroll, and some were recent hires.
Gerry Yes, I know. But the parent was indicating that one of the 235 patent violations was now under scrutiny, and on it's way down. I agree that I think this patent is going to be invalidated, however, it's NOT one of the patents Balmer has been running his mouth about, since it isn't Microsoft ITSELF filing. So, it isn't 1 down....
It wasn't a universal remark. He was specifying the GGP.
Fscking idiot. It was a JOKE, jeezus, did n't the Nichol Willimson and "Excalibur" reference give it away? Gawd, the day has arrived when a classic King Arthur refernce is missed...... I bet you miss the Monty Python references too...... In fact, I know some do.....
You mean *per gigabyte* and that's true. But tape drives are even cheaper Because the technology is mature, I'd accept "Could be" cheaper.... But because the tape systems are not produced in the quantities that HDD's are, they are not ACTUALLY cheaper, with the exception of converting commodity tape drives (read that as Mini-dv or Digital 8 video systems) for use as digital storage mechanisms. I believe you can approach HDD prices that way (but you chould do the same thing faster, easier, and cheaper with cd and DVD media.... Lots of disks though, do we factor in the cost of storage space for purposes of this conversation?)
I'm assuming the PCI-e/pci/agp bus is still going to be a bottleneck, but this will cut down on seek times? Huh? "Still" when has it been a bottleneck in the past? AGP was dedicated to video, PCI and PCIe are so fast that you don't saturate the bus from the drives.... I really don't understand your assertion.
Regardless, take off the damn tinfoil hat, it makes you look stupid. These universal remarks just piss me off..... It makes SOME look stupid... Looked fine on Nichol Williamson in "Excalibur"
They certified Jack Thompson as sane, I'm sure that certificate is worth as much as a BA in Arts now. Sorry, Can't resist..... that'd be a Bachelor in Science, not a Bachelor in Arts, since we're referencing Jack Thompson....
Bah, carving runes on stones and sending them by horse carriage have you beat as for stability and maturity! i don't know - crash recovery can be a real problem. And some stones break easily on certain platforms.
That was the Norwegian Blue. Keep your scandinavian countries straight, ok? It is so near to Russia, So far from Japan, Quite a long way from Cairo, Lots of miles from Vietnam.
Well, the output is true HD. The combining of the frame buffers as an interlacing technique to get that really pretty imaging is innovative and gives us a high framerate. So, it's playable, pretty, and the interleaving of the two framerates looks good (great, actually, at 1080p on my 42" Samsung)
I've no complaints. From the article: "In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it's practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet's propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."
I have to save that last line - to be used at some point in the future, that's too funny to let die...
If you don't want to read about it in progress, just the end results, avoid reading anything but textbooks.
You missed my point. I DON'T object to reading about this stuff, I object to the way it's written up. I'm very sure that the journalist, rather than the scientists is the source of the "One thing means anything" quote. The astronomic community, I'm sure, is saying "hmmm, interesting... lets look and see if it's something known, something new, or equipment failure......"
It's no different from a Spaghetti monster reference, or a south park "1...2..3 Profit" reference... or any of a number of other obscure jokes and references that float around/.
It's a weakness of the mod system that there are so many that end up with Mod points and don't read the guidelines. But the meta modsystem compensates for that some what. It's like the American legal system.... Sure, there are some massive flaws..... But I like it better than the alternatives, because we do plug the holes every now and then.....
It is so rare that the first comment (that I see, anyway) actually contains something worth reading.
from the article: "Astronomers studying archival data from an Australian radio telescope have discovered a powerful, short-lived burst of radio waves that they say indicates an entirely new type of astronomical phenomenon."
I was wondering how one observation of one very short-lived event, from One set of sensors qualified as indicating anything. But I'm not an astronomer. In any other field it wouldn't be anything more than a "that's interesting, lets look and see if it occurs anywhere else..", I'd think.
The word Linux doesn't even appear anywhere in that entire article. Yeah, it does, almost to the end of the article... on Page - 2. But that is irrelevant. Yet another summary that has little or nothing to do with the article, Which actually focuses on Intels Threaded Building Blocks. I really hate misleading summaries. I know that some have issues with the signal to noise ratio of "news" to marketing or old news, but really, a good summary means you could, at least, skip over the stuff you didn't want to read....
the RIAA still has some wind left in it's sails, but it's certainly winding down.
The Jury trial next week is going to be another of those fun trips through surreal litigation land, I bet. I expect a lot of time spent on who actually owns the copyrights to the songs (which, Although I haven't read any reference to it yet, means the RIAA lawyers will have to identify the the song, AND but the actual copyright holder for the specific recording or performance itself. That should layer a new level of complexity.. Imagine the RIAA identifying some tune that is covered by a few bands:
first; prove it was an audio file and was copyrighted material.
Next; Identify the specific performance, because copyright extends to the artist performing, not just the composer/writer.
Then; you get to establish chain of copyright ownership through the various library transfers and company mergers through the years.
Finally; convince a jury that all the things you assert along those items are true.
I point this out, because I see a lot of evidence concerning screen shots, and such, but don't actually see where actuall files are used as evidence, only lists of files and logs. I'm sure, since forensics on Hard drives have occured, that there have been instances of found files that are identified... But that seems pretty rare.
I'm still trying to decide if I am hoping that the chain of ownership is broken or not. If it's broken, there is a precedent for dismissal of a lot of cases, and additional reasons to demand a jury trial that it seems unlikely the RIAA can win (whether the defendant is actually guilty or not). On the other hand, if they can establish copyright ownership, then there is a case for misuse of copyright. My understanding is that "misuse or copyright" voids the copyright. This is all pure speculation, of course, but it doesn't seem like it would take more than one case where copyrights were removed to halt virtually every case out there, since such a judgment would quite literally turn the industry on it's ear overnight.
I believe that the industry is going to (has, though some companys don't seem to understand that yet) change. I supposed, in a twisted way, we should thank the RIAA, ultimately, their actions have changed the landscape faster than it would have otherwise, I think.
"My suspicion is that the march of technology is hampered by the greed of individuals."
I harbor the opposite suspicion: The march of technology is almost solely reliant on greed.
There is plenty of evidence to support both suspicions. Greed will promote or hamper the march of technology, depending on the point of view of the greedy.... The "good 'ol boys" will hamper the march of technology to limit competition, and maximize profits on current investment when possible. The new kid on the block promotes the march of technology in order to knock the "good 'ol boys" off the top of the mountain, in order to take their place. Which forces the good ol boys to innovate or die.
Of course this doesn't address the situations where greed doesn't play a part a all, again, with numerous examples. I don't really believe in altruism, but there are other reasons to innovate than money. For example, I might do something and release it into the public domain. Anyone who does this is expecting to get something they value in return. It might be something really esoteric like "contributing to the betterment of humanity" or somewhat less so like "Showing off my coding skills" or "Getting Chicks" [snicker]... but it'll be something.
You know whats installed, eh? So you go through and check the source of all code that is being installed on your Linux box? I understand the idea that because it is open source, there must be no problems with what you are installing, but don't make the false assumption of this, because as Linux becomes more and more popular the chance of something getting on your system that you were unaware of will most likely grow. Everything might not always be so hunkydory. Actually, no, I don't go through all the code line by line. But, I have the OPTION of doing so, as I mentioned in my first post. However, yes, I do know what is being installed, what services are running. I choose when and if to update AND I can determine exactly what is going to be changed, and override any of those changes if I choose to.
If the public power system weren't heavily networked, it would not be possible to hook the California power system's consumers (and their electric cars) to hydroelectric plants in Washington State, or Quebec.
And even if it weren't connected to the public internet, it would still be connected to _an_ internet that could be hacked...
It's too late for us to just Stop Using The Networks Because They Aren't Secure Enough, without massive expense. We're going to have to make them more secure the hard way. There is a difference between the power distribution system, and networking the generator control systems, the first is required to accomplish what you refer to here, the second is not. The systems need to respond to demands for power,but I think that can be accomplished without running through the internet. Record keeping and data transfer between facilities is required to keep the accounting straight between all the power companies, but you don't have to hook the controllers into that loop.
This is the reason I support and use Linux. It started as a hobby, something to do with old equipment. But, now it's because of disclosure. I know what is being installed, and can choose when to update, what to update, and, If I've the time and inclination, I can take the update apart, see what it's doing, and even modify part of it.
Microsoft doesn't allow me this, and continues to fail to predict the negative consequences resulting from these choices. Apple at least gives me the option of installing an update, even though they have a bad record on the full disclosure thing too.
What's so darn important that it requires instantaneous communication? Why can't it just gather summaries in, you know, overnight batch runs or something, and write them on media that can be hand-carried to the business system? It's not really that, it's digital control to make (in theory) the most efficient use of the generating facilities. Interconnecting all the machines isn't really the issue, you could, for example, build an intermediary server that both the control machine and the business network have access to, without resorting to sneakernetting the data.
The problem is in allowing any remote control of the system, which the utility wants to happen so that a central facility can control any generator. Here, we have four power generation facilities, all of which are managed from a central control at the utilities main office downtown. They choose to use the internet to make those connections, because it's MUCH cheaper than stringing dedicated data lines from the generation plants to the central office. The consultants working on the initial system were 100% sure that the data paths were secure, and each consultant (and their IT department) have been dealing with security issues ever since. The prefernce is to bandage the problem (secure the systems, secure the communications, etceteras) rather than using physical security on the data path itself. And there is some logic behind this, redundancy is far more important than security, and the current system offers a lot of redundancy....
If you make biofuels the "traditional" way, you use microorganisms to break down molecules. These organisms use part of the energy stored in the fuel, and on top of that they are usually quite specific. What would be better would be to build a big nuclear reactor, and use its energy to heat up your (agricultural) waste to plasma temperatures. Inject coal, water or air to control your final product, and allow the plasma to condense, possibly in contact with the right catalysers. Voila: biofuel. And instead of having removed lots of joules from it, you will have injected some. At the same time, you got yourself an eco-friendly way to get rid of organic pollutants like insecticides. (You will have to find another way to treat heavy metals.) it's already being done Discovery Magazine There's a new plant being built here in Florida. You don't need the nuclear plant, though, the system generates electrical power as a part of the process, enough to self power (in the case of the Japanese plant), and with new technology already being used in the states, enough to generate excess power to be dumped onto the grip and, as a bonus, the heavy metals are processed into handleable units to be recycled. A real nice win-win technology... (except maybe the plant construction price tag.)
Slashdot Mirror
welcome no damn overlords...
But I DO welcome Microsofts interference, in this case, at any rate. Because they didn't get what they want AND pointed out the major flaws in the system.
This isn't really new stuff though, the Steel and Railroad magnates used similar tactics, as did AT&T in the 70's and early 80's, which is what eventually caused them to be broken up, that lasted 20 years, and AT&T is almost back to a single entity. They are already starting some of the same-old, same-old... Walmart started out as a "give the customer a cheaper price, and make money on a lot of little markup's instead of a few big ones.... Then something changed, That change occurs with Sam Walston... Or maybe he just got rich enough to play harder ball.... Dunno.
It makes me wonder whether or not there is a predictable situation here, once a company has hit a certain point in it's growth, does corporate mentality automatically switch into predatory practices, rather than competing through more morally acceptable techniques?
Though, in some cases, the predatory practices were there from the start.
Gerry Yes, I know. But the parent was indicating that one of the 235 patent violations was now under scrutiny, and on it's way down. I agree that I think this patent is going to be invalidated, however, it's NOT one of the patents Balmer has been running his mouth about, since it isn't Microsoft ITSELF filing. So, it isn't 1 down....
(All the more so, because one of the companies Microsoft cut a deal with for patent lawsuit protection, Novel, is also named in this lawsuit)
Fscking idiot. It was a JOKE, jeezus, did n't the Nichol Willimson and "Excalibur" reference give it away? Gawd, the day has arrived when a classic King Arthur refernce is missed...... I bet you miss the Monty Python references too...... In fact, I know some do.....
So far from Japan,
Quite a long way from Cairo,
Lots of miles from Vietnam.
Finland has it all....
Well, the output is true HD. The combining of the frame buffers as an interlacing technique to get that really pretty imaging is innovative and gives us a high framerate. So, it's playable, pretty, and the interleaving of the two framerates looks good (great, actually, at 1080p on my 42" Samsung)
I've no complaints.
From the article:
"In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it's practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet's propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."
I have to save that last line - to be used at some point in the future, that's too funny to let die...
If you don't want to read about it in progress, just the end results, avoid reading anything but textbooks.
You missed my point. I DON'T object to reading about this stuff, I object to the way it's written up. I'm very sure that the journalist, rather than the scientists is the source of the "One thing means anything" quote. The astronomic community, I'm sure, is saying "hmmm, interesting... lets look and see if it's something known, something new, or equipment failure......"Why?
/.
It's no different from a Spaghetti monster reference, or a south park "1...2..3 Profit" reference... or any of a number of other obscure jokes and references that float around
It's a weakness of the mod system that there are so many that end up with Mod points and don't read the guidelines. But the meta modsystem compensates for that some what. It's like the American legal system.... Sure, there are some massive flaws..... But I like it better than the alternatives, because we do plug the holes every now and then.....
Absolutely nothing.
It is so rare that the first comment (that I see, anyway) actually contains something worth reading.from the article: "Astronomers studying archival data from an Australian radio telescope have discovered a powerful, short-lived burst of radio waves that they say indicates an entirely new type of astronomical phenomenon."
I was wondering how one observation of one very short-lived event, from One set of sensors qualified as indicating anything. But I'm not an astronomer. In any other field it wouldn't be anything more than a "that's interesting, lets look and see if it occurs anywhere else..", I'd think.
here, I'll make it easy for you.
http://www.bigear.org/6equj5.htm The weakness of the Mod system.....
and yet another proof that you can't determine relativity by mob rule.... (yep, that last was a joke....)
the RIAA still has some wind left in it's sails, but it's certainly winding down.
The Jury trial next week is going to be another of those fun trips through surreal litigation land, I bet. I expect a lot of time spent on who actually owns the copyrights to the songs (which, Although I haven't read any reference to it yet, means the RIAA lawyers will have to identify the the song, AND but the actual copyright holder for the specific recording or performance itself. That should layer a new level of complexity.. Imagine the RIAA identifying some tune that is covered by a few bands:
first; prove it was an audio file and was copyrighted material.
Next; Identify the specific performance, because copyright extends to the artist performing, not just the composer/writer.
Then; you get to establish chain of copyright ownership through the various library transfers and company mergers through the years.
Finally; convince a jury that all the things you assert along those items are true.
I point this out, because I see a lot of evidence concerning screen shots, and such, but don't actually see where actuall files are used as evidence, only lists of files and logs. I'm sure, since forensics on Hard drives have occured, that there have been instances of found files that are identified... But that seems pretty rare.
I'm still trying to decide if I am hoping that the chain of ownership is broken or not. If it's broken, there is a precedent for dismissal of a lot of cases, and additional reasons to demand a jury trial that it seems unlikely the RIAA can win (whether the defendant is actually guilty or not). On the other hand, if they can establish copyright ownership, then there is a case for misuse of copyright. My understanding is that "misuse or copyright" voids the copyright. This is all pure speculation, of course, but it doesn't seem like it would take more than one case where copyrights were removed to halt virtually every case out there, since such a judgment would quite literally turn the industry on it's ear overnight.
I believe that the industry is going to (has, though some companys don't seem to understand that yet) change. I supposed, in a twisted way, we should thank the RIAA, ultimately, their actions have changed the landscape faster than it would have otherwise, I think.
There is plenty of evidence to support both suspicions. Greed will promote or hamper the march of technology, depending on the point of view of the greedy.... The "good 'ol boys" will hamper the march of technology to limit competition, and maximize profits on current investment when possible. The new kid on the block promotes the march of technology in order to knock the "good 'ol boys" off the top of the mountain, in order to take their place. Which forces the good ol boys to innovate or die.I harbor the opposite suspicion: The march of technology is almost solely reliant on greed.
Of course this doesn't address the situations where greed doesn't play a part a all, again, with numerous examples. I don't really believe in altruism, but there are other reasons to innovate than money. For example, I might do something and release it into the public domain. Anyone who does this is expecting to get something they value in return. It might be something really esoteric like "contributing to the betterment of humanity" or somewhat less so like "Showing off my coding skills" or "Getting Chicks" [snicker]... but it'll be something.
You know whats installed, eh? So you go through and check the source of all code that is being installed on your Linux box? I understand the idea that because it is open source, there must be no problems with what you are installing, but don't make the false assumption of this, because as Linux becomes more and more popular the chance of something getting on your system that you were unaware of will most likely grow. Everything might not always be so hunkydory. Actually, no, I don't go through all the code line by line. But, I have the OPTION of doing so, as I mentioned in my first post. However, yes, I do know what is being installed, what services are running. I choose when and if to update AND I can determine exactly what is going to be changed, and override any of those changes if I choose to.
And even if it weren't connected to the public internet, it would still be connected to _an_ internet that could be hacked...
It's too late for us to just Stop Using The Networks Because They Aren't Secure Enough, without massive expense. We're going to have to make them more secure the hard way. There is a difference between the power distribution system , and networking the generator control systems , the first is required to accomplish what you refer to here, the second is not. The systems need to respond to demands for power,but I think that can be accomplished without running through the internet. Record keeping and data transfer between facilities is required to keep the accounting straight between all the power companies, but you don't have to hook the controllers into that loop.
This is the reason I support and use Linux. It started as a hobby, something to do with old equipment. But, now it's because of disclosure. I know what is being installed, and can choose when to update, what to update, and, If I've the time and inclination, I can take the update apart, see what it's doing, and even modify part of it.
Microsoft doesn't allow me this, and continues to fail to predict the negative consequences resulting from these choices. Apple at least gives me the option of installing an update, even though they have a bad record on the full disclosure thing too.
The problem is in allowing any remote control of the system, which the utility wants to happen so that a central facility can control any generator. Here, we have four power generation facilities, all of which are managed from a central control at the utilities main office downtown. They choose to use the internet to make those connections, because it's MUCH cheaper than stringing dedicated data lines from the generation plants to the central office. The consultants working on the initial system were 100% sure that the data paths were secure, and each consultant (and their IT department) have been dealing with security issues ever since. The prefernce is to bandage the problem (secure the systems, secure the communications, etceteras) rather than using physical security on the data path itself. And there is some logic behind this, redundancy is far more important than security, and the current system offers a lot of redundancy....