July 7, 2006
Toys for the Interwebs
Do me a favor and take a minute to play with this. It's a demo application for a framework called Echo2. This framework "removes the developer from having to think in terms of 'page-based' applications and enables him/her to develop applications using the conventional object-oriented and event-driven paradigm for user interface development."
Basically, it allows a person to create very nice website/applications without having to deal with the usual technologies of the internet. Which is nice, because the sort of people who are capable of designing and implementing complex, elegant applications are all snobs who believe HTML is a pain and javascript is ugly.
When you're done playing with that, tinker with google spreadsheets.
I'm sort of curious as to whether or not people think that these sorts of "internet applications" are good things. There's already a lot being written about this sort of thing, so I doubt we'll have anything new to add, but I'm curious nonetheless.
For my part, I remain curmudgeonly and unconvinced. I like for my applications, my configurations, and my data to live on my hardware. My life would be easier if I could change my mind; I use about five different computers in three different operating systems every week, which means learning a ton of different applications to do the same jobs. Each application on each computer requires its own configurations, and my data becomes spread out, which is a hassle. It seems like I am exactly the sort of person who should jump at these ideas. Nonetheless, I continue to configure Thunderbird to check my GMail account on every operating system on every computer, because the GMail interface simple doesn't do it for me.
Posted by todd at 9:24 AM | Comments (0)
May 8, 2006
These ain't 'Conflict Diamonds', is they Jacob?
Clifford at Cosmic Variance scrubs the kitchen floor, and returns with this:
This might be old news to some, but did you know that you can get the remains of your loved ones turned into a diamond?! [...]Dr. Johnson does not report the price of the process, so I went and looked. Having the family turned into an heirloom costs between $3,500, for .2-.29 carats, up to $13,000 for .9-.99 carats.There is a company (or companies, e.g Life Gem) that does this for you, and sends you a nice piece of jewelry made out of your dearly departed. There are slight variations in colour of the finished product…. depending upon the non-carbon “impurities” (if you pardon the term) associated with the source material. So it is very personalised indeed.
Posted by todd at 10:07 PM | Comments (0)
April 7, 2006
Isn't That Where Scary Men Yell At You?
Just one question for all of the people making such a fuss about Boot Camp.
Are you aware that dual booting sucks?
Gruber points out that it's a good thing for Mac because it might remove the last stumbling block before a lot of people. But I'm not really sure that it will. I used to keep Windows on my Linux boxes, so that I could play games and whatnot. But all that really meant was that I never played any games and I wasted 5 or 6 gigabytes of hard disk space.
Suppose that you're a Windows user, and for you Application X is the "killer app." Whatever it is -- Halo or Windows Paint or whatever. Sure, you might think for a second, "Sweet, now I can have a better experience from my OS, and just use Windows when I need Application X." But after a minute, you'll also think, "Wait, do I really want to have to stop everything else I'm doing and reboot my computer to use Application X? Do I really want to have to maintain two copies and configurations of a lot of software (mail reader, IM client, etc) in order to exist comfortably in the operating system where I use Application X?"
No, you don't. So you're back to choosing between Application X and your operating system.
It's also true that this is a no-lose situation for Apple. But it isn't news worthy, because there's just to way that it wins more than a handful of converts.
Posted by todd at 9:32 AM | Comments (1)
February 23, 2006
Someone Call the Smithsonian
DVD Jon has, in an offhand manner, offered the book from which he learned assembly language for sale. It's too bad that he's the antithesis of people like Gates and Jobs, the types who pay way too much money for pieces of technological history, because that's a pretty cool piece.
Posted by todd at 10:18 PM | Comments (0)
November 2, 2005
Sony's Turn to Creep You Out
Here's a good reason to stop buying cds, if you hadn't already.
In fact, while I'm at it, don't use crappy media players that ship free with content, or Windows.
Posted by todd at 1:34 PM | Comments (2)
October 18, 2005
Well, That's Creepy
In case the government hasn't creeped you out yet this week: you may want to know whether or not your printer is on this list.
Posted by todd at 6:32 PM | Comments (0)
September 21, 2005
Fight for your right to Google
Looks like hard times ahead for Google:
Three authors filed suit against Google yesterday contending that the company's program to create searchable digital copies of the contents of several university libraries constituted "massive copyright infringement." [...] Google intends to make money from the project by selling advertising on its search pages, much as it does on its popular online search-engine site. [...] The suit contends that Google knew or should have known that the Copyright Act "required it to obtain authorization from the holders of the copyrights in these literary works before creating and reproducing digital copies of the works for its commercial use and for the use of others."So the matter seems to come down to the "fair use" provision versus the stipulation against digital copies. Google is certainly creating digital reproductions, but they're not offering them up for free to anyone who wants one. Is that fair use?Google has said from the beginning that its program is covered by the "fair use" provision of the copyright law, which allows limited use of protected works. In a statement issued in response to the suit, Google also said its program respected copyrights.
They issued a statement on the issue:
"Google Print directly benefits authors and publishers by increasing awareness of and sales of the books in the program. And, if they choose, authors and publishers can exclude books from the program if they don't want their material included. Copyrighted books are indexed to create an electronic card catalog and only small portions of the books are shown unless the content owner gives permission to show more."Now call me crazy, but this reminds me of the arguments people were offering in favor of Napster (although not necessarily in court). Of course, Napster actually did offer up the content for free. It strikes me that Google's claim is much more legitimate; should library catalogs be prevented from reproducing any portion of the text? Also, it would be damned near impossible for an artist to prevent his/her work from being distributed via a p2p network, where Google can actually back up their promise to take down anyone who doesn't want their book in the Print Library.
Which just sounds idiotic to me. If I'm going to publish any academic books, I'll want everyone to hear of it who has any reason to buy it whatsoever. Reproduce it all you want. What are these people thinking?
Posted by tony at 1:27 PM | Comments (5)
August 20, 2005
I Should Start Seeking Patents
Not that I had any idea how to do it at the time, but I had this idea two years go.
Some researchers at IBM are working on an device -- based on either an iPod or a usb jump drive -- from which a computer can be booted. The idea is that you can carry your operating system, along with all of your files and settings, around with you. Then you plug into a USB port, and use any ol' monitor, CPU, and keyboard.
Honestly, I liked the idea more two years ago than I do now. Then I thought we might see WiFi hot spots augmented by banks of dummy terminals -- a monitor and a keyboard, waiting for a USB hard drive to be plugged in. Now, I'm not sure that's all that interesting an idea.
Posted by todd at 12:30 PM | Comments (1)
June 27, 2005
I Need to get Back to Work
I'm working from home today, which means that I'm susceptible to diversion. I was doing well, until Ed Felten brought me a bunch of Grokster links. Dr. Felten is worried, others believe the court simply punted back to the lower courts, and industry lawyers love it.
The Christian Science Monitor doesn't seem to get it:
The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2001 that Napster could be held partly liable for copyright violations by those using its file-sharing program. The court ruled that Napster officials could have policed the illegal downloading activities through the company's centralized servers, but instead ignored the lawbreaking.Right. Not because maintaining central servers is needlessly slow and expensive, but because they're sneaky.
To bypass such legal liability, Grokster and StreamCast decentralized their servers, making it impossible for them to monitor how their file-sharing programs were being used.
Forbes.com has a more encouraging take:
Why not compete with free download services on their own turf? Companies such as Apple Computer, RealNetworks, Napster and others are making a go of selling music online legally. They have a long, long way to before they even come close to the number of pirated downloads, but the early results are encouraging.Leave it up to competition? That makes way too much sense.
Make the media companies compete, and they'll find a way to innovate on their own. Give them an excuse to start suing entrepreneurs with new ideas, and they'll just become more complacent than they already are.
I haven't read the decision yet (I need to get back to work!), and I don't know a lot about the law, but it seems to me that all is not lost for Grokster. My understanding is that this means there will be a trial in the Ninth Circuit, where Grokster will have a chance to show that they did not engage in inducement.
Meanwhile, there was also another relatively important technology decision today.
Posted by todd at 3:39 PM | Comments (0)
June 23, 2005
The First Step is the Hardest
Does anyone remember the scene during the beginning of Star Wars Episode II when Anakin and Obi-Wan chase a bounty hunter in a futuristic bar? As in any such establishment, there is a television behind the counter, showing what appears to be a game of football. Only the contestants are funny looking robots. It's a small, cute joke.
If we end up there in the future, curmudgeonly purists might look back to today, and to a six-year-old girl, as the place where it all went wrong. From the Kansas City Star:
The first two innings of the July 16th game between the Kansas City T-Bones and the Schaumburg Flyers will be played virtually.Via BoingBoing.Equipped with Microsoft Xbox game controllers instead of baseball gloves and bats, two video gamers will climb into recliner chairs around home plate at CommunityAmerica Ballpark and slug it out on the park’s 16- by 24-foot video screen.
Their scores from playing two innings of MVP Baseball 2005 on an Xbox will stand when the T-Bones and Flyers take the field to finish the last seven innings of the game.
Mike Stone, commissioner of the minor-league baseball Northern League, said the idea “brings new meaning to the term ‘fan involvement.’ ”
The idea for the promotion came from the 6-year-old niece of Bryan Williams, director of community relations for the T-Bones.
[...] T-Bones fans began competing last weekend for a chance to take the field. The two finalists will be chosen after competing for high scores at CompUSA stores in Overland Park and Independence. The competition continues through July 6. A playoff for the top 16 players is scheduled for July 9.
Posted by todd at 1:34 PM | Comments (3)
June 21, 2005
How not to Legislate
JD Lassica, guest blogger at Freedom to Tinker, posts a story from his book Darknet about the terrible muddle that is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The story involves an unwitting violation of the law by Intel VP Donald S. Whiteside.
Whiteside used a short clip from the film "Rudy" in a homemade DVD of his son playing Pop Warner football. In the process, he used a program which needed DVD Jon's illegal DeCSS algorithm.
Whiteside made this admission at a meeting with congressmen interested in technological copyright protection schemes, such as the one DeCSS circumvents.
The point of his demonstration, Whiteside said, was not a mea culpa, but a real-world example of how Washington’s penchant for legislative solutions can hobble a new, flowering marketplace of innovation.“This is precisely the kind of exciting consumer creativity that should be enabled,” he said. “I don’t claim to have all the answers. Should I have to go clear rights to use ten seconds from Rudy in my son’s video, or does it fall under fair use? Should I have to pay pennies for every second of a snippet? I don’t know. But I do know that we have to figure out a way for consumers to do something creative without breaking the law.
“To me, this episode was a great way to frame the question: Should copyright law permit this or not? Should the DMCA criminalize this sort of thing? Or should the creative community, high-tech community, and lawmakers get together to try to stimulate this kind of innovative behavior?”
Posted by todd at 1:36 PM | Comments (3)