Slashdot Mirror

I read part of the guy's letter to the people using the game. The general tone sounds like someone whining about how much the overhead costs where the overhead is part of the cost of doing business. Like complaining how much disk space costs to run these characters. If you can't afford to run the game, quit, or charge what it costs, but don't complain that it's too expensive to operate.

I am reminded of the TV show, The Flintstones, when Fred has gotten a part in a movie playing the creature from the tar pits, and they're supposed to have safety equipment so he isn't hurt. The director has a scene where the hero uses a club on the creature, and wants a padded club for the scene. The property manager whines, "Are you kidding? Do you know how much padded clubs cost?" So they'll use a real one. You can guess the result: Fred is knocked cold on the first swing to the head. It's cheaper to injure extras than protect them.

If it's that expensive they perhaps should run their own server, either renting it or collocate a box of their own and put in enough disk space. If a T1 for network traffic costs about $500 a month, disk space is peanuts in comparison.

Last time I checked, a 120 GB - that's 120,000 megabytes - IDE disk sells for about $300. Buy an inexpensive used computer, say a 200 MHZ pentium for about $50 with a $75 Gigabit network card connected to the server via a $20 crossover cable with the same $75 gigabit network card so you can access disk space fast. So if you have a box with 4 of the 120 GB space, you can run 480 GB of space for all the characters - that's 480,000 megabytes - for $1500. Or you can mirror it and have 280GB of space completely mirrored. Or spend perhaps another $500, and put two drives each in separate machines with a gigabit switch between them. Or maybe the drives aren't that fast and you can get by with $15.00 100 megabit networking cards and a $20 hub. (You put the traffic going to and from the external disk drives on a separate network card so the data traffic doesn't interfere with the network traffic which is playing the game.)

If it takes as much as 10 megabytes per user (and that's a hell of a lot of space to store character data, and probably isn't anywhere near that much), you can host 48,000 customers with mirrored disk drives for a one-time cost of about $2K. And I believe all the software to handle this including raid striping or mirroring is built in to Linux which means it's free. If your provider is charging too much for disk space, colocate and reduce your cost. Or charge what it costs to operate the game.

This is just another way that companies that operate on-line games get greedy because they don't want the customers figuring ways to make money off the game (by selling characters they've built up) or want to impose draconian conditions (like no fan sites or no creating mods to their game) because they think the customer and any money he spends related to this product (and any attention he devotes to it) is all theirs and nobody else should be able to make any money at all related to it unless they get it or a huge percentage, or any non-company attention unless they control how that attention is given.

Anyone notice how when movies are released to theatres, the studio gets 90% of the ticket price? (The only thing keeping movie theatres alive is the popcorn stand.) Also notice how many studios, when they release films or tv shows where a star in it took a smaller salary in exchange for profit participation, discovers after millions of dollars in sales, that the show or movie has always lost money and thus allegedly never had any profit to pay out? I think it's no coincidence that some of these on-line games are run by divisions of studios and they are operating them the same way as the studios are run. They think everything related to their properties should be all theirs and resent anyone getting anything out of it unless they get a piece of the action. No, make that, they get as much as possible of the action, and resent sharing anything they might have to allow.

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

I remember an interesting one in the errror message file for the VS/9 Operating System:

(Disk Pack Name) has placed subsystem in I/O Silent Death.

I never did figure out what that error meant.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

I remember an interesting one in the errror message file for the VS/9 Operating System:

(Disk Pack Name) has placed subsystem in I/O Silent Death.

I never did figure out what that error meant.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

I've never really believed in Astrology, but something bothered me. My sister used to cast horoscopes and do other things with it, and several years ago, mentioned to me that based on the charts and other information, that there should be 10 planets, not just 9.

I don't know what to make of this, except to point out two things. There can be some forms of analysis that may have some valid elements even if not all of it is valid. (Then again, I don't know if astrology has any validity yet, but something like this bothers me.) And that we shouldn't always immediately dismiss someone's ideas every time even if we think they are a crackpot.

I think one of the really crackpot ideas that professional physicians were dismissing was the idea that diseases were passed around by tiny organisms we could not see, and that it was a good idea for a physician doing an autopsy to wash his hands before tending to other sick patients so as not to transfer the disease carrying organisms from the dead to the sick, or even to the well. Semelweiss was routinely criticized as being a crackpot who didn't know what he was talking about. We now know that he was.

Now, of course, the converse, of humongous numbers of really crackpot ideas being exactly that can't be ignored either. But occasionally, they aren't.

Paul Robinson < postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Sure, Price is a factor in PC sales but... OS ultimatly comes down to what they're familiar with. My mother would love to go out and purchase a new PC for 350$ but if it doesn't have a copy of Windows with it, she'll simply go out and buy one.

If you bought a car for $3500 (or $35000) and discover that you have to spend another $1850 ($18500) for the engine you are going to be very angry or if you discover this ahead of time you will probably not buy it. If a PC sells for $350 it's going to be a hard sell to get someone to also then spend an additional $185 for the full version of Microsoft Windows 2004 (list price for a copy when you do not own a prior operating system). Even if it's $85 or so it's still a bit expensive for the home buyer. The only way they will get that much money for a copy is if they do what they've done with XP; impose anti-copying controls so strict that they virtually cannot be evaded. Which will encourage even more pirates to try to break it and may start another cycle of trying to implement even more draconian licensing systems.

In essence, they will not be able to charge the kind of prices they have before and they will either have to cut prices (almost a certainty) or see people stick with older and cheaper versions or perhaps used copies or bootlegs. (very likely)

I suspect that this may eventually trigger a copyright lawsuit that gets lost by them if they (or the SPA) really try to enforce their no transfer rule on bundled software, a restriction the Supreme Court has ruled was not permissible back in the Bobbs-Merrill case back near the turn of the (19th) Century; despite what the software companies claim, their mass-market software is sold, not licensed and is subject to the "first sale" rule.

Inexpensive computers are going to be real trouble for Microsoft's bottom line.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

Sure, Price is a factor in PC sales but... OS ultimatly comes down to what they're familiar with. My mother would love to go out and purchase a new PC for 350$ but if it doesn't have a copy of Windows with it, she'll simply go out and buy one.

If you bought a car for $3500 (or $35000) and discover that you have to spend another $1850 ($18500) for the engine you are going to be very angry or if you discover this ahead of time you will probably not buy it. If a PC sells for $350 it's going to be a hard sell to get someone to also then spend an additional $185 for the full version of Microsoft Windows 2004 (list price for a copy when you do not own a prior operating system). Even if it's $85 or so it's still a bit expensive for the home buyer. The only way they will get that much money for a copy is if they do what they've done with XP; impose anti-copying controls so strict that they virtually cannot be evaded. Which will encourage even more pirates to try to break it and may start another cycle of trying to implement even more draconian licensing systems.

In essence, they will not be able to charge the kind of prices they have before and they will either have to cut prices (almost a certainty) or see people stick with older and cheaper versions or perhaps used copies or bootlegs. (very likely)

I suspect that this may eventually trigger a copyright lawsuit that gets lost by them if they (or the SPA) really try to enforce their no transfer rule on bundled software, a restriction the Supreme Court has ruled was not permissible back in the Bobbs-Merrill case back near the turn of the (19th) Century; despite what the software companies claim, their mass-market software is sold, not licensed and is subject to the "first sale" rule.

Inexpensive computers are going to be real trouble for Microsoft's bottom line.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

First, incorporating for $100 is not going to happen. While IANAL or accountant, just filing the paperwork in the US costs that much. Then of course, you have corporate taxes and foreign corporation filings in the event you incorporate in a state like Delaware, but chose to work in say Maryland. These folks get paid even if you do not. Yep, zero income still pays the taxman. Most states have a minimum corporate tax.

Having done this myself I am aware that it costs $40 to file a corporation charter in MD if you either incorporate non-stock or incorporate with par value of less than $10,000. That fee covers you for the first year, and it's $50 a year to renew. After the first year there is a yearly tax if you declare a stock corporation. You can declare a non-stock for profit corporation and skip the stock tax. But you either have to be able to read the statutes or have professional assistance. Much of this stuff is not that complicated or difficult; mostly it's paperwork and paying fees. But sometimes you may need assistance; if you're doing enough business you may want it to save you the headaches of doing it yourself.

In fact, someone once said that anyone who makes more than about $75,000 (that number might be higher now) probably needs to incorporate and get legal and financial advice in order to use the advantages to pay less in taxes as well as take advantages of certain benefits us unincorporated wage slaves don't have.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Oh, and if the contracting company declares bankruptcy (not sure if the contracting company as well) while you're working for them, YOU CANNOT QUIT! Under federal law, you cannot stop servicing a company in bankruptcy just because they cannot pay you. READ THAT AGAIN!

I find this highly unbelievable in view of the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery. Even in the case of government agencies where one can be jailed for striking because it's illegal to strike, I've never heard of a case where a person who is a civilian employee of a non-military organization can't quit their job. I think it was F. Lee Bailey who mentioned in a TV newscast how he was advising some air traffic controllers who were members of the PATCO union who wanted to strike - and it was illegal for them to do so - and his response to them was while it was illegal to strike, they could send a message by quitting, which apparently is legal to do.

Now, if one quits work with a company one could be sued if there is a contract with appropriate provisions, and in such a case the courts might award damages but I do not believe they can order someone to work. To the best of my knowledge I've never heard of someone being forced to work for a private employer or prohibited from resigning employment.

Now, if one is incorporated and employed by one's own corporation, I could see where that corporation might be prohibited from refusing to do business with the other organization but if the only employee resigns from his corporation there's no way for it to continue to operate. I find such a claim - that one can't quit a private employer merely because it or its customer has gone bankrupt - hard to believe. I think during World War II certain occupations were considered protected and there were certain provisions then that could have prohibited some people from quitting but I'd like to see legal citations to court cases or statute law prove such a claim that a civilian employee can't quit a non-government private employer when it goes into bankruptcy or one of its customers does so.

Paul Robinson <mailto:Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

It doesn't matter. They also have to pay the time for the people who deal with the calls,

Places that take a lot of calls use equipment to process the calls in order to eliminate people.

If you're on the line with a live person, you're costing them at least $.10/minute. (presumimg a $4.00/hr minimum wage lackey plus the cost of their office space).

Federal law sets the current minimum wage at $5.25. This is in addition to the 3% federal unemployment tax, the employer's 7.5% share of the 15% Social Security tax, the state unemployment tax and overhead. (The other taxes are deducted from the employee's pay.) So if you do get hold of someone it's probably somewhat more than that. Good luck getting a live person.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Where the fuck do you people get the right to start talking about infosec and the world trade center attacks????

You seem to miss the analogy. There is a failure of security - had there been no failure, the terrorists could not have taken over the planes - and as a result someone took over someone else's property and used it to commit damage.

Consider someone using a hijacked plane to destroy a building and make it unusable.

Now consider someone using a compromised computer to generate a denial of service attack upon a major site and make it inaccessible.

I think the analogy is very close.

Now, let's ask the question: Let's say someone figured out that you could slip box cutters and knives onto a plane and use them to hijack it. Would publicising this help? Well, considering that almost anyone who thought about it could figure it out, you wouldn't be giving anyone any new ideas. The exact same thing has been pointed out many times in a number of books and even done as a plot device in some movies, so it's not like it's a secret. Therefore, making such information public might have helped people be aware of vulnerabilities. But if the passengers on the Pennsylvania plane hadn't known about the other attacks as soon as possible we might also be comiserating the destruction of the White House, too.

Once the 'exploit' was known - that there were hijackers taking planes and using them as bombs - then making people aware of the danger - fully informing everyone, including passengers on the plane in Pennsylvania - resulted in preventing further attacks from occurring. Even if the hijackers knew that the passengers knew, they can still fight back against them. Full disclosure informs everyone and can give some people the opportunity to stop something from happening.

I worked there and lost 700 co-workers and posts like this just show how lame people in general really are. And how is an attack on 1 world trade center a military attack??? I don't recall peopel working in that tower working for the US government!!!

It is arguable that those involved are allegedly in some sort of (what they call) a holy war or 'jihad'. If the World Trade Center had been, say, a privately-owned factory building armaments for the Military, then it would have been a legitimate military target, same as the Pentagon. But the fact of the matter is that even if they were legitimately fighting a war, when you intentionally target non-combatant civilians you're not a soldier, you're a criminal and the organization you operate within, if it sanctions this, is a terrorist organization.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

I know you think the analogy is amusing but I assure you it isn't. I was in the WTC 1 when this happened and I assure that it isn't amusing at all.

I think it was an accurate analogy, and I don't think it was intended as amusing.

Thank you, you got it exactly right.

So next time think before you open you mouth and conjure horrible memories just to be a sorry troll bastard.

Apparently he has no understanding of analogy as the comments of sigwinch pointed out beautifully:

The full disclosure mode is that the everybody is informed of the vulnerability and they deploy countermeasures as fast as they desire... [That] worked admirably on flight 93, reducing losses by at least tens of millions of dollars, and possibly by billions.

I must disagree on one point, however:

Attacking the first WTC tower was a military action. The second was a publicity stunt designed to increase indirect losses.

I agree with your second point, I think you have it right on the head. I figured it out: the first one was to get our attention, the second was to make sure the TV cameras caught it, e.g. the first attack was to bash the American public over the head with a 2x4, the second was a sucker punch in the stomach.

But I must disagree with your first statement: If all they were doing was attacking the Pentagon then that was a reasonable and legitimate military action (but it still was wrong for reasons I state below). But attacking the WTC was NOT a legitimate military operation and constituted an act of terrorism. If whoever did this believes they are fighting a war of some kind against the U.S. then - whether we like it or not - the Pentagon was a valid target for attack. Intentionally targeting a civilian structure that does not provide either military operations or military support changes you from a legitimate military operation into criminals. This was settled more than 30 years ago with the trial of Lt. Calley in the Mei Lai Massacre incident. But beyond that, legitimate civilized conduct of any military operation doesn't grab civilian transports and intentionally kill noncombatants.

If they had used planes without civilians on the Pentagon attack or pulled a McVeigh by using a truck bomb there, I'd have no argument that it was a legitimate military attack. But when you intentionally target noncombatants, you're no longer a soldier or a legitimate military, you cross the line into terrorism and criminality.

And don't anybody tell me that it's a poor comparison, that computer viruses don't cost lives and how can I be so insensitive.

There's already been a example of this on the TV Show Law and Order where someone figured out a way to reprogram a hospital's insulin pumps to randomly kill some patients because they didn't like one of the doctors who was an owner of the place. That this example of a computer virus killing people is a fictional incident does not make the possibility of a real one that might someday do so any less credible.

Most current guerrillas lack the competence to carry out severe infosec attacks

All I can respond to that is fortunately that is the situation now and for the moment that we've been lucky. If only those hypocrites who allegedly support the Muslim religion through violence would practice what they preach and stay as ignorant as they want everyone else to be made, then there wouldn't be too much of a problem. Unfortunately, the possibility of infowar is very real and will happen eventually. Just like those who predicted serious terrorist attacks on the U.S. would be coming: We just don't know when.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

I really liked the point about software companies being liable for the software they produce. The implication from his article was that a firewall manufacturer isn't not liable if a hacker breaks in because of shoddy code in their firewall. Is this true? Anyone know of (or have a subscription to one of those cool legal services) any legal cases that have proved or disproved this?

I'll just respond this way: Can anyone name a company that is releasing any kind of code for a mass-market product except "as is" and without warranty?

I've yet to find any software at all being released with any kind of claim beyond "as is" except maybe software for nuclear power plants or aircraft where the software is produced for one customer, hopefully is rigorously tested and carefully introduced with severe restrictions on changes and very, very high levels of failsafe design. This software would also be very expensive - and worth it - and would take a long, long, long, long, long, long time to be released.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Approximately two months ago there was a major security failure involving 3 sites. In two of the cases the people there were unaware of the problem, and as a result the criminals involved were able to use the machines that they had taken control of to cause damage they were attempting upon two large facilities.

In the third case, the people there were informed about the attack and were able to stop it in time, because they had full disclosure of what was happening in the other cases.

Now, looking at these two security exploits, which do you think was the better solution, the passengers who were unaware of what was happening until their planes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings, or the ones who were informed and fought back?

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Some dude whose quote I haven't given much thought to until recently

- Olliver Wendel Holmes, who would go on to become one of the greatest legal minds on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

The registration fee for .biz is more than a .COM or some of the other more "well known" Top Level Domains. Short term it's almost twice as much; long term it's triple. You can register in .com, .org or .net for around $18 each for two years vs. $30 for .biz (or .info). A 10-year registration in one of the "big 3" is about $90 vs. a minimum of $280 for .biz or .info. And that's from a "discount broker". The more famous registrars charge more.

Choose .BIZ: "Less recognizable and more expensive." Sounds like a winning advertising slogan!

About the only reason for using it is if someone else has the one you want in .com, etc. Otherwise it's overpriced.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

The article presents an interesting arguement for why a completely new software project must have an arbitrarily large upper bound for time/quality estimates and can have no lower bound.

But herein lies the rub -- exactly how many software systems are "completely new?"

Damn few!!

Unless you're merely doing maintenance on an existing program and know exactly what you need to change, what you are doing is new. Especially if you are trying to fix a problem with a software package that you are not familiar with.

The average software project in an average industry will be primarily a repackaging of previously solved problems.The majority of integration tasks will be sufficiently similar to previous integration tasks as to be known.

If that was the case we would be able to make better estimates. This is almost always not the case.

You will be left with a small number of "sub problems" which are unique and new. But now we have a situation where the caveats of the article are very important. Specifically, if we have decomposed the programming tasks to a sufficient degree, it should be the case that the estimation is tractable.

Software development is an art form. You can hire someone to paint your house and he can tell you exactly what it will cost. This is presumed upon the house being already built and it being an exact structure before he starts; that you not rebuild the house while he is painting it; nor change the paint color in the moddle of the job; and not asking him to remove the previous paint coat, etc. Otherwise it's akin to doing the Sistine Chapel without even an image to start with. An unlimited job results in an unlimited requirement. Until someone pulls the plug.

Also, it should be noted, that the author assumes that a good estimate is one obtained through formal methods that is objectively defensible. However, in project maangement, a good estimate is defined as one that is believable and acceptable to all stakeholders in the process. The method for obtaining the estimate is not important.

It is if you want it to be realistic. Usually the estimate is either totally unrealistic or it's manufactured from whole cloth.

Moreover, good project management will include some significant up-front analysis. One common (at least common to companies with good PM'ing track records) is to run "monte-carlo" simulations of project work with large variances in schedule-v-actual work. With a run of a few thousand simulations, those processes that are most important to the time and budget performance of the project.

This is ridiculous. If management knew what it was doing we wouldn't have so many businesses run themselves into the ground and the dot com bubble would never have happened in the first place.

These "key" work packages are often non-obvious without this type of simulation work. However, with a good work breakdown structure and a good simulator, it is possible to generate a reasonably accurate picture of project performance based on what is not known.

Asking for estimates on the development of art work is ridiculous unless you have fixed guidelines and an exact idea of what you want, something which is usually lacking.

This means that in the "real world" of business, the article's claim is irrelevant!!

If it's irrelevant, why is it in the "real world" more than 3/4 of all projects run over time and over budget and something near 1/2 end up being cancelled?

We don't NEED objectively defined and defensible estimates. Instead we need estimates that the project stakeholders (which includes the people doing the work) can agree to.

You can get people to agree to anything. The question is whether the estimates are anything close to accurate. In most cases, they are not.

We don't NEED our estimates to be generated by formal methodologies. Subjective estimates backed up by years of experience are just as good, and often better, from a planning perspective.

True. But the problem is, most places don't know enough about what they are doing or how it is defined to be able to give any kind of reasonable estimate. If you don't measure what's going on, and you do everything in an ad-hoc style, you will get estimates that are essentially about as valid as rolling dice to get an answer. And maybe less valid than that.

This whole article strikes me as another programmer trying to show how dumb the business people are.

It is not that business people are dumb, it is that we are failing to make adequate estimates and standing up for them as based upon what we know to be correct. But again, since the measurements of what is being done are often missing, the estimates are usually nothing better than seat-of-the-pants guesses, and wildly wrong.

Hey folks, good business people KNOW that estimating is hard and that it isn't objective. But just because something isn't objective doesn't mean it can't be done well. It is possible to build models that compensate for unknowns if you can do enough decompossing of the problem to limit the unknowns to a well defined, small manageable few.

If that was the case, why is it common place for managers to demand increases in functionality and cuts in the schedule? Because those who hear the estimates think they are overly padded (and therefore should be cut), and those who make the estimates don't have the means to show where they get the numbers from (and therefore can't show why their estimate is even close to correct, when it probably wasn't anyway).

So, in the view of this PM, this is all just academic and has no bearing on the real world.

Believe that if you will; the way things are really happening in the world prove otherwise.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Whether you want to believe it or not, programmers are a highly optimistic bunch.

I think that being optimistic is a good thing; it keeps most programmers from going out and getting other (less-stressful) jobs (my favorite one is to suggest I'll quit being a programmer in order to do something less stressful like driving a truck of unstable explosives) or going Postal. :)

This is especially true WRT [with respect to] any technological issue, where you almost never see actual analysis of possible problems with a system. Most of the time, this is a good thing, as most systems are relatively benign (actually, most are banal, but that's another issue) and developers need their optimism to face ever more complex code and systems. However it does make them tend to underestimate the time that development will take.

I have learned, myself. One thing I started to do - and I explained to my manager, who, thank goodness, used to be a programmer - that I am taking what I think things will take and doubling the estimate based on the fact that something ALWAYS goes wrong. There's always some snag part way through the work that causes it to slow to a crawl or come a cropper [grind to a halt]. Some piece takes longer, or the implementation I choose doesn't work, or factor X. [an otherwise unknown event or circumstance] This means that I have slack space in the other items to make up for the one that goes wrong.

Carleton Sheets, a man who was talking about how to buy real estate on his instruction tapes said something useful which I decided I can use in estimating time requirements for various fixes:

If what you are offering doesn't embarass you (in effect, if you don't feel like you're being greedy in offering too little to them, or you don't feel that your offer is so favorable to you that you are taking advantage of the other person) you're offering them too much.

We need to learn to ask for the proper amount of resources and point out that less than the minimum makes it impossible to respond within the requirements no matter how much someone wants it to happen. (As Brooks points out, it doesn't matter how many women you throw at the task it still takes 9 months to produce a baby. Demand the baby be brought forth in less time and you either get a dead fetus (and possibly mother) or a sickly premature baby.)

Another reason that developers tend to underestimate development time is that they tend to have very healthy egos when it comes to technological issues. Again, when facing the complexity of modern code and systems, this is probably a healthy defense mechanism.

We need to learn that this is not a good idea because if you are consistently wrong on your estimates, eventually you get the "kid that cried wolf" syndrome: nobody believes you any more and all of the estimating systems become what everyone knows they are: a joke.

But when you couple all of this with a management that wants to believe deflated time estimates, it's no wonder that most project end up taking more time than initially thought.

It's actually no wonder "most" projects end up being cancelled. They take too long (because the people who are supposed to implement them were too aggressive in what they would deliver) and cost too much (because they routinely run overtime because the estimate was wrong in the first place).

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

SafeSurf's reply - plus a casual browsing of their site - makes your response ridiculous. As ridiculous as asking Napster for a list of all the files that have been traded on their network.

That depends on whether they keep a list of which files have had requests to start transfers made. They may or may not depending on how they set up their system and what they were required to do, especially with respect to potential royalty payments.

Go to SafeSurf's site now. They describe the exact technical method by which they "block" sites. As their ref notes, sites are blocked by being marked by an administrator using a special HTML meta tag. SafeSurf do not, nor do they need to, administer a list of "blocked" sites. They don't even decide the ratings themselves. All SafeSurf do is provide the plug-in to read the metatags.

Fine, then they should be able to explicitly say that. If they don't explicitly say that there is no blocking list, you have to wonder why they do not. Even the DMCA regulations specifically have an exemption for the blocking list for website blocking software. Considering how much is being taken away from fair use and so little given back when it comes to the DMCA, such an exemption wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't some form of list being used by some blocking software.

And in view of the rather nasty treatement of people who tried to find anything about what blocking software is doing, I would presume that such programs are guilty until proven innocent.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Of course digital photos don't endanger history. See, history tends to be the stuff that has already happened? And well, hate to break the news to you, but... you can't change history. So therefore, nothing will EVER endanger history - that is until we invent a time machine ;).

History is the record of what has happened. And if the records are unreadable, lost or destroyed, the history is gone. And if people are unaware of it, same thing.

Are you aware that an almost identical incident to what happened in Tianamen Square happened in the United States. In Washington DC, in the 1930s. This is where General McArthur had his first battle experience: rounding up and driving WWI veterans out of the makeshift hovels they had built in Anacostia. But we didn't hear much about that because it was virtually forgotten.

When the records of history are lost, that is the loss of history.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

To access data stored in this fashion, you need a computer with the proper hardware and software. At this time, this presents no problem; few computers today come without CD-ROM drives, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone with absolutely no access to one. But that may not be the case tomorrow.

Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read CDs, and the next we won't?

Historical precedent says - over and over - that this is exactly the case.

Rubbish.

Let me throw your own words back at you, sir.

Comments that could have been made in..

• 1910:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read wax cylinders, and the next we won't?
• 1930:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read player piano rolls, and the next we won't?
• 1940:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read wire recordings, and the next we won't?
• 1950:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read dictaphone belts, and the next we won't?
• 1960:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read a Teletype paper tape, and the next we won't?
• 1970:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read an 8-track tape, and the next we won't?
• 1975:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read a mainframe mag tape, and the next we won't?
• 1980:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read a 45 RPM phonorecord, and the next we won't? They've been around for almost a hundred years, it's highly unlikely they will just disappear all of a sudden.
• 1990:Oh for goodness sake. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll be able to read a 5 1/4" diskette, and the next we won't?

Technology evolves. And during that evolution the data can be migrated from the old storage to the new.

Provided the technology is still around to continue to use and migrate the data before it becomes obsolete. And provided the file formats are still known or the means (software and computer systems) to copy it is available. And provided the personnel and resources are available to regularly migrate the data.

There are lots of cases where there is old data stored on media which might be useful, the problem is there was too much media and the cost to convert it was prohibitive. I think some of the space missions which were operated by some of the technical universities for the government generated the equivalent of thousands of magtapes of data. But it became unreadable because the equipment became obsolete and there was no money in the budget to support the cost of maintaining the equipment to convert it or to pay the cost of the people needed to do so.

Most libraries suffer from severe funding problems just to cover regular operations. Now add the cost of converting media over every few years and it can't be done; the resources to do so are not there.

Problem solved.

The problem has not been solved. In fact, it isn't even close to solved. If anything, it has steadily gotten worse over the decades.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us

That companies are converting their photo archives into digital so that photos will stay the same forever. I disagree of what he is saying, I think converting to digital will ensure more people can look at the work and make sure the quality stays constant.

The problem is that if the originals are not around, all you have is the digital material. If the technology... Strike that. When the technology becomes obsolete, now you can't even use the digital material if someone hasn't taken the effort and expense to move them from the old storage media to newer media. And the storage media keeps changing every few years as we learn to pack more and more data onto smaller spaces.

Not to mention the problems if the media uses a proprietary format that doesn't make it in the mainstream or the manufacturer goes belly up and you can't get replacements, it can become unavailable even faster.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Just about any photographer worth their salt isn't going to throw away ANY shot.

I would beg to differ with you, sir. The evidence quite clearly shows that the contrary is true. It could be either photographers are deciding that they should send back or keep fewer shots or haven't realized the cost of keeping material is very low, but the fact is, they are discarding shots. Same as was done on film, the difference being, on film they still kept negatives and had index prints. With digital, if the picture isn't kept, you have nothing.

A very famous point about this was the man who discovered he had a (film) copy of a photo of Bill Clinton hugging Monica Lewinsky. There were dozens of other (professional) photographers there shooting pictures. All the rest had digital cameras and apparently discarded the unimportant pictures. His apparently was the only one left because he had it on film, which apparently makes it less likely one will discard it. As a result he still had the image when it became important. Nobody else did.

The technology exists out there to dump memory cards to devices (http://www.mindsgear.com), get extra memory cards, or just bring along a cheap laptop to dump to while there isn't any news going on.

Professionals in an industry often don't want to take the time to learn about ancilliary effects, e.g. they just want to take pictures, they don't want to take the time to learn new ways to use what they have. That's why it took architects thousands of years to learn that you could build things which were lighter and stronger with steel instead of stone, but you have to use different methods than copying stone structures.

Looks like the so-called "Experienced" photographer isn't very "Experienced" with digital photography technology yet...

Perhaps that is the case.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Many people here argue that it will be easy for future generations to decode JPG, CD format storage, file systems etc.

May I strongly suggest they are either not thinking or extremely nai've.

And no doubt will it be possible, if you have the money and resources to do so. So a well funded research project will be able to decode the important parts of history, like the forgotten pictures of president X etc. But it is a very different matter when it comes to ordinary citizens.

No kidding.

Lets say you take a lot of pictures of your children with your new digital camera. You burn these pictures to a CD and in time this CD ends up in a box on an attic somewhere. Your childrens grandchildren finds it in 100 years. Will they be able to see your pictures (or more correct: will they actually try to see them, given it will cost them lots of time and money?). Probably not.

Can we even watch old 8-mm motion picture film today? I think we have a considerable amount of expensive film ($3 for 3 minutes) we have shot of events of our family. We no longer have either an 8mm camera nor 8mm projector and I think buying one is new is probably impossible. Those memories are essentially lost because we had no means to transfer them over to video and when you could it was expensive.

Had these pictures been printed on durable paper, this would not have been an issue. When the box is found, the finder yells: "Look, some ancient pictures" and starts looking at them. I have pictures like these of my grandparents grandparents. Not that I look much at them. But I can. This is also history.

You're probably preaching to the converted here, as far as I'm concerned. The problem is that technologically advanced methods of storage have overtaken others because the immediate advantages, especially cost, far outweigh the future benefits of portability and longevity.

Irving Thalberg, the man who ran MGM back in the 30s and 40s, made the short-sighted decision to take thousands of (supposedly unimportant) movies the studio made and ordered them rendered to salvage the silver content. All those films are gone forever because someone decided the small salvage value was more important than future preservation of what might potentially be valuable material.

It's the same issue in using technologically advanced methods of storage. The important things - whatever is considered important at the time - will get moved to the new media. Unimportant things or that which is considered not cost-effective to move will be left behind and effectively forgotten. And we may never know what we have lost or whether it might be more valuable than what was saved.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Yes, we can maintain digital information much better then we can maintain paper info.

I think there are people, used to the days of non-computer or non-digital information that tend to discard material because they don't realize the cost of saving it is essentially almost zero.

The problem is that we don't do it.

What's the cost of 10 meg on a CD-RW? With them at about US $4 apiece (if you include the cost of pre-formatted ones, maybe 80c (US $0.80) if you buy them blank and format them yourself), and hold perhaps 500,000,000 bytes, that's a cost of about 0.4c/meg or each 10 megabyte photo costs about 4c. If photos use about 3 megabytes the cost is 1 1/2c for each photo. Some people have not realized yet how inexpensive the cost of storage is now.

It's often said that the military is perpetually fighting the previous war. And it may be that people storing things are perpetually using the (much more expensive) cost levels of prior storage systems. As a result, they don't save as much as they could. But the explosion of more data then exacerbates the new-technology transfer issue you mention below.

The good thing about paper is that it will be readable for a very long time WITHOUT anyone bothering with it.

This has been a problem with paper as well. Old paper technology used to use high-acid systems because it was much cheaper, which meant that some paper tended to deteriorate after only a short time. ("Short Time" in paper is a few decades, versus, say copies of the London Times which I've seen copies of Volume 1, Number 1 on Microfilm, meaning that copy had to be around on paper for 200 years until microfilming was invented.)

Obsolescence of older storage systems has been a much bigger problem with digital technology than with paper, the new technological-based storage formats keep becoming cheaper and cheaper, which makes the old stuff with limited quantity even less valuable, and people don't always get around to moving stuff over because it takes too long or there are too many other things to do. And you have to have some means that supports both old and new storage systems simultaneously (or a means to transfer between them) and take the time to do so before the old stuff becomes obsolete and you can't because the equipment isn't available.

If you have CD or whatever

or player piano roll (all but dead before I was born), or 8" disk (died about 1980), or 5 1/4" disk (died about 1995), or 16 or 78 rpm phonograph record (those speeds started to die off in the early 1960s), or 8-track tape (died about 1980), or beta video cassettes (DOA) ...

you need to backup/alter your data at least every 20 years to keep up with technology.

Maybe more often than that.

This seems OK for one CD, but what if it comes to the entire historical record?

I sometimes wonder what to do about our home music collection, which consists of about 200 phonograph records. Phonographs are getting harder and harder to find these days and who wants to take the time to rip phonorecords into MP3s even if you have a good phonograph from which to make the recordings? I should not have to repurchase all the music I owned before because the technology to play it has gone obsolete, but in some cases that may be the end result. Then again, is the work I like then still available?

To give an example: lots of data from the Vietnam war was kept on 1960-technology digital equipment.

As was lots of data from WWII was probably kept on wire recorders, the high technology of their day. Seen a wire recorder (or even a playback device for wire recordings) lately? As was probably data from Korea was kept on Teletype machine paper tape, which I think was the high-end technology then. Neither paper-tape readers nor teletype machines even exist today except as museum-class relics. And there's also 7- and 9-track magtape as used on mainframes: almost gone, replaced by cartridge. Oh, let's not forget those dinosaur mainframes' washing-machine-sized disk drives that held less data than a CD-ROM today.

This resulted in a total loss of data as there is not a single machine left that can read that info back

That may be unfortunate but it's not always tragic. Large parts of that material may be unimportant. The problem is we may not know that at the time or even now. It may be years down the line before people know what's important or useful.

But archival science is in its infancy and archival of material is expensive and requires regular maintenance same as everything else. The problem is a lot of things get deferred maintenance due to lack of funds in some areas and archives are even lower on the food chain than other things.

But to answer your question, read my tagline.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Again a ccTLD which is only of use for residents of this country.

As the actual owner of a .US domain for more than two years now, that's not my understanding, I believe that .US has always been open to anyone who wants to register a compliant address. (Compliant means it has to be under a 2-character state and a specific city in that state). In fact, you don't even have to be where the domain is named; for example, my domain is listed as Washington, DC, but I do not live there (I live about 5 miles from Washington in another state). When I filled out the application with the nic for .US, which then was ISI at the University of Southern California (USC-ISI), I put down my address in Virginia and was issued the domain name the next day.

That's not fair - why is my country then giving away it's domain to people all around the world?

Doubtful that there are very many people outside of the US would want to bother with a .US address. I only got it because they're free, and basically about the only ones getting them are organizations tied to a specific city and state (local governments) and people or companies who are (to put it bluntly), cheapskates like me. The price of "free" was a lot more affordable for me when I wasn't working, as opposed to the (then exorbitant) $35 a year for a .COM or other TLD address.

In my opinion this should be standarized. So that all ccTLDs are open for everybody.

A country code TLD is subject to whatever rules that the country code agency of that country decides. You can't get a ham radio license in a particular country unless you follow its rules and there's no reason that whomever runs a particular TLD can't set rules on who can apply or what they can get.

Since most countries are charging for domains in their TLD the domain operator usually sees it as a profit center, and with the exception of the few remaining communist countries - and maybe some of them, too - I suspect you can get a registration in just about any country's tld whether or not you live there.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

My home machine has a 30GB drive with Windows 98 on it because a number of games and other programs I have will only run on it.

When I formatted the drive I reserved 8 GB of space for alternative operating systems. I've tried several distros of Linux, and tried Atheos. In most cases I've deleted the alternative OS because either I wanted to try something else, or X would not work with the hardware on my computer, or whatever.

I don't think I'm that stupid. I've been a programmer for more than 20 years and I've been on-line for 15, going back to when BBSs were the height of high-technology communications. I've been around a while. But I've had trouble with making boot loaders and some systems work properly.

I tried GRUB. I tried LILO. First, I would have trouble setting them up or couldn't understand how to get them to work correctly. Or I couldn't install them unless I got the Linux (or Atheos) distribution running first, creating sort of a chicken-and-egg problem.

LILO was okay. GRUB was better: It would work okay at providing me with the means to dual-boot my computer.

But in every case if I changed something like deleting the LINUX distro because I wanted to try something else, the boot manager was tied to whatever distribution was on the non-windows partition which means that if I formatted it the boot manager couldn't find whatever information it needed so I now owned a boat anchor. This meant I had to find a rescue floppy, boot it up, FDISK /MBR the drive to allow Windows to be used, and so on.

Last Night I installed XOSL. Now, I was able to install this from Windows without having to do a whole bunch of contortions involving switching operating systems or using a boot diskette, could select which things to run, and it allows me to change what is going to run before the OS is even loaded, and also, it will keep the changes from run to run. (Grub would allow me to change things but only for that boot. Also when I removed the non-windows partition I could no longer boot at all.)

And it doesn't hurt that it looks nice. But that's a side issue. XOSL, for me, was easier to use and does a better job in its core capability than LILO (would never work because the Windows partition was above 8GB) or GRUB (worked as long as you didn't reformat the non-windows partition). I suspect that the functionality of GRUB or LILO will move into this product, and it could conceivably become "best of breed" in boot loaders. (I believe it is likely that people will start pulling the functions that aren't in this package from the others and adding them.)

This product is a tremendous improvement in usability from what was there before and I recommend it highly as well.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us

I write open source software. If someone sent me a nice long request for a proposal, I'd give them this in reply:

"Sure, use my program. Read the GPL for license details. Thanks."

If they don't like it, I won't lose any sleep.

On the other hand, they could be writing you because they want your program to do something it does not do now. They could be paying because they are going to use it in house without releasing it (and the copyright owner can always negotiate special terms so that someone can have a different license than the GPL), or because they want to encourage you to work on their request first ahead of others and are willing to even let what they are paying for be open sourced.

Perhaps they don't have in-house staff and you might be cheaper than hiring someone else. Or they don't know if someone else would be as good as the original developer. Or you can make the change faster and better than someone who has to learn the product from scratch.

Perhaps they agree to pay you a retainer and you agree to continue working on the project when you were going to abandon it.

Just because the original product is 'free' doesn't mean that it isn't worth paying for it to some customers, for all sorts of reasons.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

It makes no sense for an "open source project" to respond to an RFP. It is the nature of Open Source Licenses PRECISELY TO DISCLAIM that the software does anything or is suitable for any purpose. Most OSS projects are a decentralized group, or a deepcore+fuzzypenumbra of individuals, who do not have authority to act for or on behalf of one another.

Please consider this for a moment. Since most open-source projects are given away, gratis, there is no money received from the users, therefore there is no money available for those involved to purchase liability insurance or provide support. Besides, when was the last time you saw anything but an indemnity or a warranty promise from a proprietary software company? When was the last time you saw a Microsoft product that had any kind of warranty claim OTHER than a long disclaimer of warranties? Why should we expect unpaid software to be provided with better protection than stuff people are supposed to pay for?

But a straight-up response to a traditional commercial RFP? That's silly. Also, read your RFP language -- most standard forms require commitments of a vendor that NO Open Source software can provide, as to warranties, indemnities and so forth. Remember, you not only need to get the beans to count, you also need to please legal.

I doubt you'll get much in the way of indemnities from a major proprietary developer and very little in the way of warranties either. But in the case of an open-source product if you want to pay for it you can get someone to support it, even if that someone is your own staff. If someone wants to pay the developers to provide support, then there is the ability to have warranty protection and whatever terms people are willing to agree to. As the saying goes, "you gets what you pays for." But sometimes you can get considerably MORE than you're paying for.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

I do not think a lot of the developers are going to take the time to answer a RFP in the depth that most software vendors or VARS would.

If someone wants to pay me to solve a problem of theirs - for which the solution involves providing the customer a computer program - it matters not how I solve the problem, whether it's because I write a software package, I buy a software package (perhaps by purchasing a CD of a distribution in a store) or I download a package off the Internet. The only question to be answered is: Did I scratch their itch, e.g. did I solve their problem? If someone isn't even able enough to know this they're not likely to go into consulting and thus wouldn't be bidding on contracts anyway.

Open source people are not going to be paid for a "sale" were as the normal software vendors are competing for some money if they can make a sale.

A very famous scientist was once hired to determine where to drill for something, I forget what. He walks out to the site, looks around, for about one minute, then marks an "X" in chalk where to drill, and sure enough, they hit what they are looking for.

He sends them a large bill - $15,000 - for his services, and someone in the Accounts Payable department says the bill is too expensive for what he did, and needs to be itemized. So he itemized his charges:

• Making chalk mark, $1.
• Knowing where to put mark, $14,999.

Having itemized it, apparently they paid him. But were they really paying for the chalk mark? What they wanted was the location to drill. The chalk mark was merely a means to solve the problem. I think the same idea applies here.

One can sell one's expertise in selecting software as much as one can sell one's expertise in creating it. Or one can sell other things. We sometimes miss this in our industry because it is extremely rare for someone other than the manufacturer of a software product to provide maintenance and support of it. But because a product is open source, a purchaser can find anyone who is capable of doing so to provide maintenance.

In about 50 miles I need to change the oil again in my 1998 Dodge Intrepid because it's been another 3,000 miles. I can do the work myself and perhaps save money, I can pay a third-party perhaps $12 to do it, or I can pay a little more, take it to a dealer of the car to do it. It's a commodity operation and I can get anyone I feel qualified to perform it.

With non-open-source you only have the last option when you need something done (if they even will do it; consider calling up Microsoft and asking for a customized change to Outlook. Better be prepared to either be a huge customer, pay a huge fee, or suck air). With open-source you can get your hands as dirty as you want or you can pay someone else if you don't feel competent (or your organization doesn't have the direct ability) to make the changes. You have choices.

An RFP has some type of reward (sale) possible to the winner for them to spend time on responding to it.

If someone submits a proposal for the providing of a computer system that fits certain qualifications, and I bid on the contract, and provide them with a system which I went down to a computer store and bought, which fits their requirements, I have fulfilled the terms of the contract and can be paid for it - including whatever I charge for the work I did - even if all the "work" I did was to go to the store and buy it.

A RFP is a request for proposal - A proposal for what? A proposal is a first step toward a contract. A contract with who? Who will get paid? I do not think a RFP process will get you very far.

I would respectfully disagree. One can say they want a solution to do something, and someone can say they will offer a solution and the customer pays upon acceptance. Whether the solution is to simply find the software and install it, or the solution is to write the sofware is irrelevant. The only question is whether the customer will pay for what is being done. Perhaps the party who fills the RFP will also be responsible for providing maintenance and upgrades as the customer requests them. There are so many ways you can slice and dice a support contract that whole books have been written about it.

For an open source product the cost of the software will be zero.

So? Just because the 'cost' of the bits are zero doesn't mean that there isn't money to be made supplying it.

What is the cost of water these days? I can get it for free from a water fountain, perhaps pay almost nothing for a quart of water out of the tap, perhaps pay $20 for a filter every couple of months if I don't like the taste of tap water, or perhaps pay anywhere from 50c to $3 for a bottle of it in a store. That does not ignore the fact that the original price of the water was probably in the neighborhood of 1/10 of 1c per gallon from a public utility or a municipal water district. For all intents and purposes the original price of the water might as well be considered 'free' yet that doesn't stop companies from making money 'selling' water that cost them next to nothing to obtain.

Perhaps the customer pays for having the supplier provide and deliver 20,000 CDs of the software to sites so everyone has a copy instead of clogging network usage downloading it from servers. Or pays for a customized installer where the original product didn't have one or it's too complicated. Or pays for special services to go with it, like paying not only for the software but having someone write documentation. Or train people in how to use it. Or train their technical staff in how to support it. Or doing the support themselves. Or that the customer pays the supplier for finding the precise package that best fits their needs because the supplier knows what products are better for their particular circumstances.

Support and maintenance I guess would be in-house.

Maybe, maybe not. It's possible that the particular software might be purchased as a package deal in which the supplier also does contract maintenance on it because perhaps their inhouse staff is too busy, or doesn't have the expertise in handling it.

Let's say the Sixth National Bank wants to stop paying for Microsoft Exchange as their mail server and client licenses for Microsoft Outlook. I offer to provide them with an equivalent functionality using a Linux box running QMail (let's say that they want a highly reliable e-mail system so that eliminates use of Sendmail) and include for the client end some Windows port of an open-source client or group of clients that originally ran on KDE or GNOME, for less money than it would cost to have one person at the bank to maintain it because the maintenance I can offer on an as-needed basis to several companies.

The bank has people who could do the work inhouse but they are better suited handling the stuff that is the bank's core expertise (handling checking accounts and the billing of outrageous fees on those checking accounts), and the bank can pay me to provide them with updates and added functionality without having to have people doing work that isn't part of their core competency, BUT with the additional advantage that since the product is open source if I decide to quit, they can find someone else to do it or they could do it themselves if they choose to do so.

What's left then is comparison of different capabilities. This becomes a request for comments now (RFC).

Not necessarily, given what I have stated above. Remember, the customer is buying a solution to a problem where the solution includes computer software. The Software is not what the customer is 'buying'; what the customer is buying is the solution to their problem.

A suggestion change here. Maybe send a RFP to consulting firms on helping you with project(s). A selected firm could help in gathering requirements, research products, help in the installation and maintenance ... If you trying to spend money anyways. :)

Just because the software is 'free' doesn't mean there isn't money to be made. Remember, in the shape of the whole picture, nobody buys software anyway. They buy a solution to a problem for which the means in this particular case is a software package.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

You are confused on several issues:

I do not see how he is confused. He wants to find out how to have someone provide a particular software system to solve a problem, e.g. to scratch his itch. He wants the solution to be open sourced, i.e. under a license similar to GPL or one of the other similar ones. The solution to his problem may imply finding an existing package and using it as is or having the successful respondent to the RFP modify it, or perhaps they will be involved in creating a new application from scratch if nothing is available for his particular need. He wants to know how to go about doing this. What is confusing about this question?

The open community cannot respond to a serious RFP.

This is true. Communities do not respond to RFPs. Individuals do. And there is no reason an individual can't simply respond to any request they feel the desire to do so.

Sure, they could write a proposal (so long as there wasnt a deadline :) But the moment they start to do work for money there could follow a slew of legal issues.

Unless you are either writing code for a competitor of your employer or you have some contractual obligation not to do work outside of regular hours I see no issue here. Personally, I have never had any restrictions by anyone I've ever worked for against doing work for someone else as long as it didn't interfere with my employer's business.

Most of these people probably work for IT companies - working for an open source project is fine if you arent being paid, but once you start accepting money you run the risk of conflict-of-interest.

I think it's not that difficult to tell when there is one. And just because you are not accepting money doesn't mean there can't still be a conflict of interest. If I work for a company that produces accounting software I could very easily have a conflict-of-interest if I was doing unpaid work on an open-source accounting package.

Also, you can't make a contract with the open community. They aren't a business and have no license to operate as such.

I could answer it again by saying one doesn't make contracts with communities, one makes them with individuals. Further, I do not see where any licensing issues come into play. If I am doing writing for someone - whether I am writing articles for a publisher of encyclopedias, writing opion columns for a newspaper, writing unpaid responses to items in Slashdot, or writing code for computer programs - that writing represents an action fully protected by the First Amendment (at least in the United States) and as such the government cannot require someone to be licensed to do so.

If it is even necessary to have a business license - which may not be likely for work done in the privacy of one's home since there are no 'visitors' to a site when the item to be produced is delivered electronically and thus no issue to trigger the need for a business license - we are probably talking about $100 a year or less, which can be incorporated into the negotiated price of the contract if necessary.

Furthermore; are you asking for a proposal for work you don't intend to pay for?

This is a non-sequitur for the reasons stated above. You have not shown that they are not going to pay for the work they want done.

How is that different than the current open source model? Except that now you want to impose a tight schedule on the developers? That's not going to work. Open source development is generally if and when work -- especially if the developers aren't being paid.

Again, you seem to have jumped to some unreasonable conclusions which I have answered in exhaustive detail above so I won't bore people by repeating them.

If you want to incorporate open source software development into your project, you must find a legitimate contracting firm to do the work (there are thousands).

So presumably if one is not a contracting firm the work they do isn't legitimate? I find it a little hard to accept that it is unreasonable to ask individuals to do small projects which might only require part-time work of one or a few people and pay them accordingly, in the same way and manner that magazines and newspapers have been hiring free-lance writers for centuries.

Why is this time-honored practice of hiring people to do writing remotely somehow perfectly reasonable when the writing is a book, an article or a press release, but somehow it becomes less 'legitimate' when the writing is a software package instead of, say, a professional textbook or an article requiring specialized research?

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

apparent h4x0ring of phone lines in and around Las Vegas. It seems that a certain escort service (prostitution is legal there) would stop receiving phone calls [deleted] authorities came to investigate, the phones miraculously started working again.

Contrary to popular belief, prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas, Nevada. It is just as illegal as Chicago or Los Angeles. The rule is that rural Nevada counties (population under 50,000 I think) may permit it if they choose to do so; Nye County is one such place, about 80 miles from Lost Wages... Even if they wanted it in Las Vegas, the county is too large to have local option on this and so it's always been illegal there.

Regardless, the telco infrastructure is hopelessly inadequate.

That statement was probably just as true 20 years ago and it's probably gotten even worse since then.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Turns out there was a problem in that much of the network switching was in one building [deleted] lots of pondering about the vulnerability of the network, even when it is distributed across many physical locations. [deleted] estimate is for five years' work before there could be redundant paths [deleted] with no plans to spend the money to do it.

Ever since the Hindsdale, Illinois fire in a telephone switch room, it has been or should be known that telephone companies routinely under-build and over-load equipment and only add it when they absolutely have to (or are possibly forced to by regulators once in a blue moon), and then complain that they need to raise rates to pay for it, as if they are supposed to be able to operate without equipment and that's not supposed to be part of the cost of service.

If this equipment is that important - and we know it is from the cost to replace it - why isn't it even worth the cost of one clerk at minimum wage around the clock to be able to check on things there? Someone once pointed out that Illinois Bell Telephone ended up spending millions because of the fire, hundreds of times more than it would have cost to have have had a single person present on each of 3 shifts, to provide a 24/7 presence in that building for the next 100 years.

Someone who claims that telephone service is distributed should look again; I've never found a telephone company that operated more than one central office for an area and in some cases trying to combine them in larger and ever larger buildings until the central office for an area might be 40 miles away, yet still continuing the previous rate structure - which may have been created 30, 40, or 50 years ago or more - so that a call to another phone connected to a different switch in the same building is a toll call because it's in a different rate center.

If all the mergers and acquisitions of telephone companies by each other was supposed to benefit the consumer, why is phone service more expensive than ever?

Paul Robinson < Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us

actually, from the looks of the brief, there are a few ways to circumvent their device. To me, it appears the key (no pun intended) to thwarting this lies in that the logger is only active while the modem is active, meaning you have to be online in order to be have your keys logged.

Actually, you have it backwards; supposedly, the affiant claims in the brief that the keylogging system did not record anything sent to or from the modem.

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

passphrase lying around in a text file

But, even better, [deleted] Just open up a web page, select the a few char of the password, and paste it to a temp file. [deleted] Anything that is recording your input stream from the keyboard is just going to see you just web surfing a doing a lot of copy and paste.

Or (if the guy in the FBI affidavit is telling the truth), you don't even have to go that far because their keylogger specifically did NOT capture keystrokes when the user was on line) is to be on line at a web site and it wouldn't be recording. But I agree that cut and paste - or use of something that would avoid sending keystrokes such as a pop-up entry pad which changes randomly - is probably the way smart people will go for entering a passphrase or secret key in the future to avoid keystroke logging.

The next time it might not be a government agency legitimately monitoring a suspected criminal; it might be some smart crook monitoring someone with something valuable to steal. Or worse, some government spying on and/or attempting to harass or intimidate dissidents. (And with the stepped-up efforts to destroy civil rights protections and evicerate the constitution, it might not even be a different governemt doing so.)

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

I remember several years ago - which was so far back that the word 'intranet' hadn't even been invented - that there was a proposal to move certain government operations off the public Internet and move them to a private one. (I think it was someone wanting to completely block all military sites from the public.) It was to be so tight that you wouldn't even be able to e-mail to or from their network, you would have to send e-mail through a gateway on the .int domain, and persons on that system would have to use a gateway to send mail back. (The ease then of scanning and monitoring all messages as opposed to trying to capture all public Internet traffic from all sites is a matter left to the reader.)

Maybe that is an appropriate action given that people in the military lose some civil rights when they enlist (whether they should or not is an issue I won't raise right now), and it might be necessary to prevent disclosure of some military secrets, but if you're going that route, be honest and say so instead of trying to hide what you're doing; otherwise those who know how these things work will point out two things: first, if you're supposed to know technology as part of your job, you're incompetent, and second, that you're lying. I think either the Web at that time was of minor importance or hadn't been invented or people would have realized how ridiculous the idea was.

I said then that I thought the idea was stupid and it's even stupider now. The whole point of having access to the Internet is to provide significant resources to people for their use as it relates to what they are doing (or in this case, whatever they are working on.)

For some reason this reminds me of the blocking systems imposed by the Church of Scientology to keep their members from reading anti-church material on-line. I don't know why, but for some reason I have this suspicion that the real purpose is more to keep those on the private network away from us and our thoughts rather than to supposedly protect government networks from disruption.

Paul Robinson < postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

What about a window manager that starts off as a 'twm' clone with a plug-in architecture?

This kind of idea or something similar is probably the direction we (as people who design interfaces) need to go toward.

Plug-ins could include support for all the "neat stuff" that the performance computing geeks don't want: 1. Fullscreen MPEG screensavers 2. Resized MPEG desktop object animation...

Nice idea but while it sounds simple, it's probably rather difficult and that's where the rubber meets the road; the ability to get difficult things implemented.

(You close a window and it turns into grains of sand being blown off the dekstop, or it folds into an envlope and zips off the screen with motion lines behind it.)

I Like that idea! (I wish I'd thought of it.)

3. Desktop wallpaper that is pulled from an FTP site on a scheduled basis.

This wouldn't be that hard to implement, even now, if something like 'cron' (a program that runs tasks on a virtual terminal in the background) was used to cycle desktops. But the program would have to know how the desktop wallpapers are installed and how to replace them. The problem we have at the moment is a lot of things that are being done either are only done internally by the window manager, e.g. there is no means to allow an external program to do them, or there's no documentation on how, or each one is different (or all of these)

4. Non-rectangular window objects. (How about a circular window?)

Someone had better damn well get busy on this one; I can do this right now in Visual Basic on Windows 9X/NT/2000; if you can't do it on X - and in a simple manner for a programmer to implement - you're in very big trouble.

5. Zoom in/out desktop objects. (Instead of minimizing to a task bar, you literally minimize to a miniturized version of your app in the background. Possibly make it translucent as well.)

I can't quite get the idea of what you're referring to but I like the idea.

We need to make use of the Z-axis.

That, we definitely need to do and have been extremely poor in doing anything to implement it. All the window managers I've seen for X support 4 or more desktops; yet I don't see them being managed effectively or in anything other than providing a button to switch them. We've got the real estate but we are failing to use it.

Remember, Mac users never thought we needed more than one mouse button... 6. What about multiple desktops on a grid that are hosted on other machines using X's network transparence? Just slide to the next X desktop.

I think we'd need a redesign of X and perhaps a whole new system to implement network-based task switching. But it's something that should be done / developed; we are getting to the point that if we don't need it now, we will. And once we have it we will wonder how we ever got along without it.

7. Maybe a built-in GUI based X desktop browser. Just search your local net for an X desktop to connect to by looking at thumbnails of all the X desktops on your net.

Excellent suggestion.

8. How about a network "Stick" for a window. You select, "Stick - terminator:1" and your app's display is routed to the host "Terminator" as a sticky window. If you unstick it on terminator, it closes on the original host and continues to run on Terminator.

If the security considerations can be worked out - and I don't think it's that difficult - this might be an excellent idea.

9. What about a session recorder? Record all mouse movements and object displays to an MPEG for later viewing. It would be a great way to train people or spy on someone.

If you're talking about something like a combined mouse event / keystroke event recorder, I've seen this done on Windows a while ago but apparently not lately (probably because finding out how to be able to do it was too difficult due to the lack of access to APIs and/or source for 32-bit Windows). I think I've seen it done on the Macintosh. With X being open source, it shouldn't be that complicated to insert something in between the part that accepts mouse actions and the keyboard to tie them together. Problem is you need to know when the events from the application are occurring so that you don't end up being whipsawed because the network responds slower (or faster) than it did when the session was recorded.

Now if you're talking about capturing the screen as it is being drawn that would take a lot of computing power because of saving the screen image on every change - and trying to only capture the part that changes might be a problem due to the comparisons - but there's probably a way to do it if someone thinks about how screens are drawn.

10. Even something as simple as the ability to use custom designed mouse pointer would be nice. The basic "X" or arrow are a little long in the tooth even though they are perfectly functional. Wouldn't it be great if you could design your own mouse points to go with your desktop environment?

Since Windows already has it, and I think has had it since 3.0, this should already have been implemented in X by now. I'm surprised it hasn't.

11. Gestures could be added as well for those who like that kind of thing. I know that there are lots of you out there that will say, "why" or bring up a host of "security" issues. But, my argument is why not? If we have most of the other stuff working well, why shouldn't we add the bells and whistles?

I agree. Some of these suggestions may be very difficult but many of them are or have already been accomplished in one form or another.

I know I want them. And there sure are others who do. If I could program, I would try to do it myself. However, programmers tend to not be interested in these kinds of projects. (I've had ideas like this turned down before)

Often if a change looks too hard it will be rejected because there are other things which appear to be more fun and less drudgery than some suggestions. Since the people doing the changes are all (unpaid) volunteers, it's kinda hard to get them to do something which might not be much fun to accomplish.

Just think about how much cooler our window managers and desktop envirnements could be if we had even a few of these features. That's how you get users to come to your side, give them cool stuff.

And if you really want to do something to make X-based systems a desirable choice over Windows those who can develop things for it should start thinking about these and other ideas because we have the technology available to us, because the sources are open; something that can't be said about Windows.

Paul Robinson Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us

I don't know that development of window managers is slowing so much as I suspect the "low hanging fruit" has already been picked; probably most of the fun / easy to do / standardization features have already been done and as such anything else to be worked on would be the stuff people usually don't do unless paid to do it or they have to: documentation, writing APIs, writing and explaining specifications for the design of new features so it can be decided if they should be implemented.

As a professional programmer for the last 22-years, let me state that I don't think most programmers are the extremely industrious kind that want to do things for the sake of doing them unless either they are being paid for it or it's a real fun thing to do or something they really want to do. Thus we can characterize programmers as somewhat "lazy" (in a non-perjorative way) in that they're not going to redo tons of work already done by someone else. (In fact, if done consistently this is a good trait in programmers; it means they tend to use predesigned libraries for various features instead of rewriting code to do the same thing).

Let us also remember, as it has probably been said here (and in other forums) many times, creating a window manager is a big undertaking; it is the sort of thing that is a severe "scratch the itch" development on the level of writing a good-sized language compiler or perhaps developing an operating system. It's a hell of a lot of work, and it gets done because the developer is

• extremely irritated and/or disappointed by what is currently available
• doesn't like any of them currently existing
• does not know of or cannot find any at all that even close to fits their particular need ("none of them can scratch his itch") and
• none of those currently existing can be tweaked into something close to what they want without major rework

and so he (nothing to criticize women, most programmers are still male) decides to create his own in order to "scratch his itch" (or itches), e.g. to give him the features / reduced bloat / increased capability / skinnability / factor 'x' that the current window managers do not provide him.

I use Windows 2000 for what I get paid to do. On Linux I have used both KDE and GNOME and I would honestly say that there isn't more than a dime's bit of difference between the three of them as far as a user running applications is concerned. I haven't tried many of the alternative ones but I'm sure they all pretty much do the job of providing a means to log onto the system and start applications to do things on the system. And beyond that it's a matter of extra features which may or may not be important to have in a window manager (applications like Calendar, skinnability, type of activator buttons, means for adding new applications, what icons do etc.) depending on how enthusiastic / spaced out on caffeine / loud the people who program the features into and/or use the particular WM scream / beg / offer bribes for it.

I would say it's pretty hard to find a window manager that won't provide perhaps 80% of what you need and as such for most people it's "good enough" to get by without writing one of your own or of taking one that is "good enough" and doing some tweaks to make it so. Since most window managers are pretty "tweakable" just from the window manager's management console or via configuration files, I believe the need to write code to provide something that isn't there has been substantially reduced from what would otherwise be necessary.

Paul Robinson postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us

Whether this article represents a "commercial" for his company or not, I do believe the question was a relevant, valid one to propose to this community as a /. article: is there sufficient market share to offer a non-open-source or partially non-open source C compiler, or at least one that people would in some way pay for, which would compete against the free (as in GPL) or open source ones? And the correct answer is "that depends". :)

Your compiler is going to have to exceeed the capability and/or performance of the free/open compilers by a substantial margin for people to even consider paying for yours (30% or better). The exception might be if you have the kind of budget for advertising that you can confuse the public. But then if that was the case you'd be doing what companies that do have that kind of budget do. Or perhaps I should say 'company' since there's probably only one - we all know who it is - that has that kind of money, and it is already selling a C compiler. And it has a well-known disparaging opinion of the GPL.

I think some of the ideas on here were good ones (some of these may be mine and some are a summary of what I've seen posted here):

• Offer the compiler free for GPLed applications (since most of those projects probably wouldn't have any money for paying for a compiler when there already is a fairly good (not excellent) free one [GCC])
• Include the source code as part of the commercial distribution with the ability to make private (non-distributed) changes without release for those who purchase the product; this gives you a revenue stream from those who also want to develop non-open source applications since they could give away what they are doing if they want, or they can purchase the program, get support and not have to give away what they are doing (this ties into the above comment)
• A commercially supported compiler with a real help desk and a phone number someone can call to solve a problem with it is a strong selling point over a free source compiler where the fixes are being made by unpaid volunteers who may not be as receptive to the needs of a commercial installation using the product
• Bundle the Linux version free with the Windows Version to encourage programmers to get their bosses to buy it for Windows development and they can then play with it for Linux
• Make it clear what advantages are available with your compiler over GCC, e.g. update your benchmarks to include it
• Make sure it is compatible with the most popular current standard libraries used on Linux now (glibc 2.2) and possibly some of the others as an option if this is important
• Provide the option of its own library if that provides better performance; this gives people the option of perhaps sacrificing a little performance for compatibility or using a non-compatible library where you really need to squeeze out the last ounce
• I think the hardest part of coding in C is the amount of "grunt work" people have to do; in the "commercial" version provide more assistance to develop code such as wizards, sample application frameworks, etc., these NOT being available if it is also offered in an open source version, e.g. provide in the licensed version more material which is of a higher value to professional programmers
• Know your audience: who is going to buy this product for use on Linux? This is who you need to target

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

I doubt they would miss the connection between quartering soldiers and/or quartering escrowed keys

Congress will just claim the "time of war" excpetion in the Third Amendment.

The 3rd has nothing to do with the 4th, which is where the protection would be: having a system which allows people to be "secure in their papers and effects" would clearly qualify as absolutely protected by the 4th. There is no "war exception" in the 4th amendment either. This doesn't necessarily mean that they won't violate it if it became inconvenient.
On the other hand, maybe it should have had one. Of the 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, only the 3rd Amendment has apparently never had a violation sued over in a court. (Probably coincidence.)
I just hope - futile probably - that the courts would recognize when the constitution is violated - such as would be the case in mandatory key escrow - and refuse to allow the runaway train to continue to railroad people.

--
"If justice is only meted out when it is 'easy' or 'convenient' to do so, then the [constitution] isn't worth the parchment it's printed on..."

- Justin Foote in Robert A. Heinlein's Metheuselah's Children

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

In the previous article, a user is quoted as saying,

Unhappy Windows User asks: "An article on AltaVista states that Microsoft will "fight to the death anything that threatens its intellectual property". The article states that, by keeping APIs closed, Microsoft has an advantage over other software vendors such as Corel. But how exactly would disclosing the source code be a threat to IP?

What the article actually said was,

Throughout its edits of the DOJ proposal, Microsoft tried to draw a distinction between external APIs (which the company is willing to give away and already often does) and internal APIs (which it is fighting tooth and nail to keep under wraps).

I don't think that there was an issue of distributing source code, it was over the exposing of internal and unpublished APIs.

There are possible reasons which it is reasonable and legitimate not to want to release certain APIs. For one thing, the code to handle it may be lower quality or a "hack" put together to solve a problem and might not be adequately tested.

For another, once an API gets published and known, if code that is created relying on those APIs is not to be broken by changes made to them, it means the API must be frozen; any new changes require developing a new API

Even if the intent was to allow release of the source code, it is possible to do so without hurting the value of the (proprietary) program in question. In many cases, there are a number of applications - including some shareware programs - where you either get source code or get it by paying an additional fee. IBM would often sell certain Mainframe system programs with source code. In fact, a proposal to go to OCO (Object Code Only) licenses on these programs was met with severe opposition from customers because they could not be sure they would be able to customize the applications to fit local needs. IBM had promised to provide "exits" (the equivalent of callback functions) to provide certain features. But that doesn't guarantee you can be compatible with the program or know if you have to change something to fix a problem. It might be asked why did they want to do that (or why don't they leave things the way they are)?.

In Robert Heinlein's To Sail Beyond The Sunsetit was asked,

Whenever someone asks, 'Why don't they?' [or why do they] the answer is almost always, 'money'.

It was suggested the reason for moving to OCO was so IBM could make more sales of its own security product for CICS, instead of third-party companies making money selling security add-ons for IBM's programs.)

A proprietary program can be open source, meaning you do get the source with it or you only get it if you pay extra (pace the Bell Labs Unix license in which a source-code license - except for certain academic customers - cost an arm, a leg and part of the hip and shoulder).

If your product's comes with source code, you can't suddenly jack up the price to stratospheric levels once the customer is locked into the product, as has happened in at least one reported case involving a licensee of the Windows 95 source who it is said saw its fees for source code access go up by many times the original figure because they allegedly did something Microsoft didn't like or because MS decided they could impose huge raises in source license fees.

What has changed in the case of what is being done in the general Open Source market is that the programs being released may be sold or transferred by anyone.

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Freedom of speech appears to be a myth.

In case you didn't notice, he's at Oxford, University which is in the U.K. Great Britain does not have free speech in the sense that the U.S. does, (it is merely a custom, it is not protected in law) and I think Oxford is a private university meaning even if it was in the U.S., the rules on free speech would not apply.

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

Freedom of speech appears to be a myth.

In case you didn't notice, he's at Oxford, University which is in the U.K. Great Britain does not have free speech in the sense that the U.S. does, (it is merely a custom, it is not protected in law) and I think Oxford is a private university meaning even if it was in the U.S., the rules on free speech would not apply.

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

I can hardly say I blame them. ... I don't think that the administration should be under any imperative to check up on allegations before they act.

Hmm, so if some student accuses another student of assault, or rape, or theft, or cheating, the administration should suspend the person accused immediately without bothering to even investigate the matter, see if the complaint makes any sense, or is more than groundless.

In fact, I think they've done the right thing by pulling the page immediately. That may not make most people happy, but it would certainly keep them out of legal hot water. Once the page is down, *then* they can go back and do more research and see what is really going on. (Not that this has happened in this case, but it sounds like a good idea.)

If they use the same guidelines, if anyone accused a student of anything serious, the university should suspend the student and bar them from classes first, then bother to check and see if the accusation has any grounds at all. (Then again, perhaps most universities go that way anyway.)

Paul Robinson postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us
http://paul.washington.dc.us

I can hardly say I blame them. ... I don't think that the administration should be under any imperative to check up on allegations before they act.

Hmm, so if some student accuses another student of assault, or rape, or theft, or cheating, the administration should suspend the person accused immediately without bothering to even investigate the matter, see if the complaint makes any sense, or is more than groundless.

In fact, I think they've done the right thing by pulling the page immediately. That may not make most people happy, but it would certainly keep them out of legal hot water. Once the page is down, *then* they can go back and do more research and see what is really going on. (Not that this has happened in this case, but it sounds like a good idea.)

If they use the same guidelines, if anyone accused a student of anything serious, the university should suspend the student and bar them from classes first, then bother to check and see if the accusation has any grounds at all. (Then again, perhaps most universities go that way anyway.)

Paul Robinson postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us
http://paul.washington.dc.us

Newspapers have certain advantages which other media cannot match.

1. Newspapers are semi-permanent as opposed to other media. Articles on radio or TV are gone as soon as they are broadcast unless recorded. An article on a website can be removed or no longer be available unless someone has been to that page and saved it, which doesn't guarantee the copy is accurate because the copy could have been tampered with. If you didn't get to that web page before it disappeared you'll never know what it said.
2. One can go to archives of old newspapers as I point out in the next item; since most web pages are copyrighted one cannot (except under fair use) make copies of them for on-line archival purposes.
3. A newspaper is printed and becomes a matter of public record. Back issues are often kept as archives in the stacks at the public library in that city and perhaps other cities. In smaller cities the newspaper itself keeps its old copies around for archival purposes ("newspaper morgue"). In many cities, newspapers are routinely microfilmed, which means you can go back and look up a newspaper from 30, 40, 50 to as much as 200 or more years ago. (I have seen a microfilm of The London Times dating from the 1700s, it may even have been Volume 1, Number 1).
4. As was pointed out in George Orwell's 1984 the government - or anyone with an agenda - can change whatever is around if there are not permanent originals that can be maintained. Does anyone believe the People's Republic of China wouldn't change historical records if they could? Unless there are originals which can not be changed without leaving a trace, history and human memory is subject to change anytime those who want to do so
5. Newspapers are printed on paper; you can carry a newspaper / magazine around and read it anywhere, outdoors, in dim light, even where there is no electricity.
6. Newspapers are inexpensive. Yes you can get internet access at some public libraries, even the poorest library or most ordinary families can afford a subscription to the local newspaper. This is even more critical for newspapers in third-world countries where the average person can barely afford food. Newspapers would be available to even the poor in those countries at (I presume) public libraries, whereas Internet access might be horrendously expensive or unavailable
7. You can purchase a newspaper for small change from vendors and machines.
8. You do not need several hundred to several thousand dollars worth of computer equipment, a telephone line and an internet access account to read a newspaper.
9. One can use old newspapers for various utility purposes such as lining birdcages, emergency toilet paper, wrapping china for packing or fish for sale, and other things where inexpensive paper is useful.
10. Once someone pays for a subscription to a newspaper or magazine (or buys a copy at a newsstand or newsrack) you own the issue, you can give away or sell it or archive it. Some news web sites such as The Wall Street Journal require payment to use which means you have to continuously pay for use of the electronic edition.
11. Newspapers can be used in places where electronic devices would not be suitable.
12. Over the last 50 years of computer technology many formats have become obsolete, in some cases there is huge amounts of data on old media which has been irretrievably lost because the reading devices are no longer made. Does anyone still use paper tape, dectape, "washing-machine" sized disk drives, 8" diskette drives? Have you noticed the "drying up" of mag tape and 5 1/2" disk drives? As I implied, one can read 200-year-old newspapers because it requires no sophisticated technology other than eyeballs.

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

Newspapers have certain advantages which other media cannot match.

1. Newspapers are semi-permanent as opposed to other media. Articles on radio or TV are gone as soon as they are broadcast unless recorded. An article on a website can be removed or no longer be available unless someone has been to that page and saved it, which doesn't guarantee the copy is accurate because the copy could have been tampered with. If you didn't get to that web page before it disappeared you'll never know what it said.
2. One can go to archives of old newspapers as I point out in the next item; since most web pages are copyrighted one cannot (except under fair use) make copies of them for on-line archival purposes.
3. A newspaper is printed and becomes a matter of public record. Back issues are often kept as archives in the stacks at the public library in that city and perhaps other cities. In smaller cities the newspaper itself keeps its old copies around for archival purposes ("newspaper morgue"). In many cities, newspapers are routinely microfilmed, which means you can go back and look up a newspaper from 30, 40, 50 to as much as 200 or more years ago. (I have seen a microfilm of The London Times dating from the 1700s, it may even have been Volume 1, Number 1).
4. As was pointed out in George Orwell's 1984 the government - or anyone with an agenda - can change whatever is around if there are not permanent originals that can be maintained. Does anyone believe the People's Republic of China wouldn't change historical records if they could? Unless there are originals which can not be changed without leaving a trace, history and human memory is subject to change anytime those who want to do so
5. Newspapers are printed on paper; you can carry a newspaper / magazine around and read it anywhere, outdoors, in dim light, even where there is no electricity.
6. Newspapers are inexpensive. Yes you can get internet access at some public libraries, even the poorest library or most ordinary families can afford a subscription to the local newspaper. This is even more critical for newspapers in third-world countries where the average person can barely afford food. Newspapers would be available to even the poor in those countries at (I presume) public libraries, whereas Internet access might be horrendously expensive or unavailable
7. You can purchase a newspaper for small change from vendors and machines.
8. You do not need several hundred to several thousand dollars worth of computer equipment, a telephone line and an internet access account to read a newspaper.
9. One can use old newspapers for various utility purposes such as lining birdcages, emergency toilet paper, wrapping china for packing or fish for sale, and other things where inexpensive paper is useful.
10. Once someone pays for a subscription to a newspaper or magazine (or buys a copy at a newsstand or newsrack) you own the issue, you can give away or sell it or archive it. Some news web sites such as The Wall Street Journal require payment to use which means you have to continuously pay for use of the electronic edition.
11. Newspapers can be used in places where electronic devices would not be suitable.
12. Over the last 50 years of computer technology many formats have become obsolete, in some cases there is huge amounts of data on old media which has been irretrievably lost because the reading devices are no longer made. Does anyone still use paper tape, dectape, "washing-machine" sized disk drives, 8" diskette drives? Have you noticed the "drying up" of mag tape and 5 1/2" disk drives? As I implied, one can read 200-year-old newspapers because it requires no sophisticated technology other than eyeballs.

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us