Those bastards! That commercial entity is acting like a, um, let's see...commercial entity, maybe?
Could I see a raise of hands of those that are happy that Netscape is still fighting Microsoft _at all_? How about a show of hands from those that are happy that Mozilla exists? Thanks. I thought there were some non-braindead among us still.
I'll bet it encourages other companies considering open sourcing things when they see us:
1) Scream for the code.
2) Receive the code.
3) Bitch about the code.
4) Bitch about the license.
5) Bitch about the company that gave the code.
6) Goto 3. --
It is very unusual for a federal agency to acquiesce in a third party review of an
important system. Having commissioned such a review, the interests of the Justice
Department would not be served by censoring the review or otherwise acting so as
to compromise its integrity and credibility.
Okay, I"ll try not to sputter uncontrollably at the poor logic here. First off, why do you think they commissioned this? Public outcry (you used the term "acquiesce" yourself, so I assume you realize that this wasn't something they wanted). What, may we infer from this fact, is their "interest"? Settling the public down. Getting people to accept the boxes. Censoring anything that would prompt further outcry from the public (which they might again have to "acquiesce" to) would obviously be in line with these "interests".
The review team, institutionally and
personally, has an interest in preserving their reputations for professional
independence, analytical competence, and candor. None of these interests are tied to
future dealings with the Justice Department or the FBI. They are more closely tied
to reputation in many of the communities which have been critical of Carnivore. It
is counterintuitive to suppose that the review team would sacrifice these interests by
undertaking a "whitewash."
Maybe I can help you with an example of the correct use of "counterintuitive": It's counterintuitive to believe that the review process has any integrity when a majority of institutions turned down an opportunity for a prestigious opportunity for national exposure because of concerns about the process.
Intuition says, and your comments bear out, that the only institutions that have no problem with the possibility of censorship are institutions that essentially trust the government (and of course, intuition can be wrong--I'm just saying that it's not on your side, not that we should trust it). Intuition tells me that, if you are the type of person that says "well, the govenrnment will probably only take out the parts of the report that are essential to security", you are much more likely to be the type of person that says "well, the government will probably only listen to the stuff that they're pretty sure is related to a crime". That doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your qualifications.
While I certainly agree that the average Slashdot poster is on the high end of the paranoia scale, I think there is a lot about this case that makes a lot of suspicion healthy. You appear to either believe or be trying to push the idea that this review is something that the government came up with because it felt that it would be the best way to protect our privacy. Whether you believe that or are trying to make it appear that way, it casts doubt on your credibility.
--
15,16c15,16
< <A href=" http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV4 7_STO49485,00.html"> Computerworld had a front page</A>
< story a couple of weeks ago about how
---
> Computerworld had a <A href=" http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV4 7_STO49485,00.html">front page story</A>
> a couple of weeks ago about how
78c78
< built on solving the problem thatMicrosoft's business
---
> built on solving the problem that Microsoft's business
113c113
< desperately need
---
> desperately need,
139c139
< under open source licenses enable us
---
> under open source licenses enables us
206,207c206,207
< (who can and frequently restrict access to information you
< does need) or one where you
---
> (who can and frequently does restrict access to information you
> need) or one where you
213c213
< We may be making mistakes - that up
---
> We may be making mistakes - that's up --
It doesn't say when the government's reply must be in, but I would guess it is not Nov. 27. How
can you write a 125 page reply to something the same day you see it?
post the original on slashdot, browse at -1, copy, paste --
I heard that what IBM is handing out here isn't their "real" JFS, but some lesser thing hacked together and called JFS.
And I've just told you pretty much everything I know about it, so don't bother telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about--I am aware of that. Maybe someone closer to it could clarify. --
I sure
wonder how things would have worked out if Apple had evangelized Cocoa a LOT more
strongly pushed the cross-platform features, and ease of programming, and not done the work
on Carbon, and not made Classic so easy to fall back on.
You don't have to wonder--just go back to the old articles and read about how people like Adobe et al said "No way" when Apple tried this. Carbon was put in because the big ISV's told Apple they weren't willing to accept the expense/risk/trouble of changing their entire code base.
Okay, I did it. Unfortunatly, I was reading your post at the same moment my boss was entering
the cube, and I've been fired. Under the terms of the 'technos' AUP (As amended September
12, 2000), and UCITA, you are hearby notified that you owe me $28,941,285.42.
Yeah, you think you'll be sitting pretty...until Courtney Love shows up for her share! Then all the geeks will laugh at you, and you'll be forced to be amused by that until media attention wanes and you ignore her anyway.
--
The corollary of this fact is that any person who advocates "rolling technology back" or "going
back to the land" is advocating genocide -- and should be regarded on that level of
(im)morality.
Now, wait a minute--that would imply that both the Unabomber and the Cultural Revolution were misguided. You might want to rethink that. --
I'm all about continuing education, but folks have to remember that learning for the joy of learning doesn't have to take
place in the classroom and learning to qualify for your dream job is stupid if you are already qualified.
But college can help you expand your dreams. It's not the only thing that can do that, though, I agree. We need more and better avenues for people to get the mind-expanding and life-enriching parts that are often mixed in with the career-preparation parts in college. There is certainly an argument for making the two available separately.
--
My coworkers and I have often joked about the number of
ads we see that say, "Must have X years experience with Solaris, HP-UX, Windows NT, Cisco routers, ATM, Veritas,
Apache, IIS, C, Java, PeopleSoft, Rational Rose..." and, and, and. And they want someone to do it for 40K.
Actually, those ads are probably for positions that they already have an H1B guy filling. They are required to advertise the position so they can "prove" that there's no one there to take the job. They put the long list of requirements in to increase the chance that no one will respond to the ad, because they want to keep the H1B guy.
Of course, if they set the salary too low they risk losing the H1B--there are restrictions on that in order to prevent the effect of lowering salaries by bringing in people who are willing to work for less. The deal is supposed to be that you can't pay H1B people less than the average salary for that job in that geographical area. --
I believe that many of the current crop of polymer semiconductors are polyenes such
as polyacetylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polythiophenes (sulfur containing rings linked together),
poly-para-phenylen-vinylene, or poly-anilines. None of these are very close to most packaging plastics.
So in lit geek newsgroups this will be referred to as Ash:ASH, or what? I want to be ready with all the right acronyms for when I start posting to alt.dot.girl.fiction.
Or is it one of those things where ASH stands for "Ash, a Secret History"?
I think the most logical conclusion here is that the GNU-like title is a socially-encoded hint to us that the author believes that information wants to be free, and wants to encourage bootlegging without angering the publisher.
(For the humor impaired, the 'girl.fiction' reference was a sarcastic swipe at childish misogyny (see dictionary.com before flaming), rather than an example thereof).
--
american version (stay a way from meee-heee...)
on
Ash: A Secret History
·
· Score: 2
British readers are entrusted
with the whole thousand-plus-page story, while the publishers thought that Americans would like to take things a little more
gently.
Upon closer inspection, it was found that the only difference was that the Americanized book was hundreds of pages shorter to do translations such as colour->color.
Other sources claimed that Americans would rather be seen with a smaller book so as to appear more environmentally friendly.
--
What you have to realize is that while virtual based IP adresses are useful in some cases, they are in fact, not secure.
Perhaps I didn't understand--it looked to me like you claimed that this was not secure, then sung its praises for the rest of the post. Did I miss something? Maybe you could rephrase or summarize for those of us who are just getting the hang of this? (I'm really not flaming, I just got confused because I was expecting you to say why it's not secure, but what I got was just gushing about how cool it is.)
Microsoft is barely keeping Apple alive
(releasing Word for Mac late, etc)
Uh, Office 98 came out on the Mac first. I guess this would be a reasonably good troll, given that you have said so much that is so easily refuted with hard data, but as information it's not what you would call useful. Are you trolling, or just repeating what you heard in a chat room?
Well into the 90's, MS made more money off of each Mac sold than they did off of windows machines (according to Bill Gates, anyway). Microsoft wasn't so much into killing Macs as much as IT managers were, according to some accounts.
It is possible, even likely, that MS agreed to the stock buying deal (at least in part) to get the monopoly pressure off of them, but at this point they would be losing a lot of money in the short term to quit selling stuff for the Mac. They have already invested in developing those products as Mac products from the ground up (rather than some kludgey port--that was part of the stock buy deal), and they would have to be willing to just delete the book value of that code, which doesn't seem likely.
I would speculate that MS wants to keep themselves as deep in the Mac business as possible in case they really do lose the OS war in a big way. That way they can keep right on selling to (nearly) eveyone that buys a computer. And if you think they don't have a plan for putting their stuff on Linux, well, you haven't been paying attention.
Sure, they don't want to lose the OS war, but you can bet that they have a backup strategy in case they do.
--
It's some sort of compressed/lightweight version of X that speeds up response when in use over the network. I understand that it works really well, but i don't have any direct experience.
Theo doesn't pull his punches (then again, he never does), in particular, discounting
the "more eyes means better security" philosophy. Then again, he's probably right.
If anything, he discounted the idea that more Linux users makes Linux more secure than OpenBSD. He says that most of these people can't write programs over 300 lines, and that they're no real help to the security of the system.
But that doesn't discount the idea that, for a given system, more eyes make for better security. OpenBSD would be more secure if more people were doing the same thing that Theo does with it. Okay, there's a possibility of too many chefs spoiling the stew at some point,I guess, but in general I think that it's pretty clear that more eyes looking at a given system makes that system more secure than it would be with fewer eyes.
Anyone arging that any system Foo is more secure than any system Bar if more people are looking at Foo than at Bar has a problem with their logic. (And, granted, most people have a problem with logic.) Like one person posted, his system is pretty secure now that the power supply has failed...
Rather than say that he discounts the "many eyes" argument, I would say that he brings out how important a few well-trained eyes spending a lot of time on a set of code can be. That's easy to forget (or to never know if all you know about writing code comes from reading ESR...).
Slashdot Mirror
Just as soon as there is a larger market out there, I'll bet.
Oh, sorry, was that supposed to be thought-provoking commentary?
--
Those bastards! That commercial entity is acting like a, um, let's see...commercial entity, maybe?
Could I see a raise of hands of those that are happy that Netscape is still fighting Microsoft _at all_? How about a show of hands from those that are happy that Mozilla exists? Thanks. I thought there were some non-braindead among us still.
I'll bet it encourages other companies considering open sourcing things when they see us:
1) Scream for the code.
2) Receive the code.
3) Bitch about the code.
4) Bitch about the license.
5) Bitch about the company that gave the code.
6) Goto 3.
--
Okay, I"ll try not to sputter uncontrollably at the poor logic here. First off, why do you think they commissioned this? Public outcry (you used the term "acquiesce" yourself, so I assume you realize that this wasn't something they wanted). What, may we infer from this fact, is their "interest"? Settling the public down. Getting people to accept the boxes. Censoring anything that would prompt further outcry from the public (which they might again have to "acquiesce" to) would obviously be in line with these "interests".
The review team, institutionally and personally, has an interest in preserving their reputations for professional independence, analytical competence, and candor. None of these interests are tied to future dealings with the Justice Department or the FBI. They are more closely tied to reputation in many of the communities which have been critical of Carnivore. It is counterintuitive to suppose that the review team would sacrifice these interests by undertaking a "whitewash."
Maybe I can help you with an example of the correct use of "counterintuitive": It's counterintuitive to believe that the review process has any integrity when a majority of institutions turned down an opportunity for a prestigious opportunity for national exposure because of concerns about the process.
Intuition says, and your comments bear out, that the only institutions that have no problem with the possibility of censorship are institutions that essentially trust the government (and of course, intuition can be wrong--I'm just saying that it's not on your side, not that we should trust it). Intuition tells me that, if you are the type of person that says "well, the govenrnment will probably only take out the parts of the report that are essential to security", you are much more likely to be the type of person that says "well, the government will probably only listen to the stuff that they're pretty sure is related to a crime". That doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your qualifications.
While I certainly agree that the average Slashdot poster is on the high end of the paranoia scale, I think there is a lot about this case that makes a lot of suspicion healthy. You appear to either believe or be trying to push the idea that this review is something that the government came up with because it felt that it would be the best way to protect our privacy. Whether you believe that or are trying to make it appear that way, it casts doubt on your credibility.
--
15,16c15,164 7_STO49485,00.html"> Computerworld had a front page</A>
4 7_STO49485,00.html">front page story</A>
< <A href=" http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV
< story a couple of weeks ago about how
---
> Computerworld had a <A href=" http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV
> a couple of weeks ago about how
78c78
< built on solving the problem thatMicrosoft's business
---
> built on solving the problem that Microsoft's business
113c113
< desperately need
---
> desperately need,
139c139
< under open source licenses enable us
---
> under open source licenses enables us
206,207c206,207
< (who can and frequently restrict access to information you
< does need) or one where you
---
> (who can and frequently does restrict access to information you
> need) or one where you
213c213
< We may be making mistakes - that up
---
> We may be making mistakes - that's up
--
We've got space, underwater, and nano. What other frontiers or environments are left for computers to work in?
How about raw sewage? Like, say the guy in Shawshank wants to check his email/play solitaire/etc halfway through the escape...
--
post the original on slashdot, browse at -1, copy, paste
--
okay, thanks. I got mine. you can all head for the cliff...
--
would you all mind not hitting the server until my download is done? thanks!
mike
--
Very well put. Thanks
--
I heard that what IBM is handing out here isn't their "real" JFS, but some lesser thing hacked together and called JFS.
And I've just told you pretty much everything I know about it, so don't bother telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about--I am aware of that. Maybe someone closer to it could clarify.
--
You don't have to wonder--just go back to the old articles and read about how people like Adobe et al said "No way" when Apple tried this. Carbon was put in because the big ISV's told Apple they weren't willing to accept the expense/risk/trouble of changing their entire code base.
At least that's how I remember it...
mike
--
Yeah, you think you'll be sitting pretty...until Courtney Love shows up for her share! Then all the geeks will laugh at you, and you'll be forced to be amused by that until media attention wanes and you ignore her anyway.
--
It's bad enough that robots are taking jobs in factories and production lines all over the place. Now, it's going to affect the little people.
--
Now, wait a minute--that would imply that both the Unabomber and the Cultural Revolution were misguided. You might want to rethink that.
--
But college can help you expand your dreams. It's not the only thing that can do that, though, I agree. We need more and better avenues for people to get the mind-expanding and life-enriching parts that are often mixed in with the career-preparation parts in college. There is certainly an argument for making the two available separately.
--
Actually, those ads are probably for positions that they already have an H1B guy filling. They are required to advertise the position so they can "prove" that there's no one there to take the job. They put the long list of requirements in to increase the chance that no one will respond to the ad, because they want to keep the H1B guy.
Of course, if they set the salary too low they risk losing the H1B--there are restrictions on that in order to prevent the effect of lowering salaries by bringing in people who are willing to work for less. The deal is supposed to be that you can't pay H1B people less than the average salary for that job in that geographical area.
--
They do, however, make great baby names.
--
So in lit geek newsgroups this will be referred to as Ash:ASH, or what? I want to be ready with all the right acronyms for when I start posting to alt.dot.girl.fiction.
Or is it one of those things where ASH stands for "Ash, a Secret History"?
I think the most logical conclusion here is that the GNU-like title is a socially-encoded hint to us that the author believes that information wants to be free, and wants to encourage bootlegging without angering the publisher.
(For the humor impaired, the 'girl.fiction' reference was a sarcastic swipe at childish misogyny (see dictionary.com before flaming), rather than an example thereof).
--
Upon closer inspection, it was found that the only difference was that the Americanized book was hundreds of pages shorter to do translations such as colour->color.
Other sources claimed that Americans would rather be seen with a smaller book so as to appear more environmentally friendly.
--
Perhaps I didn't understand--it looked to me like you claimed that this was not secure, then sung its praises for the rest of the post. Did I miss something? Maybe you could rephrase or summarize for those of us who are just getting the hang of this? (I'm really not flaming, I just got confused because I was expecting you to say why it's not secure, but what I got was just gushing about how cool it is.)
thanks
--
I don't have images on, but if it hasn't changed since I saw it last, it's supposed to make him look like one of the Borg from Star Trek.
hth
mike
--
(re: filerogue.com) You damn the OS dependencies, then require IE 5.0. Interesting...
--
Uh, Office 98 came out on the Mac first. I guess this would be a reasonably good troll, given that you have said so much that is so easily refuted with hard data, but as information it's not what you would call useful. Are you trolling, or just repeating what you heard in a chat room?
Well into the 90's, MS made more money off of each Mac sold than they did off of windows machines (according to Bill Gates, anyway). Microsoft wasn't so much into killing Macs as much as IT managers were, according to some accounts.
It is possible, even likely, that MS agreed to the stock buying deal (at least in part) to get the monopoly pressure off of them, but at this point they would be losing a lot of money in the short term to quit selling stuff for the Mac. They have already invested in developing those products as Mac products from the ground up (rather than some kludgey port--that was part of the stock buy deal), and they would have to be willing to just delete the book value of that code, which doesn't seem likely.
I would speculate that MS wants to keep themselves as deep in the Mac business as possible in case they really do lose the OS war in a big way. That way they can keep right on selling to (nearly) eveyone that buys a computer. And if you think they don't have a plan for putting their stuff on Linux, well, you haven't been paying attention.
Sure, they don't want to lose the OS war, but you can bet that they have a backup strategy in case they do.
--
It's some sort of compressed/lightweight version of X that speeds up response when in use over the network. I understand that it works really well, but i don't have any direct experience.
Anyone else?
--
If anything, he discounted the idea that more Linux users makes Linux more secure than OpenBSD. He says that most of these people can't write programs over 300 lines, and that they're no real help to the security of the system.
But that doesn't discount the idea that, for a given system, more eyes make for better security. OpenBSD would be more secure if more people were doing the same thing that Theo does with it. Okay, there's a possibility of too many chefs spoiling the stew at some point,I guess, but in general I think that it's pretty clear that more eyes looking at a given system makes that system more secure than it would be with fewer eyes.
Anyone arging that any system Foo is more secure than any system Bar if more people are looking at Foo than at Bar has a problem with their logic. (And, granted, most people have a problem with logic.) Like one person posted, his system is pretty secure now that the power supply has failed...
Rather than say that he discounts the "many eyes" argument, I would say that he brings out how important a few well-trained eyes spending a lot of time on a set of code can be. That's easy to forget (or to never know if all you know about writing code comes from reading ESR...).
FWIW
--