For folks who liked the maze analogy, lets take a look at this scenario again.
The first time a traveling salesman walks into my living room, I complain to my maze provider. He then releases Labyrinth 2.0. Instead of a maze of brick, the maze is now full of mirrors.
Of course this maze is foiled by crafty salesmen who lay breadcrumbs and place markings on the ground to indicate where they'd been (sure they could have done this before, but lets say they didn't).
So again I complain and the maze provider offers another solution. But this time the maze provider does something new. Labyrinth 3.0 offers support for trolls who live under the maze and can rearrange the markings and discard the breadcrumbs left by the salesmen. You can buy the trolls from the maze provider as well as troll food each month.
Now I've paid for 3 versions of my Labyrinth security product, and am continuing to pay now for trolls and food on a per month basis. My maze provider is now a huge corporation. Should they have to pay if their supposed security system fails?
What if they knew all along that the maze technology was insecure and that no matter the obfuscation there was always a way an intruder could enter your house through supposedly legal means (assume that simply using the maze fairly is not illegal). If it can be shown that the maze provider knew ahead of time that maze tech was inherently insecure and that while the upgrades seemed to fix security holes as they were discovered, that these types of holes would always be present and are indeed unfixable. Should a company be allowed to continue to "upgrade" their technology and make even more money, while they know their product will never be fit for this particular purpose?
I agree with what you're saying. How about this though. Instead of a lock on your door, what if your home's security device was an elaborate maze. What if at the end of the maze there was no door. Now as far as I know you don't violate many laws if you walk into someone's house through an open door. The person selling you your maze security system tells you you're secure because only you know the way through the maze. Is this person liable when this security device fails? What if he knew ahead of time that his system offered no "real" security?
You're quite right, and maybe the DMCA question isn't as debateable. How about the question of liability. Slashdot is currently discussing in another story the question of who is liable for buggy and insecure software. Take this example for instance.
If it's decided that a company is responsible for it's security holes, can/should they be held liable for damages to a third party? For instance many labels are now using some form of DRM for their online services (PressPlay, MusicNet, Napster, etc). Since there isn't a lot of SDMI compliant hardware out there, these services are forced to use a software based DRM system on untrusted computers.
Should BMG now be able to sue Microsoft for damages when someone figures out the obfuscation being used in Media Player 8? Is this akin to selling a service with a known unpatched security hole? I dunno, but I think it's an interesting question.
Now with this proof being published, software companies now have no expectation that their software only copy protection or DRM system is secure. What does this mean?
If I wrote a copywrited piece and then used a form of copy protection that I knew people could break (similar to what some people were doing to "encrypt" song titles on Napster a while back), do I have the right to sue them under the DMCA (and a while back the judge said no)? Maybe so, maybe not, maybe it's a grey area, maybe there are other loopholes I know nothing about. But one thing I think the courts have upheld is that legally there is no degree of separation.
For instance of a judge rules that breaking someone's "lame encryption" does not violate the DMCA, because they knew ahead of time that a person could break it. Then adding to the complexity shouldn't change anything. If you have a proof that shows that software only DRM on an untrusted client is not secure can you or should you be able to claim damages when someone eventually exploits the hole you knew had to exist.
Of course IANAL, and I'm sure this will not cause the DMCA to crumble, but I think it raises some questions. Similarly are you allowed to advertise that such systems baised on obfuscation are secure or should they be clearly labeled as deterants, and not iron clad security?
I think it's quite appropriate that Larry be number 3. If I remember correctly, the other two recipients were younger developers (college or post grad). These developers had no other means of income and were contributing greatly to Perl 6. Thus the grants enabled them to continue their work.
Larry on the other hand has other sources of income and didn't really need the grant as much. Now it seems that the Perl Foundation would like Larry to travel more to promote Perl. Since travel is pretty costly the Perl Foundation wanted to help Larry defer some of those costs.
I was wondering the same thing. Will existing systems migrate to this architecture. I'd assume not. First they already have an architecture in place, why rip it out? After all, the physical terminals and check-in stations aren't moble.
Second, there are security concerns and as you pointed out, these are two fold. We don't want people snooping the airlines system. On the other hand if we're using the system to say, pre-pay for a rental car at the destination, we don't want people snooping credit card numbers either. There has been a lot of talk in the past about insecure 802.11 networks. It was my impression that these networks were configured incorrectly, and that it is possible (with later high bit key tech) to have a secure network. If the airports were to offer a good secure network, I think it would be of great benefit to flyers.
And then there are all the fun apps like being able to monitor arrivals and departures from your palm. As well as gate changes and whatnot. These can be as insecure as you like because it's really just another way of disseminating public information.
In all I think it'll be a good thing, with problems at first, but will become the norm in time. As far as The Man snooping the network, I think you'll get that no matter where you go. Don't not use a great public utility for that reason alone.
AT&T is also taking similar measures. But it does bring up a quality of service issue. If the lights do go out at Excite@home and an ISP can't provide service to it's users for a week or so until they get their backup networks online (if they have them), should they expect their users to pay for that month. I wouldn't, but I expect that most will. There will probably be more/. stories about this aftermath.
I sympathize with you. I don't know how the package was packed, but it sounds like it not only passed your judgement, but the one accepting the package. Who by the way does inspect all packages (for proper packing, illegal materials, etc).
It's also a shame that insurance wasn't offered. However in this case I don't think it should be required. Insurance is for small dings that despite everyone's best effort sometimes happen while shipping. Obvious neglect and total destruction of a package should be replacable without insurance.
In my case UPS dropped a RAID array out of the plane (while they were unloading it). The fall annihilated the bottom drive and broke the case and backplane. This too was around $5K and (for some reason) was uninsured. However my boss at the time was able to talk to someone at UPS and got them to cover the expenses.
Maybe he was able to talk to a sane person at UPS. Maybe the lawyers threatened them. I don't know. The moral is, what's right is right and there is at least hope. Sorry for the mess. Sucks all around.
I think so too, and I'm sure there will be lots of front ends which spin off of this. I'm waiting for the OpenGL front end with acceleration and an Unreal engine.
What I don't want to see is this being bundled with every kernel. IMHO the kernel distro should be a small streamlined product with enough in the way of configuration for people to get their job done easily. I think that while cool, adding a game front end is over the line of what's needed and wanted by the typical sysadmin.
for including flight simulators in spreadsheet programs. Now we have adventure games in our kernel configuration system? I would hope this would be an optional add on.
Not that I'm against this per se, I actually kind of like the idea, but only as a novelty. I kind of liked the easter eggs in MS programs too, but when they get to the point of introducing (noticable) added overhead either to disk, memory, or program maintainability I have a problem.
So while it may relieve some of the tedium of kernel configuration. The first time make adventure causes a problem, I'd expect to get back some of the dung the linux community has flung over the years.
I used to work at an education institution which was connected to I2. The network was very fast. I remember downloading entire Mandrake ISO distributions from other I2 sites in around 5 minutes. No problem there.
However I2 isn't just supposed to set FTP speed records. Connecting educational institutions was designed to advance research in high speed network and practical applications. Some mentioned were interactive video applications, multicast HDTV and the like. It will be great when we start to see these apps, but unfortunately this will be some time coming.
While I2 now provides the theoretical playground for researchers and some developers to start generating next generation applications and protocols, these applications and protocols will most likely depend on the bandwidth of I2. Right now there are like 200 universities that are on I2. However the technology that is produced by them will stay theoretical until thousands of companies gain access, and those companies will have to wait until millions of homes are wired before they can ship their products.
I see I2 as being a lot like IPV6. A needed improvement, and a good thing. However something that will take time to permiate into our daily lives. Here's hoping it doesn't actually take that long to hit the market.
You've got me. This seems a lot like GCJ, only dumber.
Actually I think their reason is this. Microsoft would like to treat Java as a programming language, nothing more. Sun would like Java to be a platform, including language, VM, cross OS platform compatability and so on. I assume that if Microsoft were to implement various Java 2 features they'd have to comply to the Sun JCK, which they of course do not want to do. If you treat Java as a language you can add to the language and aren't bound to what Sun thinks Java2D (used in JFC) should look like.
I think that Microsoft could implement the platform if they felt like it, but this doesn't gain them anything. By adopting what they consider to be the language itself, they can use this to beat the platform which Sun has built.
I personally don't think this will happen, but I think this is what Microsoft is after.
I agree. I would be nice if the specs were open and there was a free alternative. Unfortunatly there isn't, and from looking at Apple's Quicktime stance (requiring Quicktime Pro for a large SW trailer). It's not likely they'll ever release, or allow Sorenson to release the tech necessary for an open source product.
Of course open source developers are free to develop a product similar to the CrossOver plugin, they just haven't to date. You're always free to wait and not buy their product.
It may come to pass that this product will ship will various distros. Their wine impl. is already free (and available from their site or Red-carpet). If the distros were able to work out fair licensing with Codeweavers, I think this would be a great tool for the Linux desktop.
As I understand it, you're licensed per user, not per box. So, as long as you're the only one using the plugin, you can install it on all of your boxes...home, work, etc.
I really like the CrossOver plugin. Specifically it give me access to Quicktime and Shockwave content not previously available to Linux users. Sure there are other reasons for this, and it would be nice to target the root of this problem, however this is left for another discussion.
My question is whether others out there think this is a good software model? Personally I think it is. They have identified a genuine lack of service which they provide. They provide this service by building on open source technology, namely wine, and then provide a closed for profit products on top of this technology. The revenue generated by these products allow for greater development in the underlying tech (again namely wine) while still providing the desired service, the Windows plugin support.
Aside from the "well these plugins are free on windows, we shouldn't have to pay for a product that lets us use them in Linux" comments. Do people have anything else they'd like to say about the CrossOver plugins or their business model?
A poll taken during the Spanish inquisition showed near unanimous support for the Church. Of course those polled were afraid of dieing from the plague, or being convinced by the Church to change their minds.
This doesn't mean that it was a good thing, or even that people really wanted it. They were just too afraid of life at the time and didn't understand the consequences.
I've heard a lot of people saying, "I don't care about crypto, face recognition, wire tapping, I have nothing to hide". Well, most Americans aren't criminals. And it's not an issue of hiding! In America we have a notion of freedom which we've fought for on many occasions. People don't realize the value, or at least have the appresiation yet for the freedom of privacy and judicial process.
The government already has the power to tap wires and intercept electronic messages. This authority is granted based on previously aquired information about criminal activities. This kind of invasion of privacy is generally accepted and IMHO doesn't need to be enhanced. The courts can already hold persons indefinatly for failure to turn over evidence (including crypto keys and PWs). What they don't need is the ability to intercept all E-mail, phone calls, etc, and then figure out if you've been naughty or nice later.
People say that this would curb crime. Well maybe, but so would martial law. Most people would agree that eliminating vandalism by detaining anyone that looks suspicious (by whatever that means) and shooting vandals on site is probably not the way to go, and not what America is all about. We could also equip every new car with a device that moniters speeding. Any time you are caught speeding by the system you're simply issued a ticket. This would probably get people's attention. And if all phone calls were tapped and you told your son, who was at a friends past dinner time, to get home or he wouldn't be able to sit for a week. A possibly idle threat, but which taken out of context or without inflection could send child welfare workers to your door or police to your place of business the next day. It's this kind of invasion that will hurt America in the name of security. Most innocent people will start to feel less secure due to the invasions perpetrated by the government.
What I thought was interesting was the part about tossing the book into the black hole and then evaporating it. Where did the book go?
The possibility that the book could be then represented by the energy given off by the hole as it vanished might mean that given a snapshot of this energy pattern another black hole could recreate the book at another place in another time.
Sure it's all Sci-fi now, but this may be the next step into figuring out more about worm holes, new dimensions and the like. And only four more years to wait for this little toy to be built.
As the article mentioned. It would take so much energy just to create these small black holes that the odds of creating the earth sucking ones are statistically negligable. In other words we're not lucky enough to destory ourselves.:)
HP, who's stock has fallen to about a third of what it was a year ago, still isn't seeing any light. It just bought Compaq for what was $25 Billion in stock. Well since then the stock price has gone from around $23/share to a little over $17/share. This now puts the deal worth at around $18.5 Billion. Still a huge amount of money, but going down rapidly. Investors are asking themselves the same questions that are being asked here. What is the new game plan? Make Linux their heart and soul? Kill off the Linux and HPUX divisions? We all know there will be major layoffs. There just isn't a lot of room for making huge profits in the desktop PC market. Even less I think they'll find in the free OS market.
Now don't get me wrong, I love Linux, Open Source and the like as much as the next guy, however if I had money in HP or Compaq I'd sure hope they'd ditch some of these projects. Right now they need to concentrate on what will bring in the most money the fastest. That's PCs with Windows, peripherals and their scientific equipment (which has huge mark-ups). Supporting Linux at this time IMHO is not the best use of their limited resources. They need to have clear goals (one, maybe two things), and strive to meet them. Being big is not enough.
And speaking of big. A lot is being said about HP now being number 2 behind IBM. As much as people might hope that this makes HP a threat, I just don't think so. IBM has remained pretty strong over this past year. It has a many diverse products, most of which are doing fairly well. With the time it takes HP to work out all the details of this merger and get to facing those goals IBM will have been going strong for another 3-6 months. In the mean time it will be able to corner the Linux desktop market (another reason for HP to bail).
And all this is fine with IBM. IBM is happy to support Linux because it's a sound strategy. Linux works like their mainframe OSs (well much more so than Windows does). IBM develops a lot of software to run on their "big iron", but people and companies are moving away from big machines and onto smaller servers and work stations. For this Linux is a sound choice for IBM. They don't have to spend a lot of money to port their OS to a PC architecure, it's more or less been done for them. Any enhancements they might make to help their Apps can be made through Open Source projects. JFS, Java devel, kernel devel have all come out of IBM. Not because they're being nice, but because it helps their database or some other high price App. run better. This is very sound business and has worked very well for them. I'm sure they'll continue to support Linux, as well as produce desktop PCs that compete with HP. However they have a much more sound business model, they have much more money, and when it's all said and done, I don't think they have much to worry about from HP's latest merger.
Maybe the DOJ should just accuse MS of being a terrorist organization, bent on taking over the world. Apparently it's easier than taking them to court.
Sony should be careful here. While MIT doesn't want a conflict, their Jedi are more than capable of turning the Sony corporate offices into the world's largest VU Meter. And if that doesn't show them the light, how are they going to work without any offices.
I think they should get into the business of crashing space stations into the Pacific, and bringing tourists on boats to watch the fireworks.
Didn't their last station stay up longer than ours? And weren't they able to make some money off of it? Geez, NASA should be happy to have such a track record.
You're absolutely right. The labels don't have the interest or resources in house to migrate their CD collections to some digital format. However there are a number of companies who have already done this. MusicNet has licensed the Zomba catalog, others use LoudEye. While these companies may not have all the music ever made digitized yet, they have enough to offer a pretty sizable selection of media (remember 90% of people only listen to 10% of the music), in multiple formats, bitrates, etc. The labels will be more than willing to pay for access to this media (and access to this media costs far less than the license to use this media, so it's another way to keep smaller companies from competing).
So while you're right. You may be able to find some music on Napster that isn't offered/offerable on some label's subscription service. Most of the music that people were getting will be available.
And then they need a delivery mechanism. Which is where services like Napster (and it's new subscription service), MP3.com and others come in. We're starting to see that companies that were successful at distributing music (and then sued into the ground) are now teaming up with the labels and acting as their distribution medium.
Well remember the vast amount of music found on Napster was, according to the labels, their unlicensed content. The labels' collective catalogs make up about 90% of all commercial music. If it suits their needs they'll digitize this content and make it available for a price. This is their plan. Whether they have a logical pricing model in mind is yet to be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
The first time a traveling salesman walks into my living room, I complain to my maze provider. He then releases Labyrinth 2.0. Instead of a maze of brick, the maze is now full of mirrors.
Of course this maze is foiled by crafty salesmen who lay breadcrumbs and place markings on the ground to indicate where they'd been (sure they could have done this before, but lets say they didn't).
So again I complain and the maze provider offers another solution. But this time the maze provider does something new. Labyrinth 3.0 offers support for trolls who live under the maze and can rearrange the markings and discard the breadcrumbs left by the salesmen. You can buy the trolls from the maze provider as well as troll food each month.
Now I've paid for 3 versions of my Labyrinth security product, and am continuing to pay now for trolls and food on a per month basis. My maze provider is now a huge corporation. Should they have to pay if their supposed security system fails?
What if they knew all along that the maze technology was insecure and that no matter the obfuscation there was always a way an intruder could enter your house through supposedly legal means (assume that simply using the maze fairly is not illegal). If it can be shown that the maze provider knew ahead of time that maze tech was inherently insecure and that while the upgrades seemed to fix security holes as they were discovered, that these types of holes would always be present and are indeed unfixable. Should a company be allowed to continue to "upgrade" their technology and make even more money, while they know their product will never be fit for this particular purpose?
Just food for thought.
If it's decided that a company is responsible for it's security holes, can/should they be held liable for damages to a third party? For instance many labels are now using some form of DRM for their online services (PressPlay, MusicNet, Napster, etc). Since there isn't a lot of SDMI compliant hardware out there, these services are forced to use a software based DRM system on untrusted computers.
Should BMG now be able to sue Microsoft for damages when someone figures out the obfuscation being used in Media Player 8? Is this akin to selling a service with a known unpatched security hole? I dunno, but I think it's an interesting question.
If I wrote a copywrited piece and then used a form of copy protection that I knew people could break (similar to what some people were doing to "encrypt" song titles on Napster a while back), do I have the right to sue them under the DMCA (and a while back the judge said no)? Maybe so, maybe not, maybe it's a grey area, maybe there are other loopholes I know nothing about. But one thing I think the courts have upheld is that legally there is no degree of separation.
For instance of a judge rules that breaking someone's "lame encryption" does not violate the DMCA, because they knew ahead of time that a person could break it. Then adding to the complexity shouldn't change anything. If you have a proof that shows that software only DRM on an untrusted client is not secure can you or should you be able to claim damages when someone eventually exploits the hole you knew had to exist.
Of course IANAL, and I'm sure this will not cause the DMCA to crumble, but I think it raises some questions. Similarly are you allowed to advertise that such systems baised on obfuscation are secure or should they be clearly labeled as deterants, and not iron clad security?
Larry on the other hand has other sources of income and didn't really need the grant as much. Now it seems that the Perl Foundation would like Larry to travel more to promote Perl. Since travel is pretty costly the Perl Foundation wanted to help Larry defer some of those costs.
Second, there are security concerns and as you pointed out, these are two fold. We don't want people snooping the airlines system. On the other hand if we're using the system to say, pre-pay for a rental car at the destination, we don't want people snooping credit card numbers either. There has been a lot of talk in the past about insecure 802.11 networks. It was my impression that these networks were configured incorrectly, and that it is possible (with later high bit key tech) to have a secure network. If the airports were to offer a good secure network, I think it would be of great benefit to flyers.
And then there are all the fun apps like being able to monitor arrivals and departures from your palm. As well as gate changes and whatnot. These can be as insecure as you like because it's really just another way of disseminating public information.
In all I think it'll be a good thing, with problems at first, but will become the norm in time. As far as The Man snooping the network, I think you'll get that no matter where you go. Don't not use a great public utility for that reason alone.
AT&T is also taking similar measures. But it does bring up a quality of service issue. If the lights do go out at Excite@home and an ISP can't provide service to it's users for a week or so until they get their backup networks online (if they have them), should they expect their users to pay for that month. I wouldn't, but I expect that most will. There will probably be more /. stories about this aftermath.
It's also a shame that insurance wasn't offered. However in this case I don't think it should be required. Insurance is for small dings that despite everyone's best effort sometimes happen while shipping. Obvious neglect and total destruction of a package should be replacable without insurance.
In my case UPS dropped a RAID array out of the plane (while they were unloading it). The fall annihilated the bottom drive and broke the case and backplane. This too was around $5K and (for some reason) was uninsured. However my boss at the time was able to talk to someone at UPS and got them to cover the expenses.
Maybe he was able to talk to a sane person at UPS. Maybe the lawyers threatened them. I don't know. The moral is, what's right is right and there is at least hope. Sorry for the mess. Sucks all around.
What I don't want to see is this being bundled with every kernel. IMHO the kernel distro should be a small streamlined product with enough in the way of configuration for people to get their job done easily. I think that while cool, adding a game front end is over the line of what's needed and wanted by the typical sysadmin.
Not that I'm against this per se, I actually kind of like the idea, but only as a novelty. I kind of liked the easter eggs in MS programs too, but when they get to the point of introducing (noticable) added overhead either to disk, memory, or program maintainability I have a problem.
So while it may relieve some of the tedium of kernel configuration. The first time make adventure causes a problem, I'd expect to get back some of the dung the linux community has flung over the years.
However I2 isn't just supposed to set FTP speed records. Connecting educational institutions was designed to advance research in high speed network and practical applications. Some mentioned were interactive video applications, multicast HDTV and the like. It will be great when we start to see these apps, but unfortunately this will be some time coming.
While I2 now provides the theoretical playground for researchers and some developers to start generating next generation applications and protocols, these applications and protocols will most likely depend on the bandwidth of I2. Right now there are like 200 universities that are on I2. However the technology that is produced by them will stay theoretical until thousands of companies gain access, and those companies will have to wait until millions of homes are wired before they can ship their products.
I see I2 as being a lot like IPV6. A needed improvement, and a good thing. However something that will take time to permiate into our daily lives. Here's hoping it doesn't actually take that long to hit the market.
Actually I think their reason is this. Microsoft would like to treat Java as a programming language, nothing more. Sun would like Java to be a platform, including language, VM, cross OS platform compatability and so on. I assume that if Microsoft were to implement various Java 2 features they'd have to comply to the Sun JCK, which they of course do not want to do. If you treat Java as a language you can add to the language and aren't bound to what Sun thinks Java2D (used in JFC) should look like.
I think that Microsoft could implement the platform if they felt like it, but this doesn't gain them anything. By adopting what they consider to be the language itself, they can use this to beat the platform which Sun has built.
I personally don't think this will happen, but I think this is what Microsoft is after.
Of course open source developers are free to develop a product similar to the CrossOver plugin, they just haven't to date. You're always free to wait and not buy their product.
It may come to pass that this product will ship will various distros. Their wine impl. is already free (and available from their site or Red-carpet). If the distros were able to work out fair licensing with Codeweavers, I think this would be a great tool for the Linux desktop.
List of Fixes in 1.0.1
As I understand it, you're licensed per user, not per box. So, as long as you're the only one using the plugin, you can install it on all of your boxes...home, work, etc.
My question is whether others out there think this is a good software model? Personally I think it is. They have identified a genuine lack of service which they provide. They provide this service by building on open source technology, namely wine, and then provide a closed for profit products on top of this technology. The revenue generated by these products allow for greater development in the underlying tech (again namely wine) while still providing the desired service, the Windows plugin support.
Aside from the "well these plugins are free on windows, we shouldn't have to pay for a product that lets us use them in Linux" comments. Do people have anything else they'd like to say about the CrossOver plugins or their business model?
This doesn't mean that it was a good thing, or even that people really wanted it. They were just too afraid of life at the time and didn't understand the consequences.
I've heard a lot of people saying, "I don't care about crypto, face recognition, wire tapping, I have nothing to hide". Well, most Americans aren't criminals. And it's not an issue of hiding! In America we have a notion of freedom which we've fought for on many occasions. People don't realize the value, or at least have the appresiation yet for the freedom of privacy and judicial process.
The government already has the power to tap wires and intercept electronic messages. This authority is granted based on previously aquired information about criminal activities. This kind of invasion of privacy is generally accepted and IMHO doesn't need to be enhanced. The courts can already hold persons indefinatly for failure to turn over evidence (including crypto keys and PWs). What they don't need is the ability to intercept all E-mail, phone calls, etc, and then figure out if you've been naughty or nice later.
People say that this would curb crime. Well maybe, but so would martial law. Most people would agree that eliminating vandalism by detaining anyone that looks suspicious (by whatever that means) and shooting vandals on site is probably not the way to go, and not what America is all about. We could also equip every new car with a device that moniters speeding. Any time you are caught speeding by the system you're simply issued a ticket. This would probably get people's attention. And if all phone calls were tapped and you told your son, who was at a friends past dinner time, to get home or he wouldn't be able to sit for a week. A possibly idle threat, but which taken out of context or without inflection could send child welfare workers to your door or police to your place of business the next day. It's this kind of invasion that will hurt America in the name of security. Most innocent people will start to feel less secure due to the invasions perpetrated by the government.
Once gone freedoms are very hard to win back.
The possibility that the book could be then represented by the energy given off by the hole as it vanished might mean that given a snapshot of this energy pattern another black hole could recreate the book at another place in another time.
Sure it's all Sci-fi now, but this may be the next step into figuring out more about worm holes, new dimensions and the like. And only four more years to wait for this little toy to be built.
As the article mentioned. It would take so much energy just to create these small black holes that the odds of creating the earth sucking ones are statistically negligable. In other words we're not lucky enough to destory ourselves. :)
Now don't get me wrong, I love Linux, Open Source and the like as much as the next guy, however if I had money in HP or Compaq I'd sure hope they'd ditch some of these projects. Right now they need to concentrate on what will bring in the most money the fastest. That's PCs with Windows, peripherals and their scientific equipment (which has huge mark-ups). Supporting Linux at this time IMHO is not the best use of their limited resources. They need to have clear goals (one, maybe two things), and strive to meet them. Being big is not enough.
And speaking of big. A lot is being said about HP now being number 2 behind IBM. As much as people might hope that this makes HP a threat, I just don't think so. IBM has remained pretty strong over this past year. It has a many diverse products, most of which are doing fairly well. With the time it takes HP to work out all the details of this merger and get to facing those goals IBM will have been going strong for another 3-6 months. In the mean time it will be able to corner the Linux desktop market (another reason for HP to bail).
And all this is fine with IBM. IBM is happy to support Linux because it's a sound strategy. Linux works like their mainframe OSs (well much more so than Windows does). IBM develops a lot of software to run on their "big iron", but people and companies are moving away from big machines and onto smaller servers and work stations. For this Linux is a sound choice for IBM. They don't have to spend a lot of money to port their OS to a PC architecure, it's more or less been done for them. Any enhancements they might make to help their Apps can be made through Open Source projects. JFS, Java devel, kernel devel have all come out of IBM. Not because they're being nice, but because it helps their database or some other high price App. run better. This is very sound business and has worked very well for them. I'm sure they'll continue to support Linux, as well as produce desktop PCs that compete with HP. However they have a much more sound business model, they have much more money, and when it's all said and done, I don't think they have much to worry about from HP's latest merger.
Maybe the DOJ should just accuse MS of being a terrorist organization, bent on taking over the world. Apparently it's easier than taking them to court.
Sony should be careful here. While MIT doesn't want a conflict, their Jedi are more than capable of turning the Sony corporate offices into the world's largest VU Meter. And if that doesn't show them the light, how are they going to work without any offices.
Didn't their last station stay up longer than ours? And weren't they able to make some money off of it? Geez, NASA should be happy to have such a track record.
So while you're right. You may be able to find some music on Napster that isn't offered/offerable on some label's subscription service. Most of the music that people were getting will be available.
And then they need a delivery mechanism. Which is where services like Napster (and it's new subscription service), MP3.com and others come in. We're starting to see that companies that were successful at distributing music (and then sued into the ground) are now teaming up with the labels and acting as their distribution medium.
Well remember the vast amount of music found on Napster was, according to the labels, their unlicensed content. The labels' collective catalogs make up about 90% of all commercial music. If it suits their needs they'll digitize this content and make it available for a price. This is their plan. Whether they have a logical pricing model in mind is yet to be seen.