Both Free Software and Open Source advocates agree that if you can't use the software for whatever you want, including a for-profit business, then its not Free/Open Source.
So Microsoft is up to its old tricks, trying to kill Free software since they can't Embrace and Extend (and Extinguish) it. The only difference is that now it's trying to make a faux-Free clone to kill it with.
If Bruce were giving his speech in the US rather than Australia, the TSA (Theater Security Agency) would get prominent mention.
So much of what they do, from checking IDs (ever seen an ID that says "Terrorist"?) to carry-on bag screening (violating privacy while missing guns and weapons) is pure theater. It provides the appearance of security, but not the reality.
The real problem is that the payoff for helium extraction is years in the future, after the government stockpile is gone, but the costs of that extraction are in the present.
When the stockpile dwindles and the price of helium goes up, I guarantee extraction will take place.
1. Carry a passport and use that as ID. For almost any purpose that does not require proof of authorization to drive or proof of address, that should suffice.
2. When you show your passport or ID in a bar or restaurant to prove your age, keep a hold on it! Don't let it out of your hand, let alone your sight.
How do you propose to get Class B hoarders (to say nothing of Class A hoarders who got their blocks in the 80s and early 90s) to turn loose of them? Other threads have talked about lawsuits being necessary. What do you know that they don't?
In any case, there is no incentive for government, business or anyone else to adopt IPv6 unless and until it costs them to get IPv4 addresses. ARIN and the other RIRs need to announce *now* that by, say, 2009, they will start charging for IPv4 address allocations. Then you'll see IPv6 take off. If the RIRs don't start charging, then in 2010 or thereabouts they will run out of space and IPv4 users will have to go to those address hoarders who most definitely will charge them. And the result will be a LOT more chaotic for the Internet.
It is absolutely correct that in order to combat identity theft effectively, information sharing must be opt-in. In fact, even to report your information to a credit reporting agency, you should have to explicitly authorize such reporting.
Of course, the credit bureaus and other data brokers who make money off your data would scream and holler. They would decry how "credit reporting is a benefit -- it lets you get credit easily and cheaply." Funny thing though -- you cannot refuse this "benefit".
Microsoft is backing away from their odious preferential cross-licensing deal with Novell, at least with respect to GPLv3 code. You can argue that's not a win, because no source code was/will be released, but I bet Richard Stallman would disagree.
This is pure FUD!! This article says nothing about any software other than Linux. THere is nothing about any of the BSDs.
Given that actually attacking Linux is equivalent to attacking IBM, it's clear that Microsoft's objective is merely to spread FUD and scare away corporate users from Linux. Microsoft is not dumb enough (unlike Caldera/SCO) to take IBM to court, who have deep enough pockets to fight it out legally.
Microsoft is scared of Linux, as it is not scared of the BSDs, because the GNU GPL keps Linux from being absorbed and co-opted (otherwise known as "Embrace and Extend") by Microsoft.
Jason H. Fisher, an attorney at Los Angeles law firm Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger, said the biggest obstacles to fixing the Domain Name System are its international nature and the reluctance of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to take action. Fisher said ICANN "would rather do nothing than make waves."
As long as we've had broadband ISPs we've had net non-neutrality, called "tiers of service". Cringely already knows this, since he pays for commercial grade service. You pay more money, you get (at least in theory) a better grade of service.
What we don't know is exactly *how* the ISPs implement it. Bandwidth speeds alone don't tell the story, since they're theoretical in any case.
For any given grade of service, the ISPs should disclose any and all filtering, prioritization, "shaping" etc -- any treatment of packets that is different from the norm. If your ISP gives priority to its VoIP service, commercial customers, etc, that needs to be disclosed. Any filters intended to slow down P2P or Vonage, that should be disclosed. If they give preferential treatment traffic originating from certain sites for a fee or for any reason (Yahoo gets better access than Google because Yahoo pays), that absolutely should be disclosed.
Somewhere on their websites, referenced from their terms of service and available to the public, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner et al need to fully disclose all their shaping. This should be achievable with much less regulatory effort than trying to define "net neutrality" which never really existed. Then consumers could make informed choices between providers.
And then Cringely can stop whining about his fax:-)
"I need to see my attorney. Sorry, but I'm legally obligated not to discuss this with anyone else.
"Not that this has anything to do with why I'm seeing an attorney, but pepople who get those National Security Letters from the FBI can't discuss them with anyone..."
Dvorak's comments on user intellgence are highly debatable, but his technical point is that WiFi is delivering now, for free, faster speeds than cell is, for $60-$70/month, is completely accurate.
Why woudn't they try to spread FUD, lean on cities not to implement citywide WiFi, and anything else they can, to kill this business threat?
The technology to do this one way or another has been around for years, at least since David Chaum's blinded signatures and e-cash. The problem is getting it to be marketable.
There are 2 hurdles to this product:
1. Digital certificates of any kind are hard to get Joe average user to understand and adopt. How many people use PGP style email encryption, let alone user SSL certificates?
2. More seriously, how many online business are willing, not only not to collect customer data, but to go to sigificant expense to avoid collecting customer data?
Since customer data is generally viewed as having value to businesses, you are in effect asking business to spend money to make less money. That just won't happen, unless customers demand it. And I don't see that happening anytime soon (see #1 above).
it would have been much better if the Greens had provided more technical details than laying on the leftist rants. I doubt if many on Slashdot need to be convinced that DRM is bad, but to a lot of suits in the corporate world, this doesn't help convince them.
An even better idea is to use a money order, and no return address. That way, all the snoops have is a userid, and the IP addresses associated with that userid over the last 7 days.
If the envelope is saved, they have a postmark. If a copy of the MO is saved, they have whatever fake name you signed the MO with, and the location of the post office, bank or grocery store you bought it from. Those items are of marginal usefulness to an investigator, and in any case it is highly unlikely the MO or envelope would be saved.
So the ability to use an MO is practically equivalent to a free, anonymous userid. You could theoretically purchase multiple userids and rotate between them if you were paranoid enough, and if the cost per userid were low enough.
parties other than the US Department of Justice could enforce it.
At the very least, the 18 State Attorneys General who were the original co-plaintiffs should be able to sue for enforcement. Ideally other parties should be able to do likewise (with reasonable provisions to discourage frivolous suits). Enforcement shouldn't be left to the US DOJ.
But then, the settlement would actually have teeth in it. The Redmond Borg would never agree to anything but a toothless settlement.
but not for Office. Windows is the core product upon which the Microsoft monopoly, and therefore their huge profits, depend. The presence of niche products such as Office for the Mac doesn't change that. If Lindows threatens the Windows market lock, Office will cease to run on it. Microsoft would happily sacrifice Office profits to maintain its monopoly. They might even give it away -- look at how they give away MSIE!
In other words, Windows is a delivery system for money.
I think Cringely's actual comments are true enough:
Broadband IS dead, or certainly dying. By this, I mean that the industry for providing homes and individual users with Internet access at speeds in excess of 500 kilobits-per-second is not generally viable, and the current players in that business are likely to decline over time.
But that's not "dead" or even "dying". I'll believe "dead" when Comcast turns off my Internet service.
Cringely may have good insights but he needs to lose the sensational headlines.
Slashdot Mirror
Inconvenient how? I use gift cards all the time at Amazon and other online stores. They work great.
You do have to track the balances but you have to do that anyway with a checking account.
The only real problem is that you can't usually find gift cards for more than $100, so you can't buy big ticket items using them.
Then its not Free Software.
Both Free Software and Open Source advocates agree that if you can't use the software for whatever you want, including a for-profit business, then its not Free/Open Source.
So Microsoft is up to its old tricks, trying to kill Free software since they can't Embrace and Extend (and Extinguish) it. The only difference is that now it's trying to make a faux-Free clone to kill it with.
If Bruce were giving his speech in the US rather than Australia, the TSA (Theater Security Agency) would get prominent mention.
So much of what they do, from checking IDs (ever seen an ID that says "Terrorist"?) to carry-on bag screening (violating privacy while missing guns and weapons) is pure theater. It provides the appearance of security, but not the reality.
The real problem is that the payoff for helium extraction is years in the future, after the government stockpile is gone, but the costs of that extraction are in the present.
When the stockpile dwindles and the price of helium goes up, I guarantee extraction will take place.
Once again, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" wins.
I knew I never should have thrown out my 70s LPs.
:-)
Except of course for The Knack
Great. File a lawsuit.
Or, better yet, make your case the next time you try to board a plane.
Let us know how that works out for you.
1. Carry a passport and use that as ID. For almost any purpose that does not require proof of authorization to drive or proof of address, that should suffice.
2. When you show your passport or ID in a bar or restaurant to prove your age, keep a hold on it! Don't let it out of your hand, let alone your sight.
How do you propose to get Class B hoarders (to say nothing of Class A hoarders who got their blocks in the 80s and early 90s) to turn loose of them? Other threads have talked about lawsuits being necessary. What do you know that they don't?
In any case, there is no incentive for government, business or anyone else to adopt IPv6 unless and until it costs them to get IPv4 addresses. ARIN and the other RIRs need to announce *now* that by, say, 2009, they will start charging for IPv4 address allocations. Then you'll see IPv6 take off. If the RIRs don't start charging, then in 2010 or thereabouts they will run out of space and IPv4 users will have to go to those address hoarders who most definitely will charge them. And the result will be a LOT more chaotic for the Internet.
It is absolutely correct that in order to combat identity theft effectively, information sharing must be opt-in. In fact, even to report your information to a credit reporting agency, you should have to explicitly authorize such reporting.
Of course, the credit bureaus and other data brokers who make money off your data would scream and holler. They would decry how "credit reporting is a benefit -- it lets you get credit easily and cheaply." Funny thing though -- you cannot refuse this "benefit".
Microsoft is backing away from their odious preferential cross-licensing deal with Novell, at least with respect to GPLv3 code. You can argue that's not a win, because no source code was/will be released, but I bet Richard Stallman would disagree.
when the White House is occupied by a Democrat.
This is pure FUD!! This article says nothing about any software other than Linux. THere is nothing about any of the BSDs.
Given that actually attacking Linux is equivalent to attacking IBM, it's clear that Microsoft's objective is merely to spread FUD and scare away corporate users from Linux. Microsoft is not dumb enough (unlike Caldera/SCO) to take IBM to court, who have deep enough pockets to fight it out legally.
Microsoft is scared of Linux, as it is not scared of the BSDs, because the GNU GPL keps Linux from being absorbed and co-opted (otherwise known as "Embrace and Extend") by Microsoft.
Jason H. Fisher, an attorney at Los Angeles law firm Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger, said the biggest obstacles to fixing the Domain Name System are its international nature and the reluctance of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to take action. Fisher said ICANN "would rather do nothing than make waves."
If ICANN doesn't take action, who will? Who can?
As long as we've had broadband ISPs we've had net non-neutrality, called "tiers of service". Cringely already knows this, since he pays for commercial grade service. You pay more money, you get (at least in theory) a better grade of service.
:-)
What we don't know is exactly *how* the ISPs implement it. Bandwidth speeds alone don't tell the story, since they're theoretical in any case.
For any given grade of service, the ISPs should disclose any and all filtering, prioritization, "shaping" etc -- any treatment of packets that is different from the norm. If your ISP gives priority to its VoIP service, commercial customers, etc, that needs to be disclosed. Any filters intended to slow down P2P or Vonage, that should be disclosed. If they give preferential treatment traffic originating from certain sites for a fee or for any reason (Yahoo gets better access than Google because Yahoo pays), that absolutely should be disclosed.
Somewhere on their websites, referenced from their terms of service and available to the public, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner et al need to fully disclose all their shaping. This should be achievable with much less regulatory effort than trying to define "net neutrality" which never really existed. Then consumers could make informed choices between providers.
And then Cringely can stop whining about his fax
And this is a big deal on Slashdot because ?
(Sound of crickets chirping)
"I need to see my attorney. Sorry, but I'm legally obligated not to discuss this with anyone else.
"Not that this has anything to do with why I'm seeing an attorney, but pepople who get those National Security Letters from the FBI can't discuss them with anyone..."
Getting legal advice from Wikipedia is a bad idea.
Getting legal advice from Wikipedia on a matter that can get you thrown in jail is a very bad idea.
I have no doubt they would.
Dvorak's comments on user intellgence are highly debatable, but his technical point is that WiFi is delivering now, for free, faster speeds than cell is, for $60-$70/month, is completely accurate.
Why woudn't they try to spread FUD, lean on cities not to implement citywide WiFi, and anything else they can, to kill this business threat?
otherwise MS would actually name the patents, so Open-Source projects would avaoid them, and so Open-Source users would be confident of their status.
But confidence in Opoen-Source is exactly what MS doesn't want.
The technology to do this one way or another has been around for years, at least since David Chaum's blinded signatures and e-cash. The problem is getting it to be marketable.
There are 2 hurdles to this product:
1. Digital certificates of any kind are hard to get Joe average user to understand and adopt. How many people use PGP style email encryption, let alone user SSL certificates?
2. More seriously, how many online business are willing, not only not to collect customer data, but to go to sigificant expense to avoid collecting customer data?
Since customer data is generally viewed as having value to businesses, you are in effect asking business to spend money to make less money. That just won't happen, unless customers demand it. And I don't see that happening anytime soon (see #1 above).
it would have been much better if the Greens had provided more technical details than laying on the leftist rants. I doubt if many on Slashdot need to be convinced that DRM is bad, but to a lot of suits in the corporate world, this doesn't help convince them.
If the envelope is saved, they have a postmark. If a copy of the MO is saved, they have whatever fake name you signed the MO with, and the location of the post office, bank or grocery store you bought it from. Those items are of marginal usefulness to an investigator, and in any case it is highly unlikely the MO or envelope would be saved.
So the ability to use an MO is practically equivalent to a free, anonymous userid. You could theoretically purchase multiple userids and rotate between them if you were paranoid enough, and if the cost per userid were low enough.
At the very least, the 18 State Attorneys General who were the original co-plaintiffs should be able to sue for enforcement. Ideally other parties should be able to do likewise (with reasonable provisions to discourage frivolous suits). Enforcement shouldn't be left to the US DOJ.
But then, the settlement would actually have teeth in it. The Redmond Borg would never agree to anything but a toothless settlement.
In other words, Windows is a delivery system for money.
Broadband IS dead, or certainly dying. By this, I mean that the industry for providing homes and individual users with Internet access at speeds in excess of 500 kilobits-per-second is not generally viable, and the current players in that business are likely to decline over time.
But that's not "dead" or even "dying". I'll believe "dead" when Comcast turns off my Internet service.
Cringely may have good insights but he needs to lose the sensational headlines.