I'm not sure I understand your point...Steve Gibson made an observation about a new 'feature' that Vista will be sporting...is he wrong? If he's wrong, just say so. If he's right, then what's your problem?
I think people often mistake "not having been done before" with something that is original. The question I'd like to explore is, "How many considered it as a possible business model?" Best case, what we may very well have here is a model that has been considered by many, but popularized by a one. That's not exactly what I would consider "original". It's tantamount to trying out a musical style that doesn't go over so well during one time period, only to have it resurrected down the road at some point when it becomes wildly successful.
Vista is supposedly rewritten from scratch. That's fine, because the code now incorporates an awareness of security issues that weren't anticipated when the original codebase was developed...or so they say.
If you listen to Steve Gibson's latest Security Now podcast, he talks about the same mentality at work again - creating new 'features' that might be 'cool' to a technically-minded person, but will create nothing but headaches. The specific feature to which I am referring is Vista's purported ability to broadcast internal, non-routeable IPs, making them accessible from the outside. This completely eradicates NAT as a first (and very effective) layer of security for many people.
Issues like this aside, when code is rewritten, it introduces a whole new set of problems. Obviously, the objective is to minimize them, but I have a feeling that Vista users will experience some of the same kinds of pain they've already endured with XP.
Say what you want about Microsoft and its management techniques (and plenty of jokes are already around) but I think this is a good thing.
Are you serious? What Microsoft has is plenty of bloated bureaucracy, and it can get away with this because it has the money to pay for whatever cost this imposes on the purported reason it's in business. This is exactly what school systems don't have- lots of money to bury the cost of empire-building, corporate politics, etc. and continue on as though it's not even happening.
Did you ever wonder why a company with so many resources at its disposal has managed to produce very little that is uniquely innovative and useful?
Ah, but when you have patents or copyrights, you have, by definition, government intervention in the markets
Agreed. I do think *some* intervention might be worthwhile, but the problem is that *any* time the government gets involved to create a benefit for a certain class, that class gains a vested interest, and works to further that interest. Copyrights were initially very short- and ironically, this was when the cost of production and distribution were very high. Now thanks to various corporate interests and bought politicians, copyrights are obscenely long, but technological advancement have made the relative cost of production and distribution very low.
I've never seen a group willingly give up a government-granted benefit. There are only two possiblities: none, and more. Guess which one wins...
So people that say "Microsoft will get it right in the end." might just be on to something since microsoft HAS worked hard and HAS been addressing their critisism over the years.
Because they want to, or because they have to? Big difference here. I'd wager that the looming threat of open source has had a major impact in this area, and without it, we'd be looking at a very different scenario.
Capitalism is an increadible proccess optimizer. A competitive market's benifits overcome it's limitations by several orders of a magnitude.
This is true only when competition allowed to occur. The standard m.o. seems to be that existng monopolies do whatever they can to raise the barrier of entry for competing entities - either through protectionist legislation or other means. The latest blight on this landscape exists in the form of software patents, but there are others - for instance, the extension of the copyright.
"Out of business": that's where Reality 101 intersects with Free-market Econ 100.
People will cope alright. They'll cope right out your front door and leave you twisting in the wind. You sound like people HAVE to use Facebook. Feel free to have this epiphany: they DON'T.
Is there another word for someone who regularly perform an end-run around the constitutionally-established system of checks and balances? His actions illustrate a willful disregard and outright contempt for that he which he swore to uphold. Every time he attempts to justify his actions, all I hear is, "Oh yeah? Try and stop me."
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT. That's really all that matters. Either Facebook can listen to a little more than their market droids before making such lame changes, or face the consequences.
If states/counties are smart, they'll avoid Diebold like the plague and stick to the old voting systems until a virtually fool-proof system can be designed and built.
Until a virtually fool-proof, easily verifiable and open system can be built. There is no reason an e-voting system can't be open. There is no reason whatsover that it has to be proprietary. There is no reason whatsoever, that the government cannot stipulate, as a contractual term, that any and all software and hardware design MUST BE OPEN.
Any politician who entrusts a private, commercial entity with sole discretion (or any discretion) over voting and/or vote counting is quite clearly suffering from the myopic carelessness that comes from the prolonged exposure to a restrictive association between his head and his asshole.
But first I need contact my accountant and have him purchase some TMXO stock. I just have this gut feeling....I'm SURE it's going to skyrocket. No, really.
One might argue that this is more the result of crappy marketing tactics. I'd agree that many of these tactics have become 'accepted practice,' sleazy as they are, but perhaps seniors are the only ones willing to call a spade a spade- at least in the case of all the extre fees one might find attached to their cell phone bill.
I'm afraid that we're going to see many articles like this in the future, as people slowly discover RFID tags in things that didn't used to have them
Yes, and wasn't it not too long ago that companies like Wal-mart swore up and down that RFID was going to used *only* to track inventory? People shrugged, figured that it wouldn't be *too* bad if its use was limited to that. Now we're faced with the next logical outcome- something that was visible a mile away.
I'm sure governments and marketers can think of all manner of excuses to use this stuff. As for identifying a trash bin? Geez...ever hear of buying a cheap engraving tool and engraving some type of ID onto it in an inconspicuous place? I'd like to see an inexpensive consumer device that will identify the presence of RFID tags, and completely disable them.
In my opinion proprietary is bad and the GPL is bad, only completely unencombered government research is good.
There is no reason the GPL is bad. It allows far MORE freedom than a proprietary EULA. Given the choice, if anything, GPL is far LESS bad than proprietary.
What exactly should the government be doing? Waiting patiently for the next attack?
Geee, that's a tough one. Working within the Constitutionally-established boundaries, and with any limits imposed by existing laws, would be a good starting point. Do you believe that everyone who fought and died in order to maintain our freedom did so so that a rogue administration could toss it aside like yesterday's trash?
The mark of a true leader is to be able to take something less than optimal, and turn it around. That's far from what we've seen. Instead, Bush has not only taken control of the wheel, but has floored the petal, driving us straight over the edge of a fiscal and sociopolitical abyss from which may takes us years, if not decades to recover.
"It may be very hard for you to believe that our government and the largest defense contractor in the world [are] capable of such alarming incompetence and can make ethical compromises as glaring as what I am going to describe."
No. Not even close. I think it's quite obvious that they're capable of such alarming incompetence. Consider: Katrina. WMD/Iraq. 9/11. Diebold. No-bid contracts. Overbilling.
There's really not much more that needs to be said.
Are they really going to make a release that will resist to cracking more than 15 minutes? You all know both answers, however.
I hear they're shooting for 20 minutes this time. One step at a time.
There's something potentially better about youtube
on
Bob Saget 2.0
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm not sure I agree that it can be traced "back to" a TV show like AFV. That's like saying that because Christianity decries murder and adultery, that any system of morals that incorporate these same values, has its Christian roots. What we're talking about here is universal appeal: they are elements within our social makeup that inspire a natural interest.
However, the interesting thing about youtube is that with few exceptions, it is a relatively unfiltered medium. There is no marketing department behind the scenes deciding what it thinks you'll like. You pick the stuff you do find interesting, and ignore the stuff you don't. I would agree that it's a somewhat tedious process sometimes, but what's nice about the way that youtube is structured is that what started out as a dead end (something uninteresting), can sometimes lead you to something very worthwhile via the associated links that show up, or responses that people other members have posted.
My only gripe really is that I wish people would observe a bare minimum of what makes a watchable video - shooting in near-complete darkness isn't one of them, nor is movement that makes it look like the one holding the camera is having a grand mal seizure.
I have PDF and print versions of many technically references. The PDFs get opened first at which point the paper is usually only for browsing.
One thing to keep in mind with respect to PDF...since it is an electronic format, there are means available to enforce certain licensing restrictions...up to and including "phoning home" whenever the document is opened/read/whatever. I don't say this to deride the PDF format, because it has proven very useful. People should be aware, however, of the various ways that it can be used.
This whole thing is another example of Web 2.0 mania. What is it they are trying to do?
I get the impression that they're trying to short-circuit the process by attempting to *buy* user participation. There are, however, two sides to this equation. First, are those who post articles. The other half includes whose who actually *use* the site, and deem it worth their while to participate. I'd say the quality of user can have every bit as much influence on the overall success as the articles themselves. It became very tiring for example, wading through post after post on Digg complaining about duplicate submissions or whether or not a particular article was related to technology. Suffice it to say, at least for me, the articles themselves aren't enough for me to spend my time participating...if I don't see a level of quality in terms of what the community-at-large is willing to offer, I'll probably find something else to do with my time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I understand your point...Steve Gibson made an observation about a new 'feature' that Vista will be sporting...is he wrong? If he's wrong, just say so. If he's right, then what's your problem?
I think people often mistake "not having been done before" with something that is original. The question I'd like to explore is, "How many considered it as a possible business model?" Best case, what we may very well have here is a model that has been considered by many, but popularized by a one. That's not exactly what I would consider "original". It's tantamount to trying out a musical style that doesn't go over so well during one time period, only to have it resurrected down the road at some point when it becomes wildly successful.
Vista is supposedly rewritten from scratch. That's fine, because the code now incorporates an awareness of security issues that weren't anticipated when the original codebase was developed...or so they say.
If you listen to Steve Gibson's latest Security Now podcast, he talks about the same mentality at work again - creating new 'features' that might be 'cool' to a technically-minded person, but will create nothing but headaches. The specific feature to which I am referring is Vista's purported ability to broadcast internal, non-routeable IPs, making them accessible from the outside. This completely eradicates NAT as a first (and very effective) layer of security for many people.
Issues like this aside, when code is rewritten, it introduces a whole new set of problems. Obviously, the objective is to minimize them, but I have a feeling that Vista users will experience some of the same kinds of pain they've already endured with XP.
Say what you want about Microsoft and its management techniques (and plenty of jokes are already around) but I think this is a good thing.
Are you serious? What Microsoft has is plenty of bloated bureaucracy, and it can get away with this because it has the money to pay for whatever cost this imposes on the purported reason it's in business. This is exactly what school systems don't have- lots of money to bury the cost of empire-building, corporate politics, etc. and continue on as though it's not even happening.
Did you ever wonder why a company with so many resources at its disposal has managed to produce very little that is uniquely innovative and useful?
It's a "known issue" that results from an off-by-one error, and is scheduled to be fixed in the next update.
Ah, but when you have patents or copyrights, you have, by definition, government intervention in the markets
Agreed. I do think *some* intervention might be worthwhile, but the problem is that *any* time the government gets involved to create a benefit for a certain class, that class gains a vested interest, and works to further that interest. Copyrights were initially very short- and ironically, this was when the cost of production and distribution were very high. Now thanks to various corporate interests and bought politicians, copyrights are obscenely long, but technological advancement have made the relative cost of production and distribution very low.
I've never seen a group willingly give up a government-granted benefit. There are only two possiblities: none, and more. Guess which one wins...
So people that say "Microsoft will get it right in the end." might just be on to something since microsoft HAS worked hard and HAS been addressing their critisism over the years.
Because they want to, or because they have to? Big difference here. I'd wager that the looming threat of open source has had a major impact in this area, and without it, we'd be looking at a very different scenario.
Capitalism is an increadible proccess optimizer. A competitive market's benifits overcome it's limitations by several orders of a magnitude.
This is true only when competition allowed to occur. The standard m.o. seems to be that existng monopolies do whatever they can to raise the barrier of entry for competing entities - either through protectionist legislation or other means. The latest blight on this landscape exists in the form of software patents, but there are others - for instance, the extension of the copyright.
"Out of business": that's where Reality 101 intersects with Free-market Econ 100.
People will cope alright. They'll cope right out your front door and leave you twisting in the wind. You sound like people HAVE to use Facebook. Feel free to have this epiphany: they DON'T.
It is not that Bush is corrupt,
Is there another word for someone who regularly perform an end-run around the constitutionally-established system of checks and balances? His actions illustrate a willful disregard and outright contempt for that he which he swore to uphold. Every time he attempts to justify his actions, all I hear is, "Oh yeah? Try and stop me."
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT. That's really all that matters. Either Facebook can listen to a little more than their market droids before making such lame changes, or face the consequences.
If states/counties are smart, they'll avoid Diebold like the plague and stick to the old voting systems until a virtually fool-proof system can be designed and built.
Until a virtually fool-proof, easily verifiable and open system can be built. There is no reason an e-voting system can't be open. There is no reason whatsover that it has to be proprietary. There is no reason whatsoever, that the government cannot stipulate, as a contractual term, that any and all software and hardware design MUST BE OPEN.
Any politician who entrusts a private, commercial entity with sole discretion (or any discretion) over voting and/or vote counting is quite clearly suffering from the myopic carelessness that comes from the prolonged exposure to a restrictive association between his head and his asshole.
But first I need contact my accountant and have him purchase some TMXO stock. I just have this gut feeling....I'm SURE it's going to skyrocket. No, really.
One might argue that this is more the result of crappy marketing tactics. I'd agree that many of these tactics have become 'accepted practice,' sleazy as they are, but perhaps seniors are the only ones willing to call a spade a spade- at least in the case of all the extre fees one might find attached to their cell phone bill.
I'm not as worried about the thieves as I am about the government.
I'm afraid that we're going to see many articles like this in the future, as people slowly discover RFID tags in things that didn't used to have them
Yes, and wasn't it not too long ago that companies like Wal-mart swore up and down that RFID was going to used *only* to track inventory? People shrugged, figured that it wouldn't be *too* bad if its use was limited to that. Now we're faced with the next logical outcome- something that was visible a mile away.
I'm sure governments and marketers can think of all manner of excuses to use this stuff. As for identifying a trash bin? Geez...ever hear of buying a cheap engraving tool and engraving some type of ID onto it in an inconspicuous place? I'd like to see an inexpensive consumer device that will identify the presence of RFID tags, and completely disable them.
In my opinion proprietary is bad and the GPL is bad, only completely unencombered government research is good.
There is no reason the GPL is bad. It allows far MORE freedom than a proprietary EULA. Given the choice, if anything, GPL is far LESS bad than proprietary.
What exactly should the government be doing? Waiting patiently for the next attack?
Geee, that's a tough one. Working within the Constitutionally-established boundaries, and with any limits imposed by existing laws, would be a good starting point. Do you believe that everyone who fought and died in order to maintain our freedom did so so that a rogue administration could toss it aside like yesterday's trash?
The mark of a true leader is to be able to take something less than optimal, and turn it around. That's far from what we've seen. Instead, Bush has not only taken control of the wheel, but has floored the petal, driving us straight over the edge of a fiscal and sociopolitical abyss from which may takes us years, if not decades to recover.
"It may be very hard for you to believe that our government and the largest defense contractor in the world [are] capable of such alarming incompetence and can make ethical compromises as glaring as what I am going to describe."
No. Not even close. I think it's quite obvious that they're capable of such alarming incompetence. Consider: Katrina. WMD/Iraq. 9/11. Diebold. No-bid contracts. Overbilling.
There's really not much more that needs to be said.
Are they really going to make a release that will resist to cracking more than 15 minutes?
You all know both answers, however.
I hear they're shooting for 20 minutes this time. One step at a time.
I'm not sure I agree that it can be traced "back to" a TV show like AFV. That's like saying that because Christianity decries murder and adultery, that any system of morals that incorporate these same values, has its Christian roots. What we're talking about here is universal appeal: they are elements within our social makeup that inspire a natural interest.
However, the interesting thing about youtube is that with few exceptions, it is a relatively unfiltered medium. There is no marketing department behind the scenes deciding what it thinks you'll like. You pick the stuff you do find interesting, and ignore the stuff you don't. I would agree that it's a somewhat tedious process sometimes, but what's nice about the way that youtube is structured is that what started out as a dead end (something uninteresting), can sometimes lead you to something very worthwhile via the associated links that show up, or responses that people other members have posted.
My only gripe really is that I wish people would observe a bare minimum of what makes a watchable video - shooting in near-complete darkness isn't one of them, nor is movement that makes it look like the one holding the camera is having a grand mal seizure.
I have PDF and print versions of many technically references. The PDFs get opened first at which point the paper is usually only for browsing.
One thing to keep in mind with respect to PDF...since it is an electronic format, there are means available to enforce certain licensing restrictions...up to and including "phoning home" whenever the document is opened/read/whatever. I don't say this to deride the PDF format, because it has proven very useful. People should be aware, however, of the various ways that it can be used.
The bit I found perplexing was that this chap was a hard core Christian
I wonder if he still is....
And no, he didn't make it to a lavatory in time.
I mean, wouldn't you be praying for a miracle in a situation like that?
This whole thing is another example of Web 2.0 mania. What is it they are trying to do?
I get the impression that they're trying to short-circuit the process by attempting to *buy* user participation. There are, however, two sides to this equation. First, are those who post articles. The other half includes whose who actually *use* the site, and deem it worth their while to participate. I'd say the quality of user can have every bit as much influence on the overall success as the articles themselves. It became very tiring for example, wading through post after post on Digg complaining about duplicate submissions or whether or not a particular article was related to technology. Suffice it to say, at least for me, the articles themselves aren't enough for me to spend my time participating...if I don't see a level of quality in terms of what the community-at-large is willing to offer, I'll probably find something else to do with my time.