Ok first off, this is just a claim. One that is absolutely unverified. You tell me, why would they be so quiet about this thing? Why make a claim about being able to crack RSA, but not actually do it? Why crack RSA? There are so many larger things they could do which would garner more attention.
Secondly, this is just a claim, a second hand one at that. They never even stated that they "HAVE" cracked RSA, they said they could.
The word "could" can be interpreted many different ways. Could can be: They've created a working proof of concept, and this technology could crack RSA, they think, in X microseconds (2 billion dollars and 10 years later). And a few thousand variations thereof.
This whole story, or atleast the way its being interpreted just doesn't compute. So I repeat, I'll believe it when I see it. Care to wager that they won't have a single 512bit RSA actually cracked within a year with this technology (let alone in X seconds)?
Capitalism works for more reasons than pure greed. One of the more important reasons is because things are de-centralized. That is a subtle, but significant detail. Communism/Socialism assume that resources can be efficiently allocated with central planning. Central planning simply doesn't work. This has been shown a thousand times over, in a thousand different ways.
In other words, even if your socialist country was populated by cloned Mother Teresas; it still won't work.
I don't see the current problems in software as market failure at all. The problem is that users haven't been demanding quality software, instead they've been purchasing software on pointless features, eyecandy, techiness, "compatibility", etc etc etc. Perhaps this is failure in a sense, in that people don't always know (or do) what is best for them. However, I'd far rather have a system which experiences a little bit of turbelence than an unwieldy impersonal bureaucracy (even if they don't ultimately crash).
I mostly agree with this article, however I think the industry will stabilize. I believe that more and more software/hw purchasers are starting to realize just how buggy software is. The market is going to mature, it is just a matter of time. When enough people get hurt in sufficient proportions, things must change. Its simply a function of the market; consumers haven't been demanding quality software. When they do, software will rise to meet those demands.
I think that the recent press attention given to Linux and other open source efforts is one of the first signs of movement. Most people couldn't care a less about "free" software, what they're looking for is more reliable, yet functional software. The linux community is starting to provide sufficient functionality where most people can consider it. However, this does not mean that Open Source must (or will) supplant commercial software. Just that the Open Source community offers the first enduring choice, commercial companies are going to turn around. They might adopt psuedo open source solutions (eg: Sun's recent licenses), but effective quality assurance and simplicity can stop most all of these bugs.
The relationship between the US gov't and the Israeli gov't isn't that black and white. Its more complex than that. I certainly wouldn't count on the Israelis to willingly share the technology with the US unless they NEEDED the US gov't to develop this thing.
Also, according to the article this machine is just theory, a working model has yet to have been built. I wouldn't be the least bit suprised of US firms are well ahead of them.
One thing many people fail to realize is that there is more money in the consumer market than there is government. So baring any government regulations preventing them from disclosing or patenting this technology, or cost issues (eg: such a machine can only be built for ~500K minimum); an astute person would approach the private sector first.
You can use the trademark I know, but can you say your product includes the trademarked name? Like Joe Schmoe's gas station can't say it uses Techron (tm) fuel, can it? They own the rights to commercial use of the name, or something to that effect.
To parade examples of 'free', or nominally cheaper, MS software up as evidence that MS is not a monopolist is just plain silly. A monopolist in MS's position clearly has probable reasons for 'dumping' software. eg: netscape+java can clearly marginalize MS's entire platform -- thus they kill it before it hurts them.
Futhermore, It is extremely difficult to argue that MS software has satisfied consumer demand any better since, lets say the first release of Windows95(personally, since MS-DOS). Most all of their costs are fixed and upfront, meaning prices SHOULD be going down since they can lower them (in a competitive market). But they don't have any serious competition, so they don't have to. How any rational and supposedly educated individual can look at MS's profit margins -- for the amount of time they've had them, in as many areas as they do, without dramatic and constant improvements -- and come to any conclusion other than the fact that they're essentially a monopoly, will never fail to amaze me.
(Not to mention the fact that I personally know people who've been all but steamrolled by them)
I'm sorry, but the only real test that is difficult to attack is real world productivity, not what you can rig up under controlled settings. Ignoring all the economic issues (eg: marginal cost of retraining vs marginal benefit of DVORAK), who are the fastest typers. Granted one can argue that QWERTY has always and will always have a larger pool to draw from; however, I think the words "Put up, or shutup" work here. If DVORAK can neither produce the fastest typers, nor average the faster typers....then forget it.
I can understand how difficult it is to find experts if you're not familiar with the field, especially in hacking. However, I think it is safer not to purport someone as an 'expert' if you're really not sure. The motivation of the press in this case is clearly to make an attractive story first, and to worry about the accuracy second (if possible).
While the press may not know who the experts are, I think some application of common sense and experience can derive the truth for the most part. The press cerrtainly could have done a better job investigating JPs credentials. His story simply doesn't compute. Futhermore, if you talk to virtually any sysadmin or ex-hacker(whitehat) familiar with the art that is worth his salt, they'll tell you JP is a joke.
I, for one, happen to have known JP since his early days on undernet (IRC) in #cha0s and #hack*. About two years ago I spoke with Javes Glave of wired magazine on IRC, I gave the run down (my opinion) on both Analyzer (the stupid israeli hacker) and JP. Whie I can't argue that he lied per se, he should have known better. He published JP as if it were the gospel, and published only snippets of my comments which served to give his story a little spice.
JP has nothing in the way of technical skills, any examination of will reveal this. At most one could argue that he is 'connected' to the hacker scene. In reality, JP is just a media conduit for the latest script kiddy who _wishes_ a little media play. The problem is that JP doesn't just relay; he distorts everything in a self-serving fashion.
a) Linus wrote the Linux kernel, he hasn't lifted a finger towards marketing it. Perhaps you might argue he enabled others (eg: Redhat, etc) to pursue such a model....
b) The whole Open Source business model is far from proven in my mind. We only have one significant company to point to, and that is Redhat software. While I like Redhat and would love to see them succeed; lets be realistic here. Redhat is a startup company, which isn't even profitable yet. Their current revenues are NOT coming from the much hyped "support" model, but rather from selling shrink wrapped CDs. What they're essentially selling is convenience. There "convenience" sales are not insignificant, but I have my doubts as to weather that will hold out. Futhermore, RedHat hasn't produced all that much in terms of code (not that I fault them in the least). They simply didn't have the resources and most of the work is/was done the the community.
Oh sure, you see blatant drug dealing, hustling, etc going on. But that doesn't mean that they're getting away with it per se. Most of them are professional loosers who spend a quarter of their adult life in jail. I wouldn't call this success and they're not fooling anyone.
Futhermore, drug dealing isn't as profitable as it is made out to be. Most of these street hustlers are just part of the chain, the bottom end distributors, and they live very day to day. You'd be better off trying to smuggle freon car A/C units -- its more profitable and lower risk.
This is a frivolous law suit, if I've ever seen one. And RICO, wtf. This is a law designed for the mafia. It also allows those injured by the crimes to sue for treble (3x) damages. Hmmm, I wonder what the motivation here is.
Even if you assume it was Nintendo's objective to get these kids 'hooked', whatever happened to parental responsibility? And what I really want to know is, why do kids in 4th grade have "thousands" of dollars to blow. When I was a kid I certainly had nothing near this, and it certainly wasn't for want of money.
The NSA's budget is huge, in the billions, and all they do is break and develop encryption. While part of that budget may go to developing intellectual capabilities, it would be very difficult to do modern cryptanalysis on such large scale without some very sophisticated hardware.
Their proximity to the NSA probably has more to do with being able to take advantage of their years of experience.
I personally don't think much of these security issues. Granted, if you're on a dialup your IP# does change, normally. However, many a dialup user also sit on IRC, ICQ, Aol Instant Messanger, Yahoo, you name it. Many of these services will give out the ip# of the user. Futhermore, many ISPs have fingerable POPs, shell accounts, mail servers will tell you the name of the sending user. The point is that you really can't hide on the internet. I've written trivial programs to try these methods, find out when the user is online, and brute force their netbios fileshares.
I think its foolish to depend on, or expect, any plain text internet traffic to be secure. I don't care what kind of connection you have, but you simply can't be sure that no way along your path that there is no one packet sniffing. But in regards to sniffing security, most of these cable modems do a pretty good job of filtering packets not intended for you. It would take a pretty capable person to modify the hardware such that they could see. Now sure, eventually you might see modchips or whatever which allow people to send and recieve whatever they want. But there are many kinds of cable modems out there, and it still wouldn't be that trivial to install it. This is a significant barrier. Otherwise, most of these cable modem companies have some pretty competent security people. Its not so likely that their servers are going to get hacked. Compare this to using one of these small time dialup ISPs, many of them are hacked and sniffed repeatedly. Not to mention line tapping. If someone of means really wants to target you, they can easily just tap your POTS line. Its not that complex, and its virtually impossible to detect if properly done.
While the full time high speed connectivity might increase your exposure, I think that you're better off putting a little effort into security on such a connection--than being on a classic dialup and not concerning yourself with it (as most do now).
I don't think this has much to do with capitalism, other then the fact that capitalism has enabled these technologies to come forth (even in they're partially functional overhyped state). The media, mainstream politicans, and educators have gotten a scent of this whole internet concept, or notion rather. The reason I say 'notion', is because this is really all it is. They're not clammoring for product A, but rather they figure that this is a hot social issue and rallying for it can make or break their campaign. Those who think all this technology is going to revolutionize learning: A) Don't understand education. B) Don't even know what today's internet actually has to offer (or rather doesn't) C) Don't know what technology is and is not capable of.
Firstly, Today's internet doesn't offer all that much in terms of research data. Unless you're talking about something which is likely to be a hot internet topic, you'll find your time is far better spent at a decent library. Secondly, even if you assume that all these great books and papers are put online, this isn't going to solve the problem of getting students to actually read and understand what they're presented with. I think time will show, that in inner cities schools, those schools which recieve hi-tech computer labs do no better.....
well forget it, I'm too tired to go on. Maybe tomorrow:)
I tire of all these people, primarily those least familiar with computers, telling everyone that we must: put classrooms online, build advanced media facilities, put everyone online, etc etc -- or be lost in the information age. People such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore like nothing more than to go to these poor neighborhoods, and promise 'a computer in every classroom'. I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Sure, everything being equal, they should be online. But these are kids in neighborhoods who are functionally illiterate, and have been for a long time. No amount of technology is going to fix this. These problems aren't new. Until they learn to read and write decently they'll never get anywhere.
Infact, i'd go as far to say that those with more traditional education are _better_ equipped to handle technology than those of today's hi-tech classrooms. The problem is that in all these hi-tech classrooms, basic staples of learning are lost. Students of today might grasp today's technology: Windows95, Netscape, Office97, and what not. However, its a very superficial knowledge. They don't know, nor are they expected to, how these devices operate on a more basic level. Its basically a black box to them. What happens when you change the box a little? They're absolutely lost. This type of learning simply doesn't work. Meanwhile, they're losing sight of the ball. Which is to teach students how to learn.
Those that aren't are, for the most part, either a BSD variant or Solaris 2.5+. There are many valid reasons why Linux doesn't have the same server share. I think Dvorak is intentionally inflamatory.
McCarthy and the Salem witch trials occured long after the middle ages. While McCarthy may have gone overboard, there is more and more evidence coming to light these days that show the extent of KGB efforts to corrupt and attack all aspects of american life. I, for one, don't think that it was the least bit insignificant.
That being said, I knew JP back when he was trying to be a 'hax0r' and a packet pixie in #cha0s. He was, and always will be, a jerkoff. His biggest coup for antionline was the whole 'Analyzer' escapade. JP's ignorance was blinding. I remember once, a friend of mine was talking to him, while JP was apparently conversing with Analyzer on IRC. JP told my friend that the FBI would _never_ catch Analyzer, because Analyzer 'bounced' his connection 30+ times. When JP was asked how he knew this, he said something to the effect of 'simple, I did a tracert'. heheh. And this guy gives security advice? I'm not sure if I want to laugh or cry for the poor sheep who take him (other others like him) seriously.
PS: Analyzer was indicted and is pleading innocent, saying that what he did was not a crime, because there weren't any signs up telling him that he couldn't. I assume he's referring to the motd. But all i want to know is where does one fit a warning message into the rpc protocol?
While I myself have never filed a patent, I do know some people well who are extremely familiar with it (as engineers and entreprenuers). According to them, getting the patent through the patent office is easy, and has always been. Making it stand up in court is a different issue.
This is not to say that there isn't any room for improvement. Or even that USPTO reviewers aren't really qualified to review many applications. But rather, the patent system has served us pretty well despite its flaws. The flawed system is certainly better than no patent system at all. Of this I am absolutely convinced.
That being said, however. The nature of patent fillings, the number of, the type of individuals/corporations filing for patents is changing rapidly. It is not so much that the patent office is changing, as it is that the internet (and a couple other choice industries) are creating new patent 'markets', if you will. The percieved barriers to entry are lower, and thus more people who are inexperienced with the patent office are bumping against it. These internet patents might prove to be a stumbling block for those providing certain services or developing internet content. As the internet tends require less capital to make a presence than previous ventures did. These individuals who don't even have the status of a startup company, may find it difficult to defend against a frivolous law suit. Likewise, individuals are also finding more things they can patent as the internet 'innovation' is more tangible for the average user, than say a patent on some complex piece of engineering. The combination of unsophisticated users on both ends is creating this friction.
I do think that most of these 'internet patents' are silly, as there was no investment, no risk, no real skill involved in bringing these 'innovations' into fruition (if they even indeed brought them about). However, I don't think the internet is as big of a thing as people make it out to be. It's still but a small sliver of our GNP. Nor are these issues as traumatic or earth shattering as many on/. make them out to be.
Hello, I'm debating with a friend of mine exactly how GD-ROM has accomplished its increased data space over CD-ROM. Does anyone here actually know for a fact what wavelength it uses for example? My friend assumes its blue, but I don't think that's neccessary. As standard CD-ROMs aren't at maximum efficiency, and its not using the minimal red wavelength.
It looks to me like Corel may have bigger objectives than just merely making a new linux distro. I think, or atleast I hope, they want to make a complete replacement for the windows environment for the business user. If you look at their netwinder actions, products such as Word perfect for linux, and corel for linux, they're in the best position to do the following:
Create an entire cheaper and most cost effective replacement for Windows in the business environment. It would have to be:
a) Cheaper software costs.
b) Fewer hardware upgrade requirements. Since you dont have any frills, you don't need to upgrade your system every 2 years to run up to date software. Ideally the entire per desktop cost would be like 700 dollars. Use an E machine, or some other sort of non-Wintel system.
c) Actually easier to use than Windows. Don't worry about the frills and the eye candy. Just make a platform that gets the job done well. Support the most common feature set used by most business. Make an office suite that actually does what it claims, such as working intergration between the spreadsheet program and the word processor.
There are a great deal of hidden costs associated with the entire Windows environment. While it may appear to be easier to use, most users who have any substancial work to do with it find it very troublesome. I know many business people who easily spend 4 hours a week just trying to work around various bugs in MS products. This is the biggest MS cost.
d) More stable and easier to support. The organization providing the support would first target larger organizations, and sell strong support. Focus on network oriented systems for easier installation and upgrades. Create or atleast modify the OS, GUI, and Apps with that job in mind from day 1. Allow for visual configurations, but also have a real command line interface (like linux) which provides meaningfull debug messages, and can be worked around without any of the crap you see with Microsoft products. Like having to check multiple boxes which all do the exact same thing, but still require all to be checked off.
If done properly, such a system could be hugely successfull. The great part about it is that it would be hard for Microsoft to crush it, as the entire method of doing business is so alien to them. Even if Microsoft decided to make WindowsXX and OfficeXXX free, they still would have a very hard time making it go away. As the costs have less to do with direct software costs, than the associated things that come with buggy MS software. While I realize that most corporate lackies might be afraid to stray from the rest of the flock, there are still enough organizations out there which would be willing to take a 'risk', even though its most the safer path. Once you sink your teeth into the corporate market, I believe the savings and the success would speak for themselves.
The only problem i have with Corel is that they're no IBM. While I believe that they may have the resources to create all the software, they don't have the clout or the large organization to cover large regions rapidly. What they'd really need to do, is create the entire software package, then demo it and convince someone at IBM to go with them on the venture. A deal with such a titan would be an end game for Microsoft in the business arena. A few years down the road, and MS would be hurting very badly.
I mostly agree with the author. However, MS's dominance extends far beyond that of mere office formats. These document formats are much overplayed. There are other products out there that support all the truely important features that Office provides, and more stability. Yet most companies stick with Office*. Most every company can survive without using the latest Office suite. They choose not to, because it simply takes more effort to use another format. Most document transfering is in house, and if not in house, its between customer/contracter/client. Certainly a large company of say, the size of Coca Cola or IBM can use whatever the hell they want. The strongest argument against using non-MS argument is economics. Let us not forget that most of MS's sales are tied into OEM sales. Few companies will choose to go out and spend ~100-300 dollars per employee to use another office suite, when they already have one that works 'ok'. This is a result of MS's monopoly in applications and operating systems. None of the products are strong enough to stand on their own, regardless of file format. They use their applications to bolster their OS, and their OS to bolster their Applications. While a browser may sound irrelevant, and it certainly is in terms of raw dollar sums to MS, it is not. A truely cross platform browser is what threatens MS. This is the same reason as why they don't have Office* for Unix, and other OSes. All of these things marginalize 95/NT's position in the market. Put simply, they make it very replaceable. If external forces are able to break this bond, the entire organization will crumble like a house of cards.
In other words, I believe a division of application and operating systems would do the market a great deal of good. It would not allow MS to bundle. It would make it harder for MS to force the latest and most bloated code over on the user. It would force them to compete on performance, and not on the MS proprietary standard. Futhermore, I believe most companies are starting to realize that the next office suite isn't any better than the first. These upgrades, which introduce more and more bloat force the company to upgrade machines as well. These costs are not minor. Furthermore, If the market is less willing to buy the latest MS office suite, fewer changes in file formats will be made, and that will make it much easier to develop code to import/export MS formats. Short of cryptography, there is damn little MS can do to prevent this. I'm convinced that these forces in combination will change the status quo for the better.
If one is to say, the programmer is only responsible for his code, not for the compiler - the machine - administration, it is easily enforcible. How long and how many minds did it take to isolate what caused the Challenger to blow up? A bug in the coding could have been tested and run through its paces in a matter of days. In software you are dealing with matters of definition. A given function or routine is supposed to do exactly so. The coder either applies it wrong, or they apply it right. While it is true there may be other factors which may cause a break down that may have been preventible if the programmer had been wary, lets say a bug in the compiler, or in the machine itself. Engineering exists beyond just that of the text book. It simply is not possible to isolate it just to mathematics. Humans created software and compilers, it follows a well defined set of principles. Engineering follows the laws of nature, which we humans are still trying to grapple with to this day.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok first off, this is just a claim. One that is absolutely unverified. You tell me, why would they be so quiet about this thing? Why make a claim about being able to crack RSA, but not actually do it? Why crack RSA? There are so many larger things they could do which would garner more attention.
Secondly, this is just a claim, a second hand one at that. They never even stated that they "HAVE" cracked RSA, they said they could.
The word "could" can be interpreted many different ways. Could can be: They've created a working proof of concept, and this technology could crack RSA, they think, in X microseconds (2 billion dollars and 10 years later). And a few thousand variations thereof.
This whole story, or atleast the way its being interpreted just doesn't compute. So I repeat, I'll believe it when I see it. Care to wager that they won't have a single 512bit RSA actually cracked within a year with this technology (let alone in X seconds)?
Capitalism works for more reasons than pure greed. One of the more important reasons is because things are de-centralized. That is a subtle, but significant detail. Communism/Socialism assume that resources can be efficiently allocated with central planning. Central planning simply doesn't work. This has been shown a thousand times over, in a thousand different ways.
In other words, even if your socialist country was populated by cloned Mother Teresas; it still won't work.
I don't see the current problems in software as market failure at all. The problem is that users haven't been demanding quality software, instead they've been purchasing software on pointless features, eyecandy, techiness, "compatibility", etc etc etc. Perhaps this is failure in a sense, in that people don't always know (or do) what is best for them. However, I'd far rather have a system which experiences a little bit of turbelence than an unwieldy impersonal bureaucracy (even if they don't ultimately crash).
I mostly agree with this article, however I think the industry will stabilize. I believe that more and more software/hw purchasers are starting to realize just how buggy software is. The market is going to mature, it is just a matter of time. When enough people get hurt in sufficient proportions, things must change. Its simply a function of the market; consumers haven't been demanding quality software. When they do, software will rise to meet those demands.
I think that the recent press attention given to Linux and other open source efforts is one of the first signs of movement. Most people couldn't care a less about "free" software, what they're looking for is more reliable, yet functional software. The linux community is starting to provide sufficient functionality where most people can consider it. However, this does not mean that Open Source must (or will) supplant commercial software. Just that the Open Source community offers the first enduring choice, commercial companies are going to turn around. They might adopt psuedo open source solutions (eg: Sun's recent licenses), but effective quality assurance and simplicity can stop most all of these bugs.
The relationship between the US gov't and the Israeli gov't isn't that black and white. Its more complex than that. I certainly wouldn't count on the Israelis to willingly share the technology with the US unless they NEEDED the US gov't to develop this thing.
Also, according to the article this machine is just theory, a working model has yet to have been built. I wouldn't be the least bit suprised of US firms are well ahead of them.
One thing many people fail to realize is that there is more money in the consumer market than there is government. So baring any government regulations preventing them from disclosing or patenting this technology, or cost issues (eg: such a machine can only be built for ~500K minimum); an astute person would approach the private sector first.
I agree that these export regulations are silly. However, This israeli project is just theory thus far.
You can use the trademark I know, but can you say your product includes the trademarked name? Like Joe Schmoe's gas station can't say it uses Techron (tm) fuel, can it? They own the rights to commercial use of the name, or something to that effect.
To parade examples of 'free', or nominally cheaper, MS software up as evidence that MS is not a monopolist is just plain silly. A monopolist in MS's position clearly has probable reasons for 'dumping' software. eg: netscape+java can clearly marginalize MS's entire platform -- thus they kill it before it hurts them.
Futhermore, It is extremely difficult to argue that MS software has satisfied consumer demand any better since, lets say the first release of Windows95(personally, since MS-DOS). Most all of their costs are fixed and upfront, meaning prices SHOULD be going down since they can lower them (in a competitive market). But they don't have any serious competition, so they don't have to. How any rational and supposedly educated individual can look at MS's profit margins -- for the amount of time they've had them, in as many areas as they do, without dramatic and constant improvements -- and come to any conclusion other than the fact that they're essentially a monopoly, will never fail to amaze me.
(Not to mention the fact that I personally know people who've been all but steamrolled by them)
I'm sorry, but the only real test that is difficult to attack is real world productivity, not what you can rig up under controlled settings. Ignoring all the economic issues (eg: marginal cost of retraining vs marginal benefit of DVORAK), who are the fastest typers. Granted one can argue that QWERTY has always and will always have a larger pool to draw from; however, I think the words "Put up, or shutup" work here. If DVORAK can neither produce the fastest typers, nor average the faster typers....then forget it.
********************
Joe: How can I learn to suck cock as well as JP?
Bub: I don't think anyone can learn to suck cock as well as jp.
********************
There you have it. =)
He probably purports this to be AI, or some other advanced juju.
I can understand how difficult it is to find experts if you're not familiar with the field, especially in hacking. However, I think it is safer not to purport someone as an 'expert' if you're really not sure. The motivation of the press in this case is clearly to make an attractive story first, and to worry about the accuracy second (if possible).
While the press may not know who the experts are, I think some application of common sense and experience can derive the truth for the most part. The press cerrtainly could have done a better job investigating JPs credentials. His story simply doesn't compute. Futhermore, if you talk to virtually any sysadmin or ex-hacker(whitehat) familiar with the art that is worth his salt, they'll tell you JP is a joke.
I, for one, happen to have known JP since his early days on undernet (IRC) in #cha0s and #hack*. About two years ago I spoke with Javes Glave of wired magazine on IRC, I gave the run down (my opinion) on both Analyzer (the stupid israeli hacker) and JP. Whie I can't argue that he lied per se, he should have known better. He published JP as if it were the gospel, and published only snippets of my comments which served to give his story a little spice.
JP has nothing in the way of technical skills, any examination of will reveal this. At most one could argue that he is 'connected' to the hacker scene. In reality, JP is just a media conduit for the latest script kiddy who _wishes_ a little media play. The problem is that JP doesn't just relay; he distorts everything in a self-serving fashion.
Two Issues:
a) Linus wrote the Linux kernel, he hasn't lifted a finger towards marketing it. Perhaps you might argue he enabled others (eg: Redhat, etc) to pursue such a model....
b) The whole Open Source business model is far from proven in my mind. We only have one significant company to point to, and that is Redhat software. While I like Redhat and would love to see them succeed; lets be realistic here. Redhat is a startup company, which isn't even profitable yet. Their current revenues are NOT coming from the much hyped "support" model, but rather from selling shrink wrapped CDs. What they're essentially selling is convenience. There "convenience" sales are not insignificant, but I have my doubts as to weather that will hold out. Futhermore, RedHat hasn't produced all that much in terms of code (not that I fault them in the least). They simply didn't have the resources and most of the work is/was done the the community.
Oh sure, you see blatant drug dealing, hustling, etc going on. But that doesn't mean that they're getting away with it per se. Most of them are professional loosers who spend a quarter of their adult life in jail. I wouldn't call this success and they're not fooling anyone.
Futhermore, drug dealing isn't as profitable as it is made out to be. Most of these street hustlers are just part of the chain, the bottom end distributors, and they live very day to day. You'd be better off trying to smuggle freon car A/C units -- its more profitable and lower risk.
This is a frivolous law suit, if I've ever seen one. And RICO, wtf. This is a law designed for the mafia. It also allows those injured by the crimes to sue for treble (3x) damages. Hmmm, I wonder what the motivation here is.
Even if you assume it was Nintendo's objective to get these kids 'hooked', whatever happened to parental responsibility? And what I really want to know is, why do kids in 4th grade have "thousands" of dollars to blow. When I was a kid I certainly had nothing near this, and it certainly wasn't for want of money.
The NSA's budget is huge, in the billions, and all they do is break and develop encryption. While part of that budget may go to developing intellectual capabilities, it would be very difficult to do modern cryptanalysis on such large scale without some very sophisticated hardware.
Their proximity to the NSA probably has more to do with being able to take advantage of their years of experience.
I personally don't think much of these security issues. Granted, if you're on a dialup your IP# does change, normally. However, many a dialup user also sit on IRC, ICQ, Aol Instant Messanger, Yahoo, you name it. Many of these services will give out the ip# of the user. Futhermore, many ISPs have fingerable POPs, shell accounts, mail servers will tell you the name of the sending user. The point is that you really can't hide on the internet. I've written trivial programs to try these methods, find out when the user is online, and brute force their netbios fileshares.
I think its foolish to depend on, or expect, any plain text internet traffic to be secure. I don't care what kind of connection you have, but you simply can't be sure that no way along your path that there is no one packet sniffing. But in regards to sniffing security, most of these cable modems do a pretty good job of filtering packets not intended for you. It would take a pretty capable person to modify the hardware such that they could see. Now sure, eventually you might see modchips or whatever which allow people to send and recieve whatever they want. But there are many kinds of cable modems out there, and it still wouldn't be that trivial to install it. This is a significant barrier. Otherwise, most of these cable modem companies have some pretty competent security people. Its not so likely that their servers are going to get hacked. Compare this to using one of these small time dialup ISPs, many of them are hacked and sniffed repeatedly. Not to mention line tapping. If someone of means really wants to target you, they can easily just tap your POTS line. Its not that complex, and its virtually impossible to detect if properly done.
While the full time high speed connectivity might increase your exposure, I think that you're better off putting a little effort into security on such a connection--than being on a classic dialup and not concerning yourself with it (as most do now).
I don't think this has much to do with capitalism, other then the fact that capitalism has enabled these technologies to come forth (even in they're partially functional overhyped state). The media, mainstream politicans, and educators have gotten a scent of this whole internet concept, or notion rather. The reason I say 'notion', is because this is really all it is. They're not clammoring for product A, but rather they figure that this is a hot social issue and rallying for it can make or break their campaign. Those who think all this technology is going to revolutionize learning:
A) Don't understand education.
B) Don't even know what today's internet actually has to offer (or rather doesn't)
C) Don't know what technology is and is not capable of.
Firstly, Today's internet doesn't offer all that much in terms of research data. Unless you're talking about something which is likely to be a hot internet topic, you'll find your time is far better spent at a decent library. Secondly, even if you assume that all these great books and papers are put online, this isn't going to solve the problem of getting students to actually read and understand what they're presented with. I think time will show, that in inner cities schools, those schools which recieve hi-tech computer labs do no better.....
well forget it, I'm too tired to go on. Maybe tomorrow
I tire of all these people, primarily those least familiar with computers, telling everyone that we must: put classrooms online, build advanced media facilities, put everyone online, etc etc -- or be lost in the information age. People such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore like nothing more than to go to these poor neighborhoods, and promise 'a computer in every classroom'. I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Sure, everything being equal, they should be online. But these are kids in neighborhoods who are functionally illiterate, and have been for a long time. No amount of technology is going to fix this. These problems aren't new. Until they learn to read and write decently they'll never get anywhere.
Infact, i'd go as far to say that those with more traditional education are _better_ equipped to handle technology than those of today's hi-tech classrooms. The problem is that in all these hi-tech classrooms, basic staples of learning are lost. Students of today might grasp today's technology: Windows95, Netscape, Office97, and what not. However, its a very superficial knowledge. They don't know, nor are they expected to, how these devices operate on a more basic level. Its basically a black box to them. What happens when you change the box a little? They're absolutely lost. This type of learning simply doesn't work. Meanwhile, they're losing sight of the ball. Which is to teach students how to learn.
I'm in the process of nmap'ing a list of undernet servers, atleast 5 of them are running Linux.
Thus far, we have:
Dallas-R.tx.us.undernet.org
Plano.tx.us.undernet.org
Caen.fr.eu.undernet.org
Brussels.Be.Eu.Undernet.org
Flanders.Be.Eu.Undernet.org
Those that aren't are, for the most part, either a BSD variant or Solaris 2.5+. There are many valid reasons why Linux doesn't have the same server share. I think Dvorak is intentionally inflamatory.
McCarthy and the Salem witch trials occured long after the middle ages. While McCarthy may have gone overboard, there is more and more evidence coming to light these days that show the extent of KGB efforts to corrupt and attack all aspects of american life. I, for one, don't think that it was the least bit insignificant.
That being said, I knew JP back when he was trying to be a 'hax0r' and a packet pixie in #cha0s. He was, and always will be, a jerkoff. His biggest coup for antionline was the whole 'Analyzer' escapade. JP's ignorance was blinding. I remember once, a friend of mine was talking to him, while JP was apparently conversing with Analyzer on IRC. JP told my friend that the FBI would _never_ catch Analyzer, because Analyzer 'bounced' his connection 30+ times. When JP was asked how he knew this, he said something to the effect of 'simple, I did a tracert'. heheh. And this guy gives security advice? I'm not sure if I want to laugh or cry for the poor sheep who take him (other others like him) seriously.
PS: Analyzer was indicted and is pleading innocent, saying that what he did was not a crime, because there weren't any signs up telling him that he couldn't. I assume he's referring to the motd. But all i want to know is where does one fit a warning message into the rpc protocol?
While I myself have never filed a patent, I do know some people well who are extremely familiar with it (as engineers and entreprenuers). According to them, getting the patent through the patent office is easy, and has always been. Making it stand up in court is a different issue.
This is not to say that there isn't any room for improvement. Or even that USPTO reviewers aren't really qualified to review many applications. But rather, the patent system has served us pretty well despite its flaws. The flawed system is certainly better than no patent system at all. Of this I am absolutely convinced.
That being said, however. The nature of patent fillings, the number of, the type of individuals/corporations filing for patents is changing rapidly. It is not so much that the patent office is changing, as it is that the internet (and a couple other choice industries) are creating new patent 'markets', if you will. The percieved barriers to entry are lower, and thus more people who are inexperienced with the patent office are bumping against it. These internet patents might prove to be a stumbling block for those providing certain services or developing internet content. As the internet tends require less capital to make a presence than previous ventures did. These individuals who don't even have the status of a startup company, may find it difficult to defend against a frivolous law suit. Likewise, individuals are also finding more things they can patent as the internet 'innovation' is more tangible for the average user, than say a patent on some complex piece of engineering. The combination of unsophisticated users on both ends is creating this friction.
I do think that most of these 'internet patents' are silly, as there was no investment, no risk, no real skill involved in bringing these 'innovations' into fruition (if they even indeed brought them about). However, I don't think the internet is as big of a thing as people make it out to be. It's still but a small sliver of our GNP. Nor are these issues as traumatic or earth shattering as many on
Hello, I'm debating with a friend of mine exactly how GD-ROM has accomplished its increased data space over CD-ROM. Does anyone here actually know for a fact what wavelength it uses for example? My friend assumes its blue, but I don't think that's neccessary. As standard CD-ROMs aren't at maximum efficiency, and its not using the minimal red wavelength.
I'd love to get my Dreamcast running BSD or Linux...and get online with it. Please give me a url, or something. :)
It looks to me like Corel may have bigger objectives than just merely making a new linux distro. I think, or atleast I hope, they want to make a complete replacement for the windows environment for the business user. If you look at their netwinder actions, products such as Word perfect for linux, and corel for linux, they're in the best position to do the following:
Create an entire cheaper and most cost effective replacement for Windows in the business environment. It would have to be:
a) Cheaper software costs.
b) Fewer hardware upgrade requirements. Since you dont have any frills, you don't need to upgrade your system every 2 years to run up to date software. Ideally the entire per desktop cost would be like 700 dollars. Use an E machine, or some other sort of non-Wintel system.
c) Actually easier to use than Windows. Don't worry about the frills and the eye candy. Just make a platform that gets the job done well. Support the most common feature set used by most business. Make an office suite that actually does what it claims, such as working intergration between the spreadsheet program and the word processor.
There are a great deal of hidden costs associated with the entire Windows environment. While it may appear to be easier to use, most users who have any substancial work to do with it find it very troublesome. I know many business people who easily spend 4 hours a week just trying to work around various bugs in MS products. This is the biggest MS cost.
d) More stable and easier to support. The organization providing the support would first target larger organizations, and sell strong support. Focus on network oriented systems for easier installation and upgrades. Create or atleast modify the OS, GUI, and Apps with that job in mind from day 1. Allow for visual configurations, but also have a real command line interface (like linux) which provides meaningfull debug messages, and can be worked around without any of the crap you see with Microsoft products. Like having to check multiple boxes which all do the exact same thing, but still require all to be checked off.
If done properly, such a system could be hugely successfull. The great part about it is that it would be hard for Microsoft to crush it, as the entire method of doing business is so alien to them. Even if Microsoft decided to make WindowsXX and OfficeXXX free, they still would have a very hard time making it go away. As the costs have less to do with direct software costs, than the associated things that come with buggy MS software. While I realize that most corporate lackies might be afraid to stray from the rest of the flock, there are still enough organizations out there which would be willing to take a 'risk', even though its most the safer path. Once you sink your teeth into the corporate market, I believe the savings and the success would speak for themselves.
The only problem i have with Corel is that they're no IBM. While I believe that they may have the resources to create all the software, they don't have the clout or the large organization to cover large regions rapidly. What they'd really need to do, is create the entire software package, then demo it and convince someone at IBM to go with them on the venture. A deal with such a titan would be an end game for Microsoft in the business arena. A few years down the road, and MS would be hurting very badly.
I mostly agree with the author. However, MS's dominance extends far beyond that of mere office formats. These document formats are much overplayed. There are other products out there that support all the truely important features that Office provides, and more stability. Yet most companies stick with Office*. Most every company can survive without using the latest Office suite. They choose not to, because it simply takes more effort to use another format. Most document transfering is in house, and if not in house, its between customer/contracter/client. Certainly a large company of say, the size of Coca Cola or IBM can use whatever the hell they want.
The strongest argument against using non-MS argument is economics. Let us not forget that most of MS's sales are tied into OEM sales. Few companies will choose to go out and spend ~100-300 dollars per employee to use another office suite, when they already have one that works 'ok'. This is a result of MS's monopoly in applications and operating systems. None of the products are strong enough to stand on their own, regardless of file format. They use their applications to bolster their OS, and their OS to bolster their Applications. While a browser may sound irrelevant, and it certainly is in terms of raw dollar sums to MS, it is not. A truely cross platform browser is what threatens MS. This is the same reason as why they don't have Office* for Unix, and other OSes. All of these things marginalize 95/NT's position in the market. Put simply, they make it very replaceable. If external forces are able to break this bond, the entire organization will crumble like a house of cards.
In other words, I believe a division of application and operating systems would do the market a great deal of good. It would not allow MS to bundle. It would make it harder for MS to force the latest and most bloated code over on the user. It would force them to compete on performance, and not on the MS proprietary standard. Futhermore, I believe most companies are starting to realize that the next office suite isn't any better than the first. These upgrades, which introduce more and more bloat force the company to upgrade machines as well. These costs are not minor. Furthermore, If the market is less willing to buy the latest MS office suite, fewer changes in file formats will be made, and that will make it much easier to develop code to import/export MS formats. Short of cryptography, there is damn little MS can do to prevent this. I'm convinced that these forces in combination will change the status quo for the better.
If one is to say, the programmer is only responsible for his code, not for the compiler - the machine - administration, it is easily enforcible. How long and how many minds did it take to isolate what caused the Challenger to blow up? A bug in the coding could have been tested and run through its paces in a matter of days. In software you are dealing with matters of definition. A given function or routine is supposed to do exactly so. The coder either applies it wrong, or they apply it right. While it is true there may be other factors which may cause a break down that may have been preventible if the programmer had been wary, lets say a bug in the compiler, or in the machine itself. Engineering exists beyond just that of the text book. It simply is not possible to isolate it just to mathematics. Humans created software and compilers, it follows a well defined set of principles. Engineering follows the laws of nature, which we humans are still trying to grapple with to this day.