Microsoft will probably do this in order to compete with Apple's GarageBand software (which I don't think has a feature like this, but nonetheless). Perhaps, having put all kinds of glitzy graphics into Vista (which IMO are really ugly), it's now time to make a knock-off of iLife.
Suppose one is running a hardened version of OpenBSD on some PA-RISC machine. Suppose then that this person's bank account is drained out and that said draining has NOTHING to do with their computer or OS. Suppose it's drained by someone who prints checks with a random bank account number on them and it just so happens to be this OpenBSD user's bank account. Again, the theft has NOTHING to do with their computer, OS, computing practices, or hair color. What will happen? Will the bank file a discovery motion to check if the person has anti-virus software on their hardened machine? What? No anti-virus software? Never mind that there is no virus to check for. This is scary as it gives the bank a way to weasel out of its own responsibilities.
This couple is probably just playing the lawsuit lottery, and Google, being a company with lots of dough, seems to them a perfect candidate. Google doesn't have to claim anything. All they have to do is remove the photo, and the lawsuit will be promptly thrown out by the court, since the case will by then be moot. The couple could then claim that the photo having been there for any period of time calls for them to receive some settlement, but Google can easily file motion after motion and drag the case out like gum stuck to one's shoe until the couple runs out of money to continue the case.
I really think that television-style advertising maps well to the computer. Every several minutes, the entire computer should pause while full-screen commercials play for several minutes. The ratio should be something like 4 minutes of computing, 5 minutes of commercials. There should also be some sort of mechanism in place to make sure that the user is actually watching the commercials, not just taking a coffee break. It could be something as simple as flashing a random number at several random points during the commercials, and then requiring the user to enter the last number shown prior to regaining control of the computer. If the user cannot enter the number, or makes a mistake, all of the commercials repeat, with ten additional minutes of commercials added in as a penalty.
I can't believe Apple would make such an absurd move. Didn't they think one moment ahead and realize then when filing a suit, the other side would probably fight back? Now there is some possibility (no matter how small) that Apple might lose their logo and the brand recognition associated with it. The bigger problem here is that they're not fighting a company, but a government. Governments by definition have an infinite amount of money to use in legal fights. Not enough money? Add some new tax and voila! Enough money. Governments also never forget. Piss off a government and they'll hound you forever, until you're dead and gone. So Apple can't just keep filing motion after motion to drag the case out forever until the other side loses. In fact, it's quite the contrary. Chances are that the case will be thrown out of court, or that Apple will somehow come out the loser in this one, even if New York loses as well. This is a lose-lose situation. Not good. Now why can't New York use a logo that is a combination of a big huge apple with a New York skyline, complete with WTC, and in so doing, completely avoid this meaningless fight? And speaking of the WTC, why don't they build a new one, with triple towers, identical to the original two, but ten floors higher? And a big huge middle finger facing the Middle East.
I have a feeling that Microsoft will extend the deadline again in the future. (Perhaps this post is a sort of record so I can later say, "See? I told you so!") If this happens, it will probably happen because a large enough group of customers still won't want to "upgrade" to Vista, and will continue to demand XP for new systems. Many other customers would probably, when considering their next computer (or numerous computers in the case of businesses) choose to purchase Apple Macs, if only to avoid Vista. Let's face it. Vista is a flop, even with Microsoft's sales figures for it, which include sales of the OS pre-installed on consumer systems, which are promptly "downgraded" to XP by themselves, by a more computer savvy friend, or by one of the many technical support companies that offer a service to downgrade computers from Vista to XP.
This is wonderful news! We all know that Windows 7 will be delayed for, oh, 7 years or so. So businesses will decide to wait out the year, avoid adopting Vista, and jump directly to Windows 7. The delays will slowly creep in, a month here, three months there, etc. Sales of Windows will go through the floor. Or maybe more importantly, consumers wishing to improve upon their old computers will adopt Apple Macs, businesses needing to replace aging systems will adopt Linux systems, and a larger piece of Microsoft's pie will be distributed to its competitors. This will, in turn, force Microsoft to create a higher quality product, and the normal rules of competition will mean that everyone will get a better product, regardless of which OS they will use.
This does not sound like a correct solution. Rather, emphasis should be placed on installing more links, both in parallel to existing links, and "bypass" links that will shorten the number of hops from one given location to another. Whether based on copper, fiber, satellite, or other technology, the sheer number of separate paths and additional routing points will make a huge difference. Special emphasis should be placed shortening the hop count between any two given areas.
The big problem is how everything has become so computerized lately. It's not a bad thing for the most part, but when it comes to money, what happened to keeping the loot somewhere safe? Nowadays, some dude could steal a billion bucks without moving more than a few fingers over a keyboard. How to avoid this problem? Buy a large and very, very heavy safe with a quality locking system. Bolt it to the concrete foundation of your home. Build a frame around the base and pour concrete, thereby enclosing the bolting job in several inches of concrete and making the attachment very permanent. If someone wants to bust into this thing, they'll have to come with jackhammers, heavy duty metal cutters, and if they intend on busting the safe open elsewhere, lifting equipment. By then, someone will hear all this noise. Keep your money in cash in this safe. Nothing in any bank. And keep the darn thing locked up tight. Let the cybercrooks figure that one out.
Studies by experts show that 100% of those running pirated software have a computer. This means that ownership of a computer may indicate involvement in software piracy, a terrorist act. Police should have new powers to arrest people who exit a computer store with a new computer. Meanwhile, real terrorists should continue firing rockets on neighboring communities while the world does nothing.
Why isn't a consortium forming between Google, Apple, and OpenOffice.org to give all three office suites the capability to edit each others' documents with 100% formatting and content compatibility, and 100% support on Windows, Mac, Java, and X11 based *nix environments? Each one of these organizations is formidable by itself, able to fight Microsoft off a bit here, a bit there. In the end, though, they're each a 600 pound gorilla, and Microsoft is an 800 pound gorilla. But these three organizations together, a team weighing in at 1800 pounds, would crush Microsoft like an ant.
Hmmm... how about a democratic process that works by the Opposite Day method: The candidate or policy with the least number of votes wins! Of course, that would lead to people deliberately voting for the candidate or policy they wanted least.
They could achieve really good compression by throwing away the colors and using 256 shades of gray instead, throwing away a portion of the image along the left and right sides for a 4:3 aspect ratio, and hmmm... maybe use 486 scanlines total in the picture. That should result in a great picture while using the least possible bandwidth.
Personally I think projects using FOSS licenses such as the GPL should offer to non-exclusively license their open-source software for closed-source commercial uses -- for a hefty fee, of course. In other words, they would, for a hefty sum, allow the project to fork; the FOSS version would remain as such; a company paying the fee would have a starting point for a closed-source product. I believe that at least a few companies wish to produce systems using FOSS in conjunction with their own proprietary work, which they need to keep secret for business reasons, and they would be quite willing and able to pay fees in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars (depending on the software being licensed, the proposed use, and the size of the company). The steering committee of the FOSS project could negotiate the terms and the fee, the company would be able to produce its product without disclosing its secrets, and the FOSS community would use this money to pay full-time programmers to improve the system.
You could try to force all users of a FOSS program to improve it by forcing it to remain FOSS forever. But then companies will buy commercially available systems to produce their closed-source stuff, and the FOSS project will NOT benefit from that. Or you could allow a "second license" which provides money to the project which is used to improve the project. The company adds their own stuff into the project but who cares because now the project has more money to improve on its own. Yes, information was meant to be free, but sometimes exchanging free information for good money makes sense too.
Reminds me of something The Disney Channel did years ago. It used to be a "premium" channel that you specifically had to order. In an effort to massively increase the number of subscribers, they convinced the cable companies to charge everyone $5 extra each month and to include The Disney Channel with the standard cable package. Now the music industry wants to charge all Internet users for music downloaded by a small subset of the Internet's users. (Charge ISPs, the ISPs will charge the users.) And then it's still not legal to download music -- all this extra money does is give the ISPs peace of mind that the music companies won't sue them. It doesn't make any sense.
I think it's been widely established that SCO's case is a bunch of hogwash, but this has gone too far for too long. I now question the sanity of SCO's people and of those who keep investing in SCO. And I feel sorry for the judge who has to put up with this nonsense.
OT, but I was gonna vote for Obama... until all that stuff about him being in cahoots with that pastor for 20 years came out. Looks like I'm gonna *shudder* vote for Hillary.:-(
The real issue at hand is not where the information is gathered, but how a tremendous amount of information can be organized and accessed in a way that actually helps avoid future terrorist attacks. As the police chief said, seemingly innocuous information might be connected to a threat, but then again, it might just be innocuous information. Burying ourselves in mountains of information, a majority of it innocuous, might actually work against us. There must be a way to catalog information so that connections can be made between seemingly separate items to form an accurate picture of what the terrorists are planning.
The next thing you know, you'll click to update iTunes, reboot, and find that your PC is suddenly running Mac OS X! On second thought, that would be pretty cool.:-)
I disagree somewhat on your analogy of keeping the donuts in an unsecured drawer. Leaving a wireless router open to all connections means by technical definition that you're making your connection public to anyone in your house or within a certain radius of it. On a Mac, you simply click the wireless icon in the menu bar and select one of the connections that it locates automatically. Other than this function on a Mac, there are plenty of utilities that find wireless connections, to make setup a snap. Your unsecured connection is therefore in a completely public place. Just as anyone walking by the coffee machines will see a box of public property donuts there, anyone within your wireless radius who wishes to connect to a wireless connection will see your public wireless service.
I'm not sure if you understood me correctly, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I think it makes no sense whatsoever to pass a law like this MD one. This kind of bill shows that its writers have no idea about technology or about wireless networking. It's a simple matter. If you want people to share your connection, by all means leave it open. If you don't wish to share your connection, then take the simple steps that it takes to secure your wireless router. Now, if your router is thus secured and someone cracks it and uses it anyway, then it should be a punishable offense, since it is obvious that you did not want to share your connection and someone deliberately took the trouble to use it despite that. But if you leave it insecure, both you and the law should expect others to use that connection. Because if you leave a box of donuts open next to the coffee machine, it means that it was your intention to share them.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft will probably do this in order to compete with Apple's GarageBand software (which I don't think has a feature like this, but nonetheless). Perhaps, having put all kinds of glitzy graphics into Vista (which IMO are really ugly), it's now time to make a knock-off of iLife.
Suppose one is running a hardened version of OpenBSD on some PA-RISC machine. Suppose then that this person's bank account is drained out and that said draining has NOTHING to do with their computer or OS. Suppose it's drained by someone who prints checks with a random bank account number on them and it just so happens to be this OpenBSD user's bank account. Again, the theft has NOTHING to do with their computer, OS, computing practices, or hair color. What will happen? Will the bank file a discovery motion to check if the person has anti-virus software on their hardened machine? What? No anti-virus software? Never mind that there is no virus to check for. This is scary as it gives the bank a way to weasel out of its own responsibilities.
This couple is probably just playing the lawsuit lottery, and Google, being a company with lots of dough, seems to them a perfect candidate. Google doesn't have to claim anything. All they have to do is remove the photo, and the lawsuit will be promptly thrown out by the court, since the case will by then be moot. The couple could then claim that the photo having been there for any period of time calls for them to receive some settlement, but Google can easily file motion after motion and drag the case out like gum stuck to one's shoe until the couple runs out of money to continue the case.
All ye Slashdotters listen up: Each of you must PAY ME ONE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING immediately, or else I will tell your mommy on you!
I really think that television-style advertising maps well to the computer. Every several minutes, the entire computer should pause while full-screen commercials play for several minutes. The ratio should be something like 4 minutes of computing, 5 minutes of commercials. There should also be some sort of mechanism in place to make sure that the user is actually watching the commercials, not just taking a coffee break. It could be something as simple as flashing a random number at several random points during the commercials, and then requiring the user to enter the last number shown prior to regaining control of the computer. If the user cannot enter the number, or makes a mistake, all of the commercials repeat, with ten additional minutes of commercials added in as a penalty.
I can't believe Apple would make such an absurd move. Didn't they think one moment ahead and realize then when filing a suit, the other side would probably fight back? Now there is some possibility (no matter how small) that Apple might lose their logo and the brand recognition associated with it. The bigger problem here is that they're not fighting a company, but a government. Governments by definition have an infinite amount of money to use in legal fights. Not enough money? Add some new tax and voila! Enough money. Governments also never forget. Piss off a government and they'll hound you forever, until you're dead and gone. So Apple can't just keep filing motion after motion to drag the case out forever until the other side loses. In fact, it's quite the contrary. Chances are that the case will be thrown out of court, or that Apple will somehow come out the loser in this one, even if New York loses as well. This is a lose-lose situation. Not good. Now why can't New York use a logo that is a combination of a big huge apple with a New York skyline, complete with WTC, and in so doing, completely avoid this meaningless fight? And speaking of the WTC, why don't they build a new one, with triple towers, identical to the original two, but ten floors higher? And a big huge middle finger facing the Middle East.
I have a feeling that Microsoft will extend the deadline again in the future. (Perhaps this post is a sort of record so I can later say, "See? I told you so!") If this happens, it will probably happen because a large enough group of customers still won't want to "upgrade" to Vista, and will continue to demand XP for new systems. Many other customers would probably, when considering their next computer (or numerous computers in the case of businesses) choose to purchase Apple Macs, if only to avoid Vista. Let's face it. Vista is a flop, even with Microsoft's sales figures for it, which include sales of the OS pre-installed on consumer systems, which are promptly "downgraded" to XP by themselves, by a more computer savvy friend, or by one of the many technical support companies that offer a service to downgrade computers from Vista to XP.
This is wonderful news! We all know that Windows 7 will be delayed for, oh, 7 years or so. So businesses will decide to wait out the year, avoid adopting Vista, and jump directly to Windows 7. The delays will slowly creep in, a month here, three months there, etc. Sales of Windows will go through the floor. Or maybe more importantly, consumers wishing to improve upon their old computers will adopt Apple Macs, businesses needing to replace aging systems will adopt Linux systems, and a larger piece of Microsoft's pie will be distributed to its competitors. This will, in turn, force Microsoft to create a higher quality product, and the normal rules of competition will mean that everyone will get a better product, regardless of which OS they will use.
This does not sound like a correct solution. Rather, emphasis should be placed on installing more links, both in parallel to existing links, and "bypass" links that will shorten the number of hops from one given location to another. Whether based on copper, fiber, satellite, or other technology, the sheer number of separate paths and additional routing points will make a huge difference. Special emphasis should be placed shortening the hop count between any two given areas.
The big problem is how everything has become so computerized lately. It's not a bad thing for the most part, but when it comes to money, what happened to keeping the loot somewhere safe? Nowadays, some dude could steal a billion bucks without moving more than a few fingers over a keyboard. How to avoid this problem? Buy a large and very, very heavy safe with a quality locking system. Bolt it to the concrete foundation of your home. Build a frame around the base and pour concrete, thereby enclosing the bolting job in several inches of concrete and making the attachment very permanent. If someone wants to bust into this thing, they'll have to come with jackhammers, heavy duty metal cutters, and if they intend on busting the safe open elsewhere, lifting equipment. By then, someone will hear all this noise. Keep your money in cash in this safe. Nothing in any bank. And keep the darn thing locked up tight. Let the cybercrooks figure that one out.
Remember the old "After Dark" screensaver suite for Windows 3.1? The one with the infamous "Flying Toasters" screensaver?
What Vista needs is a "Flying Chairs" screensaver. Especially in light of the furniture that became airborne in Redmond at receipt of this news.
Studies by experts show that 100% of those running pirated software have a computer. This means that ownership of a computer may indicate involvement in software piracy, a terrorist act. Police should have new powers to arrest people who exit a computer store with a new computer. Meanwhile, real terrorists should continue firing rockets on neighboring communities while the world does nothing.
Why isn't a consortium forming between Google, Apple, and OpenOffice.org to give all three office suites the capability to edit each others' documents with 100% formatting and content compatibility, and 100% support on Windows, Mac, Java, and X11 based *nix environments? Each one of these organizations is formidable by itself, able to fight Microsoft off a bit here, a bit there. In the end, though, they're each a 600 pound gorilla, and Microsoft is an 800 pound gorilla. But these three organizations together, a team weighing in at 1800 pounds, would crush Microsoft like an ant.
This is probably a test, and based on how many will use this AIR, they may decide to (or decide against) releasing other Adobe products for Linux.
Hmmm... how about a democratic process that works by the Opposite Day method: The candidate or policy with the least number of votes wins! Of course, that would lead to people deliberately voting for the candidate or policy they wanted least.
They could achieve really good compression by throwing away the colors and using 256 shades of gray instead, throwing away a portion of the image along the left and right sides for a 4:3 aspect ratio, and hmmm... maybe use 486 scanlines total in the picture. That should result in a great picture while using the least possible bandwidth.
You could try to force all users of a FOSS program to improve it by forcing it to remain FOSS forever. But then companies will buy commercially available systems to produce their closed-source stuff, and the FOSS project will NOT benefit from that. Or you could allow a "second license" which provides money to the project which is used to improve the project. The company adds their own stuff into the project but who cares because now the project has more money to improve on its own. Yes, information was meant to be free, but sometimes exchanging free information for good money makes sense too.
Looks like Firewire is dead. Just like *BSD.
Reminds me of something The Disney Channel did years ago. It used to be a "premium" channel that you specifically had to order. In an effort to massively increase the number of subscribers, they convinced the cable companies to charge everyone $5 extra each month and to include The Disney Channel with the standard cable package. Now the music industry wants to charge all Internet users for music downloaded by a small subset of the Internet's users. (Charge ISPs, the ISPs will charge the users.) And then it's still not legal to download music -- all this extra money does is give the ISPs peace of mind that the music companies won't sue them. It doesn't make any sense.
I think it's been widely established that SCO's case is a bunch of hogwash, but this has gone too far for too long. I now question the sanity of SCO's people and of those who keep investing in SCO. And I feel sorry for the judge who has to put up with this nonsense.
OT, but I was gonna vote for Obama... until all that stuff about him being in cahoots with that pastor for 20 years came out. Looks like I'm gonna *shudder* vote for Hillary. :-(
The real issue at hand is not where the information is gathered, but how a tremendous amount of information can be organized and accessed in a way that actually helps avoid future terrorist attacks. As the police chief said, seemingly innocuous information might be connected to a threat, but then again, it might just be innocuous information. Burying ourselves in mountains of information, a majority of it innocuous, might actually work against us. There must be a way to catalog information so that connections can be made between seemingly separate items to form an accurate picture of what the terrorists are planning.
The next thing you know, you'll click to update iTunes, reboot, and find that your PC is suddenly running Mac OS X! On second thought, that would be pretty cool. :-)
I disagree somewhat on your analogy of keeping the donuts in an unsecured drawer. Leaving a wireless router open to all connections means by technical definition that you're making your connection public to anyone in your house or within a certain radius of it. On a Mac, you simply click the wireless icon in the menu bar and select one of the connections that it locates automatically. Other than this function on a Mac, there are plenty of utilities that find wireless connections, to make setup a snap. Your unsecured connection is therefore in a completely public place. Just as anyone walking by the coffee machines will see a box of public property donuts there, anyone within your wireless radius who wishes to connect to a wireless connection will see your public wireless service.
I'm not sure if you understood me correctly, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I think it makes no sense whatsoever to pass a law like this MD one. This kind of bill shows that its writers have no idea about technology or about wireless networking. It's a simple matter. If you want people to share your connection, by all means leave it open. If you don't wish to share your connection, then take the simple steps that it takes to secure your wireless router. Now, if your router is thus secured and someone cracks it and uses it anyway, then it should be a punishable offense, since it is obvious that you did not want to share your connection and someone deliberately took the trouble to use it despite that. But if you leave it insecure, both you and the law should expect others to use that connection. Because if you leave a box of donuts open next to the coffee machine, it means that it was your intention to share them.