by "addressing scheme" I mean that the email address could be used to lookup the current IP address of that domains p2p or IM user and then a direct connection could be made between users. So that say some.com's IM or p2p server would act simply like a DNS server, with clients in its domain registering their current IP addresses when they log in.
But it should. It just makes sense to use email addressing to transfer files... As an end user I usually want to transfer a file to a specific person... which an email address is the closest thing to that. I suppose maybe it is confusing without more specifics, but what I suggest is not adding on to the email protocol itself, but to use email addresses as an addressing scheme for p2p file sharing. And also to use email addresses for IM. Interoperability with the proprietary IM networks is a fools errand, so leave that to the fools.
This is a matter of the relative value of currency. With the dollar going down in relative value it doesn't seem likely that the savings of employing people on the other side of the world with the associated overhead will make as much sense as it once did.
who said anything about protocols... the protocols are mostly fine the way they are. IM is already just a priority email.
The p2p file sharing could go into the client, not as extension on email. Just as IM clients have introduced file sharing. Too many people resort to email for file sharing... might as well make it peer to peer instead of continue to bog down servers with large attachments.
" From what I've read, it seems they were correct to cull the less-advanced robots from the "herd" - their reasoning is sound"
Seems like the less advanced teams either would not have shown up or could have been weeded out in preliminary trials. That was the whole point of this exercise... to not prejudge solutions until they were proven or disproven in the field. As far as I understand, most of the entrants are still working on their machines, so to weed anyone out that submits a complete entry at this point is just stupid. It isn't like DARPA is putting people up in hotels and paying for airfare, they ave nothing but to gain from the most people showing up with working machines. The only reasonable explanation for this move is political or one of perception, that the project was probably under some pressure to look less like a game and more like a practical way to mature new technology. I'm sure the project leaders for the challenge are much happier to have MIT and Lockheed on their entrants list than some bicycle shop tinkerers.
IM is basically just enhanced email with proprietary addressing.
real email clients need only add some IM features like the "buddy list" notifications and an instant email screen for IM like conversations...
The next generation of messenging should remain open standard and distributed, not just some service from a single provider. There is no reason to drop the current email addressing scheme in favor of aol's screen names... someone from the sendmail group needs to get together with some open source and commercial email client developers and just start adding some features. We also might benefit from some collaboration with some p2p file sharing features.
It seems pretty obvious and simple to me what features need to be added to email, so that we can replace AIM with something sensible. Anyone interested?
"Why do you still have to think in terms of "losing edges"? The Mars Express mission will cooperate with NASA's "Mars Odyssey" to relay data back to earth. Competition is good, cooperation is better."
Like with the hot chicks in the bar in A Beautiful Mind... yea just like that.
"Also a historical fact. Look at where the new knowledge was and is created over the last 500 years, in technology, pharma, media, you name it - in the West. Even big countries like China and Brazil use Linux, for example - they didn't (or couldn't) start from scratch."
The only person throwing away their vote is the person that does not show up or does not vote with purpose. Otherwise they are just disagreeing with you, not throwing away their vote. If you want to vote anti-bush, that is fine. I agree with you that Bush needs to be removed as soon as possible. But you are doing more harm than even Bush is if you tell people that unless you vote for one of the two guys most likely to win that you are wasting your vote. That is a disservice to Democracy.
As much as i find Bush's tendencies towards the erosion of civil rights and economic self destruction alarming. Given the choice between Al Gore and George Bush all over again, I would still vote for just about anyone else or abstain.
I find it fascinating that ardent Democrats and Republicans can find it so confusing that some Americans aren't born with little "R"s or "D"s next to their names. Some of us like to think for ourselves once in a while and aren't convinced that the world will end if the other guy is elected... if that were the case, then the office of the president holds too much power and should be restrained
"If you don't like the oddball candidates, don't worry, they don't have a chance in hell of winning, and the major parties would be pissing their pants if an outside candidate ever got as much as a 15% vote."
I disagree a bit. Sending a message is only as good as the content of that message. You shouldn't vote for someone randomly and expect that to send a message of discontent, since nobody will be able to discern your true intent.
Just leave your vote blank and this will send a clear message of discontent and make the parties aware that there is an ative voting block ready to be inspired by some new party or candidate.
"It unfortunate but true that voting for anyone other than his Democratic rival in 2004 is a vote FOR George Bush. All you Green Party folks out there - I BEG you keep it in mind that a blind vote for Green is a vote for Bush in 2004."
It was pretty obvious that Ralph Nader was not going to win the election, but people still voted for him. I am from Massachusetts and it was pretty clear that Bush was not going to win here, but people still voted for him. So, perhaps there is more to elections than winning?
"Sure, it's not a secret any more, but if IBM took it from being a secret to not being one by releasing it, they will loose this case."
Even if they did, SCO themselves published the code with their Linux distribution. So, worst case for IBM is that they could have broken some contract they had which may open them up to some financial liability, but SCO didn't do anything about it for a long time and still hasn't taken any rational steps to have "their" source code taken out of Linux.
The point is that if I am a writer and I am collaborating with another writer, and the other writer puts some of my material into their work, but then I myself publish the combined work for several years, I could not then claim that parts of the resulting work are still a trade secret. Even if I didn't want them in there, sure I may have some right to take certain parts out of future copies if I could show them to be my work, but I couldn't just claim the whole thing without showing which parts were actually mine.
Which is just about what SCO is doing by not releasing the details of their work, they claim copyright without specifying the content. They claim a trade secret of something they themselves published openly.
"disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets"
So, the fact that SCO themselves publicly released the entirety of the Linux source code for many years is going to be quietly swept under the table? No, there are no trade secrets in the Linux source code. SCO's position on making their allegations public makes no sense except as a way to prevent people from replacing bits of code that might actually be infringing. But since SCO has been releasing Linux Code themselves for years the best that they could reasonably hope for in terms of a settlement would be an injunction on versions of linux containing the code that they hold the copyright to.
SCO will never get enough money out of their claims to even pay their lawyers, only ill will.
"Give me something to vote for other then Sock Puppet A or Sock Puppet B and I may care more."
I understand your frustration with the vacuous candidates of the two major parties. But if you don't find Sock Puppet 'A' or Sock Puppet 'B' as viable choices, then write in Sock Puppet 'C' or abstain. But not showing up on election day means that you do not get counted. It could be that you disagree with the candidates or it could be that you were too drunk to drive to the polling place. The rest of us will never know the difference unless you show up and let yourself be counted.
You see, it is not other people who need to give you something to vote for, but rather you that needs to tell others what is important to you.
"disregarding the fact that they WILL become adults if allowed to."
No. An embryo needs other people to make it grow. The beginning of a human life is not about "allowing" an embryo to grow up, but rather actively creating, nurturing and supporting the embryo until it can support itself as an independent creation. Your statement is a lie, wrapped in a cloak of hyperbole.
Hmmm... and what of those same thousands of dead to bring you the food that you eat, the clothes that you wear, the books that you read... Unless you live on a farm and don't use machinery or fertalizer and don't raise methane producing cows and don't let dirty water run off your fields into the stream. Especially so if you live in a city, then you are as much a consumer of fuels as I am, since cities consume more resources as overhead than anyplace else, even if you do share a big ass train with your fellow big ass man.
I used to be an environmentalist... I am still working on the windturbine on my roof, but people like you make me sick... you think just because you give ten bucks to greenpeace and act snooty that makes you a more thoughtful person... well the most important thing you could do for the environment would be to shoot yourself... or move to some unproductive land and try to eek out an existance. Personally, life is about leaving more things better than I find them, but waste is a part of living.
The subject of this article seems like it will never leave the ground, but personal air travel would very clearly save much time resources over cars and other forms of transportation. Plus the economy would grow more so... which maybe something that you cringe at, since you and your ilk seem to want all the humans dead or miserable (besides your contemplative selves, of course). It would indeed lead to more urban sprawl as people would find that they could travel further in shorter amounts of time... To me living where you want to and being able to go where you want is a good thing, but to you this is the ultimate nightmare... uncontrolled growth.... or maybe it is just the uncontrolled part that bothers you. Imagine extending an acceptable commuting range by 200 miles. New business, new wealth, new choices... sounds horrendous to you doesn't it? Or would you and your politician freinds rather plan your metros and keep telling your friends where to buy land so that taxpayer billions can raise their property values a few tens of thousands. That is what really builds railroads, pork and the oinkers that go with it.
I for one believe that you save species and their environments for their moral value not as potential for new wonder drugs... that you try as best not to polute the environments with dangerous chemicals because it may cause other people and animals to suffer... not because it may or may not be the law... that for the most people to be the most happy you need to give them freedom of mobility and freedom of choice and not to restrict and burden their movements much beyond that which sharing space and rights of way dictate.
If we stick people in cities where the only mode of mobility, except for the very rich or well connected who can always afford to be above the rest of us, is walking or sitting in an underground sardine-can with wheels, then that will only serve to further economic disperity which is at the heart of civilized unhappiness, if you disagree then you are more than welcome to take your things and head for the woods, where value isn't measured with dollars and cents, but with common sense.
I for one like living with people and wish to see them have more choices not fewer. If that means more public transportation then that is fine with me, but don't burden the rest of us too greatly with your ideas for the rest of us and let economics not ill-conceived philosophy be your guide.
The law covers humans. Or in some case we have decided to treat certain other creatures a certain way under the law... prior art would have to be human prior art and by the same argument alien's would not have any ability to copyright something unless the law or the reading of the law were expanded to understand that aliens are people too.
But that would be a legal leap on the order of magnitude as when women abd slaves became considered people too.
"Fortunately, this looks more like a half-assed grab for investment money than anything else. I rather doubt we'll ever be seeing one of those things barrelling through the sky. The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars."
And mass transit is a full-assed grab for tax money.
Slashdot Mirror
by "addressing scheme" I mean that the email address could be used to lookup the current IP address of that domains p2p or IM user and then a direct connection could be made between users. So that say some.com's IM or p2p server would act simply like a DNS server, with clients in its domain registering their current IP addresses when they log in.
"But all this has nothing to do with E-Mail."
But it should. It just makes sense to use email addressing to transfer files... As an end user I usually want to transfer a file to a specific person... which an email address is the closest thing to that. I suppose maybe it is confusing without more specifics, but what I suggest is not adding on to the email protocol itself, but to use email addresses as an addressing scheme for p2p file sharing. And also to use email addresses for IM. Interoperability with the proprietary IM networks is a fools errand, so leave that to the fools.
This is a matter of the relative value of currency. With the dollar going down in relative value it doesn't seem likely that the savings of employing people on the other side of the world with the associated overhead will make as much sense as it once did.
who said anything about protocols... the protocols are mostly fine the way they are. IM is already just a priority email.
The p2p file sharing could go into the client, not as extension on email. Just as IM clients have introduced file sharing. Too many people resort to email for file sharing... might as well make it peer to peer instead of continue to bog down servers with large attachments.
" From what I've read, it seems they were correct to cull the less-advanced robots from the "herd" - their reasoning is sound"
Seems like the less advanced teams either would not have shown up or could have been weeded out in preliminary trials. That was the whole point of this exercise... to not prejudge solutions until they were proven or disproven in the field. As far as I understand, most of the entrants are still working on their machines, so to weed anyone out that submits a complete entry at this point is just stupid. It isn't like DARPA is putting people up in hotels and paying for airfare, they ave nothing but to gain from the most people showing up with working machines. The only reasonable explanation for this move is political or one of perception, that the project was probably under some pressure to look less like a game and more like a practical way to mature new technology. I'm sure the project leaders for the challenge are much happier to have MIT and Lockheed on their entrants list than some bicycle shop tinkerers.
IM is basically just enhanced email with proprietary addressing.
real email clients need only add some IM features like the "buddy list" notifications and an instant email screen for IM like conversations...
The next generation of messenging should remain open standard and distributed, not just some service from a single provider. There is no reason to drop the current email addressing scheme in favor of aol's screen names... someone from the sendmail group needs to get together with some open source and commercial email client developers and just start adding some features. We also might benefit from some collaboration with some p2p file sharing features.
It seems pretty obvious and simple to me what features need to be added to email, so that we can replace AIM with something sensible. Anyone interested?
"Why do you still have to think in terms of "losing edges"? The Mars Express mission will cooperate with NASA's "Mars Odyssey" to relay data back to earth. Competition is good, cooperation is better."
Like with the hot chicks in the bar in A Beautiful Mind... yea just like that.
"Also a historical fact. Look at where the new knowledge was and is created over the last 500 years, in technology, pharma, media, you name it - in the West. Even big countries like China and Brazil use Linux, for example - they didn't (or couldn't) start from scratch."
Oh and don't forget history books.
oh ya and don't forget to post you letter to slashdot... to leave no doubt that you are a professional.
There was an article?
Just make them smaller and then you won't notice if they are falling out of the sky.
10% reduction in light can be easily explained since the satelite they are using hasn't had it's lenses cleaned in 30 years.
I voted for Nader, but I would have voted for Bush over Gore. You still wish I had chosen the lesser of two evils?
The only person throwing away their vote is the person that does not show up or does not vote with purpose. Otherwise they are just disagreeing with you, not throwing away their vote. If you want to vote anti-bush, that is fine. I agree with you that Bush needs to be removed as soon as possible. But you are doing more harm than even Bush is if you tell people that unless you vote for one of the two guys most likely to win that you are wasting your vote. That is a disservice to Democracy.
As much as i find Bush's tendencies towards the erosion of civil rights and economic self destruction alarming. Given the choice between Al Gore and George Bush all over again, I would still vote for just about anyone else or abstain.
I find it fascinating that ardent Democrats and Republicans can find it so confusing that some Americans aren't born with little "R"s or "D"s next to their names. Some of us like to think for ourselves once in a while and aren't convinced that the world will end if the other guy is elected... if that were the case, then the office of the president holds too much power and should be restrained
"If you don't like the oddball candidates, don't worry, they don't have a chance in hell of winning, and the major parties would be pissing their pants if an outside candidate ever got as much as a 15% vote."
I disagree a bit. Sending a message is only as good as the content of that message. You shouldn't vote for someone randomly and expect that to send a message of discontent, since nobody will be able to discern your true intent.
Just leave your vote blank and this will send a clear message of discontent and make the parties aware that there is an ative voting block ready to be inspired by some new party or candidate.
I feel good when I vote.
"It unfortunate but true that voting for anyone other than his Democratic rival in 2004 is a vote FOR George Bush. All you Green Party folks out there - I BEG you keep it in mind that a blind vote for Green is a vote for Bush in 2004."
It was pretty obvious that Ralph Nader was not going to win the election, but people still voted for him. I am from Massachusetts and it was pretty clear that Bush was not going to win here, but people still voted for him. So, perhaps there is more to elections than winning?
"Sure, it's not a secret any more, but if IBM took it from being a secret to not being one by releasing it, they will loose this case."
Even if they did, SCO themselves published the code with their Linux distribution. So, worst case for IBM is that they could have broken some contract they had which may open them up to some financial liability, but SCO didn't do anything about it for a long time and still hasn't taken any rational steps to have "their" source code taken out of Linux.
The point is that if I am a writer and I am collaborating with another writer, and the other writer puts some of my material into their work, but then I myself publish the combined work for several years, I could not then claim that parts of the resulting work are still a trade secret. Even if I didn't want them in there, sure I may have some right to take certain parts out of future copies if I could show them to be my work, but I couldn't just claim the whole thing without showing which parts were actually mine.
Which is just about what SCO is doing by not releasing the details of their work, they claim copyright without specifying the content. They claim a trade secret of something they themselves published openly.
"disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets"
So, the fact that SCO themselves publicly released the entirety of the Linux source code for many years is going to be quietly swept under the table? No, there are no trade secrets in the Linux source code. SCO's position on making their allegations public makes no sense except as a way to prevent people from replacing bits of code that might actually be infringing. But since SCO has been releasing Linux Code themselves for years the best that they could reasonably hope for in terms of a settlement would be an injunction on versions of linux containing the code that they hold the copyright to.
SCO will never get enough money out of their claims to even pay their lawyers, only ill will.
"Give me something to vote for other then Sock Puppet A or Sock Puppet B and I may care more."
I understand your frustration with the vacuous candidates of the two major parties. But if you don't find Sock Puppet 'A' or Sock Puppet 'B' as viable choices, then write in Sock Puppet 'C' or abstain. But not showing up on election day means that you do not get counted. It could be that you disagree with the candidates or it could be that you were too drunk to drive to the polling place. The rest of us will never know the difference unless you show up and let yourself be counted.
You see, it is not other people who need to give you something to vote for, but rather you that needs to tell others what is important to you.
Choose yourself.
"disregarding the fact that they WILL become adults if allowed to."
No. An embryo needs other people to make it grow. The beginning of a human life is not about "allowing" an embryo to grow up, but rather actively creating, nurturing and supporting the embryo until it can support itself as an independent creation. Your statement is a lie, wrapped in a cloak of hyperbole.
Hmmm... and what of those same thousands of dead to bring you the food that you eat, the clothes that you wear, the books that you read... Unless you live on a farm and don't use machinery or fertalizer and don't raise methane producing cows and don't let dirty water run off your fields into the stream. Especially so if you live in a city, then you are as much a consumer of fuels as I am, since cities consume more resources as overhead than anyplace else, even if you do share a big ass train with your fellow big ass man.
I used to be an environmentalist... I am still working on the windturbine on my roof, but people like you make me sick... you think just because you give ten bucks to greenpeace and act snooty that makes you a more thoughtful person... well the most important thing you could do for the environment would be to shoot yourself... or move to some unproductive land and try to eek out an existance. Personally, life is about leaving more things better than I find them, but waste is a part of living.
The subject of this article seems like it will never leave the ground, but personal air travel would very clearly save much time resources over cars and other forms of transportation. Plus the economy would grow more so... which maybe something that you cringe at, since you and your ilk seem to want all the humans dead or miserable (besides your contemplative selves, of course).
It would indeed lead to more urban sprawl as people would find that they could travel further in shorter amounts of time... To me living where you want to and being able to go where you want is a good thing, but to you this is the ultimate nightmare... uncontrolled growth.... or maybe it is just the uncontrolled part that bothers you. Imagine extending an acceptable commuting range by 200 miles. New business, new wealth, new choices... sounds horrendous to you doesn't it? Or would you and your politician freinds rather plan your metros and keep telling your friends where to buy land so that taxpayer billions can raise their property values a few tens of thousands. That is what really builds railroads, pork and the oinkers that go with it.
I for one believe that you save species and their environments for their moral value not as potential for new wonder drugs... that you try as best not to polute the environments with dangerous chemicals because it may cause other people and animals to suffer... not because it may or may not be the law... that for the most people to be the most happy you need to give them freedom of mobility and freedom of choice and not to restrict and burden their movements much beyond that which sharing space and rights of way dictate.
If we stick people in cities where the only mode of mobility, except for the very rich or well connected who can always afford to be above the rest of us, is walking or sitting in an underground sardine-can with wheels, then that will only serve to further economic disperity which is at the heart of civilized unhappiness, if you disagree then you are more than welcome to take your things and head for the woods, where value isn't measured with dollars and cents, but with common sense.
I for one like living with people and wish to see them have more choices not fewer. If that means more public transportation then that is fine with me, but don't burden the rest of us too greatly with your ideas for the rest of us and let economics not ill-conceived philosophy be your guide.
The law covers humans. Or in some case we have decided to treat certain other creatures a certain way under the law... prior art would have to be human prior art and by the same argument alien's would not have any ability to copyright something unless the law or the reading of the law were expanded to understand that aliens are people too.
But that would be a legal leap on the order of magnitude as when women abd slaves became considered people too.
"Fortunately, this looks more like a half-assed grab for investment money than anything else. I rather doubt we'll ever be seeing one of those things barrelling through the sky. The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars."
And mass transit is a full-assed grab for tax money.
I get it, I just vote no.