Countries will not use nor build thier societies economies or government bodies on information technology that unfairly gives the US/Europe an edge.
They will use our own laws against us and defeat us in the economic arena, just as we did with the USSR, as American companies quickly find they cannot sell products abroad in such markets that do not recognize DMCA or Copyright laws as they are written in US/Europe.
This is just the beginning.
There will come a time when China and the Soviet Union will awaken economically, and the US and Europe are going to be very very sorry implementing laws based on simple greed.
Greed doesn't work, quick and very fast innovation does, and with heavy laws and legal fees to bear American/European companies will not stand a chance.
The only logical move will be exactly what we see today happening in the manufacturing base in our society. It will be moved.
In this case, American and European companies will move the construction and design of software to the Soviet Union and China to escape the copyrights, patents, DMCA and all the legal expenses to build software in the US.
Companies already do this to escape the tax laws, they most certainly will do this as well when the time comes.
I agree, compensation should be given to those who information we use. But the problem is the system for patents and copyrights don't do that.
Patents are enforced for way to long of a period of time, and how patents are enforced and issued in this country with regards to technology is not well policed. (i.e. submarine patents...with JPEG for example...)
Secondly, I think we have to recognize that other countries that do not recognize these particular forms of information lockout (patents and copyrights) may very well destroy our economy.
I am of course referring to countries that build thier entire infrastructure markets on Linux for example.
You could also argue, that if it wasn't for Linux, alot of ISP's would have gone out of business and we quite possibly would have a very very different kind of internet.
One that would probably be only for the rich and the very powerful who could afford the access fees, the computers and software to get online in the first place, etc.
We need a revised patent and copyright system, starting with getting rid of patent law, and DMCA and copyrights to begin with and creating something that provides equity for the producer and consumer in this country.
It can be done, but I am afraid too many powerful and very rich companies won't permit the status quo to go away anytime soon.
It has nothing to do with royalties. Copyright and Patents are designed for one thing:
1) To enforce existing market monopolies for those companies that have the legal cash stockpiles to do so.
2) Making sure the consumer never has a choice of any other medium or format that isn't controlled by the attorneys/board of directors of said company that currently has a market monopoly.
3) Using the power and cash that comes from that power, of such a market monopoly, companies and board of directories buy our lawmakers, and insure that laws are made to enforce any market monopoly in place. All perfectly legal I am afraid.
Finally this is not a question of royalties. Companies/organizations that control whole markets are not interested in third parties tiny little royalty payments. They want to own the ENTIRE market. That is the only way to stay in power.
Secondly, market volatility is prevented because you can squash any competitor to your organization that comes along that may destabilize the "status quo".
Entire markets online have closed for competitors to what the RIAA is and represents because they have enourmous cash stockpiles to grease the collusion of government lawmakers and therefore the legal system.
The AntiTrust system in this country is a joke, quite frankly. I don't even know why it is on the books. I think it is a TAX law. (i.e. If a company "all of a sudden" falls under the anti trust act they must not be paying someone in Washington enough money. As we have seen with Microsoft, you hand over enough money lawmakers go away, and you retain your market monopoly.)
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
Oh plu-eaze....
You are going to tell me, that for example, Lipitor, a drug that controls enzyme blood levels for cholesterol for people that have high LDL levels in thier blood, would not be financially recovered in research and development if world wide a monopoly on the drug sale for 2 years, couldn't recoupe the cost? Furthermore because the market is a world wide monopoly as you suggest, the drug company in question sets the price anyway based on recovering expenses during that two years?
Especially when the patient has to take the drug on a DAILY basis, in this case?
I am sorry, but that was a real BAD assumption, basis for your argument, for biotech products in general in the pharmacological industry. Drug costs can be recovered in monopoly markets, costing BILLIONS of dollars for research and development in a VERY short period of time for example if they are sold world wide, in MONTHS, let alone years.
It also takes COPYCAT drug companies a few years to get to market with generics EVEN AFTER the Patent expires, and THEY TOO must go through FDA approval processes for distribution that makes the process longer than just a question of copying the mechanical aspects of production of the copycat drug.
Very very BAD example my friend...Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
This is drivel. If your idea is worth a hill of beans you do what ever other person does, you build a demo product from investors, prove it works, and THEN patent it. You can't patent anything just from a sheet of paper and an IDEA you have to have a working model to begin with. I am sorry but your contention that no one would buy your invention before the patent expires is putting the horse before the cart.
It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Your example is contrived, heavily, like an astroturfed AD claiming everyone is using your product when nobody has even heard of it.
In fact, if you do the research in the Biotech industry you will find it doesn't take long for drug research to be recovered and profits to be achieved. This is more a function of the patient having to consume the drug, usually fairly frequently for example on a daily basis, and the size of the market. Which, is quite huge if we are talking world wide with possibly hundreds of MILLIONS of people suffering from a common disease such as high cholesterol levels.
I also do NOT believe, since you glossed over a lot of what I said for example in my argument, that longer than 2 years, companies tend to get cash stock piles that are SO HUGE, they use them to legally suppress NEW RESEARCH that disproves a drugs effectiveness. For example, in the liptor case, inflamation, NOT HIGH LDL cholesterol levels, is emerging to be the root cause of heart attacks and heart disease, NOT high cholesterol levels.
I have NO DOUBT, that current Phizor attorneys at THIS VERY MOMENT are looking at suing, or putting out of business ANYONE that touches thier Lipitor drug markets until Phizor, and ONLY Phizor has a solution to this inflamation problem, REGARDLESS of the market opportunities for anyone who decides they want to do research or sell into that market share Phizor already owns from the sale of Lipitor.
This is a common problem with patents that last longer than 2 years. You can also see this in the unhealthy diversification of the software market, for example here in the US. Companies like Microsoft use thier HUGE accumulated cash stockpiles from YEARS of Monopoly market control to SQUASH, or legally DESTROY any small inventor, company or that has a particular idea.
Most investors won't even TOUCH YOU if your idea has ANY IMPACT on Microsoft's percieved market place AND FOR GOOD REASON.
That shouldn't be the case, and I would argue just the opposite. Patent systems that provide market monopolies to companies longer than specified 2 years create stagnant market places, very little innovation and locks out new ideas or small inventors. Investors won't take the chance on an idea that could exhaust a startup's funds, just in legal expenses, if a company that controls a market monopoly can sue them out of business.
This has happened so many times in the past years with Microsoft and smaller companies it has bullied, I can't begin to explain.
Don't forget too, that the American consumer never ever gets to see any of these new ideas either because Microsoft would not permit the company to sell them on the open market place as well.
What is the impact of patents going to do to markets that issue them, which are small such as the combinded US and European Markets, and those that do not?
How can American and European startup companies possibly compete against foriegn markets if they must pay patents on ridiculously long patent lifetimes vs foreign companies who do not have such startup costs?
How can American companies hope to do any sort of research if they have huge legal battles ahead of them in patent research, into Biotech or Software for example, if foreign companies of other nations do not have these problems in thier own domestic markets?
Do you feel patents lead to monolithic, and very unhealthy non-diversivied, economics in the high tech industry of countries that issue patents? If so why and if not why not?
Do you think a high tech industry heavily patented is more healthy than one that is not?
I tend to feel patents should have a maximum lifetime of 2 years for the following reasons:
1) 2 years is long enough for almost any technology, and allows other companies a lower barrier to market for what most patents come to be: industry standards or acceptable practices.
2) It prevents a market place or any one company from manipulating the legal system for extensive periods of time to squash competition. Not only because of fear that a product might be superior, but to keep prices high and competition low.
3) Both 1 and 2 breed an industry, that economically in any country that has patents, that is unhealthy to said countries economic well being, and effectively causes problems in a world emerging marketplace for that company who wishes to compete world wide.
I think, the result from this could be quite serious and doesn't change an otherwise very scary future picture of Internet use in the US.
The entire fiasco sets a very bad precedent for DMCA observance.
First of all, Mr. Perens I don't believe acted intelligently, in behalf of the Open Source community, by legally attempting to challenge the law while being employed by someone who has no choice but to observe it.
I would have thought that would have been common sense, readily realized by Mr. Perens.
Secondly, this could do some serious damage to the credibility of what Open System Engineering/Source attempts to do:
That is to free the market place from corporations attempting to garner complete control over every single piece of equipment, professional occupation, or ideas that are produced using a computer, and making it legal (Required by law actually) to tax it at ANY price they see fit.
If you don't pay that price you can't:
1) Create Software of any kind. 2) Own a Computer of any kind. 3) Access any sort of information of any kind. 4) Create ideas using digital technoloy of any kind.
Unless...you pay said corporation a fixed sum, or give up rights to everything you create to said corporation and ONLY use thier products to do so.
Congress has legislated a DMCA that will destroy this countries IT economy as it tries to compete under those conditions with countries that do not recognize such draconian practices on its populace.
It will be virtually impossible, for the US to compete in the world economy if patent laws, DMCA laws are allowed to stay in place. How can you produce computers for example when half the cost of the computer is locked in a monopoly market driven software industry in the USA, and hope to undercut local distributors as such in China for example, who are building thier own OS's or preloading Linux on the same computers for 50% less?
All of this of course is a monpoly that has been legislated by a collusion between industry and government that is making the IT industry in this country extremely ill, running amock with corruption, bad products, and close to ZERO innovation now for the past 4 years.
Hang on to your Devils and Penguins boys in girls because very very soon, THE MAN will be knocking at your door asking why you are web serfing on a UNAUTHORIZED piece of STATE equipment NOT endorsed by COMPANY X who RUNS THE INTERNET.
Don't you KNOW SILLY MAN, we need to control what you information you access, use and pay for because you MIGHT BE A TERRORIST.
What that means is you get to wait for your security holes to appear with your OS and Microsoft gets to decide which ones it will fix.
That means I get too search for them and fix'em at my leisure 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year along with every other person that owns a copy of Linux, and the defects are fixed for free.
That means for you the ones Microsoft doesn't fix, means you get to only get them with the next OS upgrade, if you even know about them to begin with.
That means for me, while my competitors go Microsoft in the server room, I cut my costs way down on maintaining the security and integrity of my OS binaries.
Which means for you, are soon out of a job because your place of employment on average spends 50% more on each and every PC it puts in the server room because it has to ship Redmond a tax on the OS, and can't afford to pay you health insurance benefits, paid vacations and bonuses for Xmas every year.
Sorry guy, loose loose proposition for Mikeysoft here. A web browser, a VM and a base distro of linux is not only easier on the machine running the business logic, you can do it for far less, with Linux.
We shouldn't have to pay for an OS anymore when we buy computers and that is a simple fact. You don't pay extra as a line item with your OS right now for an IP stack, right?
8 years ago that wasn't the case because IP was a specialized piece of software.
Today no one in thier right mind would pay extra for IP stack with thier machine because it has become a standard.
Same thing with OS's, they are standard parts of the computer, and we shouldn't have to pay for them any more along with a Web browser and basic Office software.
The industry has evolved to the point now that software is getting less and less important. What IS growing in importance in this industry are two things:
1) People are the important part of the equation now more than ever. People are what you pay for to manage information technology.
2) Closed software deprives people of getting the most out of the money you pay people for when managing your IT infrastructure. Simply because number one prevents them from managing a closed software infrastructure as well as your competitors who pick an open one.
Hack
.Net with Apache
on
.NET for Apache
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wow.
Why would I want to run my infrastructure with a modified version of Apache with.Net?
Esepcially when I can build any web app with Linux, J2EE or Tomcat 4.x with zarro the nasty side effects of:
Tying my application to the PC platform and Microsoft's XP, both a combination made in hell to manage or even install..Net is unproven, unused, and extremely expensive to develop for after you make every single one of my developers run a License for this Microsoft product, and that Microsoft product? All this while my competitiors build the same app with Java and Linux put me out of business because thier business logic can move from thier AS/400, BSD Box, Apple Macintosh or Linux DESKTOP throughout the entire enterprise with ZARRO the cost of additional licenses?
Why would I do such a silly thing and restrict myself in any of these ways in this kind of business climate, which quite frankly sucks?.Net with.Not Apache.
With a Mozilla client, a Linux, BSD, or Apple or AS/400, and a decent backend database and a Java VM I have all the tools I need to write my business logic for the 21st century..No thanks.
How can a desktop war be fought when it hasn't arrived yet? KDE and GNOME are not ready.
However, mark my words IT WILL BE SOON.
This guy must have his own personal timeline and if the technology doesn't arrive by then because some company has already got the market and the software, its too late.
Thats just plain stupid, and that is not how economies work.
Are you NOT going to shop around for a car just because Henry Ford built the first one, and got thier first and basically took over the market initially?
No, of course not. I also many decades later, have never bought a Ford. My latest car is a Volkswagon, and my last one was a Nissan.
Why? Quality and price thats why.
He misses the entire point about Linux and its economics which drives it, why it has even got into IT server rooms in the first place, for example.
It is widely known, that if Linux is to win the desktop war, it will need to take over the server room first, which I think it is WELL on its way to doing that.
No matter what this guy says.
It will take 10 years for the industry to reshape itself around linux and ONLY linux.
But it is going to happen. I hope it happens in the US first otherwise our friends and our enemies who do, are going to have a HUGE economic advantage in information technology over us if we have to be saddled with ONE company taxing ANYTHING you do on your computer.
Which is exactly what.Net will bring us in the mean time. You will need huge amounts of cash and a thickbill fold to even execute code because your CPU time will be billed back to u.
Sounds incredible? I don't think it is if you do your homework and carefully read what Microsoft has in store for thier future OS..Net with Paladium already has the required design spec to automatically bill your account if you access ANY data Micosoft or some schmuck someone thinks your should pay for...anything from the weather forecast to ordering a book online for TWICE the PRICE just so you can use Microsoft's
CRAPPY PRODUCTS!!!
Anything you do essentially becomes a cut for BUILDING BILL A BIGGER HOUSE and to further centralize corporate control over information.
The picture this paints is NOT A PRETTY ONE and your local congressman no doubt is more than willing to let it happen as long as they get thier cut for thier next election campaign from these sorts of companies that want to dictate what kind of information you are permitted to have, or learn by who can pay the top dollar to do so.
If I had the time I would go. But unfortunately, I have a appointment with a few companies that feel they are spending too much money on.Net/XP upgrades, File and Print servers, extensive staff to track patches and bugs on a yearly basis.
Did I say they just might need a Linux box here or there to replace those, just maybe baby cakes?:-)
Certainly the servlet containers that many people specify are outrageous money wise.
WebSphere, WebLogic etc.
I don't use that stuff in my development work, I use Linux and Tomcat, and Cocoon 2.0.
Ironically, these products more closely follow the w3 recommendations as well, so there are fewer surprises.
I agree the licensing for building applications whether it be Java or.Net is outrageous.
But I think the problem here lies that Java technology is extremely extensible, to the point it is SO open, you do not have to restrict yourself to really bad licensing schemes..Net you don't have a choice.
Most people use Tomcat and Linux for Java server side development.
The only reason why the big guys are not is because Open Source Engineering is still viewed as a threat while the industry reshapes itself around this new economy.
Which is, the people are the important products, not the software or the hardware.
That is how you make money with Open Source. Products that are not based on people are sold using the old proprietary way of doing things. (Shrinkwrap).
Since just about everyone sells things this way at the moment, OSE type organizations are very threatening, very unknown and are quietly fighting a revolution in many IT departments world wide...
Well, you have some good points. Your right too, as technology comes about and grows, standards and those who jump the horse and cart will have problems/frustrations with any new technology.
You also didn't point out that XML/XSLT for example is really intended for Web Publishing. A technology that addresses the issues of organizational infrastructure in companies that have techies that do the programming and non-techies who have to have that new article about.Net failing to be accepted by the business world as Microsoft hoped for....
Java will continue to have its place in internet development because of its cross platform abilities.
Java is the only language that will insulate you to the degree of managing a diverse enterprise that requires software development.
It will also for the first time, preserve that investment across OS and hardware upgrades.
That means you don't have to rewrite your business logic just because your hardware or OS technology changes.
The cost savings by using Java is enourmous, without even considering the vs some other companies solution, feature for feature.
So right out the door you have a major incentive for using it in this very highly networked world where vendors, customers, and suppliers, distribution channels all have very diffferent computing environments.
I keep seeing "Java is too slow" comments from people on Slashdot that obviously have never used or have never developed web applications with it lately. So I won't even bother to say your wrong, your just way too inexperienced to understand a discussion on the topic..Net requires far too much money upfront to build even the simplest applications, including a huge investment in hardware infrastructure to make it work as it was intended. I won't even get into the licensing issues, just to outfit a small group of 5 developers you could spend well over 100K to build and deploy.Net applications.
If I may suggest, perhaps using the machine to help you?
After all, computers do Mathematics much faster than we do and are quite good at it.
I would consult a good book on the topic that combines computing with Mathematics.
Here are some good books in my library you can also get at your local Barnes and Noble or order online:
Astronomical Algorithms, Jean Meeus, Willmann-Bell,Inc. ISBN 0-943396-35-2
Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics J.M.A. Danby, Willmann-Bell, ISBN 0-943396-20-4
You might also want to check out:
http://www.wolfram.com for Mathematica. I think this is the single most important program I possess, and it runs natively on Linux.
Without it my understanding of Mathematics would be quite dim indeed.
I use the machine and computer programming to understand mathematics from a mechnical end first, since I know what operations fundamentally have to happen to obtain a answer once I program the computer.
This yields, more often than not, basic intuition into the more abstract problems one faces in the celestial mechanics field or even pure mathematics IMHE.
Many of the algorithms presented are in BASIC or Fortran and are fairly easy to understand.
I have converted quite a few of these algorithms into Java Computing Objects. I am building a gravitational computing engine in Java to enable my telescope to be remote controlled and also track asteroids/comets.
The entire notion, that software engineered in any venue either closed or open is more secure is a dumb question. They both are insecure.
Which software can be fixed more quickly, and can be reviewed for such defects at will and is open to peer review is more important question to ask.
The answer is clear:
Software which can readily be fixed and reviewed quickly is much more robust than software that cannot be reviewed, or fixed only with permission of a DMCA lawyer or court process, or worse, by the manufacture after they take thier good ole time at it...
Not only that, but you cannot review the viability of the fix with closed software.
I am not prepared for example to take Microsoft's word or any vendors word that a security problem doesn't exist in thier software since they patched it.
I won't even go into the secret back doors that disgruntled employees can put into closed software where it can sit for YEARS, with nobody finding out about it. Nobody can peer review it.
Correction, nobody saying it is thier that is vs. Hackers who discover the hole and don't tell anyone about it.
Very very bad. I personally feel security of any product should be open by default, but I won't accept an OS on any of my companies systems/servers if it isn't fully open for peer review by my engineers.
Especially the Operating System.
Those who say Open Source makes it easier to find security problems are right! Thats why the software is so secure, the problems are easier to locate and they are fixed even faster.
If it doesn't make sense from a security perspective to quickly identify and fix vulnerabilities in open software, pray tell how would one fix a closed source/proprietary piece of software?
Answer: You don't and you cross your fingers.
To Which my reply is: Not with my F*cking credit card number you don't...
AS LONG AS, of course, the laptop hardware is fully publicized and IBM doesn't pull any secret crap like Nvidia does, making it next too impossible to develop drivers for any devices included with the laptop.
I have a number of problems with current search technology and researchers on "Discovery Channel" popularizing Asteroid impacts. Lord knows there has been enough cheesy programs on the "Science" and Discovery Channel about the topic.
IMHO most of the researchers on these programmes put forth a view that is entirely incorrect, and if I may say so, arrogant and simplistic. In particular with regards to the actual search process, technology currently available in computer automatated telescope technology:
For example:
1) The United States Air Force and Jet Propulsion Lab, use computer based search systems with dedicated wide angle telescopes. When they talk about them on the Discovery Channel they confidently talk about scanning the entire sky in about 5-8 years and cataloging the entire sky and ALL earth crossing asteroids down to some guess about size given the equipment and what astronomers consider a size range that is dangerous.
This assumes the local region of what is basically the domain of what are called Apollo Objects, is static in this search frame. (i.e. it doesn't change with regards to size of objects, number of objects, and relative velcotiy of such objects in the search time frame period.)
Preposterous, drivel, stupidy almost on the same scale as the problem of Asteroid Orbital Collision Detection.
I don't believe that after completing a search after 8 years the total population of asteroids will not change in another 8 years, or, in even a years time with regards to size, velocity, and number.
This is a flaw in our understanding of the inner solar systems population of these objects and how this region of space even comes to be populated by such objects.
You will notice I left out composition, which is a wild card in impact hazard object classification. We simply do not know what will be worse, a iron asteroid 5 kilometers in diameter or a dirtball of the same size. The Iron asteroid sounds more devastating doesn't it?
Too bad, but density is not what the game is only about. I wish it was that simple, really. To listen to these Discovery Programes/Science Channel shows on cable, that seems to be thier only concern.
Too bad too, because it doesn't work that way. I for example woud take a 1 Kilometer diameter Iron Asteroid at 20Kph than a.5 Kilometer dirtball at 37Kph ANY DAY.
We do not know what the rate of repopulation recovery is in this region of space or the objects in question, composition.
This is their first mistake, one of many. For brevity I will stick the ones they make popular on TV programs/Hollywood Films.
2) Their second mistake, is of course reliance on primitive and extremely simplistic computer algorithms that compare photographic evidence to make them feel warm and fuzzy. (i.e. Oooo, we GOT that one...or even make such stupid statements like: we have 30% of all objects catagorized. Sure YOU DO.)
I totally believe you Mr./Ms. Stanford Univerity Researcher. I feel so much safer now.
What they do not tell you is that searches cannot be automated in almost 40% of the sky, simply because the sky is too crowded with extra galactic targets, earth junk already in orbit giving false positives and the Milky Way. The Milky Way has so much clutter in a single photograph, that no computer search algorithms now in existence can correctly screeen out this clutter 100%.
That is, without possibly destroying the evidence in the photo of a earth crosser during the "filtering process".
I have first hand experience in trying to find a solution to this problem, and the only solution is not too use a computer but to manually check each and every photograph in this region of the sky. (Milky or 20-30 degrees either side of the galatic equator.)
I have not doubt in the near future (20-50 years) as computing power grows, this will be overcome not 100%, but too an acceptable risk level that we can accept the results of a PRELIMINARY search of the Milky Way, when the computer says: "No, no Earth Crossing Candidates found in this preliminary search."
That time has not yet arrived unfortunatly.
3)Their third mistake of course, is not the arrogance of these primitive systems that are currently built, or on the drawing boards for that matter, but the simple fact that we have no way to search for such objects during the day time, have way too few of such systems in the first place. (Although they do point out correctly, that thier are few RESEARCHERS on this issue. Probably why they use such BAD ONES in the field on the program.)
Commentary about Probability and Governments with Super Weapons of Unprecedented Scale
My fellow Slashdot Users: The sheer size and scope of the problem, detecting and averting an asteroid impact, is quite frankly a "bet the farm" sorta game. I am not talking about if's of course, but when's a large impact happens, we all go BYE BYE.
To understand what I mean and the difference here, you have to understand probability. Most of the people on these Discovery/"Science" programs don't understand exactly what probability is and what it means in this particular and very special case, asteroid/comet impact that triggers a large extinction.
Why is this a special case of probability? One that is not the same as getting a lottery ticket for example or letting your sister drive your brand new car and wrecking it?
Simply because when they say we can relax on these TV programes and that the odds are a simple matter of "1-100,00 means it ain't going to happen any time soon. So we can breathe easy." They also compare it to "winning the lottery" as one researcher put it and that we have nothing to be afraid of near term.
What they don't understand or communicate in these programs is that a 1-100,000 chance means a low probability, yes, but if it does happen, kiss your 9-5 Job good bye, your house, your car and all your little frivilous, stupid concerns about getting up in the morning and figuring out which tie to wear.
Forget about Osama Bin Laden and his little games to detroy Modern Civilization and plunge us back 5,000 years to living in caves again.
Forget about Democrats, Republicans and platform issues.
Forget about Ice Cream.
Forget about Slashdot.
This is NOT the same kind of probability or RISK that you or someone takes when you go to buy lottery tickets.
It is quite different, in fact.
If you don't win, for example you can play again. If your number comes up other people can play the lottery too.
This isn't the CASE PEOPLE with this sort of probability game.
If Homo Sapiens # comes up, today, tomorrow, or the next day, we won't be around to try again.
I am not going to get into the what to do even if we do detect such an asteroid or what could be done.
(Hopefully we actually have people who can integrate a N body problem properly to figure it out...thats a risk too with todays Politically Correct Universities and thier adversity to rewarding or even recognizing excellence in Mathematics. Anything else for that matter...but I digress...).
Hollywood seems to think, unfortunatly, so do most scientists, that we could actually within the next 30 years divert the path of one of these objects.
I think there is a bigger chance that someone will patent the weapon idea and hold the world ransom for 20 trillion dollars. It will be tied up in the courts for 20 years before it can be built.
But I digress....because:
It won't happen. The technology doesn't exist, and it it has never been tried or tested. We can't even go to the moon again, lacking the political will, let alone divert a small planetoid from destroying us.
However, what has been tried, and what we know does work, is putting other people onto other bodies in the solar system. We have done that. We can do it again, of course, we will have to start from square one again, as most engineers from the apollo program are pretty much dead by now...)
I am suggesting we have a better chance of survival as a species in dealing with this problem of annihilation, by getting ourselves at home in Space, or on the moon or on Mars.
This would be far less risky, and far less expensive in spending money to develop a WEAPON that could divert such an object.
Don't forget, we would have to test the weapon to see if it works. This weapon, would have the capability to deflect a planetoid as WELL AS DIRECT a planetoid with the intent to destroy or protect an entire planet's surface from impact. We could test it on Jupitor I suppose or some terrorists could break into the control facility and hold the entire planet ransom...
Either is a possibility.
But quite frankly, two human settlements is far better an investment, than any money poured into a weapon possessed by a Goverment, that could be THAT destructive.
I now return you back to the reality of buying Lottery tickets for that 1-100,000,000 chance of getting that Power Ball, vs 1-100,000 chance you will even be here to collect it tomorrow...
Hack (Up on the mount looking up...and waiting...)
Yes the code is open, and the reason why this is a plus is because the many eyes open and looking and that are involved in open source projects can see them and fix them faster.
Do you honestly think, that a closed source OS like Microsoft's XP with only a limited number of developers cleared to work on it, can possibly be more effective at identifying holes and security issues than for example, the Linux kernel? Which by the way has 10's thousands of people looking at the source code, fixing and plugging holes almost on a daily basis.
The problem is u have the argument all wrong. It isn't that either development method produces fewer defects or security holes, the argument is which one produces a process which can fix the bugs faster.
The best way to do that is to get the source into as many hands as possible with NO restrictions.
Thats a fact. Don't believe me? Do some research at www.cert.org and compare the sheer number of Microsoft security breaches over the years compared to the Linux OS.
As far as lagging behind, Microsoft XP lags WAY behind in Linux in IPV6 implementation, for example, along with VoiceIP, VPN's, etc.
Desktop apps, yes Linux does lag behind.
But, that is only because we are in the process of winning the server room war.
Give us enough time, once that war is one, we will turn our attentions to the desktop technologies which you site such as Graphics, etc.
Although, as far has Graphics, I don't think you have been reading enough about what exactly Linux is doing in that area. Several Major motion pictures that have come out of hollywood have been done with Linux desktop tools recently. (Shrek, Toy Story 2, Ice Age..etc.)
Documentation issues you site, I don't see how that can affect the outcome of a determined hacker. If someone is determined to insert code that is a security problem in a OSS project then they will do it. Same can be said of Microsoft's OS though, and has already happened.
Problem is though, we come back to what I said before. There are far more eyes looking at a typical OSS project than a Microsoft or closed system. How can you hide such a thing when you have the source open to so many people.
I also must say, given the number of projects I have been involved with in the Open Source world, it is rare, that ANYONE can contribute a binary. By that I mean, usually you only go to the OFFICIAL project pages to download a app. It is not possible to simply download a project and make changes to it and upload it with the security hack. Anyone in an OSS project that has write permissions to a project are well known and not strangers to the project itself, and are never anonymous contributors.
So I am not sure how these detractors like yourself say that modification of the source of a app is a real possibility. I don't think it is as big as a possibility as the possibility that closed source app will have a back door in it inserted by a disgruntled employee.
I find that MUCH MORE a possibility than the latter.
Can anyone explain to me where these people get these stupid ideas?
Can a virus hide more effectively for example in a OpenSource system or a proprietary closed one?
Does anyone here honestly not understand the obvious answer to this question?
The facet of this report deals with the GPL, which requires Open Source as a policy for license compliance.
Therefore, I don't understand what the difference they are trying to make between GPL'ed and OpenSource in the introduction of this article from the author.
I do not have any tools per se, in teaching computing concepts. I usually start with diagrams of what computing hardware is, though.
After all, basic operation of a motor vehicle and how it is maintained for example begins with maintaining its parts, and why and what happens when you don't change the oil for example on a regular basis.
Same thing with computing machinery. What parts do what provide a thoughtful framework, a conceptual framework in how and what programming is and how to do it.
MMU's, Registers, Stack Frames (if you are on a CISC machine), and the hardware that makes these things go.
From there I move into the flow of information and instructions through the machine. I can then use that as a jump point to teaching programming concepts:
1) I begin with the 5 "holy" constructs of structured design. From these 5 constructs all computing algorithms can be encompassed.
command, if/then, while, do/while, case.
This provides a conceptual and I think easy way to build simple programs.
I usually ask people to design an algorithm that counts to 10 then quits, for example.
2) After people master these concepts of control and command, I can then usually introduce the more advanced concepts of what data means to execution and implementation on the structure of code. (i.e. Data Structures)
I try to keep the Math at a minimum unless I am talking with a bunch of PhD's who for example, want to figure out the finer points of whatever weather model they are building and its impact on the execution time on the target machine.
Math however, is very important in structured design. God has his hands everywhere in your code you know, and he writes hints on how to improve it and how to store that data and access it, in his own handwriting...
Mathematics.
4) After we cover those topics, we get into the world of specialized design. We cover some of the more highly specialized fields in command and data representation such as Object Oriented Design,
Conceptual models for OOD I use typically begin with the construction of a Structured Design template, and the I transform it into an equivalent OOD. OOD is very abstract, even more so than structured design in many ways.
Many structured design students of the past 30 years in computer science often have a VERY hard time making the jump into this new mode of thinking.
It takes more than just learning a new language to be a good OOD'er. Many of my students depending on the effort, usually are quite skilled in OOD about 2 years of writing code, and proper mentoring.
That is of course, as long as you don't use Microsoft tools.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to try looking at the vendor pages at http://jakarta.apache.org/site/vendors.html
Hack
I was afraid this was going to happen.
What I have said before now begins.
Countries will not use nor build thier societies economies or government bodies on information technology that unfairly gives the US/Europe an edge.
They will use our own laws against us and defeat us in the economic arena, just as we did with the USSR, as American companies quickly find they cannot sell products abroad in such markets that do not recognize DMCA or Copyright laws as they are written in US/Europe.
This is just the beginning.
There will come a time when China and the Soviet Union will awaken economically, and the US and Europe are going to be very very sorry implementing laws based on simple greed.
Greed doesn't work, quick and very fast innovation does, and with heavy laws and legal fees to bear American/European companies will not stand a chance.
The only logical move will be exactly what we see today happening in the manufacturing base in our society. It will be moved.
In this case, American and European companies will move the construction and design of software to the Soviet Union and China to escape the copyrights, patents, DMCA and all the legal expenses to build software in the US.
Companies already do this to escape the tax laws, they most certainly will do this as well when the time comes.
Which is very soon I am afraid.
Hack
Absolutely Fried Chicken Amazing job.
My hat is off to this guy for the website displaying all the content off the machines.
Postively some of the best entertainment I have had all week!
Hilarious!
PS: Thank You Uncle Bill for such a Crappy OS from which I would never have had this pleasure....
Hack
I agree, compensation should be given to those who information we use. But the problem is the system for patents and copyrights don't do that.
Patents are enforced for way to long of a period of time, and how patents are enforced and issued in this country with regards to technology is not well policed. (i.e. submarine patents...with JPEG for example...)
Secondly, I think we have to recognize that other countries that do not recognize these particular forms of information lockout (patents and copyrights) may very well destroy our economy.
I am of course referring to countries that build thier entire infrastructure markets on Linux for example.
You could also argue, that if it wasn't for Linux, alot of ISP's would have gone out of business and we quite possibly would have a very very different kind of internet.
One that would probably be only for the rich and the very powerful who could afford the access fees, the computers and software to get online in the first place, etc.
We need a revised patent and copyright system, starting with getting rid of patent law, and DMCA and copyrights to begin with and creating something that provides equity for the producer and consumer in this country.
It can be done, but I am afraid too many powerful and very rich companies won't permit the status quo to go away anytime soon.
Hack
It has nothing to do with royalties. Copyright and Patents are designed for one thing:
1) To enforce existing market monopolies for those companies that have the legal cash stockpiles to do so.
2) Making sure the consumer never has a choice of any other medium or format that isn't controlled by the attorneys/board of directors of said company that currently has a market monopoly.
3) Using the power and cash that comes from that power, of such a market monopoly, companies and board of directories buy our lawmakers, and insure that laws are made to enforce any market monopoly in place. All perfectly legal I am afraid.
Finally this is not a question of royalties. Companies/organizations that control whole markets are not interested in third parties tiny little royalty payments. They want to own the ENTIRE market. That is the only way to stay in power.
Secondly, market volatility is prevented because you can squash any competitor to your organization that comes along that may destabilize the "status quo".
Entire markets online have closed for competitors to what the RIAA is and represents because they have enourmous cash stockpiles to grease the collusion of government lawmakers and therefore the legal system.
The AntiTrust system in this country is a joke, quite frankly. I don't even know why it is on the books. I think it is a TAX law. (i.e. If a company "all of a sudden" falls under the anti trust act they must not be paying someone in Washington enough money. As we have seen with Microsoft, you hand over enough money lawmakers go away, and you retain your market monopoly.)
Hack
Dear Earth,
We respectfully request you send some TShirts, size XL that say "Mars or Bust".
Also, send more of those little remote controlled Martian lander thingys because the children love them as Xmas gifts.
Thank You,
Martians
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
Oh plu-eaze....
You are going to tell me, that for example, Lipitor, a drug that controls enzyme blood levels for cholesterol for people that have high LDL levels in thier blood, would not be financially recovered in research and development if world wide a monopoly on the drug sale for 2 years, couldn't recoupe the cost? Furthermore because the market is a world wide monopoly as you suggest, the drug company in question sets the price anyway based on recovering expenses during that two years?
Especially when the patient has to take the drug on a DAILY basis, in this case?
I am sorry, but that was a real BAD assumption, basis for your argument, for biotech products in general in the pharmacological industry. Drug costs can be recovered in monopoly markets, costing BILLIONS of dollars for research and development in a VERY short period of time for example if they are sold world wide, in MONTHS, let alone years.
It also takes COPYCAT drug companies a few years to get to market with generics EVEN AFTER the Patent expires, and THEY TOO must go through FDA approval processes for distribution that makes the process longer than just a question of copying the mechanical aspects of production of the copycat drug.
Very very BAD example my friend.
This is drivel. If your idea is worth a hill of beans you do what ever other person does, you build a demo product from investors, prove it works, and THEN patent it. You can't patent anything just from a sheet of paper and an IDEA you have to have a working model to begin with. I am sorry but your contention that no one would buy your invention before the patent expires is putting the horse before the cart.
It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Your example is contrived, heavily, like an astroturfed AD claiming everyone is using your product when nobody has even heard of it.
In fact, if you do the research in the Biotech industry you will find it doesn't take long for drug research to be recovered and profits to be achieved. This is more a function of the patient having to consume the drug, usually fairly frequently for example on a daily basis, and the size of the market. Which, is quite huge if we are talking world wide with possibly hundreds of MILLIONS of people suffering from a common disease such as high cholesterol levels.
I also do NOT believe, since you glossed over a lot of what I said for example in my argument, that longer than 2 years, companies tend to get cash stock piles that are SO HUGE, they use them to legally suppress NEW RESEARCH that disproves a drugs effectiveness. For example, in the liptor case, inflamation, NOT HIGH LDL cholesterol levels, is emerging to be the root cause of heart attacks and heart disease, NOT high cholesterol levels.
I have NO DOUBT, that current Phizor attorneys at THIS VERY MOMENT are looking at suing, or putting out of business ANYONE that touches thier Lipitor drug markets until Phizor, and ONLY Phizor has a solution to this inflamation problem, REGARDLESS of the market opportunities for anyone who decides they want to do research or sell into that market share Phizor already owns from the sale of Lipitor.
This is a common problem with patents that last longer than 2 years. You can also see this in the unhealthy diversification of the software market, for example here in the US. Companies like Microsoft use thier HUGE accumulated cash stockpiles from YEARS of Monopoly market control to SQUASH, or legally DESTROY any small inventor, company or that has a particular idea.
Most investors won't even TOUCH YOU if your idea has ANY IMPACT on Microsoft's percieved market place AND FOR GOOD REASON.
That shouldn't be the case, and I would argue just the opposite. Patent systems that provide market monopolies to companies longer than specified 2 years create stagnant market places, very little innovation and locks out new ideas or small inventors. Investors won't take the chance on an idea that could exhaust a startup's funds, just in legal expenses, if a company that controls a market monopoly can sue them out of business.
This has happened so many times in the past years with Microsoft and smaller companies it has bullied, I can't begin to explain.
Don't forget too, that the American consumer never ever gets to see any of these new ideas either because Microsoft would not permit the company to sell them on the open market place as well.
-hack
What is the impact of patents going to do to markets that issue them, which are small such as the combinded US and European Markets, and those that do not?
How can American and European startup companies possibly compete against foriegn markets if they must pay patents on ridiculously long patent lifetimes vs foreign companies who do not have such startup costs?
How can American companies hope to do any sort of research if they have huge legal battles ahead of them in patent research, into Biotech or Software for example, if foreign companies of other nations do not have these problems in thier own domestic markets?
Do you feel patents lead to monolithic, and very unhealthy non-diversivied, economics in the high tech industry of countries that issue patents? If so why and if not why not?
Do you think a high tech industry heavily patented is more healthy than one that is not?
I tend to feel patents should have a maximum lifetime of 2 years for the following reasons:
1) 2 years is long enough for almost any technology, and allows other companies a lower barrier to market for what most patents come to be: industry standards or acceptable practices.
2) It prevents a market place or any one company from manipulating the legal system for extensive periods of time to squash competition. Not only because of fear that a product might be superior, but to keep prices high and competition low.
3) Both 1 and 2 breed an industry, that economically in any country that has patents, that is unhealthy to said countries economic well being, and effectively causes problems in a world emerging marketplace for that company who wishes to compete world wide.
Hack
Yeah, well, I wish I WAS smoking crack because half of the things I have seen lately in the US makes me think EVERYONE ELSE IS smoking crack.
Especially the patent office and our dear Congress.
Hack
I think, the result from this could be quite serious and doesn't change an otherwise very scary future picture of Internet use in the US.
The entire fiasco sets a very bad precedent for DMCA observance.
First of all, Mr. Perens I don't believe acted intelligently, in behalf of the Open Source community, by legally attempting to challenge the law while being employed by someone who has no choice but to observe it.
I would have thought that would have been common sense, readily realized by Mr. Perens.
Secondly, this could do some serious damage to the credibility of what Open System Engineering/Source attempts to do:
That is to free the market place from corporations attempting to garner complete control over every single piece of equipment, professional occupation, or ideas that are produced using a computer, and making it legal (Required by law actually) to tax it at ANY price they see fit.
If you don't pay that price you can't:
1) Create Software of any kind.
2) Own a Computer of any kind.
3) Access any sort of information of any kind.
4) Create ideas using digital technoloy of any kind.
Unless...you pay said corporation a fixed sum, or give up rights to everything you create to said corporation and ONLY use thier products to do so.
Congress has legislated a DMCA that will destroy this countries IT economy as it tries to compete under those conditions with countries that do not recognize such draconian practices on its populace.
It will be virtually impossible, for the US to compete in the world economy if patent laws, DMCA laws are allowed to stay in place. How can you produce computers for example when half the cost of the computer is locked in a monopoly market driven software industry in the USA, and hope to undercut local distributors as such in China for example, who are building thier own OS's or preloading Linux on the same computers for 50% less?
All of this of course is a monpoly that has been legislated by a collusion between industry and government that is making the IT industry in this country extremely ill, running amock with corruption, bad products, and close to ZERO innovation now for the past 4 years.
Hang on to your Devils and Penguins boys in girls because very very soon, THE MAN will be knocking at your door asking why you are web serfing on a UNAUTHORIZED piece of STATE equipment NOT endorsed by COMPANY X who RUNS THE INTERNET.
Don't you KNOW SILLY MAN, we need to control what you information you access, use and pay for because you MIGHT BE A TERRORIST.
Hack
Open means I get the source.
Uncle Bill means you don't.
What that means is you get to wait for your security holes to appear with your OS and Microsoft gets to decide which ones it will fix.
That means I get too search for them and fix'em at my leisure 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a year along with every other person that owns a copy of Linux, and the defects are fixed for free.
That means for you the ones Microsoft doesn't fix, means you get to only get them with the next OS upgrade, if you even know about them to begin with.
That means for me, while my competitors go Microsoft in the server room, I cut my costs way down on maintaining the security and integrity of my OS binaries.
Which means for you, are soon out of a job because your place of employment on average spends 50% more on each and every PC it puts in the server room because it has to ship Redmond a tax on the OS, and can't afford to pay you health insurance benefits, paid vacations and bonuses for Xmas every year.
Sorry guy, loose loose proposition for Mikeysoft here. A web browser, a VM and a base distro of linux is not only easier on the machine running the business logic, you can do it for far less, with Linux.
We shouldn't have to pay for an OS anymore when we buy computers and that is a simple fact. You don't pay extra as a line item with your OS right now for an IP stack, right?
8 years ago that wasn't the case because IP was a specialized piece of software.
Today no one in thier right mind would pay extra for IP stack with thier machine because it has become a standard.
Same thing with OS's, they are standard parts of the computer, and we shouldn't have to pay for them any more along with a Web browser and basic Office software.
The industry has evolved to the point now that software is getting less and less important. What IS growing in importance in this industry are two things:
1) People are the important part of the equation now more than ever. People are what you pay for to manage information technology.
2) Closed software deprives people of getting the most out of the money you pay people for when managing your IT infrastructure. Simply because number one prevents them from managing a closed software infrastructure as well as your competitors who pick an open one.
Hack
Wow.
.Net?
.Net is unproven, unused, and extremely expensive to develop for after you make every single one of my developers run a License for this Microsoft product, and that Microsoft product? All this while my competitiors build the same app with Java and Linux put me out of business because thier business logic can move from thier AS/400, BSD Box, Apple Macintosh or Linux DESKTOP throughout the entire enterprise with ZARRO the cost of additional licenses?
.Net with .Not Apache.
.No thanks.
Why would I want to run my infrastructure with a modified version of Apache with
Esepcially when I can build any web app with Linux, J2EE or Tomcat 4.x with zarro the nasty side effects of:
Tying my application to the PC platform and Microsoft's XP, both a combination made in hell to manage or even install.
Why would I do such a silly thing and restrict myself in any of these ways in this kind of business climate, which quite frankly sucks?
With a Mozilla client, a Linux, BSD, or Apple or AS/400, and a decent backend database and a Java VM I have all the tools I need to write my business logic for the 21st century.
Hack
Poppy cock.
.Net will bring us in the mean time. You will need huge amounts of cash and a thickbill fold to even execute code because your CPU time will be billed back to u.
.Net with Paladium already has the required design spec to automatically bill your account if you access ANY data Micosoft or some schmuck someone thinks your should pay for...anything from the weather forecast to ordering a book online for TWICE the PRICE just so you can use Microsoft's
How can a desktop war be fought when it hasn't arrived yet? KDE and GNOME are not ready.
However, mark my words IT WILL BE SOON.
This guy must have his own personal timeline and if the technology doesn't arrive by then because some company has already got the market and the software, its too late.
Thats just plain stupid, and that is not how economies work.
Are you NOT going to shop around for a car just because Henry Ford built the first one, and got thier first and basically took over the market initially?
No, of course not. I also many decades later, have never bought a Ford. My latest car is a Volkswagon, and my last one was a Nissan.
Why? Quality and price thats why.
He misses the entire point about Linux and its economics which drives it, why it has even got into IT server rooms in the first place, for example.
It is widely known, that if Linux is to win the desktop war, it will need to take over the server room first, which I think it is WELL on its way to doing that.
No matter what this guy says.
It will take 10 years for the industry to reshape itself around linux and ONLY linux.
But it is going to happen. I hope it happens in the US first otherwise our friends and our enemies who do, are going to have a HUGE economic advantage in information technology over us if we have to be saddled with ONE company taxing ANYTHING you do on your computer.
Which is exactly what
Sounds incredible? I don't think it is if you do your homework and carefully read what Microsoft has in store for thier future OS.
CRAPPY PRODUCTS!!!
Anything you do essentially becomes a cut for BUILDING BILL A BIGGER HOUSE and to further centralize corporate control over information.
The picture this paints is NOT A PRETTY ONE and your local congressman no doubt is more than willing to let it happen as long as they get thier cut for thier next election campaign from these sorts of companies that want to dictate what kind of information you are permitted to have, or learn by who can pay the top dollar to do so.
Hack
I hope they get heckled.
.Net/XP upgrades, File and Print servers, extensive staff to track patches and bugs on a yearly basis.
:-)
If I had the time I would go. But unfortunately, I have a appointment with a few companies that feel they are spending too much money on
Did I say they just might need a Linux box here or there to replace those, just maybe baby cakes?
Hack
Certainly the servlet containers that many people specify are outrageous money wise.
.Net is outrageous.
.Net you don't have a choice.
WebSphere, WebLogic etc.
I don't use that stuff in my development work, I use Linux and Tomcat, and Cocoon 2.0.
Ironically, these products more closely follow the w3 recommendations as well, so there are fewer surprises.
I agree the licensing for building applications whether it be Java or
But I think the problem here lies that Java technology is extremely extensible, to the point it is SO open, you do not have to restrict yourself to really bad licensing schemes.
Most people use Tomcat and Linux for Java server side development.
The only reason why the big guys are not is because Open Source Engineering is still viewed as a threat while the industry reshapes itself around this new economy.
Which is, the people are the important products, not the software or the hardware.
That is how you make money with Open Source. Products that are not based on people are sold using the old proprietary way of doing things.
(Shrinkwrap).
Since just about everyone sells things this way at the moment, OSE type organizations are very threatening, very unknown and are quietly fighting a revolution in many IT departments world wide...
Hack
Well, you have some good points. Your right too, as technology comes about and grows, standards and those who jump the horse and cart will have problems/frustrations with any new technology.
.Net failing to be accepted by the business world as Microsoft hoped for....
You also didn't point out that XML/XSLT for example is really intended for Web Publishing. A technology that addresses the issues of organizational infrastructure in companies that have techies that do the programming and non-techies who have to have that new article about
For example.
That is where it does shine.
hack
Java will continue to have its place in internet development because of its cross platform abilities.
.Net requires far too much money upfront to build even the simplest applications, including a huge investment in hardware infrastructure to make it work as it was intended. I won't even get into the licensing issues, just to outfit a small group of 5 developers you could spend well over 100K to build and deploy .Net applications.
Java is the only language that will insulate you to the degree of managing a diverse enterprise that requires software development.
It will also for the first time, preserve that investment across OS and hardware upgrades.
That means you don't have to rewrite your business logic just because your hardware or OS technology changes.
The cost savings by using Java is enourmous, without even considering the vs some other companies solution, feature for feature.
So right out the door you have a major incentive for using it in this very highly networked world where vendors, customers, and suppliers, distribution channels all have very diffferent computing environments.
I keep seeing "Java is too slow" comments from people on Slashdot that obviously have never used or have never developed web applications with it lately. So I won't even bother to say your wrong, your just way too inexperienced to understand a discussion on the topic.
Ridiculous.
Hack
If I may suggest, perhaps using the machine to help you?
After all, computers do Mathematics much faster than we do and are quite good at it.
I would consult a good book on the topic that combines computing with Mathematics.
Here are some good books in my library you can also get at your local Barnes and Noble or order online:
Astronomical Algorithms, Jean Meeus, Willmann-Bell,Inc. ISBN 0-943396-35-2
Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics J.M.A. Danby, Willmann-Bell, ISBN 0-943396-20-4
You might also want to check out:
http://www.wolfram.com for Mathematica. I think this is the single most important program I possess, and it runs natively on Linux.
Without it my understanding of Mathematics would be quite dim indeed.
I use the machine and computer programming to understand mathematics from a mechnical end first, since I know what operations fundamentally have to happen to obtain a answer once I program the computer.
This yields, more often than not, basic intuition into the more abstract problems one faces in the celestial mechanics field or even pure mathematics IMHE.
Many of the algorithms presented are in BASIC or Fortran and are fairly easy to understand.
I have converted quite a few of these algorithms into Java Computing Objects. I am building a gravitational computing engine in Java to enable my telescope to be remote controlled and also track asteroids/comets.
Hack
The entire notion, that software engineered in any venue either closed or open is more secure is a dumb question. They both are insecure.
Which software can be fixed more quickly, and can be reviewed for such defects at will and is open to peer review is more important question to ask.
The answer is clear:
Software which can readily be fixed and reviewed quickly is much more robust than software that cannot be reviewed, or fixed only with permission of a DMCA lawyer or court process, or worse, by the manufacture after they take thier good ole time at it...
Not only that, but you cannot review the viability of the fix with closed software.
I am not prepared for example to take Microsoft's word or any vendors word that a security problem doesn't exist in thier software since they patched it.
I won't even go into the secret back doors that disgruntled employees can put into closed software where it can sit for YEARS, with nobody finding out about it. Nobody can peer review it.
Correction, nobody saying it is thier that is vs. Hackers who discover the hole and don't tell anyone about it.
Very very bad. I personally feel security of any product should be open by default, but I won't accept an OS on any of my companies systems/servers if it isn't fully open for peer review by my engineers.
Especially the Operating System.
Those who say Open Source makes it easier to find security problems are right! Thats why the software is so secure, the problems are easier to locate and they are fixed even faster.
If it doesn't make sense from a security perspective to quickly identify and fix vulnerabilities in open software, pray tell how would one fix a closed source/proprietary piece of software?
Answer: You don't and you cross your fingers.
To Which my reply is: Not with my F*cking credit card number you don't...
hack
No Big Deal.
AS LONG AS, of course, the laptop hardware is fully publicized and IBM doesn't pull any secret crap like Nvidia does, making it next too impossible to develop drivers for any devices included with the laptop.
hack
I have a number of problems with current search technology and researchers on "Discovery Channel" popularizing Asteroid impacts. Lord knows there has been enough cheesy programs on the "Science" and Discovery Channel about the topic.
.5 Kilometer dirtball at 37Kph ANY DAY.
IMHO most of the researchers on these programmes put forth a view that is entirely incorrect, and if I may say so, arrogant and simplistic. In particular with regards to the actual search process, technology currently available in computer automatated telescope technology:
For example:
1) The United States Air Force and Jet Propulsion Lab, use computer based search systems with dedicated wide angle telescopes. When they talk about them on the Discovery Channel they confidently talk about scanning the entire sky in about 5-8 years and cataloging the entire sky and ALL earth crossing asteroids down to some guess about size given the equipment and what astronomers consider a size range that is dangerous.
This assumes the local region of what is basically the domain of what are called Apollo Objects, is static in this search frame. (i.e. it doesn't change with regards to size of objects, number of objects, and relative velcotiy of such objects in the search time frame period.)
Preposterous, drivel, stupidy almost on the same scale as the problem of Asteroid Orbital Collision Detection.
I don't believe that after completing a search after 8 years the total population of asteroids will not change in another 8 years, or, in even a years time with regards to size, velocity, and number.
This is a flaw in our understanding of the inner solar systems population of these objects and how this region of space even comes to be populated by such objects.
You will notice I left out composition, which is a wild card in impact hazard object classification. We simply do not know what will be worse, a iron asteroid 5 kilometers in diameter or a dirtball of the same size. The Iron asteroid sounds more devastating doesn't it?
Too bad, but density is not what the game is only about. I wish it was that simple, really. To listen to these Discovery Programes/Science Channel shows on cable, that seems to be thier only concern.
Too bad too, because it doesn't work that way. I for example woud take a 1 Kilometer diameter Iron Asteroid at 20Kph than a
We do not know what the rate of repopulation recovery is in this region of space or the objects in question, composition.
This is their first mistake, one of many. For brevity I will stick the ones they make popular on TV programs/Hollywood Films.
2) Their second mistake, is of course reliance on primitive and extremely simplistic computer algorithms that compare photographic evidence to make them feel warm and fuzzy. (i.e. Oooo, we GOT that one...or even make such stupid statements like: we have 30% of all objects catagorized. Sure YOU DO.)
I totally believe you Mr./Ms. Stanford Univerity Researcher. I feel so much safer now.
What they do not tell you is that searches cannot be automated in almost 40% of the sky, simply because the sky is too crowded with extra galactic targets, earth junk already in orbit giving false positives and the Milky Way. The Milky Way has so much clutter in a single photograph, that no computer search algorithms now in existence can correctly screeen out this clutter 100%.
That is, without possibly destroying the evidence in the photo of a earth crosser during the "filtering process".
I have first hand experience in trying to find a solution to this problem, and the only solution is not too use a computer but to manually check each and every photograph in this region of the sky. (Milky or 20-30 degrees either side of the galatic equator.)
I have not doubt in the near future (20-50 years) as computing power grows, this will be overcome not 100%, but too an acceptable risk level that we can accept the results of a PRELIMINARY search of the Milky Way, when the computer says: "No, no Earth Crossing Candidates found in this preliminary search."
That time has not yet arrived unfortunatly.
3)Their third mistake of course, is not the arrogance of these primitive systems that are currently built, or on the drawing boards for that matter, but the simple fact that we have no way to search for such objects during the day time, have way too few of such systems in the first place. (Although they do point out correctly, that thier are few RESEARCHERS on this issue. Probably why they use such BAD ONES in the field on the program.)
Commentary about Probability and Governments with Super Weapons of Unprecedented Scale
My fellow Slashdot Users: The sheer size and scope of the problem, detecting and averting an asteroid impact, is quite frankly a "bet the farm" sorta game. I am not talking about if's of course, but when's a large impact happens, we all go BYE BYE.
To understand what I mean and the difference here, you have to understand probability. Most of the people on these Discovery/"Science" programs don't understand exactly what probability is and what it means in this particular and very special case, asteroid/comet impact that triggers a large extinction.
Why is this a special case of probability? One that is not the same as getting a lottery ticket for example or letting your sister drive your brand new car and wrecking it?
Simply because when they say we can relax on these TV programes and that the odds are a simple matter of "1-100,00 means it ain't going to happen any time soon. So we can breathe easy." They also compare it to "winning the lottery" as one researcher put it and that we have nothing to be afraid of near term.
What they don't understand or communicate in these programs is that a 1-100,000 chance means a low probability, yes, but if it does happen, kiss your 9-5 Job good bye, your house, your car and all your little frivilous, stupid concerns about getting up in the morning and figuring out which tie to wear.
Forget about Osama Bin Laden and his little games to detroy Modern Civilization and plunge us back 5,000 years to living in caves again.
Forget about Democrats, Republicans and platform issues.
Forget about Ice Cream.
Forget about Slashdot.
This is NOT the same kind of probability or RISK that you or someone takes when you go to buy lottery tickets.
It is quite different, in fact.
If you don't win, for example you can play again. If your number comes up other people can play the lottery too.
This isn't the CASE PEOPLE with this sort of probability game.
If Homo Sapiens # comes up, today, tomorrow, or the next day, we won't be around to try again.
I am not going to get into the what to do even if we do detect such an asteroid or what could be done.
(Hopefully we actually have people who can integrate a N body problem properly to figure it out...thats a risk too with todays Politically Correct Universities and thier adversity to rewarding or even recognizing excellence in Mathematics. Anything else for that matter...but I digress...).
Hollywood seems to think, unfortunatly, so do most scientists, that we could actually within the next 30 years divert the path of one of these objects.
I think there is a bigger chance that someone will patent the weapon idea and hold the world ransom for 20 trillion dollars. It will be tied up in the courts for 20 years before it can be built.
But I digress....because:
It won't happen. The technology doesn't exist, and it it has never been tried or tested. We can't even go to the moon again, lacking the political will, let alone divert a small planetoid from destroying us.
However, what has been tried, and what we know does work, is putting other people onto other bodies in the solar system. We have done that. We can do it again, of course, we will have to start from square one again, as most engineers from the apollo program are pretty much dead by now...)
I am suggesting we have a better chance of survival as a species in dealing with this problem of annihilation, by getting ourselves at home in Space, or on the moon or on Mars.
This would be far less risky, and far less expensive in spending money to develop a WEAPON that could divert such an object.
Don't forget, we would have to test the weapon to see if it works. This weapon, would have the capability to deflect a planetoid as WELL AS DIRECT a planetoid with the intent to destroy or protect an entire planet's surface from impact. We could test it on Jupitor I suppose or some terrorists could break into the control facility and hold the entire planet ransom...
Either is a possibility.
But quite frankly, two human settlements is far better an investment, than any money poured into a weapon possessed by a Goverment, that could be THAT destructive.
I now return you back to the reality of buying Lottery tickets for that 1-100,000,000 chance of getting that Power Ball, vs 1-100,000 chance you will even be here to collect it tomorrow...
Hack
(Up on the mount looking up...and waiting...)
Yes the code is open, and the reason why this is a plus is because the many eyes open and looking and that are involved in open source projects can see them and fix them faster.
Do you honestly think, that a closed source OS like Microsoft's XP with only a limited number of developers cleared to work on it, can possibly be more effective at identifying holes and security issues than for example, the Linux kernel? Which by the way has 10's thousands of people looking at the source code, fixing and plugging holes almost on a daily basis.
The problem is u have the argument all wrong. It isn't that either development method produces fewer defects or security holes, the argument is which one produces a process which can fix the bugs faster.
The best way to do that is to get the source into as many hands as possible with NO restrictions.
Thats a fact. Don't believe me? Do some research at www.cert.org and compare the sheer number of Microsoft security breaches over the years compared to the Linux OS.
As far as lagging behind, Microsoft XP lags WAY behind in Linux in IPV6 implementation, for example, along with VoiceIP, VPN's, etc.
Desktop apps, yes Linux does lag behind.
But, that is only because we are in the process of winning the server room war.
Give us enough time, once that war is one, we will turn our attentions to the desktop technologies which you site such as Graphics, etc.
Although, as far has Graphics, I don't think you have been reading enough about what exactly Linux is doing in that area. Several Major motion pictures that have come out of hollywood have been done with Linux desktop tools recently.
(Shrek, Toy Story 2, Ice Age..etc.)
Documentation issues you site, I don't see how that can affect the outcome of a determined hacker. If someone is determined to insert code that is a security problem in a OSS project then they will do it. Same can be said of Microsoft's OS though, and has already happened.
Problem is though, we come back to what I said before. There are far more eyes looking at a typical OSS project than a Microsoft or closed system. How can you hide such a thing when you have the source open to so many people.
I also must say, given the number of projects I have been involved with in the Open Source world, it is rare, that ANYONE can contribute a binary. By that I mean, usually you only go to the OFFICIAL project pages to download a app. It is not possible to simply download a project and make changes to it and upload it with the security hack. Anyone in an OSS project that has write permissions to a project are well known and not strangers to the project itself, and are never anonymous contributors.
So I am not sure how these detractors like yourself say that modification of the source of a app is a real possibility. I don't think it is as big as a possibility as the possibility that closed source app will have a back door in it inserted by a disgruntled employee.
I find that MUCH MORE a possibility than the latter.
-Hack
Which is what this is.
Can anyone explain to me where these people get these stupid ideas?
Can a virus hide more effectively for example in a OpenSource system or a proprietary closed one?
Does anyone here honestly not understand the obvious answer to this question?
The facet of this report deals with the GPL, which requires Open Source as a policy for license compliance.
Therefore, I don't understand what the difference they are trying to make between GPL'ed and OpenSource in the introduction of this article from the author.
-Hack
Complete Bonk.
Open Source is more secure as the problems are fixed faster than closed source, proprietary systems.
All software, closed and open have vulnerabilities.
However, you can't PROACTIVELY peer review and fix closed proprietary software continuously, unlike open source software.
Since you cannot proactively secure closed software, who in God's name would believe such a completely ludicrous report?
God help us ALL if anyone takes those sorts of arguments and so called "studies" seriously.
-Hack
I do not have any tools per se, in teaching computing concepts. I usually start with diagrams of what computing hardware is, though.
After all, basic operation of a motor vehicle and how it is maintained for example begins with maintaining its parts, and why and what happens when you don't change the oil for example on a regular basis.
Same thing with computing machinery. What parts do what provide a thoughtful framework, a conceptual framework in how and what programming is and how to do it.
MMU's, Registers, Stack Frames (if you are on a CISC machine), and the hardware that makes these things go.
From there I move into the flow of information and instructions through the machine. I can then use that as a jump point to teaching programming concepts:
1) I begin with the 5 "holy" constructs of structured design. From these 5 constructs all computing algorithms can be encompassed.
command, if/then, while, do/while, case.
This provides a conceptual and I think easy way to build simple programs.
I usually ask people to design an algorithm that counts to 10 then quits, for example.
2) After people master these concepts of control and command, I can then usually introduce the more advanced concepts of what data means to execution and implementation on the structure of code. (i.e. Data Structures)
I try to keep the Math at a minimum unless I am talking with a bunch of PhD's who for example, want to figure out the finer points of whatever weather model they are building and its impact on the execution time on the target machine.
Math however, is very important in structured design. God has his hands everywhere in your code you know, and he writes hints on how to improve it and how to store that data and access it, in his own handwriting...
Mathematics.
4) After we cover those topics, we get into the world of specialized design. We cover some of the more highly specialized fields in command and data representation such as Object Oriented Design,
Conceptual models for OOD I use typically begin with the construction of a Structured Design template, and the I transform it into an equivalent OOD. OOD is very abstract, even more so than structured design in many ways.
Many structured design students of the past 30 years in computer science often have a VERY hard time making the jump into this new mode of thinking.
It takes more than just learning a new language to be a good OOD'er. Many of my students depending on the effort, usually are quite skilled in OOD about 2 years of writing code, and proper mentoring.
That is of course, as long as you don't use Microsoft tools.
Did you know VB of objekt oreinTA TED.
:-)
-hack