It depends on the license. But even so, any license that doesn't allow MS to [force Novell to] sue infringers is worthless, so I don't believe it exists that weak.
If America doesn't convert the totally unaccountable "national security" excuse into a government system that's part of the oversight mechanism of checks and balances, then unaccountable government will destroy America. The national security excuse is therefore clear and present danger to real national security.
I note that "national security" is the excuse that Bush gives to protect his warrantless NSA spying on Americans, which covers the same telcos these reliability data could expose as unreliable with immunity, though they can use the data themselves for anything they want, including business competition.
Is there anyone left who believes Bush and his "national security" excuses are anything but fascism: government by and for, but not of, corporations? Anyone who believes anyone coming after Bush will be any more accountable, now that Bush has proven how easy it is for even a fool to abuse us this way, while we're actually under attack?
MS doesn't get in trouble because of vague innuendos of monopoly. It is a monopoly, even officially declared one in the US. It's market abuse gets it into trouble. But it does it anyway, because monopoly market abuse is profitable.
Even Apple finally broke the "necessary to prove MS isn't a pure monopoly", by getting MS to invest $150M in Apple, a meaningful sum at the time, in exchange for various concessions that make it something of a partnership. Because Apple couldn't compete in the market against Microsoft, even though (but because) MS was one of the biggest Mac SW vendors. And MS continues to compete hard against Apple - harder than against Linux, because Linux isn't as big a competitor as is Apple, despite their complex deal.
There isn't going to be any "my bodyguard" coming around to make the big bad monopoly stop. We almost got that with the "final" monopoly judgement, but then Bush let MS off the hook, because he loves monopolies, as has his Republican Congress. But the new Democratic Congress has no brief to stop monopolies, least of all Microsoft which usually bribes^Wdonates more money to Democrats than to Republicans.
So the simple answer is that the point of MS killing Linux is to kill competition. Seems simple. The arguments against that are complicated, and ultimately baseless.
MS can stop distributors from distributing until the court determines that they are no longer distributing infringing code.
When they sue RedHat, they will cripple RedHat's finances and management bandwidth. When they sue individuals, like the RIAA has, they will scare developers away in the short term. The long term will see more developers work on Windows rather than Linux. Both because of the intimidation, and the "winning platform".
The Microsoft deal with Novell licenses MS patents to Novell, which of course protects Novell from lawsuits on those patents.
The strategy I, along with many others, have detailed is legally valid and powerful business. It's debatable, like any prediction of the future, but I have backed up my projections with detailed facts and logic.
While you have done nothing but make empty assertions on bad logic and false facts. With an obnoxious, insulting post. Stupid Certainty and Faith, the new "SCP" sweeping the loudly inane.
Shut up until you have something to say worth hearing.
And Microsoft, the most patient and cunning of predators (especially on the Web), coaxes Novell out if the herd with promises to treat it like a pet, not as meat. Then MS attacks the herd, suing the rest of the Linux distributors for patent infringement, including infringement of the Novell patents MS licenses under their Novell deal.
Then MS finds another way to kill and eat Novell, once Novell can't rely on safety in numbers of Linux distributors. Like MS incorporating a "Linux mode" for either "migrating" Linux source code to Windows, or just a reverse "Wine" (Line-ux, anyone?) that runs Linux apps with a (secret) Linux -> Windows API.
The MS/Novell deal looks good to Novell when it discounts the value of its own competitors in Linux vendors, and the collective value of their threat to Linux, instead greedily eying the entire Linux industry for itself. That greed could be its downfall when it ignores the Linux community, blinded by the Linux product for which MS will kill it.
The Internet is inherently a P2P network. Client/server architectures, though popular now, are a recent overlay on the TCP/IP architecture. Multicast, the Internet version of the broadcast popular in analog comms for decades, is still enough at odds with Internet architecture that it's barely used.
The Internet is a network of peer networks of peer hosts. P2P[2P[2P..]] is how everything works already. It's refreshing to see the decentralized, inherently "democratic" and primarily egalitarian Internet model starting to force centralized "old guard" media organizations to admit defeat. If they get on the bandwagon, they can be Ps in the P2P network. If not, they can keep their old network, and we'll barely notice they're gone.
I'd like to see these efficiency curves plotted against 100%, the maximum theoretical efficiency of the transfer function through the semiconductors. Anyone know how to calculate the minimum W:b (watts per bit) necessary for these real-world tasks? Or is that just way too complex a stat to compute without melting the datacenter at which it's computed?
When their troll hooks my coral reef, and yanks their angler into the murky depths, well, Davy Jones' Locker is their problem, not mine. YMMV, IYKWIM WYSIWYG.
That's not a rhetorical question. The problem with Microsoft is that it blots out alternatives that could be considered on their merits with its market dominance and abuse.
And people can tell that Microsoft's "innovation" is so selfserving that there's not much new going on in the world, because there's not much going on at Microsoft. People want more, but we can't get it, because we can't get it from Microsoft.
Chertoff, as Michael Brown / FEMA's boss, also defended the FEMA and DHS response to Hurricane Katrina. That's his job: force the worst government programs on us, for the benefit of his corporate cronies. Especially if he can lie about attacking our rights (like privacy, or staying dry) by describing them as protecting us.
Chertoff is hoping to stay on the team even after Bush is done running the show. He's Giuliani's protege. We should purge that dangerous blowhard before he becomes a permanent infection.
I've been reading Forrester, Jupiter, IDG and other pundit research papers for over a decade. They're almost always just rationalizations of some preconceived notion, some foregone conclusion that their methodology reinforces. I don't know if they plan it, or if marketing people just can't tell science from "Tang". But I don't know why anyone reads these reports expecting anything but a blast of conventional wisdom.
Which is, of course, why everyone just takes what they write and run with it. That's the measure of success at marketing research peddlers. It's the CIO self-perpetuation. One reason why so little ever gets done right, but so much does get done without being called wrong. To blame their own market for taking them seriously when they ought not be is finally a whisper of honesty from these chattering weasels. I expect them to fix that in the next release.
Even if they use different schemes, the space is always just the "dictionary". The point is that even just adding 1s and 0s for Is and Os would make the dictionary bigger than it is now. That the 1s could be Ls or Is etc, means the dictionary is substantially bigger. Which makes it substantially better than nothing.
The first balance to be walked is between choosing dictionary words and choosing from a larger space. The largest space, arbitrary length of arbitrary characters, is not feasible. So the question is which subset is the largest space from which people will remember their passwords with a minimum of (insecure or expensive) resets. If the "memorable" subset is large enough that brute force attachs on it are infeasible (usually across multiple passwords to be worthwhile), then it's good enough. That the mnemonic value is higher to the person varying the spelling in the (unpredictably) enlarged space than the attacker (among the general public) means it's not a relatively small "dictionary', but a larger arbitrary space. Since the attacker likely can't guess the person's idiosyncratic choices, it's all the alternate characters have to vary. That's a pretty large space, though I don't know exactly where it fits on the effort curve.
But the point is that even "passw0rd" is better than "password1". Or "pa5sword" or "pas5word", etc - all better than password1. And "b1rthdaypassw0rd" is even better.
People have now demonstrated that we are more willing to change our language and ideas of "spelling", rather than remember obscure passwords. That's what "7337 5p34X" is all about. It's a way of permuting spelling into the larger, ambiguous character set to represent personal phonetics. It makes dictionary attacks much harder. If 2 7337 words are used, the password is probably nearly as tedious to crack as a truly random one.
Actually, Mt Chimborazo rises the highest into space, as the equatorial bulge is steeper than the ground at the "base" between Chimborazo and Aconcagua.
I'm fascinated by the fact that the closest approach to Earth from space is the crater mouth of an (extinct) volcano. It's almost like a docking interface.
Someday paleontologists (or their successors) might inspect white dolphin fossils from the Yangtze bottom and think of them the way we now think of New Zealand mice.
'"One could call them Titan's Sierras," the University of Arizona-Tucson researcher [ET explorer Bob Brown] added.'
I get the Vonnegut pun in "The Sierras of Titan". But none of "the" Sierras are even the tallest in the US (or North America). Alaska's Mt McKinley is taller. While Everest (and over 100 others) in the Himalayas are taller than any in the Andes from their somewhat arbitrary base, the equatorial Andes start at the 26mi "high" equatorial bulge.
So Aconcagua, the tallest of the Andes, is the farthest peak jutting into space. Aconcagua rises the highest from the Marianas Trench, the lowest point in the Earth's crust, atop the equatorial bulge. Thus it is the closest to our solar neighbor (at least half the time, during its rotation with the Earth, anyway).
One might better call them "los Andes de Titan", or whatever that translates to in the whistle/crackle language spoken on Titan.
I wonder which demands will drive more political change in China's mafia government: basic human rights, or more entertainment? If the entertainment is interactive communication among regular Chinese citizens, there probably isn't a difference, or at least it's a reinforcing cycle.
Perl already does QM programming. Maybe the entanglement timemachine experiment in Spring 2008 will have been successful, and Perl hackers willam haven been sending code through the loop back to the 2002 CPAN?
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the license. But even so, any license that doesn't allow MS to [force Novell to] sue infringers is worthless, so I don't believe it exists that weak.
It's a distinction without a difference.
If America doesn't convert the totally unaccountable "national security" excuse into a government system that's part of the oversight mechanism of checks and balances, then unaccountable government will destroy America. The national security excuse is therefore clear and present danger to real national security.
I note that "national security" is the excuse that Bush gives to protect his warrantless NSA spying on Americans, which covers the same telcos these reliability data could expose as unreliable with immunity, though they can use the data themselves for anything they want, including business competition.
Is there anyone left who believes Bush and his "national security" excuses are anything but fascism: government by and for, but not of, corporations? Anyone who believes anyone coming after Bush will be any more accountable, now that Bush has proven how easy it is for even a fool to abuse us this way, while we're actually under attack?
Why do they hate America?
MS doesn't get in trouble because of vague innuendos of monopoly. It is a monopoly, even officially declared one in the US. It's market abuse gets it into trouble. But it does it anyway, because monopoly market abuse is profitable.
Even Apple finally broke the "necessary to prove MS isn't a pure monopoly", by getting MS to invest $150M in Apple, a meaningful sum at the time, in exchange for various concessions that make it something of a partnership. Because Apple couldn't compete in the market against Microsoft, even though (but because) MS was one of the biggest Mac SW vendors. And MS continues to compete hard against Apple - harder than against Linux, because Linux isn't as big a competitor as is Apple, despite their complex deal.
There isn't going to be any "my bodyguard" coming around to make the big bad monopoly stop. We almost got that with the "final" monopoly judgement, but then Bush let MS off the hook, because he loves monopolies, as has his Republican Congress. But the new Democratic Congress has no brief to stop monopolies, least of all Microsoft which usually bribes^Wdonates more money to Democrats than to Republicans.
So the simple answer is that the point of MS killing Linux is to kill competition. Seems simple. The arguments against that are complicated, and ultimately baseless.
MS can stop distributors from distributing until the court determines that they are no longer distributing infringing code.
When they sue RedHat, they will cripple RedHat's finances and management bandwidth. When they sue individuals, like the RIAA has, they will scare developers away in the short term. The long term will see more developers work on Windows rather than Linux. Both because of the intimidation, and the "winning platform".
The Microsoft deal with Novell licenses MS patents to Novell, which of course protects Novell from lawsuits on those patents.
The strategy I, along with many others, have detailed is legally valid and powerful business. It's debatable, like any prediction of the future, but I have backed up my projections with detailed facts and logic.
While you have done nothing but make empty assertions on bad logic and false facts. With an obnoxious, insulting post. Stupid Certainty and Faith, the new "SCP" sweeping the loudly inane.
Shut up until you have something to say worth hearing.
And Microsoft, the most patient and cunning of predators (especially on the Web), coaxes Novell out if the herd with promises to treat it like a pet, not as meat. Then MS attacks the herd, suing the rest of the Linux distributors for patent infringement, including infringement of the Novell patents MS licenses under their Novell deal.
Then MS finds another way to kill and eat Novell, once Novell can't rely on safety in numbers of Linux distributors. Like MS incorporating a "Linux mode" for either "migrating" Linux source code to Windows, or just a reverse "Wine" (Line-ux, anyone?) that runs Linux apps with a (secret) Linux -> Windows API.
The MS/Novell deal looks good to Novell when it discounts the value of its own competitors in Linux vendors, and the collective value of their threat to Linux, instead greedily eying the entire Linux industry for itself. That greed could be its downfall when it ignores the Linux community, blinded by the Linux product for which MS will kill it.
The Internet is inherently a P2P network. Client/server architectures, though popular now, are a recent overlay on the TCP/IP architecture. Multicast, the Internet version of the broadcast popular in analog comms for decades, is still enough at odds with Internet architecture that it's barely used.
The Internet is a network of peer networks of peer hosts. P2P[2P[2P..]] is how everything works already. It's refreshing to see the decentralized, inherently "democratic" and primarily egalitarian Internet model starting to force centralized "old guard" media organizations to admit defeat. If they get on the bandwagon, they can be Ps in the P2P network. If not, they can keep their old network, and we'll barely notice they're gone.
I know this is Slashdot, but what's stopping you from R'ingTFA? The suspense lost by the spoiler?
I'd like to see these efficiency curves plotted against 100%, the maximum theoretical efficiency of the transfer function through the semiconductors. Anyone know how to calculate the minimum W:b (watts per bit) necessary for these real-world tasks? Or is that just way too complex a stat to compute without melting the datacenter at which it's computed?
When their troll hooks my coral reef, and yanks their angler into the murky depths, well, Davy Jones' Locker is their problem, not mine. YMMV, IYKWIM WYSIWYG.
Team Narwhal!
It's a monopoly. What's to like?
That's not a rhetorical question. The problem with Microsoft is that it blots out alternatives that could be considered on their merits with its market dominance and abuse.
And people can tell that Microsoft's "innovation" is so selfserving that there's not much new going on in the world, because there's not much going on at Microsoft. People want more, but we can't get it, because we can't get it from Microsoft.
That makes us angry.
Chertoff, as Michael Brown / FEMA's boss, also defended the FEMA and DHS response to Hurricane Katrina. That's his job: force the worst government programs on us, for the benefit of his corporate cronies. Especially if he can lie about attacking our rights (like privacy, or staying dry) by describing them as protecting us.
Chertoff is hoping to stay on the team even after Bush is done running the show. He's Giuliani's protege. We should purge that dangerous blowhard before he becomes a permanent infection.
I've been reading Forrester, Jupiter, IDG and other pundit research papers for over a decade. They're almost always just rationalizations of some preconceived notion, some foregone conclusion that their methodology reinforces. I don't know if they plan it, or if marketing people just can't tell science from "Tang". But I don't know why anyone reads these reports expecting anything but a blast of conventional wisdom.
Which is, of course, why everyone just takes what they write and run with it. That's the measure of success at marketing research peddlers. It's the CIO self-perpetuation. One reason why so little ever gets done right, but so much does get done without being called wrong. To blame their own market for taking them seriously when they ought not be is finally a whisper of honesty from these chattering weasels. I expect them to fix that in the next release.
Does that mean they're finally going to hire some Pacific Islanders, Basque, Thai, Pygmies, or Mayans?
Even if they use different schemes, the space is always just the "dictionary". The point is that even just adding 1s and 0s for Is and Os would make the dictionary bigger than it is now. That the 1s could be Ls or Is etc, means the dictionary is substantially bigger. Which makes it substantially better than nothing.
The first balance to be walked is between choosing dictionary words and choosing from a larger space. The largest space, arbitrary length of arbitrary characters, is not feasible. So the question is which subset is the largest space from which people will remember their passwords with a minimum of (insecure or expensive) resets. If the "memorable" subset is large enough that brute force attachs on it are infeasible (usually across multiple passwords to be worthwhile), then it's good enough. That the mnemonic value is higher to the person varying the spelling in the (unpredictably) enlarged space than the attacker (among the general public) means it's not a relatively small "dictionary', but a larger arbitrary space. Since the attacker likely can't guess the person's idiosyncratic choices, it's all the alternate characters have to vary. That's a pretty large space, though I don't know exactly where it fits on the effort curve.
But the point is that even "passw0rd" is better than "password1". Or "pa5sword" or "pas5word", etc - all better than password1. And "b1rthdaypassw0rd" is even better.
Haha, you can't crack my code.
People have now demonstrated that we are more willing to change our language and ideas of "spelling", rather than remember obscure passwords. That's what "7337 5p34X" is all about. It's a way of permuting spelling into the larger, ambiguous character set to represent personal phonetics. It makes dictionary attacks much harder. If 2 7337 words are used, the password is probably nearly as tedious to crack as a truly random one.
Ach, you beat me to the summit of Mt Redundant!
Actually, Mt Chimborazo rises the highest into space, as the equatorial bulge is steeper than the ground at the "base" between Chimborazo and Aconcagua.
I'm fascinated by the fact that the closest approach to Earth from space is the crater mouth of an (extinct) volcano. It's almost like a docking interface.
Someday paleontologists (or their successors) might inspect white dolphin fossils from the Yangtze bottom and think of them the way we now think of New Zealand mice.
'"One could call them Titan's Sierras," the University of Arizona-Tucson researcher [ET explorer Bob Brown] added.'
I get the Vonnegut pun in "The Sierras of Titan". But none of "the" Sierras are even the tallest in the US (or North America). Alaska's Mt McKinley is taller. While Everest (and over 100 others) in the Himalayas are taller than any in the Andes from their somewhat arbitrary base, the equatorial Andes start at the 26mi "high" equatorial bulge.
So Aconcagua, the tallest of the Andes, is the farthest peak jutting into space. Aconcagua rises the highest from the Marianas Trench, the lowest point in the Earth's crust, atop the equatorial bulge. Thus it is the closest to our solar neighbor (at least half the time, during its rotation with the Earth, anyway).
One might better call them "los Andes de Titan", or whatever that translates to in the whistle/crackle language spoken on Titan.
I wonder which demands will drive more political change in China's mafia government: basic human rights, or more entertainment? If the entertainment is interactive communication among regular Chinese citizens, there probably isn't a difference, or at least it's a reinforcing cycle.
As seen on Slashdot: Map-O-Net maps IP#s on a fractal-ruled IP#-space map, including geography and orgs.
Perl already does QM programming. Maybe the entanglement timemachine experiment in Spring 2008 will have been successful, and Perl hackers willam haven been sending code through the loop back to the 2002 CPAN?