Has America declared war on Afghanistan yet? Attacking the incumbent Government with cruise missiles is probably a good indication that they are at war.
I don't really see how the US can be claiming that they are not at war if the US is dropping cruise missiles on Afghan Government installations.
God help any country in the world who does not obey ultimatims from the US in future.
The Afghan Taleban can't give up bin Ladin without causing major problems for themselves in their own country. They can't keep him either because the US has made it clear they will come in and get him. This would endanger their Government as well.
The US want to bring bin Ladin to justice, however a incursion in Afghanistan will probably lead to many - perhaps thousands of deaths of both innocent Afghan people, and American soldiers.
The Taleban have said they would try bin Ladin if there was evidence to convict him. The neat thing is that Taleban 'justice' is pretty short on fairness and pretty long on rather uncomfortable deaths.
It would save face in Afghanistan to convict and execute bin Ladin in Afghanistan, while providing what America wants, and saving thousands of lives on both sides.
I think its time America shows it has some brains to go with its brawn. We know they have the military power to go in and take bin Ladin, but there are alternatives which can get the job done.
I think you will find that Afghanistan isn't exactly flush with cash. Millions die of starvation there, and even the leaders lead rather impoverished lives compared to people in the West.
At least thats what I have been reading about them. I actually did some reading about Afghanistan prior to the bombing, and found sites that showed graphically the punishments inflicted by the Taleban - executions, amputations etc - very gruesome.
Thing is that the people (well some of them) welcomed the rule of the Taleban rather than the continued bloody civil war they were used to.
The idea of dropping nuclear weapons on a bunch of backward sheep farmers in the middle of nowhere right next to two countries just itching to test out their own nukes on each other...
IS NUTS!!!
If America started dropping nukes on people it would be a precident for other nuke countries to start dropping them on their enemies as well.
I am pissing myself with fear just thinking that America would even consider thinking about such a course of action.
I just thought of an analogy with how I control my little boy of four years. In order to make him think he is deciding what he wants to do I give him a choice.
For example, you want him to put on a warm hat, you give him a choice between a red hat and a blue hat.
Its the same for voting - every three years (in New Zealand) we are given a choice between the red hat and the blue hat - and we al feel like we are deciding something.
But it decides nothing. The politicians just continue to drive through whatever they wish. Modern democracy is just a way to keep the population happy - thinking they have some control of the government.
The wealthy still hold the reins of power.
Re:Something eery I found on Newsgroups
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
The original threat was for the 31st however. Threats of this kind are always going on, so one within two weeks of this event wouldn't be significant.... except...
I saw a interview with the landlord of the house that the hijackers used that they originally took a lease on the house to the end of August, and had renewed the lease for only a couple more weeks.
In other words, the original date for the attack may have been the 31st of August or there abouts, but for some reason was delayed. This being the case it fits perfectly with the google posting. So in summary, I think these postings could very well have come from someone involved.
If it were really the users who were installing this software with consent there would be no problem. A user should be able to run whatever software they want.
The problem is that usefull software is now coming with parasites you arn't even informed about being installed without you consent. Now if this was written by a hacker they would would lock him up, but because this a company is doing it for profit all is okay.
Having the choice to have words linked on the client side is okay - as long as the user know that they have installed software to provide that function, and they are aware which links are from the site, and which are added client side.
This would mean you could choose the plugin you want based on the quality of the links (ie the links would take you to informative sites rather than just being ads). However the systems coming out now are just advertising - they are not trying to aid the user at all.
A associate once said about programming its "Horses for courses". What he meant was that we should use the best tool for the job at hand. When he said it he was talking about using Clipper (an dBase clone) over Quick Basic in 1990.
Today I know two languages to what I consider 'professional level'. On Windows I develop stand alone applications with Delphi. Its easy to develop quality code - I define quality in this case by not crashing due to obscure memory errors. Its very hard to write code in Delphi which causes memory handling issues. Writing Delphi feels like the IDE wants to help you, but if you want to get your hands dirty you still can (unlike VB).
For Web Development I now use Java. I wouldn't use Java for stand alone GUI apps because its still too slow compared to Delphi, but for server side web development it has the features I want - portability, easy to develop in, connects with SQL etc.
Learning a new syntax takes time. You need to be sure that a new language is going to have a payoff in terms of being able to achieve something you can't in others. For years I wrote Delphi, as it was the best horse for the course. Now with Web Develoipment the course has changed, and Java is best (for me).
That said, a programmer should be able to learn any language. But just because you can doesn't mean you should...
I am primarily concerned that US law is now starting to become a world wide defacto. In this example a Russian Citizen is arrested for a 'crime' which was performed in another country.
If you commit a crime - say murder - in one country, then move to another generally you have to be extradited to the country you committed the crime in to stand trial. The US is now going to try and convict someone for a 'crime' committed in another country.
To add to the difficulty, the 'crime' is actually legal in this other country, so this poor person is being convicted for doing something in his own country that was perfectly legal.
Now lets say China starts this game. Lets say they arrest and imprison visitors that have spoken out against China in their country of origin. How would you like it if you were traveling through a country with "no drinking" laws, and they imprison you for drinking in a different country.
Since President Bush became president the US has become essentially hostile to the rest of the world. The cancellation of important treaties, ignoring environmental responsibilities, draconian imprisonment of innocents. Its going to be hard to lecture other countries about their responsibilities when the US is putting up such a poor example.
The three laws of robotics are a bit of a joke. If a machine is sufficiently able to interprete the laws, it is intellectually capable of ignoring them.
The only way to make a robot in such a way that it does not kill humans is not to give it the capability in the first place. In reality I think killing people will be one of the first and probably most popular use intelligent machines will be put to.
Unmanned fighters will be a good example - autonomous aircraft, capable of outflying any human pilot. The US has these in testing now. I think in 20 years there won't be much left for lowly humans to do.
I suspect we will find something to do though, as without jobs the whole economic system would collapse.
Computers are already making decisions about more than we care to admit. They are currently being called "decision support tools". These tools are already used to determine when to hire and fire workers for example.
How do I know? I wrote one! The system would determine workloads, perform critical path analysis, and provide management with recommendations on when to hire and fire "resources".
Perhaps you might argue that the computer didn't make the actual decision. However they may as well because no manager would choose to willing keep people employed when they could predict the 'off times' ahead of time, and act accordingly to maximize profit.
In the future corporations will use machine minds to "aid decision making" because those machines will make better decisions - from the profit point of view. Companies who resist using machines will make less profit, and will loose to companies who do
Ultimatly only companies with ruthless machine minds will be able to survive. Machines will not only take over management. They will take over product development, distribution, floor sweeping. Unlike previous revolutions humans won't have a place to retreat to. We will have to adapt to the fact that we don't need to work to live. Perhaps we will be pets - but if being a pet is as good as my cat has it - perhaps it won't be so bad.
The issue with parasites in the Open Source context is that Companies who support programmers who write Open Source will have a disadvantage to those companies who simply use that effort at no expense.
Therefore from an evolutionary/game theory point of view the companies who support Open Source will die out - UNLESS they gain something from writing the code that the companies who don't contribute don't get.
Red Hat is an example of a company which is winning. Red Hat should be losing because it employs programmers writing GPL, but it isn't because the users support Red Hat by buying it exactly because Red Hat do employ GPL programmers.
Companies simply redistributing GPL without active contribution are punished by the users, because the typical Linux user is a 'techie' who knows that Red Hat is much more than just a company.
Obviously this also applies to all the other Distro companies who employ GPL programmers.
I am currently developing a Open Source Application called Odyssey Email. In this application I address the two issues I see with encrypted email:
The first thing is that all emails that can be encrypted are encrypted. No need to buy a certificate, or click a button. No need to find the recipients public key. The whole thing is automatic - just write an email and send.
However even this won't make people use Encryption. Its a bit like backups - people just don't see the value of encryption until they are personally effected by interception - which is very rare.
That is why Odyssey Email also includes Business to Business Invoices and Purchase Orders. Odyssey Email sends these XML business documents encrypted using AES and RSA. I am writing Accounting System Interfaces which will work with common small business accounts.
This will give users a Reason to use Odyssey Email - for B2B - and will bring in email encryption without any change to the user interface that users are used to.
I am developing libraries and tool sets for all major programming languages to support this system, and it is of course all Open Source.
I am looking for people to help me with the project, so we can stop the big corporates putting toll gates on eCommerce, and to promote general purpose encryption.
When I was younger there was a great pressure to preserve the Maori Culture. The problem then was not that too many people were using the Maori language, but that not enough people were. The young Maori were learning English, and not Maori.
I believe the Maori have a right to maintain their culture and beliefs, however in the 1980's when I was going to school they made Maori a compulsory subject for all. My point is that the Maori in New Zealand have made a big deal about promoting the language.
So to turn around and then start trying to control who speaks it is rather odd. I would have thought it is a good thing to have a major toy company choose to create toys which have some cultural relevence to our country and culture, since Maori is usually all but ignored outside NZ.
The point of XP is that it is iterative, which means that you specifically don't expect your customer to provide complete or correct requirements.
By iterating through a quick iterations, much like Open Source, the application is evolved rather designed. Of course there is micro design within each iteration where developers plan how they will achieve the functionality required, but there is no longer a detailed static plan of the whole system, because we have found that such large detailed plans become outdated and corrupted over time as developers change the plan to meet the customer requirements.
XP accepts that we are unable in the quick paced business world to do long term (over one year) projects on monolithic applications that do not evolve with the needs of customers, and provides a means of programming in a flexible manner that does not comprimise quality or productivity.
For a resource on this and other related topics, take a look at here
With both XP and OS development there are processes which act as 'mutation' and 'selection' factors that act on source code. Programmers provide 'mutation' - or new code, while the users select which versions end up actually being used.
I should point out that I am not saying that 'micro' planning does not occur by developers - just that there isn't a single Big Plan(tm) from the start like there is with a more traditional approach.
The API itself is pretty limited. I was looking to provide a crypto system for it - but the API didn't allow for messing around with incoming or outgoing messages.
If you are looking at interacting with ICQ, download Jabber from Jabber.org. There is a server and client. This system can intereact with ICQ, and you can build your extended functionality without license restrictions.
The ICQ agreement simply means you can't use the API to reate competing clients. They don't really care about having exactly more than 10,000 users - but they don't want a cool application - of say over 1,000,000 users - not paying something for the use of the API.
I have had the ICQ developers kit for ages, and it has always had the restrictions mentioned. In other words there is nothing new about this SDK.
While its hardly an open protocol there are Open Source systems which can interoperate with it.
I am currently working with Jabber. This has a open architecture which allows ICQ, AOL, MSN, and other services to interoperate through the use of Jabber servers.
I have just finished reading "The Case For Mars", a book by Robert Zubrin about how to put humans on mars.
Insteaad of creating huge space infrastructure the idea is to go directly. The plan is to send a 'Earth Return Vehicle' to Mars that has the ability to extract fuel from the atmosphere of Mars. This is sent using a single booster - not assembled in space.
Two years later - assuming the ERV is ready to fly with full fuel tanks - the manned mission takes off in a second booster. Again no space stations or moon bases required. The manned mission arrived at mars, aerobrakes through the martian atmosphere into a mars orbit, and in their own time select the entry window to land near the ERV.
They land near the ERV. The ERV holds enough food and provisions for an extended stay on the planet - about one and a half years. The manned mission has brought with them rovers etc to make use of the time - and the ERV makes fuel which can be used by the rovers as well as for the trip back to earth. A year and a half later the climb into the ERV and return home.
How does this relate to the news about the X-33? The point of the above plan is that it doesn't require any technologies that are beond our reach now. The only reason a Manned Mars Mission isn't in the pipeline is political - not technical.
The price tag is somewhere between 30 billion and 50 billion dollars. I remember the excitement that the Pathfinder mission created - and find it difficult to believe that this kind of price tag is out of reach. With 'reality TV' these days I can imagine the profitability of giving earthlings a look into the lives of Marsnoughts.
At the start of this trial I had the hope that it could break the Climate of Fear that MS had created in the software industry.
For example, imagine you had a brand new software product. You release it after spending two or three million on development, then another million on advertising. Your press release describes the new product, and how every user will want it.
The next day MS releases a press release describing the features of the MS version which will be released in the 'near future' - and your product is dead. Patents are no protection, as MS are unbeatable in court - because they have much more money than you to fight.
This trial is a test to see if MS can be beaten in court at all. If the US Government can't beat them nobody can.
At least that was what I believed when the case began. Now I know that they can be beaten, both in terms of software in the market, and at trial. The fear is gone.
The issue here is weather they have the right to create a version of the software that is non-GPL. Since you were hired on contract, unless there is a written contract to the contrary, the organization who paid for the development owns the copyright regardless of what notices you have placed in the code or documentation.
If the organization owns the copyright, then they can distribute it under any license they want. There are a number of duel license products.
The point here is that the organization paid for the development, and are entitled to use it as they see fit.
The moral here is that if you create something on contract, and you don't want ownership to belong to the client, then you should specifically draft a contract to that effect.
The way to beat these guys (MPAA, RIAA) is to not have central servers to shut down. The problem then becomes co-ordination.
There is a pre-existing set of servers that are already set up to co-ordinate users, by which I mean allow them to identify each other online. Its called ICQ.
Lets create an app which hooks into ICQ to see what other users are online.
The other problem is the number of nodes on the network creating expotential searches. This should be addressed by each client being part of a 'group'. The members of a group would store the directories listings of each member in the group - but not the actual data.
When a search is performed the search is only sent to one member of the each group chosen at random from those currently online, thus the traffic requirements are greatly reduced.
I havn't done simulations to determine the ideal group size yet, but it shouldn't be too difficult.
ICQ could be used as just a starting point - an entry point. Once you are 'hooked into' the network you will be given other IP's of others online. The reason for this is that we don't want to give ICQ any way at all to determine who is operating the service, otherwise they will be able to close those accounts under pressure from the bad guys.
We could even avoid ICQ totally by having very basic servers which provide simple hooks into IP addresses of those in the system.
You could also make this idea of 'groups' go further, with groups of groups - where certain clients store directories for several groups.
I find it ammusing that the Internet was so successfull at information distribution that big companies are now fighting tooth and nail to PREVENT people communicating freely.
I don't believe copying commercial music is right, however that is not the concern of the bad guys. The bad guys are worried about control of the distribution media. Without control of the distribution media anyone can create 'competitive' music, and sell it without giving the record companies a cut.
This is the real concern of the bad guys - that artists will find out that they don't need to hand over their rights to the bad guys.
The system I enision is a method of sharing information - any information. I don't see how that can be outlawed.
How important do you guys value Configuration Management Tools (tools that aid in the process of developing software)? I think they are very important to the development process. If you don't use them you're dead in the water.
I have never used a "Configuration Management Tool" in my life. There are many ways to skin a cat - many development methods which may work - why do you claim this approach is any better than say Open Source - where a CMT is not used?
The last project I did used a number of the principles of XP. I think that the term 'XP' is too scary however, and that its seen as a all or nothing deal.
My personal view is that XP makes use of Evolutionary Development (as
opposed to Development By Design). In Evolutionary Development there are
two principles at work:
Coding (Mutation)
Selection.
All methodolgies do Coding. However the way we look at coding varies. In
most methodologies there is an assumption that a project is Developed by
Design. Most developers are aware of the process of developing
requirements, specifications, coding, and conformance testing (ie to the
specification). Most developers are also aware of how this apparently
logical approach is never how successfull projects actually work. All my
successfull projects have been a mixture of planning and evolution, where
the initial development is planned, and thereafter small incremental changes
are made to the working system.
The XP books I have read describe how to do XP development - but didn't seem
to provide a good account of why XP works. XP works because it removes the
assumption that all the design needs to be done up front. It allows for
evolution, where code is both written and selected.
The mechanism for selection in XP is Unit Tests and Peer Programming among
others. Point is that these selection pressures are not present in
'traditional' developments.
These forms of code selection are not nessasarily the only methodologies
which can work. Another example is Open Source - where only good source
code survives. What do we mean by 'good' source code? We mean source code
which continues to be used. The point is that bad source code - ie that is
buggy and poor quality - tends not to be used.
Whatever method used, it is important that selection be applied in very
small increments. It is no use taking a whole application, radically
changing it, and testing/rejecting only at the end. With XP you check your
code against unit tests on every checkin - which means that poor quality
code can't get in. On a higher level you are releasing the code to users on
a very regular basis. This ensures any user interface issues are found and
'selected' out of the code pool early in the development, and not given the
chance to become imbedded in the application further.
One last note : when I talk about using 'evolution vs design' I am talking
about a high level design, not the design you might do for an individual
function or method. We will always need some degree of design. My point is
that computer systems are now becoming so complex that our faith in our
ability to Design from the ground up needs to be examined.
XP is one such attempt. I hope this puts XP in a clearer perspective,
Slashdot Mirror
Has America declared war on Afghanistan yet? Attacking the incumbent Government with cruise missiles is probably a good indication that they are at war.
I don't really see how the US can be claiming that they are not at war if the US is dropping cruise missiles on Afghan Government installations.
God help any country in the world who does not obey ultimatims from the US in future.
Here is a solution worth looking at....
The Afghan Taleban can't give up bin Ladin without causing major problems for themselves in their own country. They can't keep him either because the US has made it clear they will come in and get him. This would endanger their Government as well.
The US want to bring bin Ladin to justice, however a incursion in Afghanistan will probably lead to many - perhaps thousands of deaths of both innocent Afghan people, and American soldiers.
The Taleban have said they would try bin Ladin if there was evidence to convict him. The neat thing is that Taleban 'justice' is pretty short on fairness and pretty long on rather uncomfortable deaths.
It would save face in Afghanistan to convict and execute bin Ladin in Afghanistan, while providing what America wants, and saving thousands of lives on both sides.
I think its time America shows it has some brains to go with its brawn. We know they have the military power to go in and take bin Ladin, but there are alternatives which can get the job done.
I think you will find that Afghanistan isn't exactly flush with cash. Millions die of starvation there, and even the leaders lead rather impoverished lives compared to people in the West.
At least thats what I have been reading about them. I actually did some reading about Afghanistan prior to the bombing, and found sites that showed graphically the punishments inflicted by the Taleban - executions, amputations etc - very gruesome.
Thing is that the people (well some of them) welcomed the rule of the Taleban rather than the continued bloody civil war they were used to.
The idea of dropping nuclear weapons on a bunch of backward sheep farmers in the middle of nowhere right next to two countries just itching to test out their own nukes on each other...
IS NUTS!!!
If America started dropping nukes on people it would be a precident for other nuke countries to start dropping them on their enemies as well.
I am pissing myself with fear just thinking that America would even consider thinking about such a course of action.
I just thought of an analogy with how I control my little boy of four years. In order to make him think he is deciding what he wants to do I give him a choice.
For example, you want him to put on a warm hat, you give him a choice between a red hat and a blue hat.
Its the same for voting - every three years (in New Zealand) we are given a choice between the red hat and the blue hat - and we al feel like we are deciding something.
But it decides nothing. The politicians just continue to drive through whatever they wish. Modern democracy is just a way to keep the population happy - thinking they have some control of the government.
The wealthy still hold the reins of power.
The original threat was for the 31st however. Threats of this kind are always going on, so one within two weeks of this event wouldn't be significant.... except...
I saw a interview with the landlord of the house that the hijackers used that they originally took a lease on the house to the end of August, and had renewed the lease for only a couple more weeks.
In other words, the original date for the attack may have been the 31st of August or there abouts, but for some reason was delayed. This being the case it fits perfectly with the google posting. So in summary, I think these postings could very well have come from someone involved.
If it were really the users who were installing this software with consent there would be no problem. A user should be able to run whatever software they want.
The problem is that usefull software is now coming with parasites you arn't even informed about being installed without you consent. Now if this was written by a hacker they would would lock him up, but because this a company is doing it for profit all is okay.
Having the choice to have words linked on the client side is okay - as long as the user know that they have installed software to provide that function, and they are aware which links are from the site, and which are added client side.
This would mean you could choose the plugin you want based on the quality of the links (ie the links would take you to informative sites rather than just being ads). However the systems coming out now are just advertising - they are not trying to aid the user at all.
A associate once said about programming its "Horses for courses". What he meant was that we should use the best tool for the job at hand. When he said it he was talking about using Clipper (an dBase clone) over Quick Basic in 1990.
Today I know two languages to what I consider 'professional level'. On Windows I develop stand alone applications with Delphi. Its easy to develop quality code - I define quality in this case by not crashing due to obscure memory errors. Its very hard to write code in Delphi which causes memory handling issues. Writing Delphi feels like the IDE wants to help you, but if you want to get your hands dirty you still can (unlike VB).
For Web Development I now use Java. I wouldn't use Java for stand alone GUI apps because its still too slow compared to Delphi, but for server side web development it has the features I want - portability, easy to develop in, connects with SQL etc.
Learning a new syntax takes time. You need to be sure that a new language is going to have a payoff in terms of being able to achieve something you can't in others. For years I wrote Delphi, as it was the best horse for the course. Now with Web Develoipment the course has changed, and Java is best (for me).
That said, a programmer should be able to learn any language. But just because you can doesn't mean you should...
I am primarily concerned that US law is now starting to become a world wide defacto. In this example a Russian Citizen is arrested for a 'crime' which was performed in another country.
If you commit a crime - say murder - in one country, then move to another generally you have to be extradited to the country you committed the crime in to stand trial. The US is now going to try and convict someone for a 'crime' committed in another country.
To add to the difficulty, the 'crime' is actually legal in this other country, so this poor person is being convicted for doing something in his own country that was perfectly legal.
Now lets say China starts this game. Lets say they arrest and imprison visitors that have spoken out against China in their country of origin. How would you like it if you were traveling through a country with "no drinking" laws, and they imprison you for drinking in a different country.
Since President Bush became president the US has become essentially hostile to the rest of the world. The cancellation of important treaties, ignoring environmental responsibilities, draconian imprisonment of innocents. Its going to be hard to lecture other countries about their responsibilities when the US is putting up such a poor example.
The three laws of robotics are a bit of a joke. If a machine is sufficiently able to interprete the laws, it is intellectually capable of ignoring them.
The only way to make a robot in such a way that it does not kill humans is not to give it the capability in the first place. In reality I think killing people will be one of the first and probably most popular use intelligent machines will be put to.
Unmanned fighters will be a good example - autonomous aircraft, capable of outflying any human pilot. The US has these in testing now. I think in 20 years there won't be much left for lowly humans to do.
I suspect we will find something to do though, as without jobs the whole economic system would collapse.
Computers are already making decisions about more than we care to admit. They are currently being called "decision support tools". These tools are already used to determine when to hire and fire workers for example.
How do I know? I wrote one! The system would determine workloads, perform critical path analysis, and provide management with recommendations on when to hire and fire "resources".
Perhaps you might argue that the computer didn't make the actual decision. However they may as well because no manager would choose to willing keep people employed when they could predict the 'off times' ahead of time, and act accordingly to maximize profit.
In the future corporations will use machine minds to "aid decision making" because those machines will make better decisions - from the profit point of view. Companies who resist using machines will make less profit, and will loose to companies who do
Ultimatly only companies with ruthless machine minds will be able to survive. Machines will not only take over management. They will take over product development, distribution, floor sweeping. Unlike previous revolutions humans won't have a place to retreat to. We will have to adapt to the fact that we don't need to work to live. Perhaps we will be pets - but if being a pet is as good as my cat has it - perhaps it won't be so bad.
The issue with parasites in the Open Source context is that Companies who support programmers who write Open Source will have a disadvantage to those companies who simply use that effort at no expense.
Therefore from an evolutionary/game theory point of view the companies who support Open Source will die out - UNLESS they gain something from writing the code that the companies who don't contribute don't get.
Red Hat is an example of a company which is winning. Red Hat should be losing because it employs programmers writing GPL, but it isn't because the users support Red Hat by buying it exactly because Red Hat do employ GPL programmers.
Companies simply redistributing GPL without active contribution are punished by the users, because the typical Linux user is a 'techie' who knows that Red Hat is much more than just a company.
Obviously this also applies to all the other Distro companies who employ GPL programmers.
I am currently developing a Open Source Application called Odyssey Email. In this application I address the two issues I see with encrypted email:
The first thing is that all emails that can be encrypted are encrypted. No need to buy a certificate, or click a button. No need to find the recipients public key. The whole thing is automatic - just write an email and send.
However even this won't make people use Encryption. Its a bit like backups - people just don't see the value of encryption until they are personally effected by interception - which is very rare.
That is why Odyssey Email also includes Business to Business Invoices and Purchase Orders. Odyssey Email sends these XML business documents encrypted using AES and RSA. I am writing Accounting System Interfaces which will work with common small business accounts.
This will give users a Reason to use Odyssey Email - for B2B - and will bring in email encryption without any change to the user interface that users are used to.
I am developing libraries and tool sets for all major programming languages to support this system, and it is of course all Open Source.
I am looking for people to help me with the project, so we can stop the big corporates putting toll gates on eCommerce, and to promote general purpose encryption.
Site to visit is IDTrans Project
When I was younger there was a great pressure to preserve the Maori Culture. The problem then was not that too many people were using the Maori language, but that not enough people were. The young Maori were learning English, and not Maori.
I believe the Maori have a right to maintain their culture and beliefs, however in the 1980's when I was going to school they made Maori a compulsory subject for all. My point is that the Maori in New Zealand have made a big deal about promoting the language.
So to turn around and then start trying to control who speaks it is rather odd. I would have thought it is a good thing to have a major toy company choose to create toys which have some cultural relevence to our country and culture, since Maori is usually all but ignored outside NZ.
The point of XP is that it is iterative, which means that you specifically don't expect your customer to provide complete or correct requirements.
By iterating through a quick iterations, much like Open Source, the application is evolved rather designed. Of course there is micro design within each iteration where developers plan how they will achieve the functionality required, but there is no longer a detailed static plan of the whole system, because we have found that such large detailed plans become outdated and corrupted over time as developers change the plan to meet the customer requirements.
XP accepts that we are unable in the quick paced business world to do long term (over one year) projects on monolithic applications that do not evolve with the needs of customers, and provides a means of programming in a flexible manner that does not comprimise quality or productivity.
For a resource on this and other related topics, take a look at here
XP is related to Open Source methodology, in that they both make use of evolutionary methods rather than design methods.
See my article on evolutionary programming here.
With both XP and OS development there are processes which act as 'mutation' and 'selection' factors that act on source code. Programmers provide 'mutation' - or new code, while the users select which versions end up actually being used.
I should point out that I am not saying that 'micro' planning does not occur by developers - just that there isn't a single Big Plan(tm) from the start like there is with a more traditional approach.
His web site may be a bit - unpolished, but the webcast was great.
The API itself is pretty limited. I was looking to provide a crypto system for it - but the API didn't allow for messing around with incoming or outgoing messages.
If you are looking at interacting with ICQ, download Jabber from Jabber.org. There is a server and client. This system can intereact with ICQ, and you can build your extended functionality without license restrictions.
The ICQ agreement simply means you can't use the API to reate competing clients. They don't really care about having exactly more than 10,000 users - but they don't want a cool application - of say over 1,000,000 users - not paying something for the use of the API.
I have had the ICQ developers kit for ages, and it has always had the restrictions mentioned. In other words there is nothing new about this SDK.
While its hardly an open protocol there are Open Source systems which can interoperate with it.
I am currently working with Jabber. This has a open architecture which allows ICQ, AOL, MSN, and other services to interoperate through the use of Jabber servers.
I have just finished reading "The Case For Mars", a book by Robert Zubrin about how to put humans on mars.
Insteaad of creating huge space infrastructure the idea is to go directly. The plan is to send a 'Earth Return Vehicle' to Mars that has the ability to extract fuel from the atmosphere of Mars. This is sent using a single booster - not assembled in space.
Two years later - assuming the ERV is ready to fly with full fuel tanks - the manned mission takes off in a second booster. Again no space stations or moon bases required. The manned mission arrived at mars, aerobrakes through the martian atmosphere into a mars orbit, and in their own time select the entry window to land near the ERV.
They land near the ERV. The ERV holds enough food and provisions for an extended stay on the planet - about one and a half years. The manned mission has brought with them rovers etc to make use of the time - and the ERV makes fuel which can be used by the rovers as well as for the trip back to earth. A year and a half later the climb into the ERV and return home.
How does this relate to the news about the X-33? The point of the above plan is that it doesn't require any technologies that are beond our reach now. The only reason a Manned Mars Mission isn't in the pipeline is political - not technical.
The price tag is somewhere between 30 billion and 50 billion dollars. I remember the excitement that the Pathfinder mission created - and find it difficult to believe that this kind of price tag is out of reach. With 'reality TV' these days I can imagine the profitability of giving earthlings a look into the lives of Marsnoughts.
At the start of this trial I had the hope that it could break the Climate of Fear that MS had created in the software industry.
For example, imagine you had a brand new software product. You release it after spending two or three million on development, then another million on advertising. Your press release describes the new product, and how every user will want it.
The next day MS releases a press release describing the features of the MS version which will be released in the 'near future' - and your product is dead. Patents are no protection, as MS are unbeatable in court - because they have much more money than you to fight.
This trial is a test to see if MS can be beaten in court at all. If the US Government can't beat them nobody can.
At least that was what I believed when the case began. Now I know that they can be beaten, both in terms of software in the market, and at trial. The fear is gone.
The issue here is weather they have the right to create a version of the software that is non-GPL. Since you were hired on contract, unless there is a written contract to the contrary, the organization who paid for the development owns the copyright regardless of what notices you have placed in the code or documentation.
If the organization owns the copyright, then they can distribute it under any license they want. There are a number of duel license products.
The point here is that the organization paid for the development, and are entitled to use it as they see fit.
The moral here is that if you create something on contract, and you don't want ownership to belong to the client, then you should specifically draft a contract to that effect.
The way to beat these guys (MPAA, RIAA) is to not have central servers to shut down. The problem then becomes co-ordination.
There is a pre-existing set of servers that are already set up to co-ordinate users, by which I mean allow them to identify each other online. Its called ICQ.
Lets create an app which hooks into ICQ to see what other users are online.
The other problem is the number of nodes on the network creating expotential searches. This should be addressed by each client being part of a 'group'. The members of a group would store the directories listings of each member in the group - but not the actual data.
When a search is performed the search is only sent to one member of the each group chosen at random from those currently online, thus the traffic requirements are greatly reduced.
I havn't done simulations to determine the ideal group size yet, but it shouldn't be too difficult.
ICQ could be used as just a starting point - an entry point. Once you are 'hooked into' the network you will be given other IP's of others online. The reason for this is that we don't want to give ICQ any way at all to determine who is operating the service, otherwise they will be able to close those accounts under pressure from the bad guys.
We could even avoid ICQ totally by having very basic servers which provide simple hooks into IP addresses of those in the system.
You could also make this idea of 'groups' go further, with groups of groups - where certain clients store directories for several groups.
I find it ammusing that the Internet was so successfull at information distribution that big companies are now fighting tooth and nail to PREVENT people communicating freely.
I don't believe copying commercial music is right, however that is not the concern of the bad guys. The bad guys are worried about control of the distribution media. Without control of the distribution media anyone can create 'competitive' music, and sell it without giving the record companies a cut.
This is the real concern of the bad guys - that artists will find out that they don't need to hand over their rights to the bad guys.
The system I enision is a method of sharing information - any information. I don't see how that can be outlawed.
How important do you guys value Configuration Management Tools (tools that aid in the process of developing software)? I think they are very important to the development process. If you don't use them you're dead in the water.
I have never used a "Configuration Management Tool" in my life. There are many ways to skin a cat - many development methods which may work - why do you claim this approach is any better than say Open Source - where a CMT is not used?
The last project I did used a number of the principles of XP. I think that the term 'XP' is too scary however, and that its seen as a all or nothing deal.
My personal view is that XP makes use of Evolutionary Development (as opposed to Development By Design). In Evolutionary Development there are two principles at work :
Coding (Mutation)
Selection.
All methodolgies do Coding. However the way we look at coding varies. In most methodologies there is an assumption that a project is Developed by Design. Most developers are aware of the process of developing requirements, specifications, coding, and conformance testing (ie to the specification). Most developers are also aware of how this apparently logical approach is never how successfull projects actually work. All my successfull projects have been a mixture of planning and evolution, where the initial development is planned, and thereafter small incremental changes are made to the working system.
The XP books I have read describe how to do XP development - but didn't seem to provide a good account of why XP works. XP works because it removes the assumption that all the design needs to be done up front. It allows for evolution, where code is both written and selected.
The mechanism for selection in XP is Unit Tests and Peer Programming among others. Point is that these selection pressures are not present in 'traditional' developments.
These forms of code selection are not nessasarily the only methodologies which can work. Another example is Open Source - where only good source code survives. What do we mean by 'good' source code? We mean source code which continues to be used. The point is that bad source code - ie that is buggy and poor quality - tends not to be used.
Whatever method used, it is important that selection be applied in very small increments. It is no use taking a whole application, radically changing it, and testing/rejecting only at the end. With XP you check your code against unit tests on every checkin - which means that poor quality code can't get in. On a higher level you are releasing the code to users on a very regular basis. This ensures any user interface issues are found and 'selected' out of the code pool early in the development, and not given the chance to become imbedded in the application further.
One last note : when I talk about using 'evolution vs design' I am talking about a high level design, not the design you might do for an individual function or method. We will always need some degree of design. My point is that computer systems are now becoming so complex that our faith in our ability to Design from the ground up needs to be examined.
XP is one such attempt. I hope this puts XP in a clearer perspective,