I certainly understand that the rendering engine MS used was very well designed, and the implementation shows MS can actually integrate software, but I never saw that much of a difference. The fact is, most people use IE because it is free and easy. MS agreements with AOL and Apple made IE nearly universally available. MS manipulation of web standards, as well as code in Front Page, sabotaged Netscape and created a critical mass of sites compatible only with IE. Therefore, the average user has little choice but to use IE.
So, the quality of a browser, for most people, is quite irrelevant. In my experience with browsers, which started with Mosaic, moved to Netscape (and a little cyberdog), and now is primarily Opera, IE is largely annoy ware. I have a copy of it to deal with a few sub standard sites, but otherwise it lays dormant.
The browser war may be over, but it was not won by quality software. It was won by monopolistic manipulation of the market. Until we encourage a free market, which will create a new competitive environment, non-IE browsers are toast. Even if Apple and AOL use other browsers, those browser will continue to choke on MS code.
The basis of the review is a rewritten version of a paper published by the he Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. The main purpose of the original paper was presumably to put a credible "Think Tank" justification on the standard Microsoft closed source dogma. The original paper was quickly withdrawn after widespread criticism for lack of credible scholarship or logic. The paper did, and does, largely contain unsupported statments and hearsay. It is important to discredit this paper, as it appears to be an important part of the anti-GPL PR campaign
Microsoft has been forging a war against open source software in general, and the GPL in particular. The GPL is a serious threat to companies like Microsoft because they can no longer take previously developed outside software, modify it, repackage it, and sell the product as thier own innovation. The GPL will force such companies to provide all code to the customer for which the software was intended, and acknowledge that the software uses GPL code. This openness has huge economic and competitive consequences to closed source software vendors who maintain a monopoly in their field (the problem is likely greater than Microsoft).
The revised paper is still a contrived piece of propaganda meant to scare people into thinking that open source software, and most notably the GPL, will cause economic collapse and massive terrorist attacks. This is interesting because lack of transparency in business and politics in precisely what causes economic collapse and terrorist attacks. Remember Enron and the lack of communication between the various U.S. agencies. We should therefore expect companies and government to insist on transparent business practices.
In any case, the paper will be used to get the U.S. congress, schools, and other governments to fork over huge licensing fees to Microsoft, Sun, and other such companies, for software that these agencies can neither control or properly audit. Which is not to say that closed source software is good, or open source software is bad, but to say that silly wolf in sheep clothing papers are a waste of everyones time.
Without being condecending, it occurs to me that programming, to many of the current student, involving starting off with a preexisting scaffolding and filling in the blanks. I even think some older programmers, given the code I have had to correct, see coding as little more than creating run on sentences. This, to me, is a result of learning to code on in IDEs rather than blank sheets of paper. The skill is valid, even if you code directly on computers, as it allows the development of more flexible and maintainable programs.
So this is how to create programs on paper.
First, divide the problem up into constituent parts. For structure programming, these are functions. For OO programming, these are objects. The functions and objects should be named with words that have high content. Humans can only hold 7-10 pieces of information, so there should only be 7-10 objects or function at any level. Once these functions or objects have been defined, establish a method of communications between them. Data that is shared must be very obvious, even to the casual observer. Hidden global variables are not acceptable.
One these top-level entities are established, they can be fleshed out with code. Normally this will involve writing a bit of glue code for the functions, with other functions called, or creating data and member functions for the objects. Focus only on the problem at hand. Remember the 7-10 rules. If something get complicated, rename it as a function and write it later. The more correct code you can write, the better.
If you find the need to call one top level function from another top level function, or declare public data in objects, you probably made a mistake and the architecture needs to be rethought.
If you can get this far, I believe that you have shown a grasp of code architecture and grammar. You have also shown an ability to understand the problem and convert it into scaffolding that appropriate functions can hang off of. If you did a really good job, you have created code that can easily be expanded. All that is needed now is to flesh out the lower level functions, which can be done as time permits.
So in conclusion, one needs to come up with some top-level functions and object. Create well-defined data and methods to communicate between these tope level function that will minimize the cross talk among them. Flesh out the entities with correct code, always keeping you focus as targeted and high as possible. This is a skill that takes significant amount of time and effort to learn. Read coding books, as reviewed on this site, to get good at it. There is not time on a test to think about such basics are make big mistakes. Do you homework beforehand.
This article is a classic example of advertisement writing. If this is the type of hype that earthweb thinks is news, they are pretty useless. I vote we have no more stories from eathweb.com.
The claims in the article clearly were lifted directly from the ad copy. For instance, the previously discredited statement
And while most entry-level consumer cameras cost $300 to , the Logitech is almost an impulse buy at $130.
is so untrue that no credible writer would put it in an article. There are several cameras less than $300, most with better specifications. One also wonders how the reviewer missed all the ads for the stick camera that has been floating around lately. Perhaps not as nice as the Logitech, but certainly still an "entry level camera". On the other hand he must be a very good writer if he makes so much money that $130 is an impulse buy.
The article is particularly clever, as it does expose the limitations of the camera, but always in such a way as to make it look like a perfectly reasonable compromise.
I wonder if the pictures were taken by the author or supplied by Logitech. They look rather nice, and I can't a believe a person so clueless about cameras could have taken them.
This is actually a brilliant tactic on Apples part. It was almost certain that someone would come out with link software. By letting someone else do this, Apple reduces its customer service nightmare.
I mean think about it. Apple released a tightly integrated device that works quite automagically. Most things in iTunes, even when connected with USB or Firewire, happen automagically, or require only single button drag and drop use. Even though Windows has almost this level of simplicity, Windows is also controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft actively tries to screw every other vendow(and honestly, to some extents, so does Apple), which means no one knows if the software is going to work with the next patch.
By releasing a minimal, yet compelling version, and allowing other to expand it, Apple is harnessing the third party market in a perfectly reasonable way. I feel it made the same decision when it did not build in windows networking, another moving target, into MacOS 9. Thursby Software had an inexpensive working method, and handled all problems with Windows, including clueless users that do not wish to pay software.
Now some would say that Apple should be nice and create a better value for Windows users. Of course, Apple does not exist to make Windows more valuable, does it.
To predict the critics, Internet stuff is a bit different. Products like realplayer promote the brand. It is also safer because it does not deal with the low level system and hardware layer that Microsoft likes to mess with on a regular basis. Again, so does Apple.
Let's take a deep breath. Yes fining people a lot of money for stealing cable does seem excessive. Yes random price hikes are unfair. Yes, for some people, these companies have no real competition. Yes, corporations are evil and they should respect their customer. But this is what corporations do. The corporations can get away with it because people believe they have a basic right to these non-critical services. Cable companies, especially, will charge whatever they want because people will pay.
For example, there is little on cable that is necessary. It is nice to have. I once had it. Don't have it anymore. The cable kept going out and it took several days on each incident to fix it. I got rid of cable because it was causing more frustration that it was worth. I miss cable, but I am not going to deal with customer service of an hour every few weeks. I can go to two movies a week, or one small concert a week, for what they were charging me for cable. I don't steal cable because it is just not important. I feel sad for people who do.
DSL is the same thing. I love DSL and I am fortunate that I live in an area with multiple DSL providers. I can get pissed at one and move to another. I understand that not everyone has that luxury, or even can get DSL. But it is just DSL. Like all non-critical products, if it gets too expensive, go to dialup, or cable. It is hard, but the companies have no obligation to charge an amount that fits your budget. It has a responsibility to charge an amount that enough people will pay to maximize profits.
If we would treat these services as options in our lives, the companies would not likely be so disrespectful. At this point, they feel they are doing us a favor providing such wonderful services at such reasonable prices. These feeling are validated by frantic people calling customer service begging for these services, and apparently unaffected by high prices. They have a good life, and know it.
If cable and DSL are fundamental rights in our new world, maybe we should regulate them more aggressively. Does it need to cost $30 for basic and $50 for digital cable? Unlikely. Do companies need to make more of an effort getting broadband to the masses? Probably. But it is a catch 22. To make these necessities affordable, like telephone, electricity, and water, they must be regulated. To make a regulated market attractive, the services must be nearly universally used. Many people still chose not to have cable or DSL.
Again, this is not a flame, just reason
> Do you want to vote online?
People can vote online with a 14.4 modem, or even at their local library
>As a rural resident, I can tell you that you've been lied to. Most of us are connecting at >rates barely faster than a 14.4k modem, and most of us have enough line noise that >getting a 24/7 connection is next to impossible.
I will grant you that. I suppose how rural is rural. In one of the posts, the author alluded to the availability of T1. If you can get T1, you can also get pretty close to 56K. If you are so rural that you only have party line phones, then there is not much anyone can do.
>I dunno, maybe because most of your food was produced by these people?
I have every respect for the farmer, and I support the legislation to keep the family farm, even when that legislation mostly goes to the corporate farmer. Unfortunately, even with these payments, my food is worse than the third world. You see, I have family in the third world. We raise cows in the pasture. We grow fruit and vegetables on the land, pick them when they are ripe, and then take them to market. My father was also a farmer, and spent the first and end of his life in a rural setting. If farmers need broadband, get the government to supplies with further direct payments.
>If anything, we pay more, and often are willing to pay more.
As well you should . And I pay more in rent and taxes. The issue is not money. The issue is requiring a excessively high level of services.
>That's ok. Considering that the bulk of wealth (at least in my town) comes from people >living outside of the downtown areas (where the city is most built up, and where DSL is >everywhere), we'll just stop putting money into your city. How long do you think that >theater will last when no one is buying the $5 cokes?
Most people around here move outside the city center because they cannot afford to live within it. City taxes pay to build the venues, and the city is reimbursed by those people that come to use it.
>With ubiquity comes application.
Cable is not everywhere, yet the market is there. IE is not used by everyone, but everyone is designing to it. To be rude, it is just important to reach enough people that mater.
>We do. Many, if not most, rural communities do. Without our volunteer fire >department I have no clue what farmers would do when their barns and silos set on fire, >not to mention the many times they save idiots from the city when they cause a crashe >by driving 20 km/h on an 80 km/h.
and many rural places don't. That is why the insurance company assumes that the building will burn down. In the city the fire department can save a house. In more rural places, i.e. not suburban, the fire department is often there to make sure that other houses to not get destroyed.
>Sure, but don't expect a lot of home stereo MP3 players to have broadband jacks, and >don't expect to be able to phone a lot of people with your new toy broadband phone, or >easily watch movies online, or many of the other things that people with broadband >want to do until everyone can get it.
I am not obsessed with broadband. I have a cell phone that is over three years old, I have a palm that is over 3 years old. I am unlike to pay the money for such devices. I have DSL connection at home because it is not expensive.
I do not disagree with most of what you are saying. My problem is exactly what you stated above. There are applications that would benefit from broadband. When I worked for a company in a small town, the company was smart enough to stay within the limits of the town. That cost them some tax, but gave them access to services like a T1 line form the local telco. If we would have greedy and had moved out of town, we would have had to pay all sorts of extra fees.
I would like every one to have broadband. I would a real and wireless and secure communication system to be in place. I would like to not have to pay long distance when I call 20 miles from my house. I would like to be able to take a walk at night and see the stars. I would like to be able to get to a lake in 5 minutes, or have an acre of land. I would like to pay $20 a square foot for a house. I give up these things so I can have a high level of service and be able to walk to the mall.
But these things are not going to happen by talking about the poor and neglected rural population. There will always be pockets that will be just too expensive to service, even with wireless. We now have section of the country that are classified as empty.
Read the orginal post. The author had 56K. The author knew of people with T1. He was complaining that the telcos were not providing him broadband. We all should know the compromises we make when we live in certain area. If those compromises no longer make sense, we should consider moving.
I don't mean this to flame, but why it is so critical for rural areas to have broadband internet. Rural areas already get subsidized so they can have roads, electricity, and telephone. They already mostly have 56K dialup, which is quite suitable for most tasks. Why do they have a right to broadband. I do have not problem with the other subsidies, except for the situation in which people and companies move to these rural areas specifically to save on taxes and land costs, while whining about the lack of services. They then of course proceed to create excess traffic and pollute our cities as they drive the 50 miles into the city in their SUVs to see a movie.
Anyway, I have yet to see any compelling need for universal broadband. If someone wants to buy a T1 line and sell it to other people, great. If someone can figure how to make a profit on wireless, that would be better. But, generally speaking, a rural area can't have all the conviences of the city. They often can't have a fire station within a 1/2 mile, they often don't have gas piped into they house, and they are generally not going to be within the limitation of a DSL line. I mean, hell, I live within a few block of my switching station, and I still had to wait months to get intallation.
Everyone wants to put some cosmic significance to the circumstances of this article, use it to show a punishment for the bad behavior of the music industry, or hope for better times in the future. All these hopes and wishes are likely to be misplaced. Furthermore, the music industry may more parallel the movie industry rather than the book industry.
As far as I can tell, the making of stars is a complex affair that not only depends on promotions, but also controls and circumstances. Back in the 30's and 40's, the production companies owned and promoted the stars. For the most part, people went to see movies to see the stars. Today, even though we have movie stars, people also look at the plot and content of a movie. This change was not caused by any single factor, but rather by a general change in business practices.
Of course, the music business is like this now. People generally get hooked to a particular artist. The artists can command large sums of money because the artist will be able to pass off crap music at a profit. This may or may not continue in the future. The thing that complicates matter is that good local music is relatively cheap.
The book industry still depends on stars for the avid reader. However, because people will tend to watch a movie or listen to music for entertainment, the large market is in is in simple educational and devotional books. This leads to the chicken soup and dummy books, in which an editor can create books of uniform simplicity and content, while minimizing the payment to authors. The book is then consistently market to the public. Though this has some similarities to movies and books, I do not knoe if either of these can get generic enough to totally cut our the human factor.
It is interesting because innovation comes of these new uses. Where would we be if playhouses were able to stop movie studios from making movies of the plays? Where would we be if movie studios were able to stop TV broadcaster from creating original content? Where would we be if TV broadcasters were able to keep cable companies from using their contest, as with satellite providers? In each of these transitions, the value of the previous product was reduced and the providers of the product had to rethink the business plan. The surprising thing is that even with movies and TV and cable, playhouses still survive. They are not the powerful industry they once were, but face it, they are an outdated form of entertainment. A profound change had to take place for playhouses to survive.
Advertising based TV is also an outdated form of entertainment. Modern tools allow the advertiser to see exactly how ineffective the ads are, and realize that TV is not the most effective form of branding. Outside of sports event for men and a few shows for women, everything else is taped and ads are skipped. Sweeps weeks exist because the networks realize the ineffectiveness of their business model.
So, the gig is already up. If TV is to survive, they must make an honest assessment of its current and future value. Once that occurs, the networks can figure out how to extract that value. The same goes for movie and music distributors. Remeber, TV, like CDs and DVDs, is merely a distribution channel, a distribution channel sometimes owned by the public. It is not inconvievable that broadcast content would be sold outright, and bypass the ad middlemen altogether.
Unsolicited email is bad, but the problem is proving an email is unsolicited. I am supposedly on some many valid lists it is unbelievable. I have registered a fresh name, used it to complain about an email, and have been told the new registered address was listed on their opt-in list. When I complained to all the various agents, no one did anything.
No, this current approach is a losing battle. What we must have is transparency. The Spammer cannot be allowed to use fake email addresses. I have complained about commercial emails with fake addressee, and the providers refuse to do anything. There must be an opt-out link or email address that is in the same domain as the from and return address. These address must be in the owner domain, and not Yahoo, Hotmail, or whatever free service they use for one time addresses. The subject line must clearly identify the company being advertised. If the email is to a website, the website must have an email link, and, if it is a DBA, must have a link to the corporation or person.
These guidelines will create a proper and honorable two-way communication. There are companies like (I think) Virtual Holdings that cowardly hide behind fake addresses and do not even put a real address on their domain registration. They keep their costs down by hiding behind fraudulent websites that do not have a single method of communicating with the owner. It is the highest form of arrogance that they think they have the right to spam us, but we don't have the right to spam them.
I know it has been said before, but let me say it again. Get a free email account. When you get a spam, especially with a fake email, look up the registration for the websites advertised. Look up the registration for the DNS providers. Send an email to every address you can find stated how cowardly and dishonorable using fake email addresses is. Let them know we know they are vermin. You do not even have to include your own information, as you are complaining about bad netiquette, not Spam.
Ender's game is actually a very good book, at least for it's time. Nicely written, good plot, good ending. It is not literature, and I am not sure how it has held up over the past 15+ years. Certainly the sequels became increasingly stupid, mostly written to capitilize on the original, and his other books are pretty much complete trash.
That said, Ender's Game may be a bit too complex for the movies. It is likely to suffer the same fate as "Starship Troopers." Not a bad movie, good concept, but very difficult to do correctly.
This is really a meaningless article, and may even be purposely misleading. We know that people want software. We know that some of these people only want to have the software. Some of these people want to use it, but not for any commercial purpose. Some unknown percentage actually represents lost sales. The amount of lost sales is the concern.
These number contain no information, and most of us are sophisticated enough to know this. There was a time when Netscape and Yahoo just counted the number of times it server was hit, and used this number as a their 'user base'. We then found out that a single web page required multiple hits, so their actual user base was a fraction of that number, and in time, such service stopped purposefully reporting bogus numbers.
So, in this case, here is an article reporting clearly bogus numbers as facts. We are used to this because organizations such as the RIAA and BSA are more interesting in swaying public opinion than clearly representing facts. This article has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with lying with statistics
Re:The guy sounds like a world-class sleazeball.
on
Hacking Web Services
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The characterization is certainly unwarranted.
First, security through obscurity is only dangerous if it is the main line of security. Obscurity can be an important and necessary part of security. For instance, it not wise to publish the exact configuration of every computer on a network, even though, conceivable, such information might allow some help in keeping the computers secure.
Second, I think the registration procedure for Yahoo! is quite clever. I am much more likely to get crap from a Hotmail account than a Yahoo! account. The use of people to do distributed computing(as was done 200 years ago) is clearly so unreliable that such a statement must be a joke. However, the intent to increase the time necessary to create an account is valid.
The third point is of concern for all of us who wish to have free and unrestricted flow of imformation. On the ohter hand, the balkanization of the web is already here, with the help of Microsoft and Macromedia. For instance, bus schedules in houston are provided on the web with flash introductions and PDF only formats. Why is this neccesary for someone who just want to catch a bus? Yahoo would likely add just a few more useless plugins and extensions to a web already rampant with useless plugins and extensions. To Yahoo's credit, it is one the few sites that reliable, effectively, and quickly works with all the browsers I have tried(Netscape, opera, mozilla, and IE.
In Texas one must pay $5 to be on a no call list, and, apparently, one can't get a business line on statewide no call list. Why should the consumer pay? We already pay for our telephone. Answering the phone already is inconveniencing us. Hell, as a city dweller I subsidize the phones and roads so that the tele-marketer can set up boiler rooms in the middle of nowhere and hire the locals, often at no pay other than commission. Aren't I paying enough? Why can't we have the system totally funded by charging tele-marketer fees for the right to market in certain areas? For instance, the might have to pay state, county, city, and neighborhood fees for the right to call citizens of that area..
The funniest part of the article was where they claimed that no-call list hurt women and minority workers. Such statement reminds me of the fact that slavery arguable hurt minority employment. Go figure.
I am actually not necessarily totally against telephone solicitations, or Spam, for that matter. I just get annoyed when they are not offering legitimate products(as is the case 99% of the time), or use fraudulent means(for instance blocking caller ID or forged headers).
I am not working, but I saw it with one my sibling, who is. My sibling missed no work, becasee, as responsible and dedicated star wars fans, we saw it at midnight. I really don't know why anyone would need to miss a day of work to see star wars. Unless, of course, there are kids involved, in which case I can see skipping out early for the afternoon. Or if one is old and cannot live on 4 hours of sleep:-).
On the other hand, if one has mental health days, there was no reason not to take it to see star wars.
The software industry does not really relate to the light plane industry. There is a very small market for light planes, and the necessity for such things is limited. As far as who destroyed the industry, that is up for debate.
Rather, I think we might look at ladders or cotton swabs. In both cases, litigation or the threat of litigation threatened the industry, pretty much due to people doing stupid things. I suppose that some of the problems, particularly with ladders, were caused by incompetent manufacturers, but most of the problems were caused by incompetent users. Both industries were saved; ladders now carry excessive safety stickers, and cotton swabs carry bogus instructions.
If we judge existing software by current manufacturing and safety standards, we see that software has a large amount of pent up liability. Combine that with MS billion dollar bank account, a lot of hungry lawyers, and an explosive situation develops. At some point we will have lemon laws for software, and companies will be liable for making excessive claims. Software companies can either moderate themselves, pay out defensive amounts of money, and in general do a better job, or they can make class action lawyers rich. History, so far, teaches us that companies would rather make class action lawyers rich.
Although I agree charging a license for every machine in a school is excessive, there is little anyone can do about it. The Linux solution will not work, unless the school gets rid of every Windows machine, and allow endless audits.
The M$ business model is currently dependent on licenses and continuous upgrades. They had solidified this strategy over the past year through the draconian implementation of new agreements.
So, installing Linux machines in school, only using Macintoshes with on VPC, or any other strategy will only result in endless audits. MS basic assumption is that even if every computer on the planet is not running their software, every computer on the planet could be running their software. Add to that over 90% market share, they feel they should get money for every computer on the planet, or, to the extreme, every person on the planet.
Add to this the profitability of the service model over the license model, and you get the problems of mandatory yearly upgrades. The only to way stop this extortion is to stop the extreme license model, the BSA, and the monopoly of MS.
Software should do at least three things. Software should reliable execute the task it was designed for. Software should protect against unexpected inputs. Software should be fault tolerant and if it fails, should fail gracefully.
Your first assertion that faulty assumptions are not bugs may or may not be correct. If the design of the code allowed the on the fly change of these values(i.e. without recompiles or reloads), then these assumptions may not be bugs. That is, if the design of the code was fault tolerant, we could blame the numbers. Otherwise, it is a design flaw. This is why many people consider the constant reloading of windows every time some system variable changed to be a bug.
Likewise, algorithms that trade stock and interact in such a way that a crash can occur are buggy algorithms. We do not want a crash, which is why we now stop trading under certain conditions. In effect, we know that software out there is buggy and will not protect against cascading inputs, so we have a gate watcher that will stop these buggy programs from causing havoc.
Although you are correct that not all items listed are in fact "bugs", your narrow definition is typical of programmers who wish to minimize their responsibility. These are the programmers who feel there is no need to check for overflow, non-terminating loops, and the like. It is unlikely that these programmers would even take a little time to actually design an algorithm rather than just type some crap into the Visual Studio. Bad design, philosophy, and logic are extremely difficult to fix by proofreading or editing..
I often read how good IE is, how compliant it is, how easy it is to use. I hear how much better it is on the Mac than on windows. And yet I have never once had a good user experience using IE. The security setting are impossible to get exactly right, either too much information is exposed or too many buttons have to be clicked. IE seems to want to take up an extraordinary amount of screen real estate for silly information messages. I know that in the fullness of time I could learn to make IE do what I want, but why should I. Netscape never took me more than an hour to set up, and Opera is even better.
Now, I know that if you are looking at porn or whatever, IE is a very tightly integrated multimedia device. But for most things, it is overkill and overcomplicated. To be sure, I don't want most multimedia to be automagically loaded. It is a waste of my time and a waste of my bandwidth. There are a lot of stupid sites that force inane music on me. I have to disable Flash just to protect myself from silly adverts.
Furthermore, the assertion that Microsoft is in some sort of unique usability nirvana due to Microsoft's wealth is ludicrous. Everyone uses IE not because it is easy to use, or easy to setup, but because it is the default in windows, and as stated above, is critical for viewing porn. As far as IE being resistant to advertising, remember that IE is a critical building block in MS web services package and it quirks critical to the destruction of other browsers. If IE allows users to block ads, it is merely because MS wants to direct all traffic to it's affiliates, and not have the advertising stream contaminated with pesky competitors.
It has been said before, and I am sure it will be said again, but my only experience with the BSA is as a "protection" scheme. To be clear, I buy my software and I encourage everyone I work for to buy his or her software. I believe that people who write software has a right, if they so wish, to be fairly compensated. I also believe that not every piece of stolen software out there is in fact a "lost sale". In addition, not every person has a right to Microsoft Office, or the latest version of Windows, so it they can't afford it, they really don't have a right to steal it. On the other hand, Microsoft did build the popularity of Windows, in some sense, by making it easy to steal software.
That said, my only experience with software audits is with Microsoft. It was quite a galling experience because the company I worked had spent a lot of money and time insuring that only licensed software was running on the machines. After that good faith expense, the BSA comes in and demands an audit. They basically hi jack our hardware people for a week, cause no end of interruptions to the development of our product, install gods knows what on all out machines, and wreak general mayhem. If course we could have avoided the entire thing by paying the "protection" fee. They treat the customers like addicts. It like you get the drug free know, and when you are hooked, we will exact the price.
First, the notion of missile defense system as capable of destroying all warheads is a fallacy perpetrated by the pentagon and general media. Any attacker can use a variety of techniques (cryogenic cooling of the warhead, decoys, etc) to get a few warheads through. Rather, such a 'shield', as it has been inappropriately labeled, would be in place to minimize the damage from such an attack.
This is also reason the system violates several treatises. Currently, the world has enough nuclear warheads to achieved mutual destruction. With the so-called shield in place, which, in our wildest dreams, might has an efficiency rate of 50%(remember we have not yet destroyed a single missile with the system in a fair test), this situation would no longer be the case. Of course, since missiles are much cheaper to build than a defense system, the enemy could just build more missles.
Even in the case of the hypothetical rogue nation launching a single missile with several decoys (the cheapest way to attack), out ability to choose the real missile is a very difficult problem, which, as far as we know, has not been solved. It is easy to build and launch a large number of decoys. In fact, since we hope to intercept these thing in LEO, any additional junk will actually hinder our efforts.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, detecting the real missle is a hard problem. If we introduce more junk into LEO, the place we hope to destroy the missles, tha problem becomes harder. From a defense point of view, a clean LEO is critical.
Thirdly, such a sytem only protects against ICBM type delivery. It does little to prevent other forms of delivery.
Given the US response on 9/11, I have little doubt of the response of nuclear attack, even if with no live missile penetration.
As far as the importance of LEO in such a situation, see Fredik Pohl
It is no ones responsibility to single handedly take on an injustice. Everyone who sees the injustice is responsible for fighting it. Also, it serves no purpose to taunt fellow members in the struggle for justice. There are times when others need to pull back, either because they are tired or because they can more be more effective using other means. At these times, an opportunity opens for someone else to enter the fray. Google has decided what it can do best, and is doing it.
This also illustrates why we need many search engines. Google, whose size and popularity makes it a prime target, also makes them a prime place to publicize the censorship. Other engines can still link to the articles. For instance, it is still possible to find these links.
http://www.scientology-lies.com/
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/cos.htm
http://www.xenu.net/
If we have many search engines, and other places to find links, it will be difficult for the oppressor to squash the resistance.
In my college experience, I tried CS, EE and physics. Many of my colleagues in CS and EE were less interested in learning than how much money they could make when they graduated. As such, they often used the simplest means available to make the grade. Study groups often meant splitting up homework and then copying it. The professors knew what was going on and took actions to compensate for it. I moved to physics where study groups actually studied and professors were there to help the student learn.
I can only assume that with the rising salaries for CS graduates and increase popularity in the program, the situation is only getting worse. It would be impossible for a professor to know who did what work. And since it is impossible to completely test CS in a traditional way, I do not find the policy unreasonable.
First, any art of sufficient quality will only grow stronger in the face of imitation and adaptation. Slashdot, being a free speech, and sometimes free bear community, should be excited about the adaptation of this fine work. It will expose many people to the existence of this work with the possibility that some may find time to appreciate the predecessor. Additionally, bad derivatives do not adversely affect the quality of the predecessor. Not even Leonardo DiCaprio can tarnish the work of Shakespeare or Tchaicovsky. Remember that it is only fitting to act like a pompous artist if one is in fact a pompous artist.
Second, someone complained about plot. Akira may or may not have a simple plot. It doesn't really mater. Complaining about plot is like complaining that poetry doesn't rhyme; it indicates a lack of sophistication. Any sufficiently advance piece of art is going to have several perspectives, and the plot one takes away will depend on one's perspective. For instance, In The Bedroom might be a film about the failing of children, the unfairness of the legal system, or the tragedy of love. If one cannot find a relevant issue, the movie will not have an accessible plot. BTW, man coming out retirement to save world, man killing many people, man saves world, is not a plot of any consequence.
As we all know, IP must (eventually) be free, and we must have the freedom to advance that IP, even if such advancement seems silly. Peace Out.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the quality of a browser, for most people, is quite irrelevant. In my experience with browsers, which started with Mosaic, moved to Netscape (and a little cyberdog), and now is primarily Opera, IE is largely annoy ware. I have a copy of it to deal with a few sub standard sites, but otherwise it lays dormant.
The browser war may be over, but it was not won by quality software. It was won by monopolistic manipulation of the market. Until we encourage a free market, which will create a new competitive environment, non-IE browsers are toast. Even if Apple and AOL use other browsers, those browser will continue to choke on MS code.
The basis of the review is a rewritten version of a paper published by the he Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. The main purpose of the original paper was presumably to put a credible "Think Tank" justification on the standard Microsoft closed source dogma. The original paper was quickly withdrawn after widespread criticism for lack of credible scholarship or logic. The paper did, and does, largely contain unsupported statments and hearsay. It is important to discredit this paper, as it appears to be an important part of the anti-GPL PR campaign
Microsoft has been forging a war against open source software in general, and the GPL in particular. The GPL is a serious threat to companies like Microsoft because they can no longer take previously developed outside software, modify it, repackage it, and sell the product as thier own innovation. The GPL will force such companies to provide all code to the customer for which the software was intended, and acknowledge that the software uses GPL code. This openness has huge economic and competitive consequences to closed source software vendors who maintain a monopoly in their field (the problem is likely greater than Microsoft).
The revised paper is still a contrived piece of propaganda meant to scare people into thinking that open source software, and most notably the GPL, will cause economic collapse and massive terrorist attacks. This is interesting because lack of transparency in business and politics in precisely what causes economic collapse and terrorist attacks. Remember Enron and the lack of communication between the various U.S. agencies. We should therefore expect companies and government to insist on transparent business practices.
In any case, the paper will be used to get the U.S. congress, schools, and other governments to fork over huge licensing fees to Microsoft, Sun, and other such companies, for software that these agencies can neither control or properly audit. Which is not to say that closed source software is good, or open source software is bad, but to say that silly wolf in sheep clothing papers are a waste of everyones time.
So this is how to create programs on paper.
First, divide the problem up into constituent parts. For structure programming, these are functions. For OO programming, these are objects. The functions and objects should be named with words that have high content. Humans can only hold 7-10 pieces of information, so there should only be 7-10 objects or function at any level. Once these functions or objects have been defined, establish a method of communications between them. Data that is shared must be very obvious, even to the casual observer. Hidden global variables are not acceptable.
One these top-level entities are established, they can be fleshed out with code. Normally this will involve writing a bit of glue code for the functions, with other functions called, or creating data and member functions for the objects. Focus only on the problem at hand. Remember the 7-10 rules. If something get complicated, rename it as a function and write it later. The more correct code you can write, the better.
If you find the need to call one top level function from another top level function, or declare public data in objects, you probably made a mistake and the architecture needs to be rethought.
If you can get this far, I believe that you have shown a grasp of code architecture and grammar. You have also shown an ability to understand the problem and convert it into scaffolding that appropriate functions can hang off of. If you did a really good job, you have created code that can easily be expanded. All that is needed now is to flesh out the lower level functions, which can be done as time permits.
So in conclusion, one needs to come up with some top-level functions and object. Create well-defined data and methods to communicate between these tope level function that will minimize the cross talk among them. Flesh out the entities with correct code, always keeping you focus as targeted and high as possible. This is a skill that takes significant amount of time and effort to learn. Read coding books, as reviewed on this site, to get good at it. There is not time on a test to think about such basics are make big mistakes. Do you homework beforehand.
The claims in the article clearly were lifted directly from the ad copy. For instance, the previously discredited statement
And while most entry-level consumer cameras cost $300 to , the Logitech is almost an impulse buy at $130.
is so untrue that no credible writer would put it in an article. There are several cameras less than $300, most with better specifications. One also wonders how the reviewer missed all the ads for the stick camera that has been floating around lately. Perhaps not as nice as the Logitech, but certainly still an "entry level camera". On the other hand he must be a very good writer if he makes so much money that $130 is an impulse buy.
The article is particularly clever, as it does expose the limitations of the camera, but always in such a way as to make it look like a perfectly reasonable compromise.
I wonder if the pictures were taken by the author or supplied by Logitech. They look rather nice, and I can't a believe a person so clueless about cameras could have taken them.
I mean think about it. Apple released a tightly integrated device that works quite automagically. Most things in iTunes, even when connected with USB or Firewire, happen automagically, or require only single button drag and drop use. Even though Windows has almost this level of simplicity, Windows is also controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft actively tries to screw every other vendow(and honestly, to some extents, so does Apple), which means no one knows if the software is going to work with the next patch.
By releasing a minimal, yet compelling version, and allowing other to expand it, Apple is harnessing the third party market in a perfectly reasonable way. I feel it made the same decision when it did not build in windows networking, another moving target, into MacOS 9. Thursby Software had an inexpensive working method, and handled all problems with Windows, including clueless users that do not wish to pay software.
Now some would say that Apple should be nice and create a better value for Windows users. Of course, Apple does not exist to make Windows more valuable, does it.
To predict the critics, Internet stuff is a bit different. Products like realplayer promote the brand. It is also safer because it does not deal with the low level system and hardware layer that Microsoft likes to mess with on a regular basis. Again, so does Apple.
For example, there is little on cable that is necessary. It is nice to have. I once had it. Don't have it anymore. The cable kept going out and it took several days on each incident to fix it. I got rid of cable because it was causing more frustration that it was worth. I miss cable, but I am not going to deal with customer service of an hour every few weeks. I can go to two movies a week, or one small concert a week, for what they were charging me for cable. I don't steal cable because it is just not important. I feel sad for people who do.
DSL is the same thing. I love DSL and I am fortunate that I live in an area with multiple DSL providers. I can get pissed at one and move to another. I understand that not everyone has that luxury, or even can get DSL. But it is just DSL. Like all non-critical products, if it gets too expensive, go to dialup, or cable. It is hard, but the companies have no obligation to charge an amount that fits your budget. It has a responsibility to charge an amount that enough people will pay to maximize profits.
If we would treat these services as options in our lives, the companies would not likely be so disrespectful. At this point, they feel they are doing us a favor providing such wonderful services at such reasonable prices. These feeling are validated by frantic people calling customer service begging for these services, and apparently unaffected by high prices. They have a good life, and know it.
If cable and DSL are fundamental rights in our new world, maybe we should regulate them more aggressively. Does it need to cost $30 for basic and $50 for digital cable? Unlikely. Do companies need to make more of an effort getting broadband to the masses? Probably. But it is a catch 22. To make these necessities affordable, like telephone, electricity, and water, they must be regulated. To make a regulated market attractive, the services must be nearly universally used. Many people still chose not to have cable or DSL.
Again, this is not a flame, just reason > Do you want to vote online? People can vote online with a 14.4 modem, or even at their local library >As a rural resident, I can tell you that you've been lied to. Most of us are connecting at >rates barely faster than a 14.4k modem, and most of us have enough line noise that >getting a 24/7 connection is next to impossible. I will grant you that. I suppose how rural is rural. In one of the posts, the author alluded to the availability of T1. If you can get T1, you can also get pretty close to 56K. If you are so rural that you only have party line phones, then there is not much anyone can do. >I dunno, maybe because most of your food was produced by these people? I have every respect for the farmer, and I support the legislation to keep the family farm, even when that legislation mostly goes to the corporate farmer. Unfortunately, even with these payments, my food is worse than the third world. You see, I have family in the third world. We raise cows in the pasture. We grow fruit and vegetables on the land, pick them when they are ripe, and then take them to market. My father was also a farmer, and spent the first and end of his life in a rural setting. If farmers need broadband, get the government to supplies with further direct payments. >If anything, we pay more, and often are willing to pay more. As well you should . And I pay more in rent and taxes. The issue is not money. The issue is requiring a excessively high level of services. >That's ok. Considering that the bulk of wealth (at least in my town) comes from people >living outside of the downtown areas (where the city is most built up, and where DSL is >everywhere), we'll just stop putting money into your city. How long do you think that >theater will last when no one is buying the $5 cokes? Most people around here move outside the city center because they cannot afford to live within it. City taxes pay to build the venues, and the city is reimbursed by those people that come to use it. >With ubiquity comes application. Cable is not everywhere, yet the market is there. IE is not used by everyone, but everyone is designing to it. To be rude, it is just important to reach enough people that mater. >We do. Many, if not most, rural communities do. Without our volunteer fire >department I have no clue what farmers would do when their barns and silos set on fire, >not to mention the many times they save idiots from the city when they cause a crashe >by driving 20 km/h on an 80 km/h. and many rural places don't. That is why the insurance company assumes that the building will burn down. In the city the fire department can save a house. In more rural places, i.e. not suburban, the fire department is often there to make sure that other houses to not get destroyed. >Sure, but don't expect a lot of home stereo MP3 players to have broadband jacks, and >don't expect to be able to phone a lot of people with your new toy broadband phone, or >easily watch movies online, or many of the other things that people with broadband >want to do until everyone can get it. I am not obsessed with broadband. I have a cell phone that is over three years old, I have a palm that is over 3 years old. I am unlike to pay the money for such devices. I have DSL connection at home because it is not expensive. I do not disagree with most of what you are saying. My problem is exactly what you stated above. There are applications that would benefit from broadband. When I worked for a company in a small town, the company was smart enough to stay within the limits of the town. That cost them some tax, but gave them access to services like a T1 line form the local telco. If we would have greedy and had moved out of town, we would have had to pay all sorts of extra fees. I would like every one to have broadband. I would a real and wireless and secure communication system to be in place. I would like to not have to pay long distance when I call 20 miles from my house. I would like to be able to take a walk at night and see the stars. I would like to be able to get to a lake in 5 minutes, or have an acre of land. I would like to pay $20 a square foot for a house. I give up these things so I can have a high level of service and be able to walk to the mall. But these things are not going to happen by talking about the poor and neglected rural population. There will always be pockets that will be just too expensive to service, even with wireless. We now have section of the country that are classified as empty. Read the orginal post. The author had 56K. The author knew of people with T1. He was complaining that the telcos were not providing him broadband. We all should know the compromises we make when we live in certain area. If those compromises no longer make sense, we should consider moving.
Anyway, I have yet to see any compelling need for universal broadband. If someone wants to buy a T1 line and sell it to other people, great. If someone can figure how to make a profit on wireless, that would be better. But, generally speaking, a rural area can't have all the conviences of the city. They often can't have a fire station within a 1/2 mile, they often don't have gas piped into they house, and they are generally not going to be within the limitation of a DSL line. I mean, hell, I live within a few block of my switching station, and I still had to wait months to get intallation.
Stop Whining
As far as I can tell, the making of stars is a complex affair that not only depends on promotions, but also controls and circumstances. Back in the 30's and 40's, the production companies owned and promoted the stars. For the most part, people went to see movies to see the stars. Today, even though we have movie stars, people also look at the plot and content of a movie. This change was not caused by any single factor, but rather by a general change in business practices.
Of course, the music business is like this now. People generally get hooked to a particular artist. The artists can command large sums of money because the artist will be able to pass off crap music at a profit. This may or may not continue in the future. The thing that complicates matter is that good local music is relatively cheap.
The book industry still depends on stars for the avid reader. However, because people will tend to watch a movie or listen to music for entertainment, the large market is in is in simple educational and devotional books. This leads to the chicken soup and dummy books, in which an editor can create books of uniform simplicity and content, while minimizing the payment to authors. The book is then consistently market to the public. Though this has some similarities to movies and books, I do not knoe if either of these can get generic enough to totally cut our the human factor.
Advertising based TV is also an outdated form of entertainment. Modern tools allow the advertiser to see exactly how ineffective the ads are, and realize that TV is not the most effective form of branding. Outside of sports event for men and a few shows for women, everything else is taped and ads are skipped. Sweeps weeks exist because the networks realize the ineffectiveness of their business model.
So, the gig is already up. If TV is to survive, they must make an honest assessment of its current and future value. Once that occurs, the networks can figure out how to extract that value. The same goes for movie and music distributors. Remeber, TV, like CDs and DVDs, is merely a distribution channel, a distribution channel sometimes owned by the public. It is not inconvievable that broadcast content would be sold outright, and bypass the ad middlemen altogether.
No, this current approach is a losing battle. What we must have is transparency. The Spammer cannot be allowed to use fake email addresses. I have complained about commercial emails with fake addressee, and the providers refuse to do anything. There must be an opt-out link or email address that is in the same domain as the from and return address. These address must be in the owner domain, and not Yahoo, Hotmail, or whatever free service they use for one time addresses. The subject line must clearly identify the company being advertised. If the email is to a website, the website must have an email link, and, if it is a DBA, must have a link to the corporation or person.
These guidelines will create a proper and honorable two-way communication. There are companies like (I think) Virtual Holdings that cowardly hide behind fake addresses and do not even put a real address on their domain registration. They keep their costs down by hiding behind fraudulent websites that do not have a single method of communicating with the owner. It is the highest form of arrogance that they think they have the right to spam us, but we don't have the right to spam them.
I know it has been said before, but let me say it again. Get a free email account. When you get a spam, especially with a fake email, look up the registration for the websites advertised. Look up the registration for the DNS providers. Send an email to every address you can find stated how cowardly and dishonorable using fake email addresses is. Let them know we know they are vermin. You do not even have to include your own information, as you are complaining about bad netiquette, not Spam.
That said, Ender's Game may be a bit too complex for the movies. It is likely to suffer the same fate as "Starship Troopers." Not a bad movie, good concept, but very difficult to do correctly.
These number contain no information, and most of us are sophisticated enough to know this. There was a time when Netscape and Yahoo just counted the number of times it server was hit, and used this number as a their 'user base'. We then found out that a single web page required multiple hits, so their actual user base was a fraction of that number, and in time, such service stopped purposefully reporting bogus numbers.
So, in this case, here is an article reporting clearly bogus numbers as facts. We are used to this because organizations such as the RIAA and BSA are more interesting in swaying public opinion than clearly representing facts. This article has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with lying with statistics
First, security through obscurity is only dangerous if it is the main line of security. Obscurity can be an important and necessary part of security. For instance, it not wise to publish the exact configuration of every computer on a network, even though, conceivable, such information might allow some help in keeping the computers secure.
Second, I think the registration procedure for Yahoo! is quite clever. I am much more likely to get crap from a Hotmail account than a Yahoo! account. The use of people to do distributed computing(as was done 200 years ago) is clearly so unreliable that such a statement must be a joke. However, the intent to increase the time necessary to create an account is valid.
The third point is of concern for all of us who wish to have free and unrestricted flow of imformation. On the ohter hand, the balkanization of the web is already here, with the help of Microsoft and Macromedia. For instance, bus schedules in houston are provided on the web with flash introductions and PDF only formats. Why is this neccesary for someone who just want to catch a bus? Yahoo would likely add just a few more useless plugins and extensions to a web already rampant with useless plugins and extensions. To Yahoo's credit, it is one the few sites that reliable, effectively, and quickly works with all the browsers I have tried(Netscape, opera, mozilla, and IE.
The funniest part of the article was where they claimed that no-call list hurt women and minority workers. Such statement reminds me of the fact that slavery arguable hurt minority employment. Go figure.
I am actually not necessarily totally against telephone solicitations, or Spam, for that matter. I just get annoyed when they are not offering legitimate products(as is the case 99% of the time), or use fraudulent means(for instance blocking caller ID or forged headers).
I am not working, but I saw it with one my sibling, who is. My sibling missed no work, becasee, as responsible and dedicated star wars fans, we saw it at midnight. I really don't know why anyone would need to miss a day of work to see star wars. Unless, of course, there are kids involved, in which case I can see skipping out early for the afternoon. Or if one is old and cannot live on 4 hours of sleep :-).
On the other hand, if one has mental health days, there was no reason not to take it to see star wars.
Rather, I think we might look at ladders or cotton swabs. In both cases, litigation or the threat of litigation threatened the industry, pretty much due to people doing stupid things. I suppose that some of the problems, particularly with ladders, were caused by incompetent manufacturers, but most of the problems were caused by incompetent users. Both industries were saved; ladders now carry excessive safety stickers, and cotton swabs carry bogus instructions.
If we judge existing software by current manufacturing and safety standards, we see that software has a large amount of pent up liability. Combine that with MS billion dollar bank account, a lot of hungry lawyers, and an explosive situation develops. At some point we will have lemon laws for software, and companies will be liable for making excessive claims. Software companies can either moderate themselves, pay out defensive amounts of money, and in general do a better job, or they can make class action lawyers rich. History, so far, teaches us that companies would rather make class action lawyers rich.
The M$ business model is currently dependent on licenses and continuous upgrades. They had solidified this strategy over the past year through the draconian implementation of new agreements.
So, installing Linux machines in school, only using Macintoshes with on VPC, or any other strategy will only result in endless audits. MS basic assumption is that even if every computer on the planet is not running their software, every computer on the planet could be running their software. Add to that over 90% market share, they feel they should get money for every computer on the planet, or, to the extreme, every person on the planet.
Add to this the profitability of the service model over the license model, and you get the problems of mandatory yearly upgrades. The only to way stop this extortion is to stop the extreme license model, the BSA, and the monopoly of MS.
Your first assertion that faulty assumptions are not bugs may or may not be correct. If the design of the code allowed the on the fly change of these values(i.e. without recompiles or reloads), then these assumptions may not be bugs. That is, if the design of the code was fault tolerant, we could blame the numbers. Otherwise, it is a design flaw. This is why many people consider the constant reloading of windows every time some system variable changed to be a bug.
Likewise, algorithms that trade stock and interact in such a way that a crash can occur are buggy algorithms. We do not want a crash, which is why we now stop trading under certain conditions. In effect, we know that software out there is buggy and will not protect against cascading inputs, so we have a gate watcher that will stop these buggy programs from causing havoc.
Although you are correct that not all items listed are in fact "bugs", your narrow definition is typical of programmers who wish to minimize their responsibility. These are the programmers who feel there is no need to check for overflow, non-terminating loops, and the like. It is unlikely that these programmers would even take a little time to actually design an algorithm rather than just type some crap into the Visual Studio. Bad design, philosophy, and logic are extremely difficult to fix by proofreading or editing..
Now, I know that if you are looking at porn or whatever, IE is a very tightly integrated multimedia device. But for most things, it is overkill and overcomplicated. To be sure, I don't want most multimedia to be automagically loaded. It is a waste of my time and a waste of my bandwidth. There are a lot of stupid sites that force inane music on me. I have to disable Flash just to protect myself from silly adverts.
Furthermore, the assertion that Microsoft is in some sort of unique usability nirvana due to Microsoft's wealth is ludicrous. Everyone uses IE not because it is easy to use, or easy to setup, but because it is the default in windows, and as stated above, is critical for viewing porn. As far as IE being resistant to advertising, remember that IE is a critical building block in MS web services package and it quirks critical to the destruction of other browsers. If IE allows users to block ads, it is merely because MS wants to direct all traffic to it's affiliates, and not have the advertising stream contaminated with pesky competitors.
That said, my only experience with software audits is with Microsoft. It was quite a galling experience because the company I worked had spent a lot of money and time insuring that only licensed software was running on the machines. After that good faith expense, the BSA comes in and demands an audit. They basically hi jack our hardware people for a week, cause no end of interruptions to the development of our product, install gods knows what on all out machines, and wreak general mayhem. If course we could have avoided the entire thing by paying the "protection" fee. They treat the customers like addicts. It like you get the drug free know, and when you are hooked, we will exact the price.
This is also reason the system violates several treatises. Currently, the world has enough nuclear warheads to achieved mutual destruction. With the so-called shield in place, which, in our wildest dreams, might has an efficiency rate of 50%(remember we have not yet destroyed a single missile with the system in a fair test), this situation would no longer be the case. Of course, since missiles are much cheaper to build than a defense system, the enemy could just build more missles.
Even in the case of the hypothetical rogue nation launching a single missile with several decoys (the cheapest way to attack), out ability to choose the real missile is a very difficult problem, which, as far as we know, has not been solved. It is easy to build and launch a large number of decoys. In fact, since we hope to intercept these thing in LEO, any additional junk will actually hinder our efforts.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, detecting the real missle is a hard problem. If we introduce more junk into LEO, the place we hope to destroy the missles, tha problem becomes harder. From a defense point of view, a clean LEO is critical.
Thirdly, such a sytem only protects against ICBM type delivery. It does little to prevent other forms of delivery.
Given the US response on 9/11, I have little doubt of the response of nuclear attack, even if with no live missile penetration.
As far as the importance of LEO in such a situation, see Fredik Pohl
This also illustrates why we need many search engines. Google, whose size and popularity makes it a prime target, also makes them a prime place to publicize the censorship. Other engines can still link to the articles. For instance, it is still possible to find these links.
http://www.scientology-lies.com/
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/cos.htm
http://www.xenu.net/
If we have many search engines, and other places to find links, it will be difficult for the oppressor to squash the resistance.
I can only assume that with the rising salaries for CS graduates and increase popularity in the program, the situation is only getting worse. It would be impossible for a professor to know who did what work. And since it is impossible to completely test CS in a traditional way, I do not find the policy unreasonable.
Second, someone complained about plot. Akira may or may not have a simple plot. It doesn't really mater. Complaining about plot is like complaining that poetry doesn't rhyme; it indicates a lack of sophistication. Any sufficiently advance piece of art is going to have several perspectives, and the plot one takes away will depend on one's perspective. For instance, In The Bedroom might be a film about the failing of children, the unfairness of the legal system, or the tragedy of love. If one cannot find a relevant issue, the movie will not have an accessible plot. BTW, man coming out retirement to save world, man killing many people, man saves world, is not a plot of any consequence.
As we all know, IP must (eventually) be free, and we must have the freedom to advance that IP, even if such advancement seems silly. Peace Out.