That is, of course, Mudcrawler identifies itself as such.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least of Mudcrawler didn't obey robot exclusion (robots.txt) and used falsified headers to make it look like it came from IE or Netscape for the sole purpose of making sure it *wasn't* blocked from a particular site.
The problem is, this doesn't address the DeCSS issue.
The main issue in the DeCSS trial is whether or not the DeCSS program/utility circumvents a technological method for restricting access to a copyrighted work - not whether the CSS access control is copyrighted.
In other words, the DeCSS trial isn't about whether DeCSS illegally copied how CSS decrypts DVDs. It's about whether DeCSS illegally decrypts DVDs itself. The judge has continually referred to the matter as not being a copyright issue, but rather a circumvention issue.
As a result, this ruling isn't nearly as applicable. The CCA is suing under the provisions of the DMCA that make circumvention of access barriers a crime.
I am not an expert, but from my understanding of the subject, the vast majority (all?) of DVD players will not play an unencrypted DVD.
Which means that unencrypted DVDs aren't going to be acceptable mediums for people who want wide distribution of the content.
Perhaps this is yet another reason why completely digitial distribution (i.e., on-line) is a better long-term solution than anything physical: it's simply harder to control bits than it is to control molecules.
How convenient: someone nobody has ever heard of before, but who proclaims himself to be some sort of security guru, releases a public notice about a security problem.
Then, in the fine print, you discover that the "guru" just happens to sell a new and/or revolutionary product/service that will detect and fix this particular problem.
This isn't news. This is a carefully planned, orchestrated part of a sales campaign. This statement has nothing to do with security, but it has everything to do with marketing.
Not having the box ticked (I just skip the Katz articles if they don't look interesting/amusing), here's my guess as to how the slashboxes work with regards to Katz:
I think the code behind the "No Katz" slashbox looks for anything with Katz as the *author,* not necessarily the topic (hence, the reason why the slashbox is under the 'Author' section of preferences, and not the 'Topics'). As a result, Katz stories get filtered out, but stories about Katz do not.
If you want to filter out everything, I would suggest politely emailing CmdrTaco, or Roblimo, or somebody high up on the Slashdot food chain, and ask them to put a "Katz" slashbox under the 'Topics' section as well as having one under 'Authors.'
NT is just as much of a "design" as UNIX is. BeOS is just as much of a "design" as UNIX is. The only difference between the UNIX design and the BeOS/NT designs is that the UNIX design has been around longer, attracted more people to it, and people are more comfortable with it.
The only trump card UNIX will ever have over the NT/BeOS designs is that it is an older, well-established, and matured design. The claim that there is something inherent to the design, independent of it's longevity, that makes it "better" is simply a demonstration of software religion in operation.
Sorry, Jeff, but your post just earned a "-1, Just Plain Wrong" moderation.
The problem isn't that Be can't afford Apple's developer time. The problem is that Apple *refuses* to help them. Be has asked for, with money to back it up, the specifications for the chipset/motherboards that Apple uses. Apple has continously turned them down.
That means that the only option Be has left is to reverse engineer things themselves. Contrary to popular opinion, reverse engineering is not the be-all and end-all solution. For one thing, it takes a lot of resources to do it well, or you end up with a half-usable hack. Given the size of Be, I doubt they have the resources to commit more than three or four engineers to the project. How many people in the Linux community are working on the various Linux/PPC projects (and how much assistance do they have from Apple)?
For another thing, it has to be legally feasible for them to do so. Apple, by refusing to give them the specifications, has made it abundently clear they don't want BeOS running on their G3/G4 Macintoshes. That leaves open the possibility that should Be develop and publicly release a version of BeOS that runs on the G3/G4, Apple would start sending over some nasty legal paperwork (a.k.a. suing them into oblivion). If you think a small company like Be has the legal power, or the financial clout, to stand up to Apple, you're deluding yourself.
While I don't remember if Gassee ever said anything directly, the impression I got was that Be was far more afraid of the second possibility than the first, because they are aware that Apple could quite simply crush them in an instant. Even if Be were to win, a protracted legal fight would cost them time, resources, and money - three things that a small business can't afford to waste on a legal battle. So rather than wait for a filing from Apple, Be simply choosing to not make them their enemy.
Does that argument "wash?" Or are you of the opinion that if a company believes it is correct, it should go ahead at all costs (including the destruction of the company itself)? Very sound business strategy there, Jeff.
What I find truly remarkable is that you toss in unrelated tidbits of information and speculation like "Of course, a certain investment..." to make things appear to be this some sort of conspiracy. Do you really think that Intel has Be, Inc. stringed up like a puppet? Do you have any proof that Intel is controlled the actions of Be beyond their investment? Intel has invested in Red Hat, as well - does that make Red Hat an Intel puppet? Are you really that paranoid? Is it ignorance or just plain stupidity that causes you to shoot your mouth off?
This isn't an episode of the X-Files, Jeff. It's real life. There are no conspiracies here beyond the ones you're fabricating.
As an aside, in several articles Gassee has publicly stated that Be is considering the possibility of open-sourcing BeOS (perhaps even under the GPL). While it's useless to argue about things that *may* happen, I would like to note that such a move would go far above and beyond what Apple has done with Darwin (releasing little more than a recycled BSD and Mach kernel, both of which are already open source, and keeping the only original part of the OS - the GUI layers - closed-source).
RIAA Attorney: "Do you know where the power switch is on this machine?"
Prospective Juror: "Power switch? Is that one of them new-fangled computer thingies? I don't need one of those - I already have the Internet on one of those AOL disks at home."
RIAA Attorney: "We'd like to have this guy on the jury, Your Honor."
My personal feeling is that PDA-type devices are going to wind up moving out of the generic, mainstream "I'll carry this to business" and adapt to other market niches where big computing power in tiny packages would pave the way for great advances. Current PDAs/mobile computers tend to be generic, multipurpose devices; in the future, the same power of the PDAs will be applied towards more specialized needs where the power of the PDAs can be harnessed more effectively.
For instance, most scuba divers use computers nowadays for a number of in-water activites. The more advanced computers not only monitor air consumption and predict dive limits, but some also include electronic compasses and GPS.
In the future, with powerful computers, we could not only have such capabilities, but we could provide real-time water composition analysis, record current speed and direction, uplink to floating environmental buoys to keep track of topside weather conditions, have a constant directional pointer back to the point where we entered the water (or the dive boat we dove off of), provide for underwater "networking" to keep track of the location/equipment/health condition of fellow divers, and so on - all things impossible with current technology.
With complex PDAs, environmental scientists could carry specialized PDAs that can take and analyze, for instance, air samples at a hazardous healthy site and remotely access a database to look up the chemical signatures. They might be able to provide very complex, multistory blueprints for building inspectors to easily carry with them. They may allow mechanics of all types of machines to carry very advanced, complex schematics around with them in an easy-to-transport device (for instance, an auto mechanic may be able to carry around the repair blueprints and instructions for dozens of different models of cars).
While phone calls and web browsing may be the current envisioned uses, there are many, many areas of sports and recreation that would benefit greatly from having increased computation power in smaller and smaller packages. Having these devices be specialized means that the raw power can be more focused towards the things the person needs to do, without worrying about things like word processing or Solitaire.
Better yet, use CSS to encrypt your material before distributing, and distribute DeCSS as the method of unscrambling your materials.
When the DVD CCA comes knocking on your door, you have a perfectly legitimate excuse - you are using an encryption system that simply happens to use the same encryption method as CSS to encrypt your data to prevent unauthorized access.
If they sue you for it, then you can simply claim that you, as the copyright holder, have the right to prevent your materials from being read without authorization by any means at your disposal. That DeCSS happens to have a secondary use for decoding DVDs is entirely tangential. (If you really wanted to be sadistic, make the argument that the DVD CCA developed a method of circumventing your copyright control mechanism and therefore should be prohibited from distributing any mechanism that can decode your copyrighted work - including DVD players.)
Wow, that brings back memories of my CS classes... bad memories, unfortunately (the instructor was kind of a loser: he had a serious "child molestor" look about him, which wasn't helped by how often he brought in his toddler-aged daughter, and pawned off *all* of his work, including many class sessions, on his various overworked grad students).
I'd prefer to avoid the name "GNU/Linux" for another reason: respect. The creator of Linux (well, creators really, but never mind that) decided that it would be called Linux. Insisting that they're wrong is just legal piffle, and quite rude in a way.
You've actually just proved Stallman's point.
Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel. Torvalds is well within his rights to call his kernel Linux - but that's all that Linux is, a kernel. Stallman acknowledges that fact, and even says that the correct way to refer to the Linux kernel is as just plain 'Linux'.
The GNU project, however, wrote much of the supporting software. It is therefore incorrect to call all of the software - both Linus' contribution and the GNU project's - by the name 'Linux'. Stallman wants people to acknowledge distributions as GNU/Linux, not the kernel itself, because the core distribution usually contains a very large number of GNU-based utilities and software, in addition to the kernel.
I'm not sure which way I go, but I can definately see his point on the matter.
To my untrained eye, that seems to merely say that if you do decide to alter the code, Altavista isn't going to send you a check.
That clause doesn't prevent you from modifying the code (barring the existence of a licensing agreement that does do that), it simply says if you choose to alter it, Altavista isn't going to pay you.
Frankly, I think that's a very fair "restriction," because it doesn't limit your freedom with the code (again, assuming nothing else limits it). You can fiddle and twiddle to your heart's content. Just don't expect to get paid for click-throughs.
The velocity of light in a vacuum is constant. Most of the time, the speed of light in an object is usually only fractionally smaller than the speed of light in a vacuum, and as a reuslt the difference is usually ignored to simplify things for the person doing the mathematical calculations (physics classes, for instance).
However, there are certain exotic materials and methods that can be used to slow the speed of light down drastically. This would be one application of those materials/methods.
Here's sort of a silly idea which really just popped into my head when I read your second (original) sentence.
From this point on, encrypt the DeCSS code with some very easily breakable encryption method, such as ROT-13 or, to be really ironic, the CSS encryption method.
If the MPAA/CCA uses a version of DeCSS on the encrypted code, then the EFF/whoever can file a countersuit that the MPAA is using a technological means to decrypt an access control measure for a copyrighted work - the *exact* same thing they are suing everybody else for.
One side note, seamless integration with a GUI is not a good thing. This is one of the reasons why both Windows and the Mac have stability problems. The GUI interface should be a seperate affair.
That's not a valid statement. BeOS, for instance, has a fully integrated graphical user interface on par with Windows or the Macintosh and does not suffer from the same stability issues that plague Windows/MacOS.
Both the Windows and the Mac OS have accumulated cruft over the years as they've been required to do more and more with the same shaky foundation. BeOS started fresh with modern ideas incorporated into it rather than stapled on top. Mac OS X may be analogous, and from what I've read about it seems to, indeed, be more of a rewrite than simply a modern regurgitation of old code.
The reason "failure is good for NASA," with regards to the poll, is because in general the only people that feel space exploration is a waste of money are the people responsible for creating the government's budget plan.
The U.S. populace continues to support space exploration, and continues to press for further expansion of the space program, and the government promptly ignores them and slashes a few tens of millions of dollars more out of NASA's alloted budget.
Personally, sometimes I wish a small meteor would hit Earth and wipe out Washington D.C. Giving up all the state quarters would be a small price to pay for getting rid of what is, ostensibly, the biggest problem in this country - clueless politicians.
But there's a difference in what you influence. Influencing technology changes (which is what Sweeney is talking about here) is a completely different matter than influencing human psychology.
The issue at hand is the effective scope of the virus, not whether you can or get one.
In your example, all the files of user 'delmoi' are now gone. Term papers, essays, email archives, and who knows what else has all been deleted/corrupted. However, if the account resides on a properly administered UNIX box, the chances of having the virus spill over to any other user beyond delmoi is relatively small. While destructive, the virus' effect is limited to one user.
In comparison, on other architectures, that protective sandbox doesn't exist. A virus that gets loose on those platforms can not only take out user 'delmoi,' but also the data files of every other user on the box (including the analogous-to-root user), the *system* files on the box, and potentially wind up with control over the whole machine - including the resources to spread itself via disk or network.
So, while it really does suck if you get a virus on a UNIX/Linux-based machine, the damage is usually very compartmentalized. On other architectures, it isn't. The reason it's considered safe is because the damage isn't looked at it with regards to deleting/corrupting user files, but with regards to what it has on the proper functioning of the machine as a whole.
Unless they mean *code* mobility. In other words, it doesn't matter what program you're using - you can take it to *any* machine using the Transmeta processor and be able to run it at native or near-native speeds.
Which, of course, means that I do everything wrong. Even Katz agrees - I've been responsible for turning a potentially free and open medium into a boy's club. Despite my attitude of being honest, fair, and unprejudiced, to give everybody at honest chance to prove themselves and their skills/intellect *before* I make any judgement about them, in reality all those actions have simply contributed to pushing out women and minorities from the online communities that I visit.
I'm glad I'm in part of a demographic that can be so easily lumped into a single category of "evil." It makes things so much easier for me now. Instead of trying to distinguish myself, instead of being a person with individualistic thoughts and feelings and attitudes, I can simply say, "Hi, I'm Colin. I'm a racist, sexist white male who would like nothing more than to oppress you."
Thanks, Katz, for pointing out that all white men are exactly alike, and for implicitly criminalizing white males as a whole for yet another ill in society.
[grumble grumble]
Re:What kind of future do they have...
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Be's kernel is their own brew.
Re:BeOS not a microkernel (Re:Be Free! :)
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
That is, of course, Mudcrawler identifies itself as such.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least of Mudcrawler didn't obey robot exclusion (robots.txt) and used falsified headers to make it look like it came from IE or Netscape for the sole purpose of making sure it *wasn't* blocked from a particular site.
The problem is, this doesn't address the DeCSS issue.
The main issue in the DeCSS trial is whether or not the DeCSS program/utility circumvents a technological method for restricting access to a copyrighted work - not whether the CSS access control is copyrighted.
In other words, the DeCSS trial isn't about whether DeCSS illegally copied how CSS decrypts DVDs. It's about whether DeCSS illegally decrypts DVDs itself. The judge has continually referred to the matter as not being a copyright issue, but rather a circumvention issue.
As a result, this ruling isn't nearly as applicable. The CCA is suing under the provisions of the DMCA that make circumvention of access barriers a crime.
I am not an expert, but from my understanding of the subject, the vast majority (all?) of DVD players will not play an unencrypted DVD.
Which means that unencrypted DVDs aren't going to be acceptable mediums for people who want wide distribution of the content.
Perhaps this is yet another reason why completely digitial distribution (i.e., on-line) is a better long-term solution than anything physical: it's simply harder to control bits than it is to control molecules.
How convenient: someone nobody has ever heard of before, but who proclaims himself to be some sort of security guru, releases a public notice about a security problem.
Then, in the fine print, you discover that the "guru" just happens to sell a new and/or revolutionary product/service that will detect and fix this particular problem.
This isn't news. This is a carefully planned, orchestrated part of a sales campaign. This statement has nothing to do with security, but it has everything to do with marketing.
>All the security of Windows NT
>And all the reliability of your mother
I don't know about anybody else, but for me this is pretty poor advertising. Windows NT is anything but secure, and my mom is a pretty erratic person.
Not having the box ticked (I just skip the Katz articles if they don't look interesting/amusing), here's my guess as to how the slashboxes work with regards to Katz:
I think the code behind the "No Katz" slashbox looks for anything with Katz as the *author,* not necessarily the topic (hence, the reason why the slashbox is under the 'Author' section of preferences, and not the 'Topics'). As a result, Katz stories get filtered out, but stories about Katz do not.
If you want to filter out everything, I would suggest politely emailing CmdrTaco, or Roblimo, or somebody high up on the Slashdot food chain, and ask them to put a "Katz" slashbox under the 'Topics' section as well as having one under 'Authors.'
Please.
NT is just as much of a "design" as UNIX is. BeOS is just as much of a "design" as UNIX is. The only difference between the UNIX design and the BeOS/NT designs is that the UNIX design has been around longer, attracted more people to it, and people are more comfortable with it.
The only trump card UNIX will ever have over the NT/BeOS designs is that it is an older, well-established, and matured design. The claim that there is something inherent to the design, independent of it's longevity, that makes it "better" is simply a demonstration of software religion in operation.
Sorry, Jeff, but your post just earned a "-1, Just Plain Wrong" moderation.
The problem isn't that Be can't afford Apple's developer time. The problem is that Apple *refuses* to help them. Be has asked for, with money to back it up, the specifications for the chipset/motherboards that Apple uses. Apple has continously turned them down.
That means that the only option Be has left is to reverse engineer things themselves. Contrary to popular opinion, reverse engineering is not the be-all and end-all solution. For one thing, it takes a lot of resources to do it well, or you end up with a half-usable hack. Given the size of Be, I doubt they have the resources to commit more than three or four engineers to the project. How many people in the Linux community are working on the various Linux/PPC projects (and how much assistance do they have from Apple)?
For another thing, it has to be legally feasible for them to do so. Apple, by refusing to give them the specifications, has made it abundently clear they don't want BeOS running on their G3/G4 Macintoshes. That leaves open the possibility that should Be develop and publicly release a version of BeOS that runs on the G3/G4, Apple would start sending over some nasty legal paperwork (a.k.a. suing them into oblivion). If you think a small company like Be has the legal power, or the financial clout, to stand up to Apple, you're deluding yourself.
While I don't remember if Gassee ever said anything directly, the impression I got was that Be was far more afraid of the second possibility than the first, because they are aware that Apple could quite simply crush them in an instant. Even if Be were to win, a protracted legal fight would cost them time, resources, and money - three things that a small business can't afford to waste on a legal battle. So rather than wait for a filing from Apple, Be simply choosing to not make them their enemy.
Does that argument "wash?" Or are you of the opinion that if a company believes it is correct, it should go ahead at all costs (including the destruction of the company itself)? Very sound business strategy there, Jeff.
What I find truly remarkable is that you toss in unrelated tidbits of information and speculation like "Of course, a certain investment..." to make things appear to be this some sort of conspiracy. Do you really think that Intel has Be, Inc. stringed up like a puppet? Do you have any proof that Intel is controlled the actions of Be beyond their investment? Intel has invested in Red Hat, as well - does that make Red Hat an Intel puppet? Are you really that paranoid? Is it ignorance or just plain stupidity that causes you to shoot your mouth off?
This isn't an episode of the X-Files, Jeff. It's real life. There are no conspiracies here beyond the ones you're fabricating.
As an aside, in several articles Gassee has publicly stated that Be is considering the possibility of open-sourcing BeOS (perhaps even under the GPL). While it's useless to argue about things that *may* happen, I would like to note that such a move would go far above and beyond what Apple has done with Darwin (releasing little more than a recycled BSD and Mach kernel, both of which are already open source, and keeping the only original part of the OS - the GUI layers - closed-source).
RIAA Attorney: "Do you know where the power switch is on this machine?"
Prospective Juror: "Power switch? Is that one of them new-fangled computer thingies? I don't need one of those - I already have the Internet on one of those AOL disks at home."
RIAA Attorney: "We'd like to have this guy on the jury, Your Honor."
My personal feeling is that PDA-type devices are going to wind up moving out of the generic, mainstream "I'll carry this to business" and adapt to other market niches where big computing power in tiny packages would pave the way for great advances. Current PDAs/mobile computers tend to be generic, multipurpose devices; in the future, the same power of the PDAs will be applied towards more specialized needs where the power of the PDAs can be harnessed more effectively.
For instance, most scuba divers use computers nowadays for a number of in-water activites. The more advanced computers not only monitor air consumption and predict dive limits, but some also include electronic compasses and GPS.
In the future, with powerful computers, we could not only have such capabilities, but we could provide real-time water composition analysis, record current speed and direction, uplink to floating environmental buoys to keep track of topside weather conditions, have a constant directional pointer back to the point where we entered the water (or the dive boat we dove off of), provide for underwater "networking" to keep track of the location/equipment/health condition of fellow divers, and so on - all things impossible with current technology.
With complex PDAs, environmental scientists could carry specialized PDAs that can take and analyze, for instance, air samples at a hazardous healthy site and remotely access a database to look up the chemical signatures. They might be able to provide very complex, multistory blueprints for building inspectors to easily carry with them. They may allow mechanics of all types of machines to carry very advanced, complex schematics around with them in an easy-to-transport device (for instance, an auto mechanic may be able to carry around the repair blueprints and instructions for dozens of different models of cars).
While phone calls and web browsing may be the current envisioned uses, there are many, many areas of sports and recreation that would benefit greatly from having increased computation power in smaller and smaller packages. Having these devices be specialized means that the raw power can be more focused towards the things the person needs to do, without worrying about things like word processing or Solitaire.
Anyways, my future thoughts.
Better yet, use CSS to encrypt your material before distributing, and distribute DeCSS as the method of unscrambling your materials.
When the DVD CCA comes knocking on your door, you have a perfectly legitimate excuse - you are using an encryption system that simply happens to use the same encryption method as CSS to encrypt your data to prevent unauthorized access.
If they sue you for it, then you can simply claim that you, as the copyright holder, have the right to prevent your materials from being read without authorization by any means at your disposal. That DeCSS happens to have a secondary use for decoding DVDs is entirely tangential. (If you really wanted to be sadistic, make the argument that the DVD CCA developed a method of circumventing your copyright control mechanism and therefore should be prohibited from distributing any mechanism that can decode your copyrighted work - including DVD players.)
Just a half tongue-in-cheek idea...
*chuckle*
Wow, that brings back memories of my CS classes... bad memories, unfortunately (the instructor was kind of a loser: he had a serious "child molestor" look about him, which wasn't helped by how often he brought in his toddler-aged daughter, and pawned off *all* of his work, including many class sessions, on his various overworked grad students).
I'd prefer to avoid the name "GNU/Linux" for another reason: respect. The creator of Linux (well, creators really, but never mind that) decided that it would be called Linux. Insisting that they're wrong is just legal piffle, and quite rude in a way.
You've actually just proved Stallman's point.
Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel. Torvalds is well within his rights to call his kernel Linux - but that's all that Linux is, a kernel. Stallman acknowledges that fact, and even says that the correct way to refer to the Linux kernel is as just plain 'Linux'.
The GNU project, however, wrote much of the supporting software. It is therefore incorrect to call all of the software - both Linus' contribution and the GNU project's - by the name 'Linux'. Stallman wants people to acknowledge distributions as GNU/Linux, not the kernel itself, because the core distribution usually contains a very large number of GNU-based utilities and software, in addition to the kernel.
I'm not sure which way I go, but I can definately see his point on the matter.
Where would I go to learn more about object-oriented C programming?
To my untrained eye, that seems to merely say that if you do decide to alter the code, Altavista isn't going to send you a check.
That clause doesn't prevent you from modifying the code (barring the existence of a licensing agreement that does do that), it simply says if you choose to alter it, Altavista isn't going to pay you.
Frankly, I think that's a very fair "restriction," because it doesn't limit your freedom with the code (again, assuming nothing else limits it). You can fiddle and twiddle to your heart's content. Just don't expect to get paid for click-throughs.
Almost right.
The velocity of light in a vacuum is constant. Most of the time, the speed of light in an object is usually only fractionally smaller than the speed of light in a vacuum, and as a reuslt the difference is usually ignored to simplify things for the person doing the mathematical calculations (physics classes, for instance).
However, there are certain exotic materials and methods that can be used to slow the speed of light down drastically. This would be one application of those materials/methods.
Here's sort of a silly idea which really just popped into my head when I read your second (original) sentence.
From this point on, encrypt the DeCSS code with some very easily breakable encryption method, such as ROT-13 or, to be really ironic, the CSS encryption method.
If the MPAA/CCA uses a version of DeCSS on the encrypted code, then the EFF/whoever can file a countersuit that the MPAA is using a technological means to decrypt an access control measure for a copyrighted work - the *exact* same thing they are suing everybody else for.
Wouldn't *THAT* be poetic justice...
One side note, seamless integration with a GUI is not a good thing. This is one of the reasons why both Windows and the Mac have stability problems. The GUI interface should be a seperate affair.
That's not a valid statement. BeOS, for instance, has a fully integrated graphical user interface on par with Windows or the Macintosh and does not suffer from the same stability issues that plague Windows/MacOS.
Both the Windows and the Mac OS have accumulated cruft over the years as they've been required to do more and more with the same shaky foundation. BeOS started fresh with modern ideas incorporated into it rather than stapled on top. Mac OS X may be analogous, and from what I've read about it seems to, indeed, be more of a rewrite than simply a modern regurgitation of old code.
The reason "failure is good for NASA," with regards to the poll, is because in general the only people that feel space exploration is a waste of money are the people responsible for creating the government's budget plan.
The U.S. populace continues to support space exploration, and continues to press for further expansion of the space program, and the government promptly ignores them and slashes a few tens of millions of dollars more out of NASA's alloted budget.
Personally, sometimes I wish a small meteor would hit Earth and wipe out Washington D.C. Giving up all the state quarters would be a small price to pay for getting rid of what is, ostensibly, the biggest problem in this country - clueless politicians.
*sigh*
But there's a difference in what you influence. Influencing technology changes (which is what Sweeney is talking about here) is a completely different matter than influencing human psychology.
The issue at hand is the effective scope of the virus, not whether you can or get one.
In your example, all the files of user 'delmoi' are now gone. Term papers, essays, email archives, and who knows what else has all been deleted/corrupted. However, if the account resides on a properly administered UNIX box, the chances of having the virus spill over to any other user beyond delmoi is relatively small. While destructive, the virus' effect is limited to one user.
In comparison, on other architectures, that protective sandbox doesn't exist. A virus that gets loose on those platforms can not only take out user 'delmoi,' but also the data files of every other user on the box (including the analogous-to-root user), the *system* files on the box, and potentially wind up with control over the whole machine - including the resources to spread itself via disk or network.
So, while it really does suck if you get a virus on a UNIX/Linux-based machine, the damage is usually very compartmentalized. On other architectures, it isn't. The reason it's considered safe is because the damage isn't looked at it with regards to deleting/corrupting user files, but with regards to what it has on the proper functioning of the machine as a whole.
Unless they mean *code* mobility. In other words, it doesn't matter what program you're using - you can take it to *any* machine using the Transmeta processor and be able to run it at native or near-native speeds.
Just a thought.
Yup, I'm a white male.
Which, of course, means that I do everything wrong. Even Katz agrees - I've been responsible for turning a potentially free and open medium into a boy's club. Despite my attitude of being honest, fair, and unprejudiced, to give everybody at honest chance to prove themselves and their skills/intellect *before* I make any judgement about them, in reality all those actions have simply contributed to pushing out women and minorities from the online communities that I visit.
I'm glad I'm in part of a demographic that can be so easily lumped into a single category of "evil." It makes things so much easier for me now. Instead of trying to distinguish myself, instead of being a person with individualistic thoughts and feelings and attitudes, I can simply say, "Hi, I'm Colin. I'm a racist, sexist white male who would like nothing more than to oppress you."
Thanks, Katz, for pointing out that all white men are exactly alike, and for implicitly criminalizing white males as a whole for yet another ill in society.
[grumble grumble]
Actually, Be's kernel is their own brew.
I'm curious - how is it not a microkernel?