I have to agree on this topic. I'm familiar with Linux quite well, having run it a number of years now, and one thing that Linux has over most operating systems is tunability, more so than 'registry keys' or such like that. You want a bare-bones webserver? Tune the kernel down so all it does is fast network support, give it the minimal kernel options it needs, drop a webserver on there, built to order, and disable every other service on the machine. While most of this stuff can be done on most other OS's, the kernel tuning cannot. MS is locked in on one kernel suits all, Solaris, while is modular, is not very tunable beyond 'load or unload' this module. You can't tweak the kernel to do just what you want.
I've seen Linux servers as front end webservers, and even as email/web exchangers. Why? Because at least in one case, Exchange (shudder) is incapable of providing it's own defenses against attacks, and buffering it via a sendmail/apache+ssl setup in front actually provides your security for you. Not quite a firewall, but close, and tuned to order.
I believe someone else somewhere in the discussion (or another discussion) posted that the Space Shuttle regularly comes down from a mission with dents and deformations in it's outer shell from collisions with paint flecks, dust, debris, and generally things smaller than a baseball. This is the shuttle that's getting hit, something that goes up regularly, but isn't up in space very long when it is. You're saying that the satellites that are up there 24/7 are not at higher risk for abuse and punishment than the shuttle is, even to the point of a bolt from an old booster ripping through a solar panel or something?
I mean, I agree that my figure is probably off. I'm no rocket scientist, and I had to dig hard for the figures I did come up with, however, most of the launches are to LEO, hense that's where most of the debris is. Not many satellites make it to GEO (communications sats, monitoring sats, etc). Not even the GPS system is in GEO orbit, at least, I don't believe it is (Oh for an easy resource for all this data:P). 65,000 objects are trackable objects, I wager. Untrackable objects are things smaller than radar can pick up, and often, are the more dangerous of the two.
You know, part of the problem with why this law is being termed "unconstitutional" is because not only is it saying 'actual or simulated sexual acts' and such, but also reaches further to say 'any content that could be deemed harmfull to minors'. Who deems this content harmfull or not? Who decides, for the entire world, what is harmfull and what is not? Porn, yes, you may get most to agree on that, but what about educational sites? Some topics are not harmfull but informative, but to someone else, they say 'You can't say that!' and then get all up in arms. According to the law, if it's deemed 'harmfull', even if it's intent is educational, it's in violation of the law.
The very anonymous nature of the internet makes it nearly impossible to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. There's absolutely no frame of reference. Credit card numbers are irrelivent, because kids (smart ones, too) can go get daddy's credit card, write down everything on the front of it, and viola, they're into any porn site that protects based on 'having a credit card makes you an adult'. In Person, it's easy to see a person's size and go 'you're obviously too young', but from behind a computer screen, where even your image is interpreted by the PC before transmission, how can you tell?
In the case of many porn sites, they already do such protections based on credit card numbers, and while that's not perfect by any means, it does tend to keep many kids out.
Here's another thought for you. You say that this law is putting pressure on web admins to make their content 'kid-safe' (Well, maybe not outright stated it, but I felt it was implied). What if a web admin isn't writing the site for kids in the first place? How do you permit adults access yet bar kids? Without meeting a person face to face (which seriously hampers some transactions and makes it useless to attempt such a site), guarontee without a shadow of a doubt that the person entering is an adult. If you can come up with the solution for that, I can guarontee you'll be a multi-billion dollar person in a very short period of time. My Opinion? It can't be done in the conventional sense. It would take a major revision of the web to remove the anonymity, a revision that I can't imagine as going forth.
Space may be 'vast' in the scheme of the universe, but it's not so vast when we're talking about being in low to mid earth orbit. I forget the milages, but in a 'shell' about the earth, space is not so vast. (From altitudes of 150 Nautical Miles to 330 (the range of low earth orbits), you're looking at a section of space approximately 30.8 billion cubic nautical miles in size)
There may be 'only' 65,000 pieces of space junk, but keep in mind, these circle the earth at about what.. 15 minutes? 30? Certainly no more than 1 hour to circle the globe. The velocity of these things moving makes it even 'smaller', because collisions can happen all the more often with faster objects.
Depending upon the altitudes of the pieces of debris, their speed, size, and such, while currently it is possible to calculate orbits to avoid things in space, if you continue to drop things in orbit, junk pieces of disposable rockets, dead satellites, etc, it may get more and more difficult to have a mission where no 'dodging' of space garbage occurs.
I say.. we put it there, we clean it up. Simple as that. With the prospect of the Space Station in place, where dodging debris isn't as much of an option, how long will it take before something comes hurtling along and ruptures a portion of the station?
Theoretically, I'd probably have to say yes, it is possible (after all, anything's possible, it's the improbability of it that makes it difficult to do). However, and even I'm not sure whether or not this is true, but I'd wager that kernel modules (ties into the kernel itself) would be required to be under the GPL, because if it's dependance upon a GPL package? That sounds a little wrong, but I'm not sure how they state the GPL for the linux kernel.
As for libraries, by all means, you can make a library that's not under the GPL and used specifically for the purpose of the Wordperfect app (again, just following the example). However, at that point, it operates as any normal program would, using it's libraries to interop with the kernel through fully known hooks. Just because noone else can use that library doesn't mean that it brings about hidden API's, and if you were going to do a library like that, so noone else could use it, why not just build it statically linked into the program that you're writing?
The only way I could see similar 'hidden API's in the situation provided would be if they embedded them within the linux kernel or it's modules (which fall under the standard kernel distro packages). How closely that makes them 'hidden' is unclear to me, since it borders on being a library enhancement and a kernel modification (if you were to embed such API's in a kernel module).
Another thought did occur to me. Embedding such API's within the glibc or other library packages, but again you get into breaking the GPL in order to distribute closed-source versions of an open-source piece of software, a notion I find revolting.
Ahem. With the various 'Findings of Fact' and 'Findings of Law' and rebuttals and such, it's a little difficult for someone with no first hand court experience to know when a trial is 'over', especially something this large.
All you had to do was say 'By the by, the trial is over. See reference page "insert URL here"'.
Umm.. unless my classes in government were mistaken, there is this thing called 'Checks and Balances' which states the reason why there are 3 divisions of the government. No one branch may command the entire government. Congress makes the laws, with the presidential approval (or veto). The judicial system enforces the laws, though the president appoints the judges (but only when there's an open space to fill). Congress (I believe) can state their objections to such appointments, and on and on..
Stalling until the new president is elected may get Microsoft nothing because the president just can't go and say 'This is how it is, deal with it'. The judicial system is still free to carry out judgement on the laws at hand, no matter if the administration changes or not. Now, if a new law were put into place stating that Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, then it'd be a different story, but that'd have to come from Congress, not the President, since he doesn't introduce new laws.
Does this fall under circumventing the court already in progress? Am I mistaken in the idea that in order for there to be an apeal, the current trial has to come to an end first?
I think perhaps Microsoft's jumping the gun a little bit and looking to the projected future as they see it. I agree they should be able to appeal the decision (even though I don't like MS's market power), but there's this whole thing about putting the eggs before the chicken.
In the given scenareo, isn't that a little unlikely? I mean, to my knowledge, ALL Linux distro's use the same core, the linux kernel. This kernel is written by hundreds or thousands of programmers worldwide, lead by Linus Torvalds. To 'slip an api in' would require you to modify the kernel in order to provide the proper hooks, and last I recall, it's distributed under the GPL licence (meaning you can change it, but you gotta distribute the source with it). Not only that, it means that your version of Wordperfect won't work on other distributions of Linux, OR, if the user upgrades their kernel, they won't get the hidden API to make it work right again, thus exposing the fact it's there.
Now, if you're talking about adding another library to the mix, along the lines of libc or something like that, then that's not really a core API, but a library that aids your program's preformance. To me, isn't that what innovation's about?
This is exactally the case. Plasma drives are not for outright speed or power. If you're familiar with sailing, it's kind of like that. The wind pushes at your sail and to start with, you're not going very fast, but as it continues to push (same velocity of wind) your boat gets going faster and faster.
That example is probably lacking, but it's more or less the truth. Plasma drives (and most drives for space travel, actually) would provide a slow, constant push at the ship, and since there's no wind resistance in space, the more you push, the faster you go (with the terminal velocity being the speed of light).
Agreed, though, this could be pretty neat if it was a more powerfull drive.:)
What might prevent this from happening is that before any cargo (and correct me if I'm wrong) gets onto an airplane, it's screened. I presume it's checked for bomb signatures (otherwise what's the point of having personel go through metal detectors and stuff). Why don't they check for whether or not a package is giving off RF frequencies? Just tossing a thought out there.
See, Unless I miss my guess, though, Microsoft Windows' Source Code is already available to a number of non-Microsoft Personel, bound by a licence agreement of non-distribution or something like that. To state that MS's code is totally closed source is not totally accurate. It is not available for peer review by anyone and everyone, certainly, but it is not as if their code is totally in-house
On the matter of the API's, though, there should be no hidden API's in any OS. If there are, in my opinion, that is a clear violation of fair trade, since you are permitting yourselves a more advanced or more streamlined way to interact with your own operating system and blocking others from doing the same. Not only that, if they hide API's, how much other stuff do they hide in there?
Along the same lines as the 4th argument "When I get a signed email from some beautiful celebrity who wants to go out with me, how do I know it's her?", who's going to be the repository for all these signed public keys? The government? Verisign? Any of the other authentication services? Are they going to do so for free, or are you going to have to pay to get a digital signature?
Maybe I'm thinking about this in the wrong perspective. When I think of 'e-signature', I'm thinking an electronic version of your signature, ie: something you already possess and will uniquely identify you (within a small margin of error). Are E-Signatures going to be something that most people will have, or are they going to have to register with a signature company in order to get one? I tried browsing over to the named congressional links page from this one, but didn't quite find out what the definition of this term was to be.
I just have one thing to ask. I agree that a digital signature is probably a good thing, however, I have to ask.. How will it be implimented? I mean, is it to be like PGP's public/private key system so you can verify that when you give the public portion of your signature to the document, they can verify it against the private half to prove it was you? What's to stop someone snooping an insecured web-transaction from getting this 'public portion' of your signature and reusing it?
IF this is to be implimented properly, I would think it'd have to go on this methodology.. You have a public and private half of your digital signature. The public half is not just two static halves of the same key, like PGP is, but rather your signature plus the timestamp of when it was signed. That way anyone using it would have to act almost immediately to get the signature done right and keep it as valid. Using a static public key would be plain insane to prove without a certainty of a doubt that it was you and not someone who happened to see your key or hack your harddrive.
Another question.. what software would do the signatures? Would it be multiplatform, or Windows only? Would the software be even something the user would need? The very NATURE of the Web is anonymity, to change it and say that doing a transaction over an anonymous webpage now has your signature on it had better be really darn good, else any script kiddie with a few public tools could sign your soul to the devil (as it were). This goes doubly true if you're now going to be held legally bound to the contract in hand.
I, for one, want to see this implimentation before I would ever consider using it. Mearly stating that e-signatures are now legally binding is like saying your neighbor is now married to your wife. Unless you have a good way to prove it, I see this as a situation of the government attempting to quell fears while not grasping the whole implication and practicality of it all.
I hate to say it, but just from the top of my head, I can see where this point is. If you have an OEM copy of Win9x, it says right on the disk that this copy comes with a new computer and is not available for resale. (Note, don't take this as me defending eBay *or* Microsoft). However, the question about whether store-bought copies of Win9x are forbidden from resale, I'm not too sure on. I wager they are available. Hmm.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen Linux servers as front end webservers, and even as email/web exchangers. Why? Because at least in one case, Exchange (shudder) is incapable of providing it's own defenses against attacks, and buffering it via a sendmail/apache+ssl setup in front actually provides your security for you. Not quite a firewall, but close, and tuned to order.
I mean, I agree that my figure is probably off. I'm no rocket scientist, and I had to dig hard for the figures I did come up with, however, most of the launches are to LEO, hense that's where most of the debris is. Not many satellites make it to GEO (communications sats, monitoring sats, etc). Not even the GPS system is in GEO orbit, at least, I don't believe it is (Oh for an easy resource for all this data :P). 65,000 objects are trackable objects, I wager. Untrackable objects are things smaller than radar can pick up, and often, are the more dangerous of the two.
The very anonymous nature of the internet makes it nearly impossible to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. There's absolutely no frame of reference. Credit card numbers are irrelivent, because kids (smart ones, too) can go get daddy's credit card, write down everything on the front of it, and viola, they're into any porn site that protects based on 'having a credit card makes you an adult'. In Person, it's easy to see a person's size and go 'you're obviously too young', but from behind a computer screen, where even your image is interpreted by the PC before transmission, how can you tell?
In the case of many porn sites, they already do such protections based on credit card numbers, and while that's not perfect by any means, it does tend to keep many kids out.
Here's another thought for you. You say that this law is putting pressure on web admins to make their content 'kid-safe' (Well, maybe not outright stated it, but I felt it was implied). What if a web admin isn't writing the site for kids in the first place? How do you permit adults access yet bar kids? Without meeting a person face to face (which seriously hampers some transactions and makes it useless to attempt such a site), guarontee without a shadow of a doubt that the person entering is an adult. If you can come up with the solution for that, I can guarontee you'll be a multi-billion dollar person in a very short period of time. My Opinion? It can't be done in the conventional sense. It would take a major revision of the web to remove the anonymity, a revision that I can't imagine as going forth.
My $.02
There may be 'only' 65,000 pieces of space junk, but keep in mind, these circle the earth at about what.. 15 minutes? 30? Certainly no more than 1 hour to circle the globe. The velocity of these things moving makes it even 'smaller', because collisions can happen all the more often with faster objects.
Depending upon the altitudes of the pieces of debris, their speed, size, and such, while currently it is possible to calculate orbits to avoid things in space, if you continue to drop things in orbit, junk pieces of disposable rockets, dead satellites, etc, it may get more and more difficult to have a mission where no 'dodging' of space garbage occurs.
I say.. we put it there, we clean it up. Simple as that. With the prospect of the Space Station in place, where dodging debris isn't as much of an option, how long will it take before something comes hurtling along and ruptures a portion of the station?
As for libraries, by all means, you can make a library that's not under the GPL and used specifically for the purpose of the Wordperfect app (again, just following the example). However, at that point, it operates as any normal program would, using it's libraries to interop with the kernel through fully known hooks. Just because noone else can use that library doesn't mean that it brings about hidden API's, and if you were going to do a library like that, so noone else could use it, why not just build it statically linked into the program that you're writing?
The only way I could see similar 'hidden API's in the situation provided would be if they embedded them within the linux kernel or it's modules (which fall under the standard kernel distro packages). How closely that makes them 'hidden' is unclear to me, since it borders on being a library enhancement and a kernel modification (if you were to embed such API's in a kernel module).
Another thought did occur to me. Embedding such API's within the glibc or other library packages, but again you get into breaking the GPL in order to distribute closed-source versions of an open-source piece of software, a notion I find revolting.
All you had to do was say 'By the by, the trial is over. See reference page "insert URL here"'.
Thanks much for your informative reply.
Stalling until the new president is elected may get Microsoft nothing because the president just can't go and say 'This is how it is, deal with it'. The judicial system is still free to carry out judgement on the laws at hand, no matter if the administration changes or not. Now, if a new law were put into place stating that Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, then it'd be a different story, but that'd have to come from Congress, not the President, since he doesn't introduce new laws.
My $.02, such as I can remember.
I think perhaps Microsoft's jumping the gun a little bit and looking to the projected future as they see it. I agree they should be able to appeal the decision (even though I don't like MS's market power), but there's this whole thing about putting the eggs before the chicken.
Now, if you're talking about adding another library to the mix, along the lines of libc or something like that, then that's not really a core API, but a library that aids your program's preformance. To me, isn't that what innovation's about?
That example is probably lacking, but it's more or less the truth. Plasma drives (and most drives for space travel, actually) would provide a slow, constant push at the ship, and since there's no wind resistance in space, the more you push, the faster you go (with the terminal velocity being the speed of light).
Agreed, though, this could be pretty neat if it was a more powerfull drive. :)
What might prevent this from happening is that before any cargo (and correct me if I'm wrong) gets onto an airplane, it's screened. I presume it's checked for bomb signatures (otherwise what's the point of having personel go through metal detectors and stuff). Why don't they check for whether or not a package is giving off RF frequencies? Just tossing a thought out there.
On the matter of the API's, though, there should be no hidden API's in any OS. If there are, in my opinion, that is a clear violation of fair trade, since you are permitting yourselves a more advanced or more streamlined way to interact with your own operating system and blocking others from doing the same. Not only that, if they hide API's, how much other stuff do they hide in there?
Maybe I'm thinking about this in the wrong perspective. When I think of 'e-signature', I'm thinking an electronic version of your signature, ie: something you already possess and will uniquely identify you (within a small margin of error). Are E-Signatures going to be something that most people will have, or are they going to have to register with a signature company in order to get one? I tried browsing over to the named congressional links page from this one, but didn't quite find out what the definition of this term was to be.
IF this is to be implimented properly, I would think it'd have to go on this methodology.. You have a public and private half of your digital signature. The public half is not just two static halves of the same key, like PGP is, but rather your signature plus the timestamp of when it was signed. That way anyone using it would have to act almost immediately to get the signature done right and keep it as valid. Using a static public key would be plain insane to prove without a certainty of a doubt that it was you and not someone who happened to see your key or hack your harddrive.
Another question.. what software would do the signatures? Would it be multiplatform, or Windows only? Would the software be even something the user would need? The very NATURE of the Web is anonymity, to change it and say that doing a transaction over an anonymous webpage now has your signature on it had better be really darn good, else any script kiddie with a few public tools could sign your soul to the devil (as it were). This goes doubly true if you're now going to be held legally bound to the contract in hand.
I, for one, want to see this implimentation before I would ever consider using it. Mearly stating that e-signatures are now legally binding is like saying your neighbor is now married to your wife. Unless you have a good way to prove it, I see this as a situation of the government attempting to quell fears while not grasping the whole implication and practicality of it all.
I hate to say it, but just from the top of my head, I can see where this point is. If you have an OEM copy of Win9x, it says right on the disk that this copy comes with a new computer and is not available for resale. (Note, don't take this as me defending eBay *or* Microsoft). However, the question about whether store-bought copies of Win9x are forbidden from resale, I'm not too sure on. I wager they are available. Hmm.