Does this sound as ominous to anyone else other than me? I am suddenly filled with a groan that sounds remarkably like 'Oh sh|t'. All those episodes of The Outer Limits are coming back to haunt me. 'Hey, honey, I don't want to play with the kids today. Let Gideon do it.' Or 'Hey, babe, go cook dinner for me while I go screw Valerie and Mary.'
I've always wondered why we *have* these TLDs and country domains. I know that in the early days they helped parse traffic and what not, but nowadays, with so much crap out there on the web, why not just have domain names? i.e. 'cartoonnetwork' rather than 'cartoonnetwork.com'? That way, a business (like Dell and IBM) could just register 'Dell' and 'IBM'... Make the domain name the TLD. Seems easy enough to me. (I know there's probably a reason we have TLDs, but I'm just being hypothetical.) =)
At that... Here's an idea: why don't the Registrars perform an extended SoundEx() on domain names in their database? If I wanted to register cartooonnetwork.com, the Registrar simply shouldn't let me. Or if I wanted to register delll.com or ibmm.com. Or even Barrbie.com... ('The domain name you requested too closely resembles an active domain.') I know that for the Registrars, they don't care, as long as they get money. But it costs companies and users who then have to spend more money defending a copyright or trademark, etc. If I *really* wanted the domain, it should then send a notice to the existing domain and request permission. But it would certainly cut down on porn sites. I'm getting tired of mistyping google.com and getting slapped with spyware, porn, and miscellaneous crap that I don't want to see. (Well, the porn is okay, but when I *ask* for it. *grin*)
*shrug* If only if the world was written according to me. =)
"In the beginning, man created ENIAC and upon seeing it, he called it good. When God saw ENIAC and realized what man had done, He looked down and said, 'Because you have eaten of the fruit of computing technology, I am placing a curse upon your developers, that they shall never know when to stop.' To balance out the curse, God created the Project Manager and placed him before the gates of the development interface with a flaming project plan, commanding him, 'Stay true to your project plan and guide the developer so that he may know your plan.' But the Project Manager multiplied and became lazy, and thus the developers, knowing not when to stop, continued adding feature upon feature for time immemorial, and introduced bugs upon bugs, and the End User cursed them all unto the ends of the earth."
(And that, BTW, is why we have Microsoft Office today, among hundreds of other programs that overload the end-user with 'features'...)
Simplicity and customizability are reasons why I like Trillian so much. (It's the only software program I've ever dedicated money to, BTW.) Trillian does what it is supposed to, and no more. All the fancy 'features' are things I get to pick from. One reason why I hated ICQ (which I last used sometime in 1999) was the fact that it was bloatware. I didn't use half of it. But I have used almost all of Trillian at one point or another.
When it comes right down to it, I like the fact that I get to pick and choose what Firefox and Thunderbird contain. Give me the most simple of applications and let me customize it. Let me decide what power I have over the application. I uninstalled Internet Explorer from all my machines only days after discovering Firefox (or what what was, at the time, Firebird). I primarily use my webmail server when I'm at work behind a firewall, but my laptop has a copy of Thunderbird which I use when I am at home. I know good software when I see it, and both Firefox and Thunderbird are exactly that.
I admire and respect Rumsfeld almost as much as I do President Bush... (I say that without any sarcasm.) But... Dr. Seuss had *nothing* on Rumsfeld... =)
Coming soon to a library near you: Dr. Rummy's The Known Knowns of the Unknown Knowns and the Unknown Unknowns...
I'm ready to throw 32-bit out. I'm nearing purchase of a dual Opteron motherboard along with two Opteron 242 or 246 (haven't decided yet). But why stop at 64? Good Lord... Move on to 4,096-bit processors. Scratch that... Make it a 3^64 trigit (trinary digit) processor. Or even a 4^64 quadit (quadrinary digit) processor.
64-bits my ass. If this is the future, where's all the *good* technology?:)
A proposal to the Star Wars community-at-large. How many people would be interested in re-writing and re-doing Episodes I, II, and III to make them of the same epic quality as Episodes IV, V, and VI? And how many people would be interested in writing and filming Episodes VII, VIII, and IX -- which had been planned from the start but something Lucas abandoned in the more recent years? From my way of thinking, I figure once Lucas dies (which I hope is here soon), then filming can begin on the REAL movies.
I love Linux more than Windows in terms of stability and security, but let's think of this more in techno-political form: consider that Bill Gates is a big Republican and probably donates Windows (and the behind-the-scenes tech support) to the Republican candidates.
Besides, under Clinton, Microsoft was under attack for alledgedly monopolistic and illegal antitrust practices. Under Bush, the sins of Bill Gates et al have been forgiven. Tell me YOU wouldn't donate software for being saved a $40 billion expenditure.
Personally, I like the idea. I use a software firewall program that I have set up that removes banner ad images, replacing them instead with a blank image, based on keywords. Of course, this is not default behaviour -- I had to configure it to do so. But I can block almost all of Yahoo ads, ESPN ads, Fox News Channel ads, and even the ads of my beloved NRA. When people install a virus scanner, they expect it to block viruses. People don't automatically expect a virus scanner to start blocking content and filtering things automatically.
This coming from the man who also said '640K should be enough for any user.'
He lost his credability with that one statement (said in the early 80's)... I use Windows, too, but I don't trust Bill Gates to ensure my security. Especially not when he's so short-sighted. He sees things as they are, not as they will be -- that's never a good thing, especially in terms of the science of technology.
I know why Billy Bob Clinton's name wasn't on the list -- he was busy under the desk with Monica, right? I mean, come on, that guy takes the cake at being a weasal. He openly admitted it. Billy knew how to lie, not only to a grand jury, a judge (several judges), and Congress -- but he also knew how to look straight into the TV camera and lie to us. 42nd 'President' my ass... More like 1st National Disgrace and Public Nuisance Extraordinaire, if you ask me.
Bush is a weasal about as much as I am black. And no, I'm not going to dye or tan my skin.
Does anyone remember when Microsoft dropped decimal points in favour of years? They dropped 'Windows 3.1' in favour of 'Windows 95' and dropped 'Windows NT 4.0' in favour of 'Windows 2000.' It's not hard to guess why they did this, and I remember reading several articles on the subject. They moved away from version numbers in favour of year numbers in hopes of making people think that the product was somehow out of date. 'Windows 95' is supposed to sound much more out of date than 'Windows 2000.' (And so on.) And then suddenly, Microsoft dropped years (and the famous 'NT' moniker) to move to 'XP' -- how 'Windows XP' is supposed to sound better than 'Windows 95,' I will never know.
Despite the fact that I was against dropping the 'NT' from Windows, the fact was, the time had come for it. Windows was certainly no longer 'new technology' by the time Windows 2000 came about.
(True, the Server products still retain year numbers, but I wonder for how long? Windows 2000 and now Windows 2003, and apparently Longhorn Server will ultimately be Windows 2007.)
While it's true that Microsoft still uses the version number of Windows, it's an internal number only. If you know where to look in the registry (a truly evil idea in itself), you can find the major and minor version including the build number. But that doesn't mean anything to the average end-user, admit it.
It seems to me that there has been increasing resistance toward upgrading Microsoft products. Could this be a result of the move from decimal points? Maybe Microsoft, in trying to play a psychological game with consumers and purchasers, ended up shooting themselves in their collective foot?
I say let the spammers have their fun now. I blame both IPv4 and SMTP. Since IPv6 will (alledgedly) assign a unique address to every computer on the Internet, I'm thinking that it will be far easier to track spammers to their location than it is with IPv4. Of course, SMTP has inherent flaws but it's a very old protocol that was first created when we didn't have to worry about useless messages taking out our MXs. The new motto of the Internet needs to be: "If you build it, they will spam." There is, as of yet, no way to protect mail servers from spam. You can take steps to TRY to protect your poor MX, but I can't imagine what would happen if 250 million spam messages hit my MX all at once.
Identity theft is an entire subject in itself. I say we open DNA banks. Gattica did have a good concept there (using DNA). Sort of like a SSN in your blood. Being a mathematician, I don't believe in 100% -- 99% and maybe even 99.99% -- but not 100%. And if anything, the Internet proves that nothing is 100% full-proof.
I don't know what I would do if it wasn't for the HP 48GX. But damn HP for discontinuing it. However, there is good news: it seems HP is upgrading the 48GX to the 48gII. And from the looks of it, the only thing that has changed is the body. The 48gII still has the same extensive functions library (over 2300 functions) and is still RPN. It's listed as a 'replacement' for the 48GX.
Here's the link in case you want info on it:
http://www.samsoncables.com/catalog/prodDetail.c fm ?Prod_ID=362
I don't know if I like the new body yet, but it's been modernized. In addition to the IrDA port, it also includes an SD slot. As of this writing, it's listed at $120 and due out on 29 SEP.
I can just see it now... Try to pull out $40 from an ATM, a BSOD, and then you call the bank. 'Well, sir, we don't show that there was a BSOD. We see that the machine dispensed your $40, and there's nothing we can do about it.'
Besides, I'm not too crazy about Microsoft having access to my banking information. I can just see that day I get my bank statement and see several ATM withdrawls that have no corresponding receipt. Of course, they will come under the guise of "Microsoft ATM Service Fee" and each 'fee' will be $100.
You know what I thought was funny about the article. Unless I read it wrong, the bank ATMs will be connected to a bank's corporate LAN. But in a few sentences down, it's stated that a virus can't hit the ATM because it won't be online. But we've all seen it a million times -- if a virus hits a corporate network, Windows just spreads it everywhere, and I can only assume that the LAN-connected, Windows-driven bank ATM would also be affected.
Between giving Microsoft access to my banking information and carrying live cash around with me, I think I'd choose to carry cash. I might get mugged, but that's why I carry a 9mm.
... this time, I'm on their side. Is there even one person who likes getting spammed? Spam mail is not a good thing, especially when you consider the load on mail servers.
I'm glad that AOL is taking this stand, it's about damn time that a company has stood up against mass spammers. I can't stand AOL, true, but they're standing on the good side this time. If you don't like AOL's anti-spam policies, go get an account on Yahoo or Hotmail.
If AOL wants to refuse a spammer access to their mail servers and users, then they have that right. It is my line of thinking that a spammer does NOT have the right to clog another company's mail server(s). E-Mail is not a right when you are using someone else's servers.
I wish mail servers could be setup to reverse spam someone. A mail server gets one message from a spammer and then it sends it back a few thousand times. That would be great.
I have long been wondering why Microsoft doesn't employ this technique in Windows. (And don't flame me for using those two cuss words here. *grin*) Their licensing issues would stop, 'Windows Product Activation' would disappear, and all the headaches associated with pirated copies of their software would just stop. And they would save a lot of money that way. Any time a Windows box boots, it calls home and identifies itself with its product key. If that product key is already identified as running, both machines then shutdown. Makes more sense to me than Activation.
Personally, I'm not an advocate of spyware. Almost on a daily basis, I run my spyware checker and delete any unidentified directories under 'C:\Program Files'... And I really don't like the idea of software programs running as spyware. How do I *know* that it's not transmitting out personally identifiable information? I don't. That's an inherent danger of the Internet age. When you plug your computer into a network, you take the risk that something on your computer could be retrieved or sent without your permission. Should it happen? No, of course not. But then again, consumers are getting screwed left and right.
Hey, we could just do away with the Internet, unplug our computers, and go back to DOS in the 1980's...
Running my own mail server is a blessing. Not only do I have my regular address (with specific whitelists set up), but I also have a sub-domain that is specifically set up to receive 'subscription' E-Mail. Like Slashdot -- all my slashdot subscriptions get sent to slashdot@subscriptions.lonestarmapleleaf.org with a specific whitelist address coming only from slashdot@slashdot.org. EBay messages go to ebay@subscriptions... NRA messages go to nra@... Etc... If I find an account being abused (ie sold to other outside parties), I can just simply kill that one account.
I think E-Mail has a very practical use still, especially in corporate environments. (ie -- global address lists in Exchange and Outlook)
But for all my friends and personal things -- I really don't use my E-Mail unless I need to send out a distributed letter.
Will E-Mail be around in 10 years? I doubt it. Things in technology are moving fast -- in 20 years, IMs will be extinct, I'll bet. Something better and faster will have come alone.
Hell, on my mobile phone, I can already check news and mail. Wait until mobile phones are nothing more than an implant that interacts directly with the human brain. 20 years.
... relax and take your medications...
Thanks to one of my close friends who is working on the Whistler project, I got to see it up close and personal a few weeks ago. I saw nothing that would suggest this conspiracy has merit. And I would like to mention that a program can be digitally signed by other people and places from what I've seen. My video driver for my laptop, for instance, comes from ATI (not Microsoft) because the screen's resolution is 1400x1050 (which is an odd resolution)... When I installed the driver (under Windows 2000 Advanced Server) and looked at the information, it is signed by ATI and not Microsoft. The goal then becomes for programmers and Microsoft developers to acquire a digital signature and sign programs themselves. Seems easy enough to do...
Okay, there, I said it. This is one that's really *out* there in terms of reality, but I wanted to hit it before any one else did. *grin*
Microsoft paid the MPAA and RIAA for their cooperation in getting the DCMA passed so it would effectively hurt Linux and all attempts to improve on the technology behind Linux and did so under terms of anonymity so as to prevent an uprising of the Linux community.
Now, seriously... While companies are jumping on the band wagon, there are still those that refuse to do so remaining in favour of Windows. Logitech is an example. Back in January or so, I started shopping around for a videocam and was seriously looking at Logitech -- simply because I knew that name and the QuickCam2 product. Being that I couldn't find drivers for Linux (or any mention of Linux on their website), I E-Mailed their technical support people. The response I got was along the lines of: "not only do we not support Linux, we never will." My reply was equally as harsh: "I think I will go with another company that is a little more progressive and a little more friendly." I received only silence at that one, but... Fine. I'm not saying that every company has to be pro-Linux, and it's fine if a company remains pro-Windows, but what I'm saying is that *I* (as the consumer) shouldn't have to suffer because of a company's unmoving support. (Note that I finally did buy a videocam, 3Com's HomeConnect. While I don't see any drivers for Linux, I blataintly refused to go with Logitech given their whole attitude regarding Linux.)
From what I've seen and read here on Slashdot, reverse engineering seems to especially important to Linux and its continued development. (Specifically in terms of device drivers.) No, I don't think reverse engineering is a right, but I do think it's necessary. Right now, though, I think the DCMA is more of an "We don't understand all this, we're afraid, so we are dealing with it like this" block. How many politicians these days actually understand the term "reverse engineering?" Until my generation grows up and is able to actually move into Congress, technology will always be feared because "normal" (reread: non-geek) people as a whole don't understand technology. It's hard for geeks to understand non-geeks and vice versa. As geeks, technology is our life. As non-geeks, technology is some sort of ethereal construct somewhere out there.
I still honestly believe that if not wholly stricken by the Supreme Court, the DCMA will be so ravaged by the Supreme Court that little will remain enforceable. The DCMA sounds more like a law to govern licensing (as compared with owning) of the products I buy. Licensing is a relatively new concept, and not one that should be applied to consumers. The one reason why I never liked DIVX is because I was basically told, "You aren't buying a copy of this to own; you must lease this move and pay for it over and over and over and over until the end of time every time you want to see it." Ummmm. *ahem* Bullshiyit. As a consumer, my intent is not to license but to purchase and buy something. And I think the Supreme Court -- given its typically pro-technology responses in the past -- would also see this.
You know... I do have this lovely Microsoft Sidewinder USB Joystick that I bought. And since I *think* I own it, I'm going to sit down, reverse engineer it, and write a Linux device driver for it. I'll see y'all on the steps of the Supreme Court.
I don't typically respond to articles posted by Anonymous Coward, but you raise some good points about my original response. I wrote my original response on about two hours of sleep, so now as I reread it, I know I wasn't clear on a lot of things, so I apologize on that. And I promise not to flame; I don't believe in it (which is why I'm so good at discussing politics and religion with people). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if mine is always the correct one. (*laugh* I'm just kidding.) I'll get to your Whistler comment in a second...
My issue is not with the Service Packs; I used them as an example only. When there is a bug in a Linux product, there is faster turnaround time than with a Microsoft product. That's all I meant. I don't know who you've been talking to, but I always hear the typical "Wait for the service pack" response. Sometimes, yes, to its credit, Microsoft may release a Hot Fix, but that's usually for severe bugs that influence the operating system itself -- not the actual products they release. To me, Linux is better than Windows all around because of the kernel stability. Linux is a solid OS on the base level; the applications that sit on the kernel may not be developed as solidly as the kernel, but I don't see the kernel crashing just because an application goes ballistic. Micrsoft built Windows 2000 with more inherent stability than NT; I'll admit that I have seen the Blue Screen of Death only once since April. But that doesn't mean that I don't still have to reboot if an application does go south on Windows. So don't think I'm picking on Windows; Goliath got his head smacked with a rock, so I'm not about to stand here and laugh.
Now to your Whistler comment. I don't think Linux will ever be in any danger -- unless Microsoft decides to either A) assimiliate Linux into Windows (which is probably likely to happen at some point, but I believe that for my own reasons), or B) decides to make their own distribution of Linux. I have a close friend here in Austin that I've known for two years; he works here at Dell and is on the Whistler project -- though I don't really know all what he does. And he still uses Linux primarily -- he has a Windows ME station that he plays games on, but that's about the extent of it. No matter how good Whistler is, Linux will always be around.
To start, I'll admit that I'm no major fan of Microsoft these days; yes, I even find it hysterical they've been hacked on this scale; yes, admittedly (regrettably?), I have sympathy for them. No matter how much I dislike the ethics (or lack thereof) of Bill Gates, he has been wronged: theft is theft (if indeed source code was stolen, which has yet to be proven, by the way). Of course, I'm wondering something of my own (away from all the flying conspiracy theories, rest assured). According to MSNBC, Microsoft has figured out that the passwords were being sent to an account somewhere in Russia. So what's taking so long? What's taking Microsoft so long to actually come up with something definitive? Enough "may have" and "could have" -- where is the "did" and "done"?
Now, here's another thought. If the Linux community were behind this, we'd be unimaginable idiots every last one of us. Linux is so much more than Windows could ever hope to be. If you look at the track record of Microsoft and bugs, it don't look pretty. They have 7 service packs for Windows NT 4 (1,2,3,4,5,6,6a)... They have 3 or 4 service packs for Visual Studio 6. Two service packs for SQL Server 7. Even their beloved Windows 2000 (not a few months after being released) now has its own Service Pack 1. I could keep going, but I'd be typing forever. No, nothing will be truly bug free upon release. Yes, bugs will always be one of the inherent problems behind code. But consider the overall amount of time between finding a bug and releasing a fix for it. Linux does it better and faster; Microsoft tries to mimic that behaviour and often times fails. Microsoft cannot keep up with the drive of Linux, and that's in out favour. If Microsoft source code ever became a part of Linux, I'd probably scream "Borg!" and run off to my own little planet somewhere in Andromeda. Assimilation of the illegal or the unwilling needs to be where the line is drawn.
Though, I wouldn't mind someone stealing the source code for DirectX 7.0 and developing it over to Linux. *drool* I'd love to play Final Fantasy VIII under Linux. (And, for my legal sake, that is not a serious statement, though it would be a dream to play games of that magnitude under Linux. Of course I could just hope that Linux and Sony somehow combine forces and make a new distribution called Sony Linux or something...)
This breakin at Microsoft also says something for off-site workers. As a consultant, at times I do work off-site, and I see some interesting effects in the worst case. Since the intruders appeared to the security logs as employees simply working off-site, security overlooked them for three months. For three months the intruders worked, doing only God knows what. (Like I said, there's been no real definitive proof to surface yet except for allegations about what "might have" and "could have" and "appears to have happened"...) But I still think this might produce some chilling and overly restrictive corporate policy changes on working off-site.
I'm betting that nothing really serious did happen; I'd bet that the intruders only want to sit down and see how long it would be before someone noticed. In three months, you could cause all sorts of chaos for Goliath in his own camp. Blow out a few torches, bring down the mainframes, format a few servers, knock out corporate E-Mail, shut down all the domain controllers. (That latter one would be VERY interesting, believe me.) Maybe I'm wrong; maybe something serious did happen (not that a break in of this size isn't already something serious in and of itself)... I just want proof before I start my panic run. (Which, for me, consists of about 2 minutes of hyperventilating. *grin*)
Being one to hate abbreviations (notice I spelled "versus" rather than just type "vs"), I have for around five years called e-mail, E-Mail. Yeah, I hit my beloved key twice. To me, E-Mail is a concept needing to be capitalized upon -- hence the capitalization of the words. I am, by no means, an expert at English Grammer, but I do rank above average. I've just adopted my own style. Someone mentioned the age of Instant Messages where thirty-year-olds write like they were really ten, skipping punctuation not out of style but rather out of sheer laziness. The English language itself is very fluid and is one of the most changing languages today. (Hey, look at Latin. The language stop evolving and is now declared a dead language. What's up with that?) When I was a freshman in college four years ago, one of my Information Systems professors and I got into a fairly heated discussion over him deducting points for my spelling of "E-Mail" as compared to his belief is should have been "email"... He conceded that had I spelled it "e-mail," he would have considered reinstating the points. But he didn't feel that it should have capitalization, because it obviously didn't fit in line with good grammar. IMHO, capitalization (in the English language) is sought to capture attention. (What if we spelled the first day of the week as "sunday?") And to me, "E-Mail" (or "e-mail" or "email") needs to grab attention. This is the age of the new economy after all. Anyhow, that is my two cents worth.
Thanks to the military, I learned how to use abbreviations, and have even resorted to using abbreviations such as BTW (By The Way), IMHO (In My Humble Opinion, as seen above), AFK (Away From Keyboard). Not meant to be contradicting myself; I just see abbreviations as either a tool or a deteriment. For example, if I said to you, "Hey, I want to go buy a CD." Your next question would be probably, "Which one?" If I then responded, "I'll make my decision when we get to the bank," you'd then be confused. The abbreviation "CD" means two different things. If I walk into a music store and ask for a "CD," they look at me funny and just point to all the shelves of thousands of Compact Discs. I walk into a bank and ask for a "CD," they pull out documents left and right, charts, interest rates, you name it -- all showing me Certificate of Deposits.
Please tell me that's not a real patent request from IBM. I nearly died laughing when I read that article. I ain't payin royalties to IBM for exercising my cat, my mother's cat, or any cat on this planet. But I think that's one of the more insane patent requests... Thanks for the link *and* the laugh. I'm going to forward that to my friends.
... Compared to Amazon's patented "1-Click" system...
I still can't believe a patent was actually issued for single click purchasing power. What next? "1-Swipe" buying? Is Visa going to license with Amazon (or another entity) when I swipe my credit card and make a purchase?
Apparently our patent office isn't consciously aware of what it grants in terms of significant and insignificant patents. To grant a patent on single click buying is as silly as it would be for me to file for a patent on frivolous lawsuits and make lawyers and their clients pay me royalties any time they want to file an absurd lawsuit.
Single click buying utilizes another technology: cookies. Maybe Amazon should have to pay royalties to whomever owns the patent on cookies. (Chocolate chips and M&Ms and peanut butter.)
At some point the line has to be drawn. I understand that Amazon has to make money like every other company out there -- the American "dream" is composed of one word: "profit." (Of course, you could substitue "profit" with "theft".)
Anyone who licenses this "amazing new technology" (notice the sarcasm) from Amazon basically says this is a significant patent worthy to be in place. And of course, royalty costs get passed on to the consumer eventually. I have no idea how much Apple is paying to actually license this... But if it's more than 1 USD, they're getting ripped off.
"Usually I don't pay much attention to the stock market, but seeing what happened to Apple's stock this week... well, I don't feel bad for them at all.
I'll be honest. I've never liked Apple to begin with and my exboyfriend (well, we'll see how long he stays an "ex" after last night) and I (almost 5.5 months ago) often fought over Apple versus PC... However, all biases aside, I think this comment is a little harsh. Yes, Apple will pay for making such a blataintly stupid and absurd decision, but let's not get harsh or hostile. Every company is allowed to make mistakes along the way. My hope now is that they are the only company to actually license this stuff. If any other company joins them, it will grow harder to overturn.
But this is just my soap box in condensed form. I could type an entire dissertation of Amazon's (unethical) behaviour over the past few months. I'm tempted to cancel my account with them, and have been since I heard about their price "tests" (reread: "fixes")... I think Amazon is learning from Microsoft just like I learned from Clinton: "Hey, if he (they) can do it and get away with it, I can too!" (Note the sarcasm.)
Slashdot Mirror
Does this sound as ominous to anyone else other than me? I am suddenly filled with a groan that sounds remarkably like 'Oh sh|t'. All those episodes of The Outer Limits are coming back to haunt me. 'Hey, honey, I don't want to play with the kids today. Let Gideon do it.' Or 'Hey, babe, go cook dinner for me while I go screw Valerie and Mary.'
*shiver*
I've always wondered why we *have* these TLDs and country domains. I know that in the early days they helped parse traffic and what not, but nowadays, with so much crap out there on the web, why not just have domain names? i.e. 'cartoonnetwork' rather than 'cartoonnetwork.com'? That way, a business (like Dell and IBM) could just register 'Dell' and 'IBM' ... Make the domain name the TLD. Seems easy enough to me. (I know there's probably a reason we have TLDs, but I'm just being hypothetical.) =)
... Here's an idea: why don't the Registrars perform an extended SoundEx() on domain names in their database? If I wanted to register cartooonnetwork.com, the Registrar simply shouldn't let me. Or if I wanted to register delll.com or ibmm.com. Or even Barrbie.com ... ('The domain name you requested too closely resembles an active domain.') I know that for the Registrars, they don't care, as long as they get money. But it costs companies and users who then have to spend more money defending a copyright or trademark, etc. If I *really* wanted the domain, it should then send a notice to the existing domain and request permission. But it would certainly cut down on porn sites. I'm getting tired of mistyping google.com and getting slapped with spyware, porn, and miscellaneous crap that I don't want to see. (Well, the porn is okay, but when I *ask* for it. *grin*)
At that
*shrug* If only if the world was written according to me. =)
From the Good Book of ENIAC, Chapter 1, Verse 1:
...)
"In the beginning, man created ENIAC and upon seeing it, he called it good. When God saw ENIAC and realized what man had done, He looked down and said, 'Because you have eaten of the fruit of computing technology, I am placing a curse upon your developers, that they shall never know when to stop.' To balance out the curse, God created the Project Manager and placed him before the gates of the development interface with a flaming project plan, commanding him, 'Stay true to your project plan and guide the developer so that he may know your plan.' But the Project Manager multiplied and became lazy, and thus the developers, knowing not when to stop, continued adding feature upon feature for time immemorial, and introduced bugs upon bugs, and the End User cursed them all unto the ends of the earth."
(And that, BTW, is why we have Microsoft Office today, among hundreds of other programs that overload the end-user with 'features'
Simplicity and customizability are reasons why I like Trillian so much. (It's the only software program I've ever dedicated money to, BTW.) Trillian does what it is supposed to, and no more. All the fancy 'features' are things I get to pick from. One reason why I hated ICQ (which I last used sometime in 1999) was the fact that it was bloatware. I didn't use half of it. But I have used almost all of Trillian at one point or another.
When it comes right down to it, I like the fact that I get to pick and choose what Firefox and Thunderbird contain. Give me the most simple of applications and let me customize it. Let me decide what power I have over the application. I uninstalled Internet Explorer from all my machines only days after discovering Firefox (or what what was, at the time, Firebird). I primarily use my webmail server when I'm at work behind a firewall, but my laptop has a copy of Thunderbird which I use when I am at home. I know good software when I see it, and both Firefox and Thunderbird are exactly that.
I admire and respect Rumsfeld almost as much as I do President Bush ... (I say that without any sarcasm.) But ... Dr. Seuss had *nothing* on Rumsfeld ... =)
...
Coming soon to a library near you: Dr. Rummy's The Known Knowns of the Unknown Knowns and the Unknown Unknowns
I'm ready to throw 32-bit out. I'm nearing purchase of a dual Opteron motherboard along with two Opteron 242 or 246 (haven't decided yet). But why stop at 64? Good Lord ... Move on to 4,096-bit processors. Scratch that ... Make it a 3^64 trigit (trinary digit) processor. Or even a 4^64 quadit (quadrinary digit) processor.
:)
64-bits my ass. If this is the future, where's all the *good* technology?
A proposal to the Star Wars community-at-large. How many people would be interested in re-writing and re-doing Episodes I, II, and III to make them of the same epic quality as Episodes IV, V, and VI? And how many people would be interested in writing and filming Episodes VII, VIII, and IX -- which had been planned from the start but something Lucas abandoned in the more recent years? From my way of thinking, I figure once Lucas dies (which I hope is here soon), then filming can begin on the REAL movies.
I love Linux more than Windows in terms of stability and security, but let's think of this more in techno-political form: consider that Bill Gates is a big Republican and probably donates Windows (and the behind-the-scenes tech support) to the Republican candidates.
Besides, under Clinton, Microsoft was under attack for alledgedly monopolistic and illegal antitrust practices. Under Bush, the sins of Bill Gates et al have been forgiven. Tell me YOU wouldn't donate software for being saved a $40 billion expenditure.
Personally, I like the idea. I use a software firewall program that I have set up that removes banner ad images, replacing them instead with a blank image, based on keywords. Of course, this is not default behaviour -- I had to configure it to do so. But I can block almost all of Yahoo ads, ESPN ads, Fox News Channel ads, and even the ads of my beloved NRA. When people install a virus scanner, they expect it to block viruses. People don't automatically expect a virus scanner to start blocking content and filtering things automatically.
...
But that's IMHO
This coming from the man who also said '640K should be enough for any user.'
... I use Windows, too, but I don't trust Bill Gates to ensure my security. Especially not when he's so short-sighted. He sees things as they are, not as they will be -- that's never a good thing, especially in terms of the science of technology.
He lost his credability with that one statement (said in the early 80's)
I know why Billy Bob Clinton's name wasn't on the list -- he was busy under the desk with Monica, right? I mean, come on, that guy takes the cake at being a weasal. He openly admitted it. Billy knew how to lie, not only to a grand jury, a judge (several judges), and Congress -- but he also knew how to look straight into the TV camera and lie to us. 42nd 'President' my ass ... More like 1st National Disgrace and Public Nuisance Extraordinaire, if you ask me.
Bush is a weasal about as much as I am black. And no, I'm not going to dye or tan my skin.
A new thought ...
Does anyone remember when Microsoft dropped decimal points in favour of years? They dropped 'Windows 3.1' in favour of 'Windows 95' and dropped 'Windows NT 4.0' in favour of 'Windows 2000.' It's not hard to guess why they did this, and I remember reading several articles on the subject. They moved away from version numbers in favour of year numbers in hopes of making people think that the product was somehow out of date. 'Windows 95' is supposed to sound much more out of date than 'Windows 2000.' (And so on.) And then suddenly, Microsoft dropped years (and the famous 'NT' moniker) to move to 'XP' -- how 'Windows XP' is supposed to sound better than 'Windows 95,' I will never know.
Despite the fact that I was against dropping the 'NT' from Windows, the fact was, the time had come for it. Windows was certainly no longer 'new technology' by the time Windows 2000 came about.
(True, the Server products still retain year numbers, but I wonder for how long? Windows 2000 and now Windows 2003, and apparently Longhorn Server will ultimately be Windows 2007.)
While it's true that Microsoft still uses the version number of Windows, it's an internal number only. If you know where to look in the registry (a truly evil idea in itself), you can find the major and minor version including the build number. But that doesn't mean anything to the average end-user, admit it.
It seems to me that there has been increasing resistance toward upgrading Microsoft products. Could this be a result of the move from decimal points? Maybe Microsoft, in trying to play a psychological game with consumers and purchasers, ended up shooting themselves in their collective foot?
I say let the spammers have their fun now. I blame both IPv4 and SMTP. Since IPv6 will (alledgedly) assign a unique address to every computer on the Internet, I'm thinking that it will be far easier to track spammers to their location than it is with IPv4. Of course, SMTP has inherent flaws but it's a very old protocol that was first created when we didn't have to worry about useless messages taking out our MXs. The new motto of the Internet needs to be: "If you build it, they will spam." There is, as of yet, no way to protect mail servers from spam. You can take steps to TRY to protect your poor MX, but I can't imagine what would happen if 250 million spam messages hit my MX all at once.
Identity theft is an entire subject in itself. I say we open DNA banks. Gattica did have a good concept there (using DNA). Sort of like a SSN in your blood. Being a mathematician, I don't believe in 100% -- 99% and maybe even 99.99% -- but not 100%. And if anything, the Internet proves that nothing is 100% full-proof.
I don't know what I would do if it wasn't for the HP 48GX. But damn HP for discontinuing it. However, there is good news: it seems HP is upgrading the 48GX to the 48gII. And from the looks of it, the only thing that has changed is the body. The 48gII still has the same extensive functions library (over 2300 functions) and is still RPN. It's listed as a 'replacement' for the 48GX.
c fm ?Prod_ID=362
Here's the link in case you want info on it:
http://www.samsoncables.com/catalog/prodDetail.
I don't know if I like the new body yet, but it's been modernized. In addition to the IrDA port, it also includes an SD slot. As of this writing, it's listed at $120 and due out on 29 SEP.
I can just see it now ... Try to pull out $40 from an ATM, a BSOD, and then you call the bank. 'Well, sir, we don't show that there was a BSOD. We see that the machine dispensed your $40, and there's nothing we can do about it.'
Besides, I'm not too crazy about Microsoft having access to my banking information. I can just see that day I get my bank statement and see several ATM withdrawls that have no corresponding receipt. Of course, they will come under the guise of "Microsoft ATM Service Fee" and each 'fee' will be $100.
You know what I thought was funny about the article. Unless I read it wrong, the bank ATMs will be connected to a bank's corporate LAN. But in a few sentences down, it's stated that a virus can't hit the ATM because it won't be online. But we've all seen it a million times -- if a virus hits a corporate network, Windows just spreads it everywhere, and I can only assume that the LAN-connected, Windows-driven bank ATM would also be affected.
Between giving Microsoft access to my banking information and carrying live cash around with me, I think I'd choose to carry cash. I might get mugged, but that's why I carry a 9mm.
Woohoo! Go Longhorns! Longhorns forever!
... As a side note, good for the processor too.
(Okay, I'm done. I just had to show some school spirit; I would be evil otherwise.)
Oh yeah
... this time, I'm on their side. Is there even one person who likes getting spammed? Spam mail is not a good thing, especially when you consider the load on mail servers.
I'm glad that AOL is taking this stand, it's about damn time that a company has stood up against mass spammers. I can't stand AOL, true, but they're standing on the good side this time. If you don't like AOL's anti-spam policies, go get an account on Yahoo or Hotmail.
If AOL wants to refuse a spammer access to their mail servers and users, then they have that right. It is my line of thinking that a spammer does NOT have the right to clog another company's mail server(s). E-Mail is not a right when you are using someone else's servers.
I wish mail servers could be setup to reverse spam someone. A mail server gets one message from a spammer and then it sends it back a few thousand times. That would be great.
I have long been wondering why Microsoft doesn't employ this technique in Windows. (And don't flame me for using those two cuss words here. *grin*) Their licensing issues would stop, 'Windows Product Activation' would disappear, and all the headaches associated with pirated copies of their software would just stop. And they would save a lot of money that way. Any time a Windows box boots, it calls home and identifies itself with its product key. If that product key is already identified as running, both machines then shutdown. Makes more sense to me than Activation.
... And I really don't like the idea of software programs running as spyware. How do I *know* that it's not transmitting out personally identifiable information? I don't. That's an inherent danger of the Internet age. When you plug your computer into a network, you take the risk that something on your computer could be retrieved or sent without your permission. Should it happen? No, of course not. But then again, consumers are getting screwed left and right.
...
Personally, I'm not an advocate of spyware. Almost on a daily basis, I run my spyware checker and delete any unidentified directories under 'C:\Program Files'
Hey, we could just do away with the Internet, unplug our computers, and go back to DOS in the 1980's
Who's with me?
Running my own mail server is a blessing. Not only do I have my regular address (with specific whitelists set up), but I also have a sub-domain that is specifically set up to receive 'subscription' E-Mail. Like Slashdot -- all my slashdot subscriptions get sent to slashdot@subscriptions.lonestarmapleleaf.org with a specific whitelist address coming only from slashdot@slashdot.org. EBay messages go to ebay@subscriptions ... NRA messages go to nra@ ... Etc ... If I find an account being abused (ie sold to other outside parties), I can just simply kill that one account.
I think E-Mail has a very practical use still, especially in corporate environments. (ie -- global address lists in Exchange and Outlook)
But for all my friends and personal things -- I really don't use my E-Mail unless I need to send out a distributed letter.
Will E-Mail be around in 10 years? I doubt it. Things in technology are moving fast -- in 20 years, IMs will be extinct, I'll bet. Something better and faster will have come alone.
Hell, on my mobile phone, I can already check news and mail. Wait until mobile phones are nothing more than an implant that interacts directly with the human brain. 20 years.
... relax and take your medications ...
Thanks to one of my close friends who is working on the Whistler project, I got to see it up close and personal a few weeks ago. I saw nothing that would suggest this conspiracy has merit. And I would like to mention that a program can be digitally signed by other people and places from what I've seen. My video driver for my laptop, for instance, comes from ATI (not Microsoft) because the screen's resolution is 1400x1050 (which is an odd resolution) ... When I installed the driver (under Windows 2000 Advanced Server) and looked at the information, it is signed by ATI and not Microsoft. The goal then becomes for programmers and Microsoft developers to acquire a digital signature and sign programs themselves. Seems easy enough to do...
Okay, there, I said it. This is one that's really *out* there in terms of reality, but I wanted to hit it before any one else did. *grin*
... Fine. I'm not saying that every company has to be pro-Linux, and it's fine if a company remains pro-Windows, but what I'm saying is that *I* (as the consumer) shouldn't have to suffer because of a company's unmoving support. (Note that I finally did buy a videocam, 3Com's HomeConnect. While I don't see any drivers for Linux, I blataintly refused to go with Logitech given their whole attitude regarding Linux.)
Microsoft paid the MPAA and RIAA for their cooperation in getting the DCMA passed so it would effectively hurt Linux and all attempts to improve on the technology behind Linux and did so under terms of anonymity so as to prevent an uprising of the Linux community.
Now, seriously... While companies are jumping on the band wagon, there are still those that refuse to do so remaining in favour of Windows. Logitech is an example. Back in January or so, I started shopping around for a videocam and was seriously looking at Logitech -- simply because I knew that name and the QuickCam2 product. Being that I couldn't find drivers for Linux (or any mention of Linux on their website), I E-Mailed their technical support people. The response I got was along the lines of: "not only do we not support Linux, we never will." My reply was equally as harsh: "I think I will go with another company that is a little more progressive and a little more friendly." I received only silence at that one, but
From what I've seen and read here on Slashdot, reverse engineering seems to especially important to Linux and its continued development. (Specifically in terms of device drivers.) No, I don't think reverse engineering is a right, but I do think it's necessary. Right now, though, I think the DCMA is more of an "We don't understand all this, we're afraid, so we are dealing with it like this" block. How many politicians these days actually understand the term "reverse engineering?" Until my generation grows up and is able to actually move into Congress, technology will always be feared because "normal" (reread: non-geek) people as a whole don't understand technology. It's hard for geeks to understand non-geeks and vice versa. As geeks, technology is our life. As non-geeks, technology is some sort of ethereal construct somewhere out there.
I still honestly believe that if not wholly stricken by the Supreme Court, the DCMA will be so ravaged by the Supreme Court that little will remain enforceable. The DCMA sounds more like a law to govern licensing (as compared with owning) of the products I buy. Licensing is a relatively new concept, and not one that should be applied to consumers. The one reason why I never liked DIVX is because I was basically told, "You aren't buying a copy of this to own; you must lease this move and pay for it over and over and over and over until the end of time every time you want to see it." Ummmm. *ahem* Bullshiyit. As a consumer, my intent is not to license but to purchase and buy something. And I think the Supreme Court -- given its typically pro-technology responses in the past -- would also see this.
You know... I do have this lovely Microsoft Sidewinder USB Joystick that I bought. And since I *think* I own it, I'm going to sit down, reverse engineer it, and write a Linux device driver for it. I'll see y'all on the steps of the Supreme Court.
I don't typically respond to articles posted by Anonymous Coward, but you raise some good points about my original response. I wrote my original response on about two hours of sleep, so now as I reread it, I know I wasn't clear on a lot of things, so I apologize on that. And I promise not to flame; I don't believe in it (which is why I'm so good at discussing politics and religion with people). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if mine is always the correct one. (*laugh* I'm just kidding.) I'll get to your Whistler comment in a second...
My issue is not with the Service Packs; I used them as an example only. When there is a bug in a Linux product, there is faster turnaround time than with a Microsoft product. That's all I meant. I don't know who you've been talking to, but I always hear the typical "Wait for the service pack" response. Sometimes, yes, to its credit, Microsoft may release a Hot Fix, but that's usually for severe bugs that influence the operating system itself -- not the actual products they release. To me, Linux is better than Windows all around because of the kernel stability. Linux is a solid OS on the base level; the applications that sit on the kernel may not be developed as solidly as the kernel, but I don't see the kernel crashing just because an application goes ballistic. Micrsoft built Windows 2000 with more inherent stability than NT; I'll admit that I have seen the Blue Screen of Death only once since April. But that doesn't mean that I don't still have to reboot if an application does go south on Windows. So don't think I'm picking on Windows; Goliath got his head smacked with a rock, so I'm not about to stand here and laugh.
Now to your Whistler comment. I don't think Linux will ever be in any danger -- unless Microsoft decides to either A) assimiliate Linux into Windows (which is probably likely to happen at some point, but I believe that for my own reasons), or B) decides to make their own distribution of Linux. I have a close friend here in Austin that I've known for two years; he works here at Dell and is on the Whistler project -- though I don't really know all what he does. And he still uses Linux primarily -- he has a Windows ME station that he plays games on, but that's about the extent of it. No matter how good Whistler is, Linux will always be around.
To start, I'll admit that I'm no major fan of Microsoft these days; yes, I even find it hysterical they've been hacked on this scale; yes, admittedly (regrettably?), I have sympathy for them. No matter how much I dislike the ethics (or lack thereof) of Bill Gates, he has been wronged: theft is theft (if indeed source code was stolen, which has yet to be proven, by the way). Of course, I'm wondering something of my own (away from all the flying conspiracy theories, rest assured). According to MSNBC, Microsoft has figured out that the passwords were being sent to an account somewhere in Russia. So what's taking so long? What's taking Microsoft so long to actually come up with something definitive? Enough "may have" and "could have" -- where is the "did" and "done"?
... They have 3 or 4 service packs for Visual Studio 6. Two service packs for SQL Server 7. Even their beloved Windows 2000 (not a few months after being released) now has its own Service Pack 1. I could keep going, but I'd be typing forever. No, nothing will be truly bug free upon release. Yes, bugs will always be one of the inherent problems behind code. But consider the overall amount of time between finding a bug and releasing a fix for it. Linux does it better and faster; Microsoft tries to mimic that behaviour and often times fails. Microsoft cannot keep up with the drive of Linux, and that's in out favour. If Microsoft source code ever became a part of Linux, I'd probably scream "Borg!" and run off to my own little planet somewhere in Andromeda. Assimilation of the illegal or the unwilling needs to be where the line is drawn.
Now, here's another thought. If the Linux community were behind this, we'd be unimaginable idiots every last one of us. Linux is so much more than Windows could ever hope to be. If you look at the track record of Microsoft and bugs, it don't look pretty. They have 7 service packs for Windows NT 4 (1,2,3,4,5,6,6a)
Though, I wouldn't mind someone stealing the source code for DirectX 7.0 and developing it over to Linux. *drool* I'd love to play Final Fantasy VIII under Linux. (And, for my legal sake, that is not a serious statement, though it would be a dream to play games of that magnitude under Linux. Of course I could just hope that Linux and Sony somehow combine forces and make a new distribution called Sony Linux or something...)
This breakin at Microsoft also says something for off-site workers. As a consultant, at times I do work off-site, and I see some interesting effects in the worst case. Since the intruders appeared to the security logs as employees simply working off-site, security overlooked them for three months. For three months the intruders worked, doing only God knows what. (Like I said, there's been no real definitive proof to surface yet except for allegations about what "might have" and "could have" and "appears to have happened"...) But I still think this might produce some chilling and overly restrictive corporate policy changes on working off-site.
I'm betting that nothing really serious did happen; I'd bet that the intruders only want to sit down and see how long it would be before someone noticed. In three months, you could cause all sorts of chaos for Goliath in his own camp. Blow out a few torches, bring down the mainframes, format a few servers, knock out corporate E-Mail, shut down all the domain controllers. (That latter one would be VERY interesting, believe me.) Maybe I'm wrong; maybe something serious did happen (not that a break in of this size isn't already something serious in and of itself)... I just want proof before I start my panic run. (Which, for me, consists of about 2 minutes of hyperventilating. *grin*)
Enough rambling...
Being one to hate abbreviations (notice I spelled "versus" rather than just type "vs"), I have for around five years called e-mail, E-Mail. Yeah, I hit my beloved key twice. To me, E-Mail is a concept needing to be capitalized upon -- hence the capitalization of the words. I am, by no means, an expert at English Grammer, but I do rank above average. I've just adopted my own style. Someone mentioned the age of Instant Messages where thirty-year-olds write like they were really ten, skipping punctuation not out of style but rather out of sheer laziness. The English language itself is very fluid and is one of the most changing languages today. (Hey, look at Latin. The language stop evolving and is now declared a dead language. What's up with that?) When I was a freshman in college four years ago, one of my Information Systems professors and I got into a fairly heated discussion over him deducting points for my spelling of "E-Mail" as compared to his belief is should have been "email" ... He conceded that had I spelled it "e-mail," he would have considered reinstating the points. But he didn't feel that it should have capitalization, because it obviously didn't fit in line with good grammar. IMHO, capitalization (in the English language) is sought to capture attention. (What if we spelled the first day of the week as "sunday?") And to me, "E-Mail" (or "e-mail" or "email") needs to grab attention. This is the age of the new economy after all. Anyhow, that is my two cents worth.
Thanks to the military, I learned how to use abbreviations, and have even resorted to using abbreviations such as BTW (By The Way), IMHO (In My Humble Opinion, as seen above), AFK (Away From Keyboard). Not meant to be contradicting myself; I just see abbreviations as either a tool or a deteriment. For example, if I said to you, "Hey, I want to go buy a CD." Your next question would be probably, "Which one?" If I then responded, "I'll make my decision when we get to the bank," you'd then be confused. The abbreviation "CD" means two different things. If I walk into a music store and ask for a "CD," they look at me funny and just point to all the shelves of thousands of Compact Discs. I walk into a bank and ask for a "CD," they pull out documents left and right, charts, interest rates, you name it -- all showing me Certificate of Deposits.
discHead,
Please tell me that's not a real patent request from IBM. I nearly died laughing when I read that article. I ain't payin royalties to IBM for exercising my cat, my mother's cat, or any cat on this planet. But I think that's one of the more insane patent requests... Thanks for the link *and* the laugh. I'm going to forward that to my friends.
I still can't believe a patent was actually issued for single click purchasing power. What next? "1-Swipe" buying? Is Visa going to license with Amazon (or another entity) when I swipe my credit card and make a purchase? Apparently our patent office isn't consciously aware of what it grants in terms of significant and insignificant patents. To grant a patent on single click buying is as silly as it would be for me to file for a patent on frivolous lawsuits and make lawyers and their clients pay me royalties any time they want to file an absurd lawsuit.
Single click buying utilizes another technology: cookies. Maybe Amazon should have to pay royalties to whomever owns the patent on cookies. (Chocolate chips and M&Ms and peanut butter.)
At some point the line has to be drawn. I understand that Amazon has to make money like every other company out there -- the American "dream" is composed of one word: "profit." (Of course, you could substitue "profit" with "theft".) Anyone who licenses this "amazing new technology" (notice the sarcasm) from Amazon basically says this is a significant patent worthy to be in place. And of course, royalty costs get passed on to the consumer eventually. I have no idea how much Apple is paying to actually license this... But if it's more than 1 USD, they're getting ripped off.
I'll be honest. I've never liked Apple to begin with and my exboyfriend (well, we'll see how long he stays an "ex" after last night) and I (almost 5.5 months ago) often fought over Apple versus PC... However, all biases aside, I think this comment is a little harsh. Yes, Apple will pay for making such a blataintly stupid and absurd decision, but let's not get harsh or hostile. Every company is allowed to make mistakes along the way. My hope now is that they are the only company to actually license this stuff. If any other company joins them, it will grow harder to overturn.
But this is just my soap box in condensed form. I could type an entire dissertation of Amazon's (unethical) behaviour over the past few months. I'm tempted to cancel my account with them, and have been since I heard about their price "tests" (reread: "fixes")... I think Amazon is learning from Microsoft just like I learned from Clinton: "Hey, if he (they) can do it and get away with it, I can too!" (Note the sarcasm.)
Have fun...
As opinionated as ever,