More importantly and less obviously, what impact does it have on the world when no creature is allowed to cross a border or simply exist in their native environment without being considered a security threat?
Fishing for food is already measurably damaging our environment. What happens when we start fishing for defense? When migratory birds are shot down on sight? When the salmon spawning cycle is a security risk?
Funny you should mention migratory birds being shot down on sight. Let's not forget that the bird flu is currently being spread around the globe by migratory birds.
See! Dick Cheney shooting birds was just his hands-on way of helping America stay safe. Hooray for Cheney!
Wait....that doesn't sound right.
Seriously though, haven't things like this been done before. Local animals deemed as pests encourage people to bring in predators to those animals. Think of what happened with the Mongoose. Not saying there weren't adverse consequences, but rather that your point is real and valid.
They offer a pretty decent deal to employees. They encourage their employees to work on non-assigned projects. Granted, the caliber of people Google has makes this deal work for them quite well, but I'd like to see it trickle down.
From what I know of them, they're quite the idealists, and they don't seem to be corrupted by money just yet. They tend to handle themselves well (not providing search info to DoJ). Even with the Chinese-censored Google, they did the overall best thing. They censor their results, but they TELL people when results are removed. They also haven't bothered to try and block alternate routes to real Google. So far, they seem to do a good job of weighing factors and not screwing people over too badly.
They seem more like scientists than businessmen, and even though society can't practically achieve the type of purity scientists tend to believe in, why not at least try to be the best? Something about aiming for the moon and landing among the stars. Cheesy, but there's something to it.
I'm not a stock broker, but I do know that companies can be delisted from a stock exchange for a variety of reasons. Could Google get delisted for being too tight lipped? They've got to offer at least some guidance to stockholders in their annual reports.
I'm not saying I don't respect what Brin and Page are trying for, but they're going into a well-established arena and trying to do things in what seems to be a very unique way, an arena which is largely satisfied with the way things work. Perhaps we might see some minimum disclosure requirements added to the requirements for being listed on NASDAQ.
Frame it in the open source discussion, and some opinions might change. Isn't what analysts are calling for just like what the open source community calls for? We want to know how code works, to make sure it's doing the right things and not hiding wrong things. Isn't this what the Bush administration is criticized for, not giving guidance as to what they're doing? This is financial analysts wanting to get an idea of what's going on underneath the hood, rather than just guessing.
Again, I respect what they do, and if they push gently, they'll get something put in motion. But, if they push too hard for what they want before the market is ready for their philosophy, something might break.
Rails is a framework on top of ruby that handles things for you in a default fashion ("convention over configuration" they say). But, because of the way it and Ruby are designed, you can override the default behavior. The thing is, when 9 out of 10 projects can use the default behavior, there's much less effort required, so you'll have time to do more complicated things.
However, once you've gotten your, say, form input, you can use Ruby (a fully object-oriented and Turing complete language) to modify it just the same way as you would in any other language (although I would argue that Ruby makes even this part easier too).
Look at it this way, Rails is a bit of a toolbox. Can you tackle any woodworking project with your toolbox? No. But, 90% of the time, your construction projects can be done with the basic hammer, drill, router, etc.
SlashDot recently covered another BusinessWeek opinion piece entitled "Cutting Through the Patent Thicket", which argued that "the current U.S. system is harming innovation. A simplified process with stronger patents would encourage economic growth".
I'm not sure of the intent of this post, but I think this is a good thing. This means that the general public is being more and more exposed to the idea that the patent system is in need of change. No matter how necessary a change is, unless the public wants it to happen (and thus is aware of it), it won't happen.
On the other hand, we've all seen the quality of results that comes from a large group of people clamoring for speedy change in the government.
Actually, I'm trying to find that very piece of information for an application my department is working on. How can the iPod be set up with a power-on password? This would be very helpful, as I can't find anything about it anywhere else.
The free service (much like Google Search) will be available for anyone (such as students, small businesses, etc).
Once they have everything worked out well, the gOffice appliance (like the Search Appliance) will be sold to Fortune 500 companies who can afford to drop $30k.
Google's search appliance should be a clue. They make this service available to end users, students, people who don't need maximum security, they just want ease of use.
Once they get everything working well, they bundle it into a nice package and offer it as an appliance to businesses.
I don't know if it hasn't occurred to them, but I'm a big proponent of making it easy for people to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing. I really don't believe that the real decision makers are exposed to any real new, uncensored ideas. Generally the people at the very top have an army of people filtering what information is passed upwards, and those people don't want to lose their jobs by giving the top people bad info. This means that what does filter upward is just a subset of what's already been passed up before.
I think it's what's happening to President Bush. He seems extraordinarily insulated from reality, so it seems like he's making bad decisions. He's not necessarily making a bad decision, he's making a (giving the benefit of the doubt) good decision with bad information.
I work at a very large organization, and I'm at least aware of how it operates from the top to the bottom. The people at the top of a large organization are coddled by those underneath, and it causes a huge disconnect. Large organizations only work well when the people at the top truly respect the people at the bottom of the pyramid, and actively work to seek new ideas. The easy route is to sit back, be given information, and make decisions based on that. The hard part is going and getting your own information, not always accepting that what you are being told is a full and accurate representation of what is real.
I'm suprised the RIAA isn't charging 25 cents a song for DRM "enabled" music, and subsidizing the cost of DRM players. That'll encourage market penetration, and once they've got a certian portion of the market unable to play anything else, they will finally have their freedoms.
Not like their employees (Congress) will do much to stop them, at least for a while.
"The companies have declined to confirm or deny the report, which would fit Apple's past pattern of being secretive to maximise the splash on announcement day."
Build an AV system that creates a VM sandbox that would then allow the a program to run to see what it would do, and if determind to work normally, then to pass the IO requests directly to the system.
That's more or less what's going on here. They aren't necessarily running it in a virtual machine, that would be enormous overhead. But they do watch for types of behavior that is typical for a virus. They don't need the sandbox approach, because the execution can still be stopped before actual damage occurs.
I don't think we should be really giving BPI (or RIAA when they do) a lot of credit for acknowledging that downloaders aren't all evil. They're making a buttload of cash off people who are getting music electronically. They have ZERO production costs (other than a few kilowatts of electricity), reduced equipment maintinance (costs of maintaining duplicating equipment vs. Apple's servers), and zero shipping costs.
Giving them credit is like patting a child on the head and telling them "good job!" when they eat a cookie.
When they start making real changes, and start understanding the new culture, then I'll be interested.
And yes, I read the article. According to the fifth word of the fifth paragraph, "of"
Design is more than how pretty something is.
on
2005 IDEA Awards
·
· Score: 1
I wish they'd give more consideration to functionality for these awards. Don't get me wrong, I like things that are visually pleasing, but when something sacrifies functionality for asthetics, it's pretty lame.
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/05/06/idea2005/s ource/109.htm I was at the design museum, and while there's definitely some awesome things there, this staircase bothered me. It looks cool, but the steps are very dark, and I watched several people trip on their way up in the few minutes I was in the lobby. It's pretty easy to get hurt falling on stairs, so why give a design award to something that increases the danger for users? If they would improve safety and make it look better, that would definitely be deserving of an award.
For GPS tracking, you need to be inside the sphere of GPS satellites. This would only work for low orbits (within the 20,000 km radius of GPS satellites).
Microsoft knows that there's a lot software (some new, like PS CS) that will not work when the patch is autoinstalled. This is something they know will cause problems for system admins.
This is why they provided a tool for system admins to control the updates delivered to their machines.
Imagine a whole graphics department (company) running Photoshop CS and XP. They would essentially be put out of business. Is Microsoft's EULA tight enough to stave off the public when this happens? A buffer overflow exploit doesn't wave a big blue screen in your face when you try and run your favorite app.
If nothing else, MS tends to be good at hiding failures from the public. A scary looking bright blue screen is not hidden.
It's a method of obfuscating a serialized object so that it can be passed through a public channel (ie: a url) without revealing meta information or contents of the object.
I don't know if it's widely known, but a few other people in my office have heard about it.
Does anyone know about the feasability of using Ruby on Rails for the Captain Crunch method of object serialization? I've heard good things, that there's a lot less code to write, but it's harder to understand for a novice.
oh man, you had better contact them immediately. if you read that letter without asking them how to decrypt the xml, you'll totally be in violation of the dcma.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent point. This has been my favorite post today.
Funny you should mention migratory birds being shot down on sight. Let's not forget that the bird flu is currently being spread around the globe by migratory birds.
See! Dick Cheney shooting birds was just his hands-on way of helping America stay safe. Hooray for Cheney!
Wait....that doesn't sound right.
Seriously though, haven't things like this been done before. Local animals deemed as pests encourage people to bring in predators to those animals. Think of what happened with the Mongoose. Not saying there weren't adverse consequences, but rather that your point is real and valid.
I'll take you seriously -- here's what: http://www.google.org/
They offer a pretty decent deal to employees. They encourage their employees to work on non-assigned projects. Granted, the caliber of people Google has makes this deal work for them quite well, but I'd like to see it trickle down.
From what I know of them, they're quite the idealists, and they don't seem to be corrupted by money just yet. They tend to handle themselves well (not providing search info to DoJ). Even with the Chinese-censored Google, they did the overall best thing. They censor their results, but they TELL people when results are removed. They also haven't bothered to try and block alternate routes to real Google. So far, they seem to do a good job of weighing factors and not screwing people over too badly.
They seem more like scientists than businessmen, and even though society can't practically achieve the type of purity scientists tend to believe in, why not at least try to be the best? Something about aiming for the moon and landing among the stars. Cheesy, but there's something to it.
I'm not a stock broker, but I do know that companies can be delisted from a stock exchange for a variety of reasons. Could Google get delisted for being too tight lipped? They've got to offer at least some guidance to stockholders in their annual reports.
I'm not saying I don't respect what Brin and Page are trying for, but they're going into a well-established arena and trying to do things in what seems to be a very unique way, an arena which is largely satisfied with the way things work. Perhaps we might see some minimum disclosure requirements added to the requirements for being listed on NASDAQ.
Frame it in the open source discussion, and some opinions might change. Isn't what analysts are calling for just like what the open source community calls for? We want to know how code works, to make sure it's doing the right things and not hiding wrong things. Isn't this what the Bush administration is criticized for, not giving guidance as to what they're doing? This is financial analysts wanting to get an idea of what's going on underneath the hood, rather than just guessing.
Again, I respect what they do, and if they push gently, they'll get something put in motion. But, if they push too hard for what they want before the market is ready for their philosophy, something might break.
I am not an expert.
Rails is a framework on top of ruby that handles things for you in a default fashion ("convention over configuration" they say). But, because of the way it and Ruby are designed, you can override the default behavior. The thing is, when 9 out of 10 projects can use the default behavior, there's much less effort required, so you'll have time to do more complicated things.
However, once you've gotten your, say, form input, you can use Ruby (a fully object-oriented and Turing complete language) to modify it just the same way as you would in any other language (although I would argue that Ruby makes even this part easier too).
Look at it this way, Rails is a bit of a toolbox. Can you tackle any woodworking project with your toolbox? No. But, 90% of the time, your construction projects can be done with the basic hammer, drill, router, etc.
Most hardcore scientist ever. He's going to implant it in his own head with no anesthesia.
I'm not sure of the intent of this post, but I think this is a good thing. This means that the general public is being more and more exposed to the idea that the patent system is in need of change. No matter how necessary a change is, unless the public wants it to happen (and thus is aware of it), it won't happen.
On the other hand, we've all seen the quality of results that comes from a large group of people clamoring for speedy change in the government.
Good god. Thanks. I don't know how I missed this, even though I'd only done a few minutes of looking.
Actually, I'm trying to find that very piece of information for an application my department is working on. How can the iPod be set up with a power-on password? This would be very helpful, as I can't find anything about it anywhere else.
You misunderstood me.
The free service (much like Google Search) will be available for anyone (such as students, small businesses, etc).
Once they have everything worked out well, the gOffice appliance (like the Search Appliance) will be sold to Fortune 500 companies who can afford to drop $30k.
Google's search appliance should be a clue. They make this service available to end users, students, people who don't need maximum security, they just want ease of use.
Once they get everything working well, they bundle it into a nice package and offer it as an appliance to businesses.
Agreed.
I don't know if it hasn't occurred to them, but I'm a big proponent of making it easy for people to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing. I really don't believe that the real decision makers are exposed to any real new, uncensored ideas. Generally the people at the very top have an army of people filtering what information is passed upwards, and those people don't want to lose their jobs by giving the top people bad info. This means that what does filter upward is just a subset of what's already been passed up before.
I think it's what's happening to President Bush. He seems extraordinarily insulated from reality, so it seems like he's making bad decisions. He's not necessarily making a bad decision, he's making a (giving the benefit of the doubt) good decision with bad information.
I work at a very large organization, and I'm at least aware of how it operates from the top to the bottom. The people at the top of a large organization are coddled by those underneath, and it causes a huge disconnect. Large organizations only work well when the people at the top truly respect the people at the bottom of the pyramid, and actively work to seek new ideas. The easy route is to sit back, be given information, and make decisions based on that. The hard part is going and getting your own information, not always accepting that what you are being told is a full and accurate representation of what is real.
No, it's not inherently a right.
I'm suprised the RIAA isn't charging 25 cents a song for DRM "enabled" music, and subsidizing the cost of DRM players. That'll encourage market penetration, and once they've got a certian portion of the market unable to play anything else, they will finally have their freedoms.
Not like their employees (Congress) will do much to stop them, at least for a while.
They won't say anything -> it must be true?
I hope you're not a stock broker.
That's more or less what's going on here. They aren't necessarily running it in a virtual machine, that would be enormous overhead. But they do watch for types of behavior that is typical for a virus. They don't need the sandbox approach, because the execution can still be stopped before actual damage occurs.
Haha. Something about the shortest path between two points being a straight line?
Seems like the music industry is going all 1492 on us, taking the long way around an easy problem, eh?
I don't think we should be really giving BPI (or RIAA when they do) a lot of credit for acknowledging that downloaders aren't all evil. They're making a buttload of cash off people who are getting music electronically. They have ZERO production costs (other than a few kilowatts of electricity), reduced equipment maintinance (costs of maintaining duplicating equipment vs. Apple's servers), and zero shipping costs.
Giving them credit is like patting a child on the head and telling them "good job!" when they eat a cookie.
When they start making real changes, and start understanding the new culture, then I'll be interested.
And yes, I read the article. According to the fifth word of the fifth paragraph, "of"
I wish they'd give more consideration to functionality for these awards. Don't get me wrong, I like things that are visually pleasing, but when something sacrifies functionality for asthetics, it's pretty lame.
s ource/109.htm
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/05/06/idea2005/
I was at the design museum, and while there's definitely some awesome things there, this staircase bothered me. It looks cool, but the steps are very dark, and I watched several people trip on their way up in the few minutes I was in the lobby. It's pretty easy to get hurt falling on stairs, so why give a design award to something that increases the danger for users? If they would improve safety and make it look better, that would definitely be deserving of an award.
For GPS tracking, you need to be inside the sphere of GPS satellites. This would only work for low orbits (within the 20,000 km radius of GPS satellites).
That's why I said "imagine."
=)
Microsoft knows that there's a lot software (some new, like PS CS) that will not work when the patch is autoinstalled. This is something they know will cause problems for system admins.
d efault.mspx
This is why they provided a tool for system admins to control the updates delivered to their machines.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sus/
Imagine a whole graphics department (company) running Photoshop CS and XP. They would essentially be put out of business. Is Microsoft's EULA tight enough to stave off the public when this happens? A buffer overflow exploit doesn't wave a big blue screen in your face when you try and run your favorite app.
If nothing else, MS tends to be good at hiding failures from the public. A scary looking bright blue screen is not hidden.
-- Tim
It's a method of obfuscating a serialized object so that it can be passed through a public channel (ie: a url) without revealing meta information or contents of the object.
I don't know if it's widely known, but a few other people in my office have heard about it.
Does anyone know about the feasability of using Ruby on Rails for the Captain Crunch method of object serialization? I've heard good things, that there's a lot less code to write, but it's harder to understand for a novice.
Has anyone had any experience with this?
bitwise, you just won.
that totally deserves a 6+ funny
oh man, you had better contact them immediately. if you read that letter without asking them how to decrypt the xml, you'll totally be in violation of the dcma.
and then the wolves will come and eat your legs.