This whole hubbub has shone some light on a rather interesting aspect of commercial television. Some people, such as Dvorak, implicitly assume that commercial television is payed for by commercials and that we are thus duty bound to watch them even though we made no such explicit agreement. However, there is something sneaky going on behind the scenes. We have not given much notice to it because we are so used to taking it in the ass by the big corporations that it escaped our interest. And that is this. What precisely is being sold by the networks to the advertisers to pay for their programming? Answer: you are! You the viewer are being sold, without your permission, to the advertisers via the television producers. Part of the profits made from selling you stuff (soap, cars, computers, soda, whatever) is paid to television producers which in turn pays for their costs and profits. Kind of a messy circle if you ask me. And it's somewhat interesting in that a product (commercial television) you buy, is paid for and bargained for indirectly.
Unlike almost any product you buy you have no say in how much you pay for it. With a movie for example, you have many choices, you can see it in the evening during its first run at 8, 9, or 10 bucks a ticket, you can see it during the day at cheaper rates, you can see it later when it's on the "cheap screens", or you can wait and rent (or buy) it on tape or DVD. And then you have many choices of theaters, rental stores, etc. where to spend your money. All of these represent different levels of quality, ownership, and price. Similarly, for a book, you can choose to buy the hardback or wait for the paperback, or buy it used. You can buy it at the little mom & pop bookstore, or you can buy it at the megastore (like borders), or you can buy it in the supermarket (if they have it), or you can buy it online. In short, there are many different qualities of product that you can purchase from many different outlets. Television is completely different. Firstly, you cannot buy it directly (HBO and suchlike excluded). Second, you cannot "buy" it from different outlets. Third, you cannot buy different versions of it. Perhaps one could say that syndication represents a different product quality, but it's not really applicable in my opinion because syndicated episodes aren't run as "reruns" in the "original quality" product (it would be like a publisher removing the hardback version of a book from sale when the paperback comes out, although in the case of television it's often worse because most syndicated episodes are slightly edited to make room for more commercials). In short we the buyers and consumers of television have essentially no say in the television market. It is not a free market and consequently we are forced to accept whatever products they choose to sell us at whatever "prices" they choose to sell them for. It is a system that has produced healthy profits for commercial television though so they are loath to change the system.
I find it interesting that anyone would describe not viewing the commercials in a TV show as "stealing" television. Nobody ever signed a contract with the television channel stipulating that they would recieve programs in exchange for watching commercials and buying an appropriate amount of the products advertised. That is in essence how "free" TV channels pay for content, but we, the viewers, are not active participants in that contract. If we choose not to watch commercials that is not our problem. Perhaps in the long run it means that the show's producers will need to find a new business model, but it does not mean that we are legally, or morally I would say, obligated to watch commercial advertisements and buy those products advertised. I pay my money to watch HBO, I pay my money to rent and buy DVD movies, I pay my money to buy CDs, I pay my money to buy books, I never signed a contract with NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, or even the Discovery channel. If I choose to fast forward through commercials on taped programs on those channels, or to "surf" during commercials when watching the broadcast, or to use the bathroom or refil my drink or get a snack, that is my choice, it is up to them to figure out how to deal with it.
How all these people always have the wrong solutions. People don't want to watch commercials, and technology exists to allow them not to. Solution: outlaw the technology and force people to watch commercials. Ingenious! That takes a special level of intelligence to come up with that. Why don't they think about other business models. There are other business models for multimedia content ya know. For example, HBO seems to do well without commercials. This technology, the TiVo, is here to stay, you can't subjugate people into doing things they do not want to do. TiVo represents just one aspect of how multimedia (TV and movies especially) are changing. The old "broadcast" model is growing obsolete and is morphing into a more "content on demand / interactive" web like model. Content will be archived, content will be available when and how you want it. Content will be stored, formatted, and priced, to the viewer's needs, not the needs of the network or the advertisers. TiVo represents how this "revolution" will occur even without the active participation of the media producers. Eventually there will come a time when TV enthusiasts don't need to change their life to fit the TV schedule. They will be able to watch what they want, when they want, where they want, how they want. VCRs have already shown us a glimpse of the possibilities, and TiVo (and similar technology) shows us how simple extensions to those possibilities can change things profoundly. Now it is possible to go on vacation and you can simply come back and catch up on your favorite TV shows.
In the future the transformation of multimedia "broadcasting" will be even more profound. Right now everything is driven by the need for a substantial market and for a substantial profit margin. In the future there will be much more smaller niches available. Imagine every movie and every episode from every TV show being available for varying costs at your convenience. That is a substantial shift from today. For one, I predict you won't see quite as much crap as you do today. There won't be "channels" in a traditional sense, so media providers won't be forced to either "cut content down" or "add in filler" to make up a 24 hour day. Multimedia content providers and creators will be able to produce as much or as little content as they feel is necessary. Ultimately it will be a good thing for the television industry as well as it's viewers. But in the meantime we have to deal with outdated notions and people resistant to change. Those who resist the flow of change and the wishes of the populace do so at their peril. The future is coming, it's time to accept it and plan for it, not to deny it.
Yes, these people that call the genome project a "map to nowhere" are simply talking out their asses. They are not research scientists, they do not even keep up with the latest developments in genomic research. All they know is the little news blurbs they see on TV or on the net. And somehow they think that gives them enough information to be informed in that area. Guess what? It does not. Genetic and genomic research is a hot commodity these days, and it is generating more than just "stupid maps with no use", it is already allowing us to understand all aspects of life on a new level. We have learned and will continue to learn a great deal about evolution, disease, inherited traits, and so much more from genetic research. It is right here right now paying profitable dividends in science and understanding and medicine (and yes, business as well).
Wait, before you think this is a standard "Linus is the true god, Bill Gates is the anti-christ!" posts, hear me out.
I like a lot of Microsoft's products. I use Windows 2k as my workstation OS. I like Internet Explorer, I like Office, I like Visual Studio, etc. Hell, I've even paid cold hard cash for some of these products (heh). Increasingly though I look at Microsoft's new products I keep hearing that little voice inside my head saying "uhhh, I hate to point this out but the old version was better". I prefer Office 97 to Office 2000, Windows 98 SE to Windows ME, etc. And Windows / Office XP are looking less and less like products I want to upgrade to. There are tons of things that annoy the crap out of me about Windows 2000 right now (for example, the whole ASPI fiasco) but all these new products from Microsoft look like they will simply increase the number of things that annoy me, and not increase one whit the things that please me.
Also, I find it interesting that MS spent plenty of time making sure their anti-piracy system will work for Win XP but they didn't have enough extra programmers to integrate USB 2.0 (which has been highly hyped for well over a year now).
I heard from a friend (and I haven't confirmed this by the way) that someone (IIRC AT&T, might be wrong) bought a small DSL provider recently, except, they didn't take on any of their customers. Just dumped 'em, all. Wasn't worth all the support headaches to deal with them I guess. It's a cruel world.
Uhhhh no, as another person has pointed out, this sets your default security zone for Outlook (or OE as well) to "Restricted" and sets up that zone to not run any scripts whatsoever. If you have IE's default zone set to "Restricted" and you have it set to run scripts then you fucked up. All of the other security zones are unaffected, and your default security zone for your browser can still be whatever you choose it to be.
so reading email from an attacker (opening attachments not necessary) also gives them full access to your machine.
Not everyone uses Outlook to read their email. If you do. Tools > Options.... > Security > Zone Settings... > set to "Restricted Sites" then click "custom level..."... disable all scripting and active X shtuff.
Big whoop. We already have some pretty fat honkin' pipes. The real hold up and cost is not the fiber or the fiber's capabilities, it's the machines at the ends of the fiber. Certainly, when laying fiber you want to lay the best fiber you can for future needs. But even now most fiber is enormously underutilized. Most high speed connections (faster than oh about OC-3) currently requires multiple computers to handle the bandwidth. And it takes even more equipment to bridge between the fiber and all the other networks (most of which use different protocols). That is where the major setup and operations costs are. The nature of the situation has resulted in the fastest connections (OC-128 or OC-256) being limited to only a smattering of locations. We would be far better off if the equipment to use these connections was much streamlined and lower cost. That would result in many more high speed connections and a much faster and much more robust internet.
If I want to write a script, I'll do it in whatever language is convenient. Maybe sh, more likely Perl. If I want to use an interactive shell I'll use whichever one I find is more convenient.
Yes, excellent! A lot of people don't realize the different situations where you would choose one rdbms over another. If you're just doing penny ante dynamic web sites or what-have-you then you probably don't need more juice than MySQL (heck, slashdot doesn't). But if you are doing some serious mega data crunching like data warehousing with really high utilization (we're talking dozens or hundreds of people using the system at any one time and most of them writing as well as reading) then you definitely need something with major muscle (like Oracle).
You really have to get a better sense of the scale and the class of these things. Sure, Oracle 8 and MySQL are both RDBMSs, but that's not really a useful categorization. It's like saying that a Ford Taurus and a 100 ton dump truck are both automobiles. If you are just visiting the store to buy groceries, then the Taurus is the way to go and the truck is massive overkill. If you are hauling low grade ore out of a strip mine, then you'll realize quickly the Taurus is a "sub optimal solution".
Gotta use the right tool for the problem, simple as that.
I'm not particularly impressed with that as a complaint. I prefer the `so go get a clue' answer infinitely more than "oooh sorry, I'll make it all so much easier for you".
I really have to disagree with you there. First off, even for very intelligent and motivated individuals it can take a long time to "get a clue". Second, compare installation procedures with apt and rpm with windows (for example, using install shield or some such). It's really no comparison, the windows installer is much more straightforward and simpler to use. GNU/Linux still suffers from the "disease" of being designed for the technologically elite and the already extremely clue inclined. I don't fault gnu/linux for this, it's a great OS and it has numerous great applications. But in this modern push to transform gnu/linux into the next great generic workstation / desktop OS it is an incredibly disadvantage and these problems have still not been fully addressed and ameliorated, though the situation certainly is improving.
I shouldn't have to have a trancendental understanding of every nook and cranny of my system to install a simple piece of software. Similarly, I should not be forced to know the exact specifications for the "black box" fuel injection control electronics on my car if all I want to do is drive it someplace or change a tire or the oil or open the trunk or the moon roof. Linux is a tool, not a toy. It should be optimized for being used as a tool and not optimized for being used as some sort of technological play ground. Some of us need to do serious work and we don't want to have to play around with your cumbersome systems created because you like to answer arcane configuration questions and you have nothing better to do than spend all day installing one piece of software.
Gotta agree with ya there. In my experience the attitude has been more "if it ain't broke don't fix it" than "upgrade party this weekend! (as always)". In fact, most of the time you have to go out of the way to conciously say "uhhh, yeah we've put of upgrading such and such for too long" because the version they have been using is so moldy and stale that it has finally started to become a problem. Any place that has done a significant upgrade (and has any brains) learns really quickly that upgrades are a time and resource and productivity hog and that you really need a good justification for them.
This got me thinking. How does this relate to usenet? I understand that the court rulling have essentially said that there are not enough legimitate uses for these mp3 file sharing networks to allow them the protection that normal service providers have. But, how does this relate to usenet servers that choose to carry various binary newsgroups? For example, alt.binaries.multimedia.*, alt.binaries.cd.image.*, alt.binaries.movies.*, and alt.binaries.music.mp3? It seems to me that there is very little difference between a news server admin decident to host alt.binaries.music.mp3 and a person deciding to host an OpenNap server.
I'd like to see what happens when RIAA tries to "lay the smack down" on all the major ISPs (who, unlike Napster and to a larger extent OpenNap server owners actually have money and clout).
In my opinion usenet postings are not public domain, but as long as they are kept unmodified (essentially) I don't see any reason why they can't be archived for ever. It seems that people implicitly allow this usage of their (copyrighted) posts when they post on usenet. i.e. they agree that their post can be stored and distributed in normal usenet fashion. Plus, there is a way to prevent your post from being archived (the X-noarchive: header) so I don't see any problems with this long term archival of usenet posts.
Now, if they modify the posts or do something wacky with them (like embed advertisements in them as deja.com was doing for a while) that's a whole different kettle of copyright law.
First, slashdot is not a payed service, ya gets what ya pays for. Nor is it a public utility. Second, slashdot itself doesn't do the smacking down of the trolls, that is done by the community at large (moderators). Third, anyone can browse at -1 to see all the crap. Fourth, do you honestly believe that the trolls really deserve to be heard?
Actually, one time pad crypto systems are provably secure. As you said, the main way to crack them is to hammer at the supposedly random pad generation, or to attack the physical security of the pad (which, btw, has nothing to do with the cryptosystem by itself, if you obtain any key, you'll be able to crack any code). Take a look at hotbits, it's a source of true random numbers generated from timing radioctive decays inside a nuclear reactor.
However, the main disadvantage of any one time pad based system (despite it's great cryptographic strength) is that the key (or pad) requires itself some amount of physical security. In contrast a system like RSA is much different because it is not even remotely symmetrical (encryption vs. decryption) and you can send out your public key for all to see and to use but still only you (with your private key) can decrypt what has been encrypted with the public key.
Personally, I don't see this new development as anything special, we already have methods of using extremely high security encryption where it's needed (spying and whatnot) and for other applications that require more convenience and can have more cpu power put behind them the systems we have now are really more than adequate (assuming your using the right systems, not all the systems in use now are cryptographically secure in any resonable sense, but we know which ones those are).
When exactly did we stop being able to own things? It seems like now we have so many EULAs, leased or rented equipment, warranty and servicing conditions, use restrictions, etc. that a lot of people dare not tamper or even properly "own" any of their equipment (such as computers, cars, televisions, etc.). You think you own your DVD player but you can only play DVDs from your region, you think you own your cable box but it's only rented. It would take only a minute change in the law and the market for us to fall down this slippery slope all the way down into a hell where virtually nothing of importance is owned by individuals and is only rented or leased and violation of the terms of service of the EULA is punishable by law.
It may not take that much either, it may just take technology. What you thought was a standalone functional piece of hardware actually (tada, magic) morphs into a service that requires constant software updates to function properly and will deactivate if it doesn't have the newest software.
Please don't tell me what are and are not "valid uses" for my computer / operating system. If I want to send and receive email, browse the web, chat on IRC, play games, or balance my checkbook that's my business and if you try telling me it's not then I'll make you bleed.
You may go back to your little "serious linux" nazi meeting now. Run along child.
This isn't the first full scale production modules, so quite yer yapping about the size. Actually capacities for these devices will be about as high as regular ram (think about the areal density of ram or hard drives, they're pretty high, MRAM isn't much different). The real question will be cost and speed which will be mostly determined by how easy these things are to manufacture and how much demand there is. Considering the advantages and the capabilities of MRAM (it can hold plenty, it's solid state, it's non-volatile, and it's mucho fast) I don't think demand will be a problem.
Also, don't think about MRAM replacing your RAM, think about it replacing your hard drive.
I think a lot of people have come to the mistaken impression that this newfangled thing we call television is "the way it should and MUST be". There are more models out there than this 50 year old youngin' and some of them are quite different. I see the internet advertising "problem" as an extension of that false belief that TV is the baseline and that it should be emulated. It has only been in the last 50 years that people have been (more or less) forced to watch an entire advertisement while watching whatever they're interested in. And even now that idea is breaking down, people have remote controls, people have cable, they have VCRs and TiVos, they will skip the commercials. Are we to expect that people on the internet will do any different? This is nothing new, you can't force people to read print advertisements, people will generally skip over them, they may look at one if it catches their eye or is about something they are interested in. I think if we look at print media (which is much more like the internet and internet commerce than television is) we will see many areas of interest.
For example, catalogs. Catalogs cost money to make and to ship yet they are the primary way for people to see and order from your business. Web based stores are similar. It costs money to maintain a web site, but you've got to do it right. Few mail order companies charge for their catalogs and catalogs rarely have advertisements, they make their money from orders. They can be profitable because all they have to do is have a warehouse full of products, a good system (and a few employees) to fulfil orders, a small support staff, and produce a catalog. Of course, it's important that you have something worthwile to sell and you manage your business correctly, but it's a strategy that works. Being in the e-commerce business I know tons of small and medium sized business that make good money selling stuff on the internet in essentially the same manner a catalog business (aka mail order / telephone order business). Amazon.com would be making money right now if they weren't leveraging their income and investment capital to grow.
For businesses that don't sell products or services directly they will need to think of ways to make money. They should look to how other companies do it. Advertisements are one answer but they need to be executed well. We know that banner advertisements are not very effective, I think some people need to look at what advertising techniques are effective in other media and which ones are effective on the internet (or perhaps there are new techniques for the internet). Very little research (or indeed effort) has gone into such a critically important area.
And, of course, there is always the subscription model which has worked well in the past and should in the future (if done right). People will pay money if you provide them with something they like. We already pay a good chunk of money just for getting online so I guess we must think there is something worth laying cold hard cash down for online. And, I believe, that will be a much better way to go.
Keep in mind though that this world wide web thing is still fairly new and it still has plenty of growing up to do. The Jet engine wasn't invented until many decades after the first powered flight, and commercial air travel didn't really take off until almost half a century of flying. Similarly, it was decades before good quality roadways, highways, and even automobiles existed after the first "horseless carriage" was invented. Same thing goes for the telephone, it was ages after it's invention before most homes had one. I don't think it will take quite that long for the internet to become firmly entrenched (or more so anyway) in our lives and our commerce but it will take time for it to reach the level of other inventions that have been around for many generations.
As others have said, this Mr. Leadbeater is full of crap.
First off, there is one major misunderstanding at play here that I need to correct. Saying that the "dot-coms failed" is blatantly incorrect. The internet is the first truely new frontier we've had in a long time and I think a lot of people don't know their history about frontiers, development, and speculative investment. The first problem this caused was a huge speculative bubble when everyone and their mother was under the mistaken impression that the internet was pure gold on a platter for anyone willing to take advantage of it. The second problem this caused is (when the speculative bubble burst, as they always do) the prolification of all the naysayers who don't think the internet is worth a damn anymore. The truth of the matter is in between these extremes. Yes the internet is a great thing, for education, entertainment, and commerce. However, it doesn't mean that it's like a huge free pile of gold, it will take just as much hard work and determination to make money (or do anything of serious importance) on the internet as it takes to do make money or do anything of importance outside of the internet. And yes, there will be lots of failed businesses. This is to be expected. Look into the history of the railroad. In the early days it was frought with incompatible standards, rampant speculation, inflated stock prices, stock price collapses, investment scams, and failed businesses. And yet it was still an amazing achievement and an amazing opportunity for investment and it radically changed the world.
If you look at most of the failed internet dot-com startups you will see that they all follow a similar pattern. A possible "good idea" gets a large amount (millions) of venture capital. The company rapidly expands its workforce to be a "real company" with offices, servers, employees, etc. The company positively hemorrhages money, including money spent on commercials (*cough*superbowl 2000*cough*) to increase publicity and hopefully to rapidly (perhaps that should be explosively rapidly) expand their customer base. Lacking a business plan, existing customers, income, a long term strategy, or even a good operations plan (in combination with the fact that their attempt at publicity doesn't result in hordes of new customers) the company runs out of venture capital rapidly (gee I wonder where the money went) and they are forced to shut down in less than a year.
As any crack addicted disease addled senile monkey could tell you, that is not a good way to run a business. And there's no reason to believe (and in fact now we have ample reason to disbelieve) that there is something special about the internet that allows people to have a poorly managed company yet still make gobs of money. If you're going to make money on the internet (or anywhere) you need to 1) have a sound business plan, 2) expect (and plan for) reality not meeting with your expectations 3) keep costs low for as long as you can 4) build an existing customer base 5) build your service or production base (i.e. know wtf you are doing and continue to improve how you do it) 6) get a solid revenue stream 7) wait until you get firmly on your feet before reaching for the next level 8) make a plan for growth 9) plan for the worst 10) don't expect for (or plan for) that huge growth to come right away, it could, but it's more likely it will come later and when you least expect it, plan to keep up your "growing strategy" for a while, I would suggest something around 2 years being a good time frame. All of that is sound business advice. I don't know how people could think that a poorly thought out idea combined with pouring millions of dollars down a rat hole and then expecting that your business will grow at a mind boggling rate and expect to make all your startup capital back in 6 months or even a year is beyond me. And, apropos to the subject at hand, absurdly bad business strategy is not the fault of all us technogeeks.
Internet business is not dead, it is alive and thriving, and now it's all the better that the flock has been clensed of the weak and diseased.
Is it just me or does this guy sound like he's huffing glue out of a paper sack? Leave it to apple, masters of sitting on their asses for decades at a time without innovating to conceive of the idea that we should go back to those simpler times of yore when OS's didn't exist. Yeah, that's the ticket, let's all go camping out in the greaty virtual woods, roughing it, just us, our applications, and nature, sounds absolutely fabulous! Get real.
I happen to like the fact that I have a huge monsterous piece of complexity between me and my programs. It lets me do those shockingly amazing things like avoid crashing the whole computer and having to reboot when one program crashes, or being able to run multiple programs at the same time, or having that universal buffer between my hardware and software, or being able to have one consistent mechanism for resource utilization and sharing.
I'm sure good ol' Mr. Raskin thinks he's being all deep and futuristic with us, when in fact he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. OS's as we know them now are here to stay, they have too many advantages to be thrown away.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike almost any product you buy you have no say in how much you pay for it. With a movie for example, you have many choices, you can see it in the evening during its first run at 8, 9, or 10 bucks a ticket, you can see it during the day at cheaper rates, you can see it later when it's on the "cheap screens", or you can wait and rent (or buy) it on tape or DVD. And then you have many choices of theaters, rental stores, etc. where to spend your money. All of these represent different levels of quality, ownership, and price. Similarly, for a book, you can choose to buy the hardback or wait for the paperback, or buy it used. You can buy it at the little mom & pop bookstore, or you can buy it at the megastore (like borders), or you can buy it in the supermarket (if they have it), or you can buy it online. In short, there are many different qualities of product that you can purchase from many different outlets. Television is completely different. Firstly, you cannot buy it directly (HBO and suchlike excluded). Second, you cannot "buy" it from different outlets. Third, you cannot buy different versions of it. Perhaps one could say that syndication represents a different product quality, but it's not really applicable in my opinion because syndicated episodes aren't run as "reruns" in the "original quality" product (it would be like a publisher removing the hardback version of a book from sale when the paperback comes out, although in the case of television it's often worse because most syndicated episodes are slightly edited to make room for more commercials). In short we the buyers and consumers of television have essentially no say in the television market. It is not a free market and consequently we are forced to accept whatever products they choose to sell us at whatever "prices" they choose to sell them for. It is a system that has produced healthy profits for commercial television though so they are loath to change the system.
I find it interesting that anyone would describe not viewing the commercials in a TV show as "stealing" television. Nobody ever signed a contract with the television channel stipulating that they would recieve programs in exchange for watching commercials and buying an appropriate amount of the products advertised. That is in essence how "free" TV channels pay for content, but we, the viewers, are not active participants in that contract. If we choose not to watch commercials that is not our problem. Perhaps in the long run it means that the show's producers will need to find a new business model, but it does not mean that we are legally, or morally I would say, obligated to watch commercial advertisements and buy those products advertised. I pay my money to watch HBO, I pay my money to rent and buy DVD movies, I pay my money to buy CDs, I pay my money to buy books, I never signed a contract with NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, or even the Discovery channel. If I choose to fast forward through commercials on taped programs on those channels, or to "surf" during commercials when watching the broadcast, or to use the bathroom or refil my drink or get a snack, that is my choice, it is up to them to figure out how to deal with it.
In the future the transformation of multimedia "broadcasting" will be even more profound. Right now everything is driven by the need for a substantial market and for a substantial profit margin. In the future there will be much more smaller niches available. Imagine every movie and every episode from every TV show being available for varying costs at your convenience. That is a substantial shift from today. For one, I predict you won't see quite as much crap as you do today. There won't be "channels" in a traditional sense, so media providers won't be forced to either "cut content down" or "add in filler" to make up a 24 hour day. Multimedia content providers and creators will be able to produce as much or as little content as they feel is necessary. Ultimately it will be a good thing for the television industry as well as it's viewers. But in the meantime we have to deal with outdated notions and people resistant to change. Those who resist the flow of change and the wishes of the populace do so at their peril. The future is coming, it's time to accept it and plan for it, not to deny it.
Yes, these people that call the genome project a "map to nowhere" are simply talking out their asses. They are not research scientists, they do not even keep up with the latest developments in genomic research. All they know is the little news blurbs they see on TV or on the net. And somehow they think that gives them enough information to be informed in that area. Guess what? It does not. Genetic and genomic research is a hot commodity these days, and it is generating more than just "stupid maps with no use", it is already allowing us to understand all aspects of life on a new level. We have learned and will continue to learn a great deal about evolution, disease, inherited traits, and so much more from genetic research. It is right here right now paying profitable dividends in science and understanding and medicine (and yes, business as well).
I like a lot of Microsoft's products. I use Windows 2k as my workstation OS. I like Internet Explorer, I like Office, I like Visual Studio, etc. Hell, I've even paid cold hard cash for some of these products (heh). Increasingly though I look at Microsoft's new products I keep hearing that little voice inside my head saying "uhhh, I hate to point this out but the old version was better". I prefer Office 97 to Office 2000, Windows 98 SE to Windows ME, etc. And Windows / Office XP are looking less and less like products I want to upgrade to. There are tons of things that annoy the crap out of me about Windows 2000 right now (for example, the whole ASPI fiasco) but all these new products from Microsoft look like they will simply increase the number of things that annoy me, and not increase one whit the things that please me.
Also, I find it interesting that MS spent plenty of time making sure their anti-piracy system will work for Win XP but they didn't have enough extra programmers to integrate USB 2.0 (which has been highly hyped for well over a year now).
I heard from a friend (and I haven't confirmed this by the way) that someone (IIRC AT&T, might be wrong) bought a small DSL provider recently, except, they didn't take on any of their customers. Just dumped 'em, all. Wasn't worth all the support headaches to deal with them I guess. It's a cruel world.
Uhhhh no, as another person has pointed out, this sets your default security zone for Outlook (or OE as well) to "Restricted" and sets up that zone to not run any scripts whatsoever. If you have IE's default zone set to "Restricted" and you have it set to run scripts then you fucked up. All of the other security zones are unaffected, and your default security zone for your browser can still be whatever you choose it to be.
so reading email from an attacker (opening attachments not necessary) also gives them full access to your machine.
... > set to "Restricted Sites" then click "custom level..." ... disable all scripting and active X shtuff.
Not everyone uses Outlook to read their email. If you do. Tools > Options.... > Security > Zone Settings
Poof, done. Now you should be safe.
Big whoop. We already have some pretty fat honkin' pipes. The real hold up and cost is not the fiber or the fiber's capabilities, it's the machines at the ends of the fiber. Certainly, when laying fiber you want to lay the best fiber you can for future needs. But even now most fiber is enormously underutilized. Most high speed connections (faster than oh about OC-3) currently requires multiple computers to handle the bandwidth. And it takes even more equipment to bridge between the fiber and all the other networks (most of which use different protocols). That is where the major setup and operations costs are. The nature of the situation has resulted in the fastest connections (OC-128 or OC-256) being limited to only a smattering of locations. We would be far better off if the equipment to use these connections was much streamlined and lower cost. That would result in many more high speed connections and a much faster and much more robust internet.
Very very cool.
Ya know, this battle of wits between the DVD CCA / MPAA and the hackers of the world is not going particularly well for the corporate interests.
If I want to write a script, I'll do it in whatever language is convenient. Maybe sh, more likely Perl. If I want to use an interactive shell I'll use whichever one I find is more convenient.
Come on you cannot deny that it owns! (prepares to get modded down =)
You really have to get a better sense of the scale and the class of these things. Sure, Oracle 8 and MySQL are both RDBMSs, but that's not really a useful categorization. It's like saying that a Ford Taurus and a 100 ton dump truck are both automobiles. If you are just visiting the store to buy groceries, then the Taurus is the way to go and the truck is massive overkill. If you are hauling low grade ore out of a strip mine, then you'll realize quickly the Taurus is a "sub optimal solution".
Gotta use the right tool for the problem, simple as that.
I really have to disagree with you there. First off, even for very intelligent and motivated individuals it can take a long time to "get a clue". Second, compare installation procedures with apt and rpm with windows (for example, using install shield or some such). It's really no comparison, the windows installer is much more straightforward and simpler to use. GNU/Linux still suffers from the "disease" of being designed for the technologically elite and the already extremely clue inclined. I don't fault gnu/linux for this, it's a great OS and it has numerous great applications. But in this modern push to transform gnu/linux into the next great generic workstation / desktop OS it is an incredibly disadvantage and these problems have still not been fully addressed and ameliorated, though the situation certainly is improving.
I shouldn't have to have a trancendental understanding of every nook and cranny of my system to install a simple piece of software. Similarly, I should not be forced to know the exact specifications for the "black box" fuel injection control electronics on my car if all I want to do is drive it someplace or change a tire or the oil or open the trunk or the moon roof. Linux is a tool, not a toy. It should be optimized for being used as a tool and not optimized for being used as some sort of technological play ground. Some of us need to do serious work and we don't want to have to play around with your cumbersome systems created because you like to answer arcane configuration questions and you have nothing better to do than spend all day installing one piece of software.
Gotta agree with ya there. In my experience the attitude has been more "if it ain't broke don't fix it" than "upgrade party this weekend! (as always)". In fact, most of the time you have to go out of the way to conciously say "uhhh, yeah we've put of upgrading such and such for too long" because the version they have been using is so moldy and stale that it has finally started to become a problem. Any place that has done a significant upgrade (and has any brains) learns really quickly that upgrades are a time and resource and productivity hog and that you really need a good justification for them.
I'd like to see what happens when RIAA tries to "lay the smack down" on all the major ISPs (who, unlike Napster and to a larger extent OpenNap server owners actually have money and clout).
Now, if they modify the posts or do something wacky with them (like embed advertisements in them as deja.com was doing for a while) that's a whole different kettle of copyright law.
First, slashdot is not a payed service, ya gets what ya pays for. Nor is it a public utility. Second, slashdot itself doesn't do the smacking down of the trolls, that is done by the community at large (moderators). Third, anyone can browse at -1 to see all the crap. Fourth, do you honestly believe that the trolls really deserve to be heard?
However, the main disadvantage of any one time pad based system (despite it's great cryptographic strength) is that the key (or pad) requires itself some amount of physical security. In contrast a system like RSA is much different because it is not even remotely symmetrical (encryption vs. decryption) and you can send out your public key for all to see and to use but still only you (with your private key) can decrypt what has been encrypted with the public key.
Personally, I don't see this new development as anything special, we already have methods of using extremely high security encryption where it's needed (spying and whatnot) and for other applications that require more convenience and can have more cpu power put behind them the systems we have now are really more than adequate (assuming your using the right systems, not all the systems in use now are cryptographically secure in any resonable sense, but we know which ones those are).
It may not take that much either, it may just take technology. What you thought was a standalone functional piece of hardware actually (tada, magic) morphs into a service that requires constant software updates to function properly and will deactivate if it doesn't have the newest software.
Please don't tell me what are and are not "valid uses" for my computer / operating system. If I want to send and receive email, browse the web, chat on IRC, play games, or balance my checkbook that's my business and if you try telling me it's not then I'll make you bleed.
You may go back to your little "serious linux" nazi meeting now. Run along child.
Also, don't think about MRAM replacing your RAM, think about it replacing your hard drive.
For example, catalogs. Catalogs cost money to make and to ship yet they are the primary way for people to see and order from your business. Web based stores are similar. It costs money to maintain a web site, but you've got to do it right. Few mail order companies charge for their catalogs and catalogs rarely have advertisements, they make their money from orders. They can be profitable because all they have to do is have a warehouse full of products, a good system (and a few employees) to fulfil orders, a small support staff, and produce a catalog. Of course, it's important that you have something worthwile to sell and you manage your business correctly, but it's a strategy that works. Being in the e-commerce business I know tons of small and medium sized business that make good money selling stuff on the internet in essentially the same manner a catalog business (aka mail order / telephone order business). Amazon.com would be making money right now if they weren't leveraging their income and investment capital to grow.
For businesses that don't sell products or services directly they will need to think of ways to make money. They should look to how other companies do it. Advertisements are one answer but they need to be executed well. We know that banner advertisements are not very effective, I think some people need to look at what advertising techniques are effective in other media and which ones are effective on the internet (or perhaps there are new techniques for the internet). Very little research (or indeed effort) has gone into such a critically important area.
And, of course, there is always the subscription model which has worked well in the past and should in the future (if done right). People will pay money if you provide them with something they like. We already pay a good chunk of money just for getting online so I guess we must think there is something worth laying cold hard cash down for online. And, I believe, that will be a much better way to go.
Keep in mind though that this world wide web thing is still fairly new and it still has plenty of growing up to do. The Jet engine wasn't invented until many decades after the first powered flight, and commercial air travel didn't really take off until almost half a century of flying. Similarly, it was decades before good quality roadways, highways, and even automobiles existed after the first "horseless carriage" was invented. Same thing goes for the telephone, it was ages after it's invention before most homes had one. I don't think it will take quite that long for the internet to become firmly entrenched (or more so anyway) in our lives and our commerce but it will take time for it to reach the level of other inventions that have been around for many generations.
First off, there is one major misunderstanding at play here that I need to correct. Saying that the "dot-coms failed" is blatantly incorrect. The internet is the first truely new frontier we've had in a long time and I think a lot of people don't know their history about frontiers, development, and speculative investment. The first problem this caused was a huge speculative bubble when everyone and their mother was under the mistaken impression that the internet was pure gold on a platter for anyone willing to take advantage of it. The second problem this caused is (when the speculative bubble burst, as they always do) the prolification of all the naysayers who don't think the internet is worth a damn anymore. The truth of the matter is in between these extremes. Yes the internet is a great thing, for education, entertainment, and commerce. However, it doesn't mean that it's like a huge free pile of gold, it will take just as much hard work and determination to make money (or do anything of serious importance) on the internet as it takes to do make money or do anything of importance outside of the internet. And yes, there will be lots of failed businesses. This is to be expected. Look into the history of the railroad. In the early days it was frought with incompatible standards, rampant speculation, inflated stock prices, stock price collapses, investment scams, and failed businesses. And yet it was still an amazing achievement and an amazing opportunity for investment and it radically changed the world.
If you look at most of the failed internet dot-com startups you will see that they all follow a similar pattern. A possible "good idea" gets a large amount (millions) of venture capital. The company rapidly expands its workforce to be a "real company" with offices, servers, employees, etc. The company positively hemorrhages money, including money spent on commercials (*cough*superbowl 2000*cough*) to increase publicity and hopefully to rapidly (perhaps that should be explosively rapidly) expand their customer base. Lacking a business plan, existing customers, income, a long term strategy, or even a good operations plan (in combination with the fact that their attempt at publicity doesn't result in hordes of new customers) the company runs out of venture capital rapidly (gee I wonder where the money went) and they are forced to shut down in less than a year.
As any crack addicted disease addled senile monkey could tell you, that is not a good way to run a business. And there's no reason to believe (and in fact now we have ample reason to disbelieve) that there is something special about the internet that allows people to have a poorly managed company yet still make gobs of money. If you're going to make money on the internet (or anywhere) you need to 1) have a sound business plan, 2) expect (and plan for) reality not meeting with your expectations 3) keep costs low for as long as you can 4) build an existing customer base 5) build your service or production base (i.e. know wtf you are doing and continue to improve how you do it) 6) get a solid revenue stream 7) wait until you get firmly on your feet before reaching for the next level 8) make a plan for growth 9) plan for the worst 10) don't expect for (or plan for) that huge growth to come right away, it could, but it's more likely it will come later and when you least expect it, plan to keep up your "growing strategy" for a while, I would suggest something around 2 years being a good time frame. All of that is sound business advice. I don't know how people could think that a poorly thought out idea combined with pouring millions of dollars down a rat hole and then expecting that your business will grow at a mind boggling rate and expect to make all your startup capital back in 6 months or even a year is beyond me. And, apropos to the subject at hand, absurdly bad business strategy is not the fault of all us technogeeks.
Internet business is not dead, it is alive and thriving, and now it's all the better that the flock has been clensed of the weak and diseased.
I happen to like the fact that I have a huge monsterous piece of complexity between me and my programs. It lets me do those shockingly amazing things like avoid crashing the whole computer and having to reboot when one program crashes, or being able to run multiple programs at the same time, or having that universal buffer between my hardware and software, or being able to have one consistent mechanism for resource utilization and sharing.
I'm sure good ol' Mr. Raskin thinks he's being all deep and futuristic with us, when in fact he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. OS's as we know them now are here to stay, they have too many advantages to be thrown away.