After all, there is nothing to stop them from giving preferencial treatment to the other divisions of MS or something like that.
Actually, most proposals I've seen from the "break-them-up" camp have put forth mechanisms to do exactly that -- prevent the OS division from collaborating with the applications division(s). The applications division(s) would only be allowed the same access to OS information (APIs, etc.) that would be publicly available to other companies.
Naturally, the only way for this to work would be punitive fines if any illegal collaboration would be discovered.
Honestly, one of the main complaints about Microsoft has been the issue of the blurring of the line between OS and applications, leading the the dreaded DLL dependency problems, among other things. This type of breakup should actually improve the quality of Microsoft applications and the stability of the OS.
It probably wouldn't take long to see versions of Office for UNIX/*BSD/Linux systems because the new divisions will no longer have a direct interest in the OS business -- and they will have to be fiscally responsible for their own success or failure.
Why is a floppy drive a necessity? I can see some people using it to sneakernet small files around still, but with being able to boot off of CD-ROM for recovery, I can't think of anything else I'd use it for.
Gimme a USB/Firewire zip drive or a CD-RW and I'd be much happier. Hell, I'd rather just tansfer files via the network. My current laptop PC has a built-in CD and an external floppy -- because I use the CD far moe often than the floppy.
If not including the floppy saves $X for those who don't use it, great! If you do use it, isn't there a USB/Firewire floppy accessory?
A nuclear device isn't an armed "bomb" ready to explode on contact. It's a complex device that requires creating a critical mass of fissionable material under very controlled conditions.
Whacking the side of the warhead with a rocket isn't exactly a controlled condition...:)
Of course, that's a treaty with a country that no longer exists (the Soviet Union). As such, it's not exactly binding. The United States current public policy is to behave as if that treaty still is in force.
No offense intended, but why in the hell would you make a technology investment without thoroughly reading the tech sheets to make sure you were buying what you needed?
I mean, why bother having different brand names on anything? Which DVD player should I buy: RCA, Pioneer, Sony, Samsung,...? Without looking at the tech sheets, all I have is the general impression the company name gives me (from familiarity with other products by that comapny and/or reviews by other consumers). Oh, and never mind that each company makes several different models of player -- I have to look up the differences between them, too. And of course, there's no distinguishable pattern in model numbers between brands.
The difference is that SPAM isn't only a free-speech issue. Unlike unsolicted postal mail, there is a cost/burden on the receiver of unsolicted email. This goes back to the concept of "your rights end where mine begin" philosophy. Speech may be free, but you can't compel someone to listen -- and you especially can't compel someone to pay to listen...
I think we all could learn a little from this. we are infact united against the same enemy (microsoft).
Actually the true enemy is closed-source, bad software. If Microsoft started building good software and releasing it open source tomorrow, the war against bad software would still need to be fought. Only the battlefield would change.
I'm going to pass on the subject on whether or not any content system is actually useful. Suffice it to say, however, that the amount of information out there is staggering, making it hard to find what you're really after. For people who actually use the net for information (as opposed to those who just have fun surfing), they are going to want to take advantage of any good filtering mechanism that they can.
In the more "traditional" media outlets, we've had little to no choice as to what that filtering mechanism has been. Going to alternate sources (such as the internet!) has been an iffy exercise -- much more information available but without the same credibilty as the "safer" outlets. (Whether the credibility or lack thereof is actually deserved is a whole other topic...)
A system such as this allows people to choose who they trust to act as filters for them. The question comes down to who it is that you trust to make these descisions for you. There's a loss of personal freedom in ceding your though process to others, but a large gain in convenience.
Of course, a good filtering system should let you turn it off whenever you want...
--
Re:What's next after K8
on
K8 Details
·
· Score: 1
Good for running a Beo-woof cluster!
(Sorry... I just felt some strange, inexplicable need to make that bad pun...)
I remember that you used to be able to buy such a mix, called "gasohol". But it has gone out of style. No doubt the machinations of vested interests.
I don't know about vested interests (especially since at the time I lived in Indiana where 10% alcohol fuel was strongly encouraged thanks to the agricultural economy) but one of the reasons gasahol went out of fashion is that the alcohol had a tendency to eat away at the fuel line hoses...
I know this sounds wishy-washy, but it all depends on your mode of development. For a strict, heavily reviewed development cycle, such as a large amount of DoD work, you need to do as much of the work in the requirements analysis and architectural design as possible. This will minimize (though never erase) the number of "gotchas" down the road. This is very important with fixed-price contacts!:)
On the other hand, if you're doing more of a RAD style, the best advice I've ever heard is for each development mini-cycle, to "do the simplest thing that works, then refactor". Unfortunately, people love the first half of the advice but rarely remember to do the second half...:(
I just love the/. moderation system... a post with no real insight gets marked up as insightful simply because it's pro gun-control.
To counter:
This is one of the biggest pieces of BS used to justify gun ownership. I am no less "equal" to you if neither of us have guns than I am if both of us have guns.
You mis-represent what I said. It's a dangerous world and there are people out there who know how to use force and are unafraid to use it for their personal ends. You really think, for example, an average woman is "equal" to an average rapist when it comes to defending herself against an attack? Nonsense. (Not to mention that situation is even more skewed because the rapist typically has the luxury of choosing his target...)
And frankly, I would rather live in a society where I don't have to carry a lethal weapon in order to be safe.
So would I. It'd be real nice, wouldn't it?
Besides, what about children? Should they be packing semi-automatic weapons so that they can be "equal" to the guy who decides to shoot up their preschool? This is a strawman argument. No sensible person would advocate giving children too young to handle the responsibility tools that are that dangerous. (This is the same type of reasoning that puts minuimum ages on drivers.) But I am all in favor of having staff members at the school armed and capable of defending themselves and the students.
And what about the the blind, or people with other disabilities? Firearms hardly qualify as the great equalizer for them.
This is a good point. Firearms do not require great skill to use, but there are some minimal requirements. There will always be some people who are physically unable to use any tool.
No, the original poster was right on, your opinion of firearms notwithstanding.
The most important aspect of a firearm is that it is one of the great equalizers -- it doesn't take years of training or great physical skill to use it properly (especially at short range). In this sense, firearms help people defend themselves against aggressors they would otherwise be at a severe disadvantage against.
Guns are not used only for killing -- the primary use is as a deterrent by posing a potential lethal threat. (The difference is subtle but extremely important.) Some 97% or so of defensive handgun uses occur without a shot being fired (appx 2 million per year in the US).
I apologize for getting off-topic, but the previous author's fallacy couldn't be ignored...
It would give them a professional drawing package to include (or offer as an add-on) to "enterprise" or "professional" versions of Office.
I've used Visio on NT, and it already integrates nicely with Office apps via OLE/COM/whatever-the-hell-they're-calling-it-this- week. So it should be fairly easy for Microsoft to work it in under the Office umbrella.
And don't just restrict this to a standalone desktop issue, either. What I'd like to see (since it's what I need right now) is a distribution that specifically sets up only those services needed for a home/office internet gateway (and possibly SMB file and print server, too).
Most distributions should be geared specifically toward a specific usage profile -- very few distributions should be the "general purpose" setup for tweaking by experts. From a business standpoint, give the consumers a tool they can use easily -- turn-key solutions are what seem to be wanted by the general public (as opposed to the subset of people who like to tinker around with their systems).
Since the source is going to be distributed, a nice change would be to re-work the build process so that features could be included or excluded at compile-time. Or possibly even use a module-based system for adding and removing features after compilation...
Most users don't use anywhere near all of the features of an office suite. Some users need (or want) it all, at least for some of the suite applications. "Bloat" can be reduced by letting people customize their application to their needs.
In a lot of ways, this favors a Java-based intranet approach, as features used will only be loaded as needed. (A mixed method might have the basic features in a client executable and only load specialty modules from the network.) Of course, this approach requires a network with high throughput and low latency.
I BSD license spefically allows you to distribute any derived work any any license you choose. That could be Microsoft's EULA or the GPL or anything else. All copyright notices should be retained, however.
I would also like to point out that the "setting an example" method of enforcing laws has been proven to be ineffective. We legislated the death penalty.. and the murder rate didn't change. We took it away.. the murder rate didn't change.
Actually, that's not true. States that have the death penalty and that actually use it on a consistent basis have seen a shift away from violent crime. Oddly, the crime rate overall remains roughly the same, but property crimes increase while violent crimes decease...
Even better is an idea I had a few years ago, but didn't have the nerve to pitch to the banks...
Note that a credit card transaction (from the card holder's and bank's view) is simply a signature loan. The merchant only cares that the bank pays them the amount of the transaction. The credit card number is totally unneccesary to the merchant, then.
Ok... custuomer and merchant both use a public key system, with their public keys signed by a trusted entity (the bank itself or service like Verisign or Thawte). Using a standard format for the tranasaction details, both the customer and the merchant sign the transaction details with their secret keys. The doubly-signed transaction is sent to an automated system that identifies both parties by their public keys (on record) and performs the appropriate credit and debit and sends the authorization back to the merchant.
The best part is, this system works even with a non-encrypted connection, since no "useful" information (like a CC number) can be obtained from cracking the message even if it were encrypted.
Absolutely. And I hate the "only encrypt important items" mentality -- hasn't anyone ever heard of traffic analysis? A lot of information can be gained simply by observing who's talking to whom, when, and by what means...
Of course, Jake Lloyd's acting ability (or lack thereof) if TPM could be the fault of the director as much as the fault of the actor...
Honestly, there are a lot of actors who suck in one film and are good in the next -- sometimes it has to do with script and direction as well as acting ability.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, most proposals I've seen from the "break-them-up" camp have put forth mechanisms to do exactly that -- prevent the OS division from collaborating with the applications division(s). The applications division(s) would only be allowed the same access to OS information (APIs, etc.) that would be publicly available to other companies.
Naturally, the only way for this to work would be punitive fines if any illegal collaboration would be discovered.
Honestly, one of the main complaints about Microsoft has been the issue of the blurring of the line between OS and applications, leading the the dreaded DLL dependency problems, among other things. This type of breakup should actually improve the quality of Microsoft applications and the stability of the OS.
It probably wouldn't take long to see versions of Office for UNIX/*BSD/Linux systems because the new divisions will no longer have a direct interest in the OS business -- and they will have to be fiscally responsible for their own success or failure.
--
Why is a floppy drive a necessity? I can see some people using it to sneakernet small files around still, but with being able to boot off of CD-ROM for recovery, I can't think of anything else I'd use it for.
Gimme a USB/Firewire zip drive or a CD-RW and I'd be much happier. Hell, I'd rather just tansfer files via the network. My current laptop PC has a built-in CD and an external floppy -- because I use the CD far moe often than the floppy.
If not including the floppy saves $X for those who don't use it, great! If you do use it, isn't there a USB/Firewire floppy accessory?
--
Whacking the side of the warhead with a rocket isn't exactly a controlled condition... :)
--
--
Of course, that's a treaty with a country that no longer exists (the Soviet Union). As such, it's not exactly binding. The United States current public policy is to behave as if that treaty still is in force.
--
I mean, why bother having different brand names on anything? Which DVD player should I buy: RCA, Pioneer, Sony, Samsung, ...? Without looking at the tech sheets, all I have is the general impression the company name gives me (from familiarity with other products by that comapny and/or reviews by other consumers). Oh, and never mind that each company makes several different models of player -- I have to look up the differences between them, too. And of course, there's no distinguishable pattern in model numbers between brands.
--
--
--
Actually the true enemy is closed-source, bad software. If Microsoft started building good software and releasing it open source tomorrow, the war against bad software would still need to be fought. Only the battlefield would change.
--
In the more "traditional" media outlets, we've had little to no choice as to what that filtering mechanism has been. Going to alternate sources (such as the internet!) has been an iffy exercise -- much more information available but without the same credibilty as the "safer" outlets. (Whether the credibility or lack thereof is actually deserved is a whole other topic...)
A system such as this allows people to choose who they trust to act as filters for them. The question comes down to who it is that you trust to make these descisions for you. There's a loss of personal freedom in ceding your though process to others, but a large gain in convenience.
Of course, a good filtering system should let you turn it off whenever you want...
--
(Sorry... I just felt some strange, inexplicable need to make that bad pun...)
--
I don't know about vested interests (especially since at the time I lived in Indiana where 10% alcohol fuel was strongly encouraged thanks to the agricultural economy) but one of the reasons gasahol went out of fashion is that the alcohol had a tendency to eat away at the fuel line hoses...
--
On the other hand, if you're doing more of a RAD style, the best advice I've ever heard is for each development mini-cycle, to "do the simplest thing that works, then refactor". Unfortunately, people love the first half of the advice but rarely remember to do the second half... :(
--
To counter:
This is one of the biggest pieces of BS used to justify gun ownership. I am no less "equal" to you if neither of us have guns than I am if both of us have guns.
You mis-represent what I said. It's a dangerous world and there are people out there who know how to use force and are unafraid to use it for their personal ends. You really think, for example, an average woman is "equal" to an average rapist when it comes to defending herself against an attack? Nonsense. (Not to mention that situation is even more skewed because the rapist typically has the luxury of choosing his target...)
And frankly, I would rather live in a society where I don't have to carry a lethal weapon in order to be safe.
So would I. It'd be real nice, wouldn't it?
Besides, what about children? Should they be packing semi-automatic weapons so that they can be "equal" to the guy who decides to shoot up their preschool? This is a strawman argument. No sensible person would advocate giving children too young to handle the responsibility tools that are that dangerous. (This is the same type of reasoning that puts minuimum ages on drivers.) But I am all in favor of having staff members at the school armed and capable of defending themselves and the students.
And what about the the blind, or people with other disabilities? Firearms hardly qualify as the great equalizer for them.
This is a good point. Firearms do not require great skill to use, but there are some minimal requirements. There will always be some people who are physically unable to use any tool.
The most important aspect of a firearm is that it is one of the great equalizers -- it doesn't take years of training or great physical skill to use it properly (especially at short range). In this sense, firearms help people defend themselves against aggressors they would otherwise be at a severe disadvantage against.
Guns are not used only for killing -- the primary use is as a deterrent by posing a potential lethal threat. (The difference is subtle but extremely important.) Some 97% or so of defensive handgun uses occur without a shot being fired (appx 2 million per year in the US).
I apologize for getting off-topic, but the previous author's fallacy couldn't be ignored...
(Unlike the so-called beta releases from many other software companies, where "beta" really means "alpha" or "pre-alpha".)
I've used Visio on NT, and it already integrates nicely with Office apps via OLE/COM/whatever-the-hell-they're-calling-it-this- week. So it should be fairly easy for Microsoft to work it in under the Office umbrella.
Most distributions should be geared specifically toward a specific usage profile -- very few distributions should be the "general purpose" setup for tweaking by experts. From a business standpoint, give the consumers a tool they can use easily -- turn-key solutions are what seem to be wanted by the general public (as opposed to the subset of people who like to tinker around with their systems).
Most users don't use anywhere near all of the features of an office suite. Some users need (or want) it all, at least for some of the suite applications. "Bloat" can be reduced by letting people customize their application to their needs.
In a lot of ways, this favors a Java-based intranet approach, as features used will only be loaded as needed. (A mixed method might have the basic features in a client executable and only load specialty modules from the network.) Of course, this approach requires a network with high throughput and low latency.
Actually, that's not true. States that have the death penalty and that actually use it on a consistent basis have seen a shift away from violent crime. Oddly, the crime rate overall remains roughly the same, but property crimes increase while violent crimes decease...
Note that a credit card transaction (from the card holder's and bank's view) is simply a signature loan. The merchant only cares that the bank pays them the amount of the transaction. The credit card number is totally unneccesary to the merchant, then.
Ok... custuomer and merchant both use a public key system, with their public keys signed by a trusted entity (the bank itself or service like Verisign or Thawte). Using a standard format for the tranasaction details, both the customer and the merchant sign the transaction details with their secret keys. The doubly-signed transaction is sent to an automated system that identifies both parties by their public keys (on record) and performs the appropriate credit and debit and sends the authorization back to the merchant.
The best part is, this system works even with a non-encrypted connection, since no "useful" information (like a CC number) can be obtained from cracking the message even if it were encrypted.
Honestly, there are a lot of actors who suck in one film and are good in the next -- sometimes it has to do with script and direction as well as acting ability.