Also, covering three or four letter domains with ad bait is pretty cheap, effective (people are likely to accidentaly visit your site), and profitable. Once you get into the domain (no pun intended) of forty character domain names, blanketing the spectrum to catch typos and other mispoints of the browser gets exponentially more expensive, less effective, and a loss.
While I understand your ire, I do believe the Microsoft Certified Professional--being the title of a certification--is a proper noun. Proper nouns in my book need not mean what their constituent words mean. My name means "King of Kings," but I hardly live by that dictum literally. I take it as a proper noun.
In either case, I also find software development to be a profession. Anytime one requires learning and skill to create solutions to problems, one is a professional. Contrast this with the unskilled, unlearned, sometimes rote nature of trades.
Of course there is a grey area in between. Does a bus driver use skill to solve problems--sure they do. Do doctors sometimes perform unskilled repetitive tasks--sure they do. I use a rule of thumb that states "if the outcome of the service being rendered affects the clients life to the level at which they will seek out a service provider in which to put their trust and the service provider is personally responsible for the results, the service provider is a professional."
Is a 10-year old who can pass a test a professional? Well, maybe. Certainly one can not rule it out off hand. I would think certainly a budding one.
Oh, and MSCE is not the same as MCP. I believe she has the MCP and not the MSCE as you do. I don't know what the difference between the two are, but they are listed as seperate certifications on Microsoft's web site.
I think the title would be more accurate as "Longhorn to provide the facilities for content providers to require monitor-based DRM". From what I've read, I hardly believe that the OS will not install unless the hardware is present. The summary does a better job, but the title is just sensationalistic.
If you think that providing the option of DRM for content providers who choose to use it is "pro-criminal", then perhaps you should start the fight with the concept of American capitalism. I agree that their research would result is something anti-consumer, but that's hardly pro-criminal. The system is broken, and like any corporate entity is expected to do in this kind of system, they want to make as much money as they possibly can within the confines of the system. Change the system, and DRM become unappealing. That's where we take the fight.
It doesn't have to be the UN. The UN is just there already. I imagine something more like ITU. Hell, I'd be happy with ICANN so long as the board membership reflects the true demographics of the world rather than the US corporate elite.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of an international body to see after the infrastructure. They would:
1) Provide a mechanism for addressing and accessing computer across borders. This means structuring DNS, etc. Ensuring standards (like TCP/IP) are upheld. 2) Perhaps provide a mechanism for filtering content across your borders if you so wish, so China may do its thing if they want, and the US can do its thing if they want.
That's all. In no way would a government in say Germany have say over the content posted on a US site. In fact, instead of going after the Googles or Yahoos of the world to make sure their laws are enforced, they can go to the international organization to get help setting up filters for things they want filtered.
I don't see this as anything more than a way for different nations to get along with information availability.
Regardless of what you or I think about a country's laws on say Nazi memorabilia (for they have their own very personal reasons for it I'm sure), they have the right to have those laws, and an international organization might help them enforce it on their citizens without stomping on the rights of other countries citizens.
Now, if you disagree with how some governments treat their citizens (those dictatorships you are so afraid of taking over the internet on *our* soil), that's fine. I disagree with many of them too and find their actions horrific. Getting an international organization set up to permit cross border and fair communication is not the way to fight them. It's not like we're asking each country in the world to vote on standards of censorship for the entire world, we're asking the body that assigns IP addresses to be of shared governorship with all internet users, rather than a subset.
Well, we can own TCP/IP sure, but to be fare, lets give up HTTP. I mean Switzerland is not the US. It was developed to *not* share information, so why should we use it to do so?
ARGHH. Sorry, I'm just for the fact that the world contributing to a project has led to the Internet to be what it is today. I think if we were to go your route, the Internet should have stayed in the US military because once you remove the ability of research institutions around the world from sharing knowledge leading to the greater good of humankind, all that's left is spam, web advertising, IM, and rubbish. We have plenty of equivalent things outside the net so why add to it?
So you propose we cut the international routing? We should then because they're not the only ones who benefit from being able to access our networks. In fact, Vonage should start charging less since they can no longer offer international long distance. Companies should start charging more, since now they can't tunnel over cheap international connections and each and everyone will need to build their own private network, or rent one for a hefty price. Forget projects like Wikipedia that benefit from contributions from around the world. Let's have Americans writing the articles about Germany politics rather than a well educated German who's familiar with the system and lived in it. In fact, forget the rest of the world. Screw 'em. We're the world!
You draw the line at infrastructures to which multiple world players have invested and from which multiple world players have benefitted. Like air traffic, telephones, satellites, seafaring, and the Internet. Those are the types of things that need a global body to regulate (with the say of the member states). Private business can be resolved the way it is now, subsidiaries which exist around the globe and are resposible for the local laws and act as abassadors to the foreign lands.
I think this is a good thing, so I suppose I'm frightfully stupid. Perhaps it's that stupidity that tells me that when the global community has say over an infrastructure, then it will flourish, whereas when a single country controls it it will be used to oppress the Have-nots while empowering the Haves. The ITU has done a wonderful job of making the telephone a viable communication medium for the world. Without such an organization, you have individual country laws that conflict with other laws in other countries. There needs to be a body to resolve such disputes diplomatically. The less chances that state governments get to take foreign companies to court to enforce their laws, the better the economy for those companies. It sucks having to keep track of dozens of different laws around the world to run a web service.
I guess that's the same way citizens of countries other than the US feel. Why should they have an organization they did not elect setting the rules for them?
Are you going to say next that because you disagree with your political oposition that the US government should impose strict membership rules so that people you disagree with don't get a vote? I mean, the US allows some really deranged people to vote, usually for choices that bother me to no end, but I respect the fact that in a democracy, they have a right to speak just as I. The UN is modelled on that prinicple too.
I guess that's just my point. Most likely the fact that Intel spends their time optimizing for their architecture, the AMD issues are artifacts of that approach. If, however, it were shown that they intentionally sabbotaged the AMD compilation for say benchmark comparisions or somesuch, they deserve all the wrath the industry can dish out to them. There is no excuse for such unethical engineering in my book.
Sorry about the rant--again. I'm going to stop now and go look for security vulnurabilities in our code now to keep me occupied and get me to stop ranting.
Sorry about the rant. I guess I really just mean that there are bigger fish to fry than some individuals that write some code that exploits a vulnurability which could be avoided by smart IT managers in companies that ended up lossing potential profit. It's a combination of the worm/virus writer *and* a companies inability to properly design its networks and servers. Sure the writer shares some responisibilty--but death!? Why must we treat economic production as the end all and be all of Good and doing anything that might lower that production the end all and be all of Evil?
I agree. We're all in the same boat in the end, we all should take responisbilty for our actions. If companies and their shareholders get to say 'mea culpa' and get away with heinous crimes, how can we vouch for harsher penalties for 'hackers' who usually cause an inconvenience. Argh does it bug me if 'billions of lost *potential* economic activity' is treated as something god awful whereas Enron got away with shutting down powerplants in CA just to create shortage so it can jack its prices hundreds of percent. Yes, yes, some people at Enron got punished, but there really has been little outrage over the traders who called the plant managers and said "can you please shutdown for three to four hours, we need to make more money?" Argh!
I am not sure how the law sees--or will see--this, but I'll outline my opinion.
Intel have a unique intimate knowledge of their architecture. Their brightest software engineers can no doubt design a compiler that produces binaries that take advantage of the peculiars of their architecture. Intel need not spend resources on optimizing for their competitors products. The binaries might run slower on an AMD processor as a binary optimized for one architecture might perform worse than an unoptimized binary for another architecture under some circumstances.
In my opinion that is not a predatory practice. What irks me about what AMD claims--if it is verified--is that Intel have put special effort into producing slower or intentionally buggy (!) code for AMD architectures while keeping their nice and tightly optimized code for their architecture. If this is true, Intel deserves unbridled wrath from the industry.
It could come out that really the first case is true, that a highly optimized binary for an Intel architecture just runs poorly on an AMD architecture, in which case AMD owes Intel a big apology for that claim. Only time will tell.
Wow. Mod parent up. This is a good explination of the clever engineering done to get backwards compatibility and long filenames working on the same box. As the parent says, as people migrate all their applications to support long filenames, this kind of behavior will become less common. It's a small price to pay to get the best of both worlds.
I am not sure what the legal system would do in this case, but I feel that judging an entity on behavior one *thinks* might have happened if the circumstances were right is just morally wrong.
Perhaps using past evidenced behavior to predict future behavior would be okay in my book for some very limited cases (e.g. convicted murderer killed ten people in the same manner and was caught at step n-1 on an eleveth person, past behavior might warrent a conviction just short of an eleventh murder as harsh as we can muster). But to judge a past act that might be posited because of future acts, that's just wrong. (e.g. this person killed ten people from 1985 to 1990, and there's someone with an allegation from 1982, we must assume he planned to kill them).
This made no sense on paper, sorry. My point is yes, there is doubt on how MS would have behaved in their early years. We don't really know and shouldn't assume things even given how they acted post that time.
"could be implemented" does not imply that that implementation is the most usable for the long term. Perhaps spending some time to design and provide a richer query interface would be worth the effort. Perhaps with keeping an eye for future expansion with pluggable meta-data descriptors, etc. A good meta-data implementation that's flexible, fast, and easy to use is not a trivial feature, even if a bare-bones workable prototype is.
"So really, how are we going to fill the ultra-experienced positions in the future if we don't hire people into entry level type positions today?"
We're not. Where the entry-level positions are is where the future cutting edge will occur. Since the entry-level possitions are not here, it's safe to say that the future looks grim. Then again, I think that's what everyone else sees when they point out that we should be looking to fix this problem now rather than wait for the oppertunity to pass us by. Unfortunetely the economic system of the USA is set up such that short term profits always trump long term planning.
I was really responding to the statement "...it comes bundled with Windows, and won't switch to Linux or Mac OS X when they find out that they cannot have all the features, (personalised photos, winks etc.)that the all their friends have with the Windows version".
In general though, I agree with you, the reason to switch must be compelling enough or the bundled solution horrid enough, otherwise, the bundling works wonders into getting adoption number to make a peddler giving out free cars blush.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, covering three or four letter domains with ad bait is pretty cheap, effective (people are likely to accidentaly visit your site), and profitable. Once you get into the domain (no pun intended) of forty character domain names, blanketing the spectrum to catch typos and other mispoints of the browser gets exponentially more expensive, less effective, and a loss.
Google has conterpart technologies to certain MSN technologies. They are indeed competitors, even if not in every product segment.
While I understand your ire, I do believe the Microsoft Certified Professional--being the title of a certification--is a proper noun. Proper nouns in my book need not mean what their constituent words mean. My name means "King of Kings," but I hardly live by that dictum literally. I take it as a proper noun.
In either case, I also find software development to be a profession. Anytime one requires learning and skill to create solutions to problems, one is a professional. Contrast this with the unskilled, unlearned, sometimes rote nature of trades.
Of course there is a grey area in between. Does a bus driver use skill to solve problems--sure they do. Do doctors sometimes perform unskilled repetitive tasks--sure they do. I use a rule of thumb that states "if the outcome of the service being rendered affects the clients life to the level at which they will seek out a service provider in which to put their trust and the service provider is personally responsible for the results, the service provider is a professional."
Is a 10-year old who can pass a test a professional? Well, maybe. Certainly one can not rule it out off hand. I would think certainly a budding one.
Oh, and MSCE is not the same as MCP. I believe she has the MCP and not the MSCE as you do. I don't know what the difference between the two are, but they are listed as seperate certifications on Microsoft's web site.
I think the title would be more accurate as "Longhorn to provide the facilities for content providers to require monitor-based DRM". From what I've read, I hardly believe that the OS will not install unless the hardware is present. The summary does a better job, but the title is just sensationalistic.
If you think that providing the option of DRM for content providers who choose to use it is "pro-criminal", then perhaps you should start the fight with the concept of American capitalism. I agree that their research would result is something anti-consumer, but that's hardly pro-criminal. The system is broken, and like any corporate entity is expected to do in this kind of system, they want to make as much money as they possibly can within the confines of the system. Change the system, and DRM become unappealing. That's where we take the fight.
It doesn't have to be the UN. The UN is just there already. I imagine something more like ITU. Hell, I'd be happy with ICANN so long as the board membership reflects the true demographics of the world rather than the US corporate elite.
Also, that post above was meant as sarcasm.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of an international body to see after the infrastructure. They would:
1) Provide a mechanism for addressing and accessing computer across borders. This means structuring DNS, etc. Ensuring standards (like TCP/IP) are upheld.
2) Perhaps provide a mechanism for filtering content across your borders if you so wish, so China may do its thing if they want, and the US can do its thing if they want.
That's all. In no way would a government in say Germany have say over the content posted on a US site. In fact, instead of going after the Googles or Yahoos of the world to make sure their laws are enforced, they can go to the international organization to get help setting up filters for things they want filtered.
I don't see this as anything more than a way for different nations to get along with information availability.
Regardless of what you or I think about a country's laws on say Nazi memorabilia (for they have their own very personal reasons for it I'm sure), they have the right to have those laws, and an international organization might help them enforce it on their citizens without stomping on the rights of other countries citizens.
Now, if you disagree with how some governments treat their citizens (those dictatorships you are so afraid of taking over the internet on *our* soil), that's fine. I disagree with many of them too and find their actions horrific. Getting an international organization set up to permit cross border and fair communication is not the way to fight them. It's not like we're asking each country in the world to vote on standards of censorship for the entire world, we're asking the body that assigns IP addresses to be of shared governorship with all internet users, rather than a subset.
Well, we can own TCP/IP sure, but to be fare, lets give up HTTP. I mean Switzerland is not the US. It was developed to *not* share information, so why should we use it to do so?
ARGHH. Sorry, I'm just for the fact that the world contributing to a project has led to the Internet to be what it is today. I think if we were to go your route, the Internet should have stayed in the US military because once you remove the ability of research institutions around the world from sharing knowledge leading to the greater good of humankind, all that's left is spam, web advertising, IM, and rubbish. We have plenty of equivalent things outside the net so why add to it?
So you propose we cut the international routing? We should then because they're not the only ones who benefit from being able to access our networks. In fact, Vonage should start charging less since they can no longer offer international long distance. Companies should start charging more, since now they can't tunnel over cheap international connections and each and everyone will need to build their own private network, or rent one for a hefty price. Forget projects like Wikipedia that benefit from contributions from around the world. Let's have Americans writing the articles about Germany politics rather than a well educated German who's familiar with the system and lived in it. In fact, forget the rest of the world. Screw 'em. We're the world!
You draw the line at infrastructures to which multiple world players have invested and from which multiple world players have benefitted. Like air traffic, telephones, satellites, seafaring, and the Internet. Those are the types of things that need a global body to regulate (with the say of the member states). Private business can be resolved the way it is now, subsidiaries which exist around the globe and are resposible for the local laws and act as abassadors to the foreign lands.
I think this is a good thing, so I suppose I'm frightfully stupid. Perhaps it's that stupidity that tells me that when the global community has say over an infrastructure, then it will flourish, whereas when a single country controls it it will be used to oppress the Have-nots while empowering the Haves. The ITU has done a wonderful job of making the telephone a viable communication medium for the world. Without such an organization, you have individual country laws that conflict with other laws in other countries. There needs to be a body to resolve such disputes diplomatically. The less chances that state governments get to take foreign companies to court to enforce their laws, the better the economy for those companies. It sucks having to keep track of dozens of different laws around the world to run a web service.
I don't mind being stupid.
I guess that's the same way citizens of countries other than the US feel. Why should they have an organization they did not elect setting the rules for them?
Are you going to say next that because you disagree with your political oposition that the US government should impose strict membership rules so that people you disagree with don't get a vote? I mean, the US allows some really deranged people to vote, usually for choices that bother me to no end, but I respect the fact that in a democracy, they have a right to speak just as I. The UN is modelled on that prinicple too.
I guess that's just my point. Most likely the fact that Intel spends their time optimizing for their architecture, the AMD issues are artifacts of that approach. If, however, it were shown that they intentionally sabbotaged the AMD compilation for say benchmark comparisions or somesuch, they deserve all the wrath the industry can dish out to them. There is no excuse for such unethical engineering in my book.
Sorry about the rant--again. I'm going to stop now and go look for security vulnurabilities in our code now to keep me occupied and get me to stop ranting.
Sorry about the rant. I guess I really just mean that there are bigger fish to fry than some individuals that write some code that exploits a vulnurability which could be avoided by smart IT managers in companies that ended up lossing potential profit. It's a combination of the worm/virus writer *and* a companies inability to properly design its networks and servers. Sure the writer shares some responisibilty--but death!? Why must we treat economic production as the end all and be all of Good and doing anything that might lower that production the end all and be all of Evil?
I agree. We're all in the same boat in the end, we all should take responisbilty for our actions. If companies and their shareholders get to say 'mea culpa' and get away with heinous crimes, how can we vouch for harsher penalties for 'hackers' who usually cause an inconvenience. Argh does it bug me if 'billions of lost *potential* economic activity' is treated as something god awful whereas Enron got away with shutting down powerplants in CA just to create shortage so it can jack its prices hundreds of percent. Yes, yes, some people at Enron got punished, but there really has been little outrage over the traders who called the plant managers and said "can you please shutdown for three to four hours, we need to make more money?" Argh!
I am not sure how the law sees--or will see--this, but I'll outline my opinion.
Intel have a unique intimate knowledge of their architecture. Their brightest software engineers can no doubt design a compiler that produces binaries that take advantage of the peculiars of their architecture. Intel need not spend resources on optimizing for their competitors products. The binaries might run slower on an AMD processor as a binary optimized for one architecture might perform worse than an unoptimized binary for another architecture under some circumstances.
In my opinion that is not a predatory practice. What irks me about what AMD claims--if it is verified--is that Intel have put special effort into producing slower or intentionally buggy (!) code for AMD architectures while keeping their nice and tightly optimized code for their architecture. If this is true, Intel deserves unbridled wrath from the industry.
It could come out that really the first case is true, that a highly optimized binary for an Intel architecture just runs poorly on an AMD architecture, in which case AMD owes Intel a big apology for that claim. Only time will tell.
Wow. Mod parent up. This is a good explination of the clever engineering done to get backwards compatibility and long filenames working on the same box. As the parent says, as people migrate all their applications to support long filenames, this kind of behavior will become less common. It's a small price to pay to get the best of both worlds.
"theoretically assembly language can solve anything"
Actually, assembly language can solve anything in practice.
"would have behaved"
I am not sure what the legal system would do in this case, but I feel that judging an entity on behavior one *thinks* might have happened if the circumstances were right is just morally wrong.
Perhaps using past evidenced behavior to predict future behavior would be okay in my book for some very limited cases (e.g. convicted murderer killed ten people in the same manner and was caught at step n-1 on an eleveth person, past behavior might warrent a conviction just short of an eleventh murder as harsh as we can muster). But to judge a past act that might be posited because of future acts, that's just wrong. (e.g. this person killed ten people from 1985 to 1990, and there's someone with an allegation from 1982, we must assume he planned to kill them).
This made no sense on paper, sorry. My point is yes, there is doubt on how MS would have behaved in their early years. We don't really know and shouldn't assume things even given how they acted post that time.
"could be implemented" does not imply that that implementation is the most usable for the long term. Perhaps spending some time to design and provide a richer query interface would be worth the effort. Perhaps with keeping an eye for future expansion with pluggable meta-data descriptors, etc. A good meta-data implementation that's flexible, fast, and easy to use is not a trivial feature, even if a bare-bones workable prototype is.
Just because an individual is a member of a group does not mean that all memebers of that group resemble that individual.
I don't know how you came to that math, I get:
16 bytes for the card number digits
4 bytes for the date digits
3 bytes for the security digits
= 23 bytes
Let's double that to 46 bytes for formatting characters, etc.
With 40,000,000 records (cards) of 46 bytes each, you get 1,840,000,000 bytes. That many bytes is 1.714 GB.
"So really, how are we going to fill the ultra-experienced positions in the future if we don't hire people into entry level type positions today?"
We're not. Where the entry-level positions are is where the future cutting edge will occur. Since the entry-level possitions are not here, it's safe to say that the future looks grim. Then again, I think that's what everyone else sees when they point out that we should be looking to fix this problem now rather than wait for the oppertunity to pass us by. Unfortunetely the economic system of the USA is set up such that short term profits always trump long term planning.
I was really responding to the statement "...it comes bundled with Windows, and won't switch to Linux or Mac OS X when they find out that they cannot have all the features, (personalised photos, winks etc.)that the all their friends have with the Windows version".
In general though, I agree with you, the reason to switch must be compelling enough or the bundled solution horrid enough, otherwise, the bundling works wonders into getting adoption number to make a peddler giving out free cars blush.