America seems to have had uneasy relationships with China. As somebody interested in world peace I'd like us to be freinds.
But as someone who is interested in space travel, I'd like to see those relationships remain uneasy.
Since the last landing on the moon, no person has gone further then Earth's orbit.
I'd love to see the Chinese put a colony on Mars so our Government would get off it's rear and see space as something more then a place to park satilites.
But I don't think King Graham et al. hold a candle to a good, solid 20-minute round of Quake III Team Arena (Capture The Flag mode).
I think it can. Those old games had something to them: writing.
Quake III is a compleatly differnet genre. There is no writing in it. The quality of game play relies almost entirily on the people you pick to play.
I don't play Quake III. Mostly, because I suck at multiplayer (and have never really enjoyed it), but I was really let down when I found out Quake III did'nt really have a game with a story line.
I loved Quake II. I felt a great sense of satisfaction when I beat the game. Quake III has no game to beat; it's never ending, and when broken down to it's key elements, all it basically consists of is a graphics and physics engine. To that end, the only real craftsmenship in most modern games is in technical tricks.
The older games had craftmanship in their stories; something we just don't see anymore.
Which is better? That's a matter of personal taste. Personally I'll take a good story over graphics any day.
And craftsmanship is, to me, key.
At present, I typically only play simulation games. One of my all time favorates is Sim City. As somebody who waisted a good deal of time in college playing Sim City 2000, I folowed the development of Sim City 3000 very closly.
I became worried when everything comming out of Maxis seemed to indicate the new version would have better graphics/more buildings/better interface. But nothing was said of game play.
I was heartfallen to discover after 20 or so hours of play with the new version that really nothing had been done to the simulation engine, and it seemed, under the auspicious of making the game more accessable to the new player, they had stunted the realism of the simulation.
The message sent was clear: Software developers today are more interested in making a game look pretty then givig it guts.
The really sad part is, the only game line I can think of that has real advances in every new release is the flight sim series distributed by Microsoft.
I've never sat down with a new release and been disapointed. When they put out a new edition, it's actually better. When I load up ms2k2, I never said 'oh I miss the wire frame world of version 2'.
For the same reason that many McDonalds' pay $6-$7/hour for unskilled labor in the US-- they have to pay that much to attract workers. If it were the case that only the moral outrage of consumers raised wages, then why doesn't McDonalds pay all of its (non-unionized) workers minimum wage?
You touched on something there, and you're exactly right. McDonalds must pay more then mininum wage because of a current tight labor market. But...
As industrialization progresses in the third world, corporations will have no choice but to provide higher wages and better conditions, because if they don't another corporation will lure away their best workers
How long is it going to take before the third world has that type of labor market. In China and India alone there are over 2 billion unskilled workers to utilize if we have unrestricted free trade. If I ran a company and was scouting out sites to build my factory, why on earth would I go somewhere where I would have to compete with another factory for labor?
I understand that in time, as the third world develops this will change. But how long will it take? How many US jobs have to be lost before we reach parity with the rest of the world?
While I'd like companies to have a "moral compass," it's not necessary to improve the lot of the poor. It certainly wasn't corporate generosity that led to the relatively high wages we have in the US.
No, it was'nt. It was the violent struggle of the workers and their unions that demanded to be paid more then they were worth in the domestic labor market. Instead they had this crazy idea that people should be treated and paid what they were worth as human beings instead of a good on a supply curve.
This change, this idea that people should be paid more then they are worth in a particular labor market gave us a few rocky points but ultimatly, I beleave, lead to America's unique prosperity.
Like any social scientist, an economist has trouble seeing the value something that runs contrary to their models.
Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with the rest of the world enjoying the same amount of economic prosperity as we have in the United States. I just don't want to see that prosperty be gained at the expense of our quality of life.
In addition, I feel uncomfortable with the idea that the developing world needs to have it's labor markets exploited by outside interests before they can build a strong enough economic infrastructure to become self sufficent.
Whenever we do this we interfere with any natural internal development of that country and cause all sorts of problems.
Sad, because as a general rule, despite all of our graphics and sound advances, todays games just don't have the greatness that could be found a decade ago in EGA.
I concede to you on most of your points. From a global standpoint the there is a net economic gain when production is shifted to places where they hold an absolute economic advantage.
At the end of the day when the ledgers are balenced, free trade does work out.
The problem, however, is in the details. In the free market, compaines will typically look for increased efficency within the labor pool. If a company wants to realize cost savings, they will cut wages or jobs, if they can. Or, they will simply move them somewhere else.
This presents a potential for danger. A ledger book does not reconize labor as human; only as a feature of production. That shirt may cost you a dollar less, but the people putting it together may also be working in inhuman conditions.
I understand the logic that as manufacuturing jobs move to the third world, the wealth created will eventually raise the standard of living in the forigen country. However, if our justification for that movement is based purly on economic advantage, whos to say that a third world nation opperating without a moral compas will re-invest that wealth into it's people?
What interest would it be to a U.S. company, other then appeasing vocal sympathetic US consumers, to see that the wealth they create abroad is distributed to that nations overall economy, espically since doing so would ultimatly raise the cost of labor there?
Another thing to consider is this: At present, the only real product America can create at an advantage is management and creativity. What happens when poor nations can produce an equilivent to a college educated middle manager who will work for 1/5th of an American? (Heck, at present many tech companies find importing software developers from overseas because they are cheaper... how long do you think it will take before software houses are simply exported entirely?).
In other words, openly embrasing the free market and free trade without any restraint or thought towards protecting fundemental US interests or considerations for basic human rights, while economically sound, does'nt help the average American Joe all that much.
We've already seen the America middle class becoming smaller and smaller over the last 40 years. It seems to me that a lot of that has to do with a strong decline in blue coller jobs (caused both by internal technological innovations and the export of jobs).
And while the average American can now afford a Car, VCR, and other assorted luxeries, what have we really gained? A family needs two incomes to enjoy these things. Most of the people I know work two jobs or a 60 hour work week.
--- Forgive the logic farts here. I'm infirmed and medicated at the moment.
Most of the workers who are displaced will likely find new jobs paying just as well, and they benefit from lower prices from all the other manufacturing jobs that got outsourced.
The problem is, that just does'nt happen. The American non and semi-skilled labor force is slowly being pushed into the service sector, which does not pay nearly as much as manufacturing.
While displaced workers may enjoy some lower prices on manufactured goods, they still face fixed costs in housing and food, which at the lower end of the economic spectrum mean a lot more then saving a few hundred bucks on a fancy new laptop.
but you're buying upgradeability that just isn't there in a Compaq, an IBM or a Dell.
I buy dells because they are upgradable. The desktop machines all pretty much use standard PC architecture (no propritary crap or soidered on chips like the junk Compaq puts out).
As for laptops, It can be a bit hard to find upgrades for some no name clone. I used to have one, and when I tried to put new memory in it, I discovered nobody made it. At least with a company like Dell I know I can get parts from either Dell itself or a number of aftermarket suppliers.
There are lots of reasons not to buy a name brand, the number one being price, but upgradability is not one of them.
Of getting one of those add on guage clusters sitting on top of my monitor with a cpu tach, a hours guage (hours of CPU usage), and a temp guage.
I can finally get back at all those old folks I work with who scoff at me when I say that tweeking your computer is the same thing they did 30 years ago when they messed with their cars.
You're exactly right, and it's for that reason I don't think in the long run record companies really have to worry about mp3s.
I have a good bit of money invested in my home and car stereo. The first time I tried playing a burned CD made from mp3s, I was deeply, deeply disapointed.
The only real application I could see from something like this is to stream Internet radio. The quality is'nt that great, but a good stream is still on par with broadcast. Unfortunatly, I don't see any standard for choosing and selecting online stations.
In the meantime, if I really want to listen to audio from my computer on my home stereo, 50 feet of moderate quality RCA style cable running out from my sound card is a lot cheaper.
There are two elements to this: loss of revenue resulting from software failure due to poor design, and failure due to illegal activities.
Software is a tool. When you pay for software you have an expectation that the software will do it's job. If it fails to do it's job and results in loss of revenue because of it's poor design, then it seems clear that the company who designed the buggy software should share some of the liability.
On the other hand, when a security hole is found and exploited, the ensuing loss of revenue is the result of a criminal activity. Why should software companies be held liable for the actions of law breakers? (unless the software is implicitly designed as a security tool).
If I buy a new TV set and a week after I get home it doesn't work because of a defect in the manufacturing process, I expect the company who made the TV to make reparations. If it doesn't work because vandal kids broke into my apartment and smashed the screen with a baseball bat, I doubt it would be fair to file suit against Sony because they didn't make the screen with thick enough glass.
Of course, Microsoft shoots itself in the foot every it mentions 'secure' in it's marketing. By doing so, it implies that security is a feature of it's software, and in turn should bear legal liability of it's own security holes.
Personally, I'd like companies to make software that works. Microsoft should focus on making an operating system that doesn't crash. In turn, other companies should focus on making software that protects the operating system from criminals.
If anything should be done in the courts, some legislation that would force software companies to release source code to third parties in the business of security for review would be a good start.
Really, they do. Just say 'fuck you' to the entire industry.
Start new record companys that tell bands 'hey, we're not as flashy as the big guys, but at least we won't screw you'
Start new radio stations online that don't conform to the big business/crap model that oozes over the airwaves.
Basically just stand up and say 'you know what? The entire music industry just sucks.' and start over from scratch.
Lets ignore the screwed up radio situation and broadcast online. Lets ignore the repressive record distribution system and sell CDs online.
Why go to court? Why even bother with the industry. Let the record executives sit around with their Britney Spears and other assorted flavors of the day. Just ignore them.
Let the real artists use the net in earnest to try to make a living. Hey, if your in a band, why try to work hard to get a record contract, considering that even if you get a contract, there is a 90% chance you'll end up in more debt then when you started?
Just say fuck you. Leave them alone. Let the big businesses keep doing this crap that they do, let them fail. Don't try to play their game. Use the Net and whatever non industry channels you can find and try your darndest to succeed that way.
Hey, I've got broadband. If a good rock station is out there that plays GOOD music I've never heard of, I'll stream it, and if I really like something, I'll probably buy the CD.
Spam kicks fucking ass. I get mine in cases of 14 at Costco every week and I eat nothing but it execpt on fridays because it's LENT right now (sinners)
All of you who want to ban span can go suckle on my young, nubile pentil.
Whats worse is, none of my freinds belive how easy it is! I have to download music all the time on to my hard drive just to demonstrate to them how far this has gone.
I even have to listen to the songs I've downloaded all the time just to be sure these are in fact illegal songs.
I think I should ask the music industry to help me out with a few bucks so I can continue educating the general public about this.
Is how the article touches on corruption in the recording industry.
If a big deal was made about how record companies were not only exploitive, but participating in illegal activities, it would cut the legs out from under their arguments.
Payola and 'breakage' are just the tip of the iceberg. Lets hope a more credible news source picks this up and turns the big labels into the next Enron.
They arent stupid, they know we dominate the culture of the internet and our culture is about capitalism and greed, They want to improve their own economy not ours, so it makes sense for them to do what they are doing.
As you said, China is interested in developing it's economy, but the fear is'nt that the some Chinese upstart figures out a way to make a little scratch selling something the Westerners.
The fear is that Western ideas will flow into China. To the improverished, our lifestyle looks propserperous, happy, and wonderful. By the time they figure out it's plastic, fake, and generally unfullfilling it's too late.
When 600 million Chinese, 100 million japanese, 300 million indians, and 40-50 million africans get online, thats when the real online revolution will take place.
Revolution for whom? Us, or them?
It just seems that at best, open and cheap Internet access for Asia and Africa will have them devouring our culture, not the other way around.
It's not that our culture is so bad... wait, yes it is.
The danger here is confusing the business model of the software company (microsoft) and the liability against hacker attack.
Microsoft writes it's software in such a way beacuse it feels that's the best way to protect it's investment. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really.
The problem lies in Microsoft's monopolistic business tactics which prevent compitition, which such be put on a compleatly different table then security liability.
Going to the other side, lets say I purchased a registered copy of Eudora and implimented it in my company instead of Outlook, and people found a way to exploit it.
It bothers me that there is this mentality that software designers are responsible for including security in there products. If I buy a peice of software, I am paying for a peice of code that is designed to perform a specific task, not neccescarly for a peice of code that will protect me from illegal activities.
If I buy a car, I'm paying for transportation. It would seem silly to sue the manufacturer because somebody stole my car and I found out the locks on it were easy to pick.
I use Outlook as my mail program at work. I paid for it, and I expect it to be able to send and receive mail. If somebody illegally exploits that program to do malicious things, I don't blame Microsoft, I blame the person who wrote the virus.
On the other hand, I also own a virus scan program. This is a security measure I pay for. If my computer is attacked by a virus, I expect my virus scan program to detect it and remove it. After all, thats what I'm paying for.
Yet the mentality is, if somebody illegally affects my mail program, Microsoft is at fault. While the virus scanner, which I also pay for and keep updated, which failed to do it's task, remains blameless.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares if they aren't manned
I care. And i'm not alone.
Might start here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vgatrek
America seems to have had uneasy relationships with China. As somebody interested in world peace I'd like us to be freinds.
But as someone who is interested in space travel, I'd like to see those relationships remain uneasy.
Since the last landing on the moon, no person has gone further then Earth's orbit.
I'd love to see the Chinese put a colony on Mars so our Government would get off it's rear and see space as something more then a place to park satilites.
But I don't think King Graham et al. hold a candle to a good, solid 20-minute round of Quake III Team Arena (Capture The Flag mode).
I think it can. Those old games had something to them: writing.
Quake III is a compleatly differnet genre. There is no writing in it. The quality of game play relies almost entirily on the people you pick to play.
I don't play Quake III. Mostly, because I suck at multiplayer (and have never really enjoyed it), but I was really let down when I found out Quake III did'nt really have a game with a story line.
I loved Quake II. I felt a great sense of satisfaction when I beat the game. Quake III has no game to beat; it's never ending, and when broken down to it's key elements, all it basically consists of is a graphics and physics engine. To that end, the only real craftsmenship in most modern games is in technical tricks.
The older games had craftmanship in their stories; something we just don't see anymore.
Which is better? That's a matter of personal taste. Personally I'll take a good story over graphics any day.
And craftsmanship is, to me, key.
At present, I typically only play simulation games. One of my all time favorates is Sim City. As somebody who waisted a good deal of time in college playing Sim City 2000, I folowed the development of Sim City 3000 very closly.
I became worried when everything comming out of Maxis seemed to indicate the new version would have better graphics/more buildings/better interface. But nothing was said of game play.
I was heartfallen to discover after 20 or so hours of play with the new version that really nothing had been done to the simulation engine, and it seemed, under the auspicious of making the game more accessable to the new player, they had stunted the realism of the simulation.
The message sent was clear: Software developers today are more interested in making a game look pretty then givig it guts.
The really sad part is, the only game line I can think of that has real advances in every new release is the flight sim series distributed by Microsoft.
I've never sat down with a new release and been disapointed. When they put out a new edition, it's actually better. When I load up ms2k2, I never said 'oh I miss the wire frame world of version 2'.
For the same reason that many McDonalds' pay $6-$7/hour for unskilled labor in the US-- they have to pay that much to attract workers. If it were the case that only the moral outrage of consumers raised wages, then why doesn't McDonalds pay all of its (non-unionized) workers minimum wage?
You touched on something there, and you're exactly right. McDonalds must pay more then mininum wage because of a current tight labor market. But...
As industrialization progresses in the third world, corporations will have no choice but to provide higher wages and better conditions, because if they don't another corporation will lure away their best workers
How long is it going to take before the third world has that type of labor market. In China and India alone there are over 2 billion unskilled workers to utilize if we have unrestricted free trade. If I ran a company and was scouting out sites to build my factory, why on earth would I go somewhere where I would have to compete with another factory for labor?
I understand that in time, as the third world develops this will change. But how long will it take? How many US jobs have to be lost before we reach parity with the rest of the world?
While I'd like companies to have a "moral compass," it's not necessary to improve the lot of the poor. It certainly wasn't corporate generosity that led to the relatively high wages we have in the US.
No, it was'nt. It was the violent struggle of the workers and their unions that demanded to be paid more then they were worth in the domestic labor market. Instead they had this crazy idea that people should be treated and paid what they were worth as human beings instead of a good on a supply curve.
This change, this idea that people should be paid more then they are worth in a particular labor market gave us a few rocky points but ultimatly, I beleave, lead to America's unique prosperity.
Like any social scientist, an economist has trouble seeing the value something that runs contrary to their models.
Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with the rest of the world enjoying the same amount of economic prosperity as we have in the United States. I just don't want to see that prosperty be gained at the expense of our quality of life.
In addition, I feel uncomfortable with the idea that the developing world needs to have it's labor markets exploited by outside interests before they can build a strong enough economic infrastructure to become self sufficent.
Whenever we do this we interfere with any natural internal development of that country and cause all sorts of problems.
Excited because I love these games.
Sad, because as a general rule, despite all of our graphics and sound advances, todays games just don't have the greatness that could be found a decade ago in EGA.
I concede to you on most of your points. From a global standpoint the there is a net economic gain when production is shifted to places where they hold an absolute economic advantage.
At the end of the day when the ledgers are balenced, free trade does work out.
The problem, however, is in the details. In the free market, compaines will typically look for increased efficency within the labor pool. If a company wants to realize cost savings, they will cut wages or jobs, if they can. Or, they will simply move them somewhere else.
This presents a potential for danger. A ledger book does not reconize labor as human; only as a feature of production. That shirt may cost you a dollar less, but the people putting it together may also be working in inhuman conditions.
I understand the logic that as manufacuturing jobs move to the third world, the wealth created will eventually raise the standard of living in the forigen country. However, if our justification for that movement is based purly on economic advantage, whos to say that a third world nation opperating without a moral compas will re-invest that wealth into it's people?
What interest would it be to a U.S. company, other then appeasing vocal sympathetic US consumers, to see that the wealth they create abroad is distributed to that nations overall economy, espically since doing so would ultimatly raise the cost of labor there?
Another thing to consider is this: At present, the only real product America can create at an advantage is management and creativity. What happens when poor nations can produce an equilivent to a college educated middle manager who will work for 1/5th of an American? (Heck, at present many tech companies find importing software developers from overseas because they are cheaper... how long do you think it will take before software houses are simply exported entirely?).
In other words, openly embrasing the free market and free trade without any restraint or thought towards protecting fundemental US interests or considerations for basic human rights, while economically sound, does'nt help the average American Joe all that much.
We've already seen the America middle class becoming smaller and smaller over the last 40 years. It seems to me that a lot of that has to do with a strong decline in blue coller jobs (caused both by internal technological innovations and the export of jobs).
And while the average American can now afford a Car, VCR, and other assorted luxeries, what have we really gained? A family needs two incomes to enjoy these things. Most of the people I know work two jobs or a 60 hour work week.
---
Forgive the logic farts here. I'm infirmed and medicated at the moment.
Most of the workers who are displaced will likely find new jobs paying just as well, and they benefit from lower prices from all the other manufacturing jobs that got outsourced.
The problem is, that just does'nt happen. The American non and semi-skilled labor force is slowly being pushed into the service sector, which does not pay nearly as much as manufacturing.
While displaced workers may enjoy some lower prices on manufactured goods, they still face fixed costs in housing and food, which at the lower end of the economic spectrum mean a lot more then saving a few hundred bucks on a fancy new laptop.
but you're buying upgradeability that just isn't there in a Compaq, an IBM or a Dell.
I buy dells because they are upgradable. The desktop machines all pretty much use standard PC architecture (no propritary crap or soidered on chips like the junk Compaq puts out).
As for laptops, It can be a bit hard to find upgrades for some no name clone. I used to have one, and when I tried to put new memory in it, I discovered nobody made it. At least with a company like Dell I know I can get parts from either Dell itself or a number of aftermarket suppliers.
There are lots of reasons not to buy a name brand, the number one being price, but upgradability is not one of them.
I've never really played with the slash code or any of the filtering things, but is there a way to just filter out anything he writes?
Or do you have to pay for the subscription to get rid of Katz?
It's not that I don't care for people going deep into films, it's just painful when they are so off base and out of touch.
What's next? A Katz review of 'SuperTroopers' where he thinks it's a serious examination of police corruption?
Of getting one of those add on guage clusters sitting on top of my monitor with a cpu tach, a hours guage (hours of CPU usage), and a temp guage.
I can finally get back at all those old folks I work with who scoff at me when I say that tweeking your computer is the same thing they did 30 years ago when they messed with their cars.
You're exactly right, and it's for that reason I don't think in the long run record companies really have to worry about mp3s.
I have a good bit of money invested in my home and car stereo. The first time I tried playing a burned CD made from mp3s, I was deeply, deeply disapointed.
The only real application I could see from something like this is to stream Internet radio. The quality is'nt that great, but a good stream is still on par with broadcast. Unfortunatly, I don't see any standard for choosing and selecting online stations.
In the meantime, if I really want to listen to audio from my computer on my home stereo, 50 feet of moderate quality RCA style cable running out from my sound card is a lot cheaper.
There are two elements to this: loss of revenue resulting from software failure due to poor design, and failure due to illegal activities.
Software is a tool. When you pay for software you have an expectation that the software will do it's job. If it fails to do it's job and results in loss of revenue because of it's poor design, then it seems clear that the company who designed the buggy software should share some of the liability.
On the other hand, when a security hole is found and exploited, the ensuing loss of revenue is the result of a criminal activity. Why should software companies be held liable for the actions of law breakers? (unless the software is implicitly designed as a security tool).
If I buy a new TV set and a week after I get home it doesn't work because of a defect in the manufacturing process, I expect the company who made the TV to make reparations. If it doesn't work because vandal kids broke into my apartment and smashed the screen with a baseball bat, I doubt it would be fair to file suit against Sony because they didn't make the screen with thick enough glass.
Of course, Microsoft shoots itself in the foot every it mentions 'secure' in it's marketing. By doing so, it implies that security is a feature of it's software, and in turn should bear legal liability of it's own security holes.
Personally, I'd like companies to make software that works. Microsoft should focus on making an operating system that doesn't crash. In turn, other companies should focus on making software that protects the operating system from criminals.
If anything should be done in the courts, some legislation that would force software companies to release source code to third parties in the business of security for review would be a good start.
Really, they do. Just say 'fuck you' to the entire industry.
Start new record companys that tell bands 'hey, we're not as flashy as the big guys, but at least we won't screw you'
Start new radio stations online that don't conform to the big business/crap model that oozes over the airwaves.
Basically just stand up and say 'you know what? The entire music industry just sucks.' and start over from scratch.
Lets ignore the screwed up radio situation and broadcast online. Lets ignore the repressive record distribution system and sell CDs online.
Why go to court? Why even bother with the industry. Let the record executives sit around with their Britney Spears and other assorted flavors of the day. Just ignore them.
Let the real artists use the net in earnest to try to make a living. Hey, if your in a band, why try to work hard to get a record contract, considering that even if you get a contract, there is a 90% chance you'll end up in more debt then when you started?
Just say fuck you. Leave them alone. Let the big businesses keep doing this crap that they do, let them fail. Don't try to play their game. Use the Net and whatever non industry channels you can find and try your darndest to succeed that way.
Hey, I've got broadband. If a good rock station is out there that plays GOOD music I've never heard of, I'll stream it, and if I really like something, I'll probably buy the CD.
Seriously; what value added does Cartoon Network provide?
It's legal?
What the fuck is a matter with you all?
Spam kicks fucking ass. I get mine in cases of 14 at Costco every week and I eat nothing but it execpt on fridays because it's LENT right now (sinners)
All of you who want to ban span can go suckle on my young, nubile pentil.
Whats worse is, none of my freinds belive how easy it is! I have to download music all the time on to my hard drive just to demonstrate to them how far this has gone.
I even have to listen to the songs I've downloaded all the time just to be sure these are in fact illegal songs.
I think I should ask the music industry to help me out with a few bucks so I can continue educating the general public about this.
Is how the article touches on corruption in the recording industry.
If a big deal was made about how record companies were not only exploitive, but participating in illegal activities, it would cut the legs out from under their arguments.
Payola and 'breakage' are just the tip of the iceberg. Lets hope a more credible news source picks this up and turns the big labels into the next Enron.
They arent stupid, they know we dominate the culture of the internet and our culture is about capitalism and greed, They want to improve their own economy not ours, so it makes sense for them to do what they are doing.
As you said, China is interested in developing it's economy, but the fear is'nt that the some Chinese upstart figures out a way to make a little scratch selling something the Westerners.
The fear is that Western ideas will flow into China. To the improverished, our lifestyle looks propserperous, happy, and wonderful. By the time they figure out it's plastic, fake, and generally unfullfilling it's too late.
When 600 million Chinese, 100 million japanese, 300 million indians, and 40-50 million africans get online, thats when the real online revolution will take place.
Revolution for whom? Us, or them?
It just seems that at best, open and cheap Internet access for Asia and Africa will have them devouring our culture, not the other way around.
It's not that our culture is so bad... wait, yes it is.
The danger here is confusing the business model of the software company (microsoft) and the liability against hacker attack.
Microsoft writes it's software in such a way beacuse it feels that's the best way to protect it's investment. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really.
The problem lies in Microsoft's monopolistic business tactics which prevent compitition, which such be put on a compleatly different table then security liability.
Going to the other side, lets say I purchased a registered copy of Eudora and implimented it in my company instead of Outlook, and people found a way to exploit it.
Does that change things?
All in all, you end up with a max of 6 days, working perhaps 10 to 15 hours each day on the specific tasks, for a total of 90 hours
He's probably a consultant who's used to reporting hours in terms of billable time.
It bothers me that there is this mentality that software designers are responsible for including security in there products. If I buy a peice of software, I am paying for a peice of code that is designed to perform a specific task, not neccescarly for a peice of code that will protect me from illegal activities.
If I buy a car, I'm paying for transportation. It would seem silly to sue the manufacturer because somebody stole my car and I found out the locks on it were easy to pick.
I use Outlook as my mail program at work. I paid for it, and I expect it to be able to send and receive mail. If somebody illegally exploits that program to do malicious things, I don't blame Microsoft, I blame the person who wrote the virus.
On the other hand, I also own a virus scan program. This is a security measure I pay for. If my computer is attacked by a virus, I expect my virus scan program to detect it and remove it. After all, thats what I'm paying for.
Yet the mentality is, if somebody illegally affects my mail program, Microsoft is at fault. While the virus scanner, which I also pay for and keep updated, which failed to do it's task, remains blameless.
It's nuts.
Computers, by there nature, are reprogrammable, and designed as such. A VCR or DVD is not.
As soon as copy protection schemes are placed into a computer, somebody will find a way around them.
Which means they will spend more and more money trying to develop copy protection schemes, and pass the costs on to the legitimate users.
The legitimate users will turn to piracy, more out of spite then anything else.
1. As everyone knows, the WWW is the Internet.
2. Since the web runs using HTTP, http runs the Internet.
3. HTTP can't do everything the Internet can offer.
4. While there are other protocols out there (like ftp, p2p, telnet), only hackers and pirates use them, so they must be insecure.
5. Therefore, we must change http or the Internet is doomed.