oh but i think it's a "hard problem" but not an unsolvable one.
When on a project that needed fairly basic "data store" capabilities, we wrote it, a C++ lib. Then, some basic searching capabilities were necessary, the API was expanded. Then, indexes were added for performance (larger API). Then persistance, serialization, RI. (we never touched replication, but it is again, solvable). Another layer for simple SQL was added later, including DDL. This was a higher level API.
Then it was wrapped in COM and exposed through SOAP, a high level API. Need ceased there, so programming did as well. Starting with simple set theory and working up to a database takes a lot of research anyway - but i contest it is possible.
I think what people forget is that to have "capabilities" of a relational database, one must partition the behaviors adequately. Performance may suffer in terms of footprint, stack hops, or sheer number of modules, but this is how ala carte API's work, to me. Compilation tricks could be performed for building it with certain capabilities, but then you're relying on the architecture you chose for construction.
It can be done, but since competition is rough (just read any flamewar on products), people would rather have a all the features optimized into a monolithic engine than a series of simple ones that perhaps were a bit more cumbersome.
Well, that seems a bit simplistic. However, when I take a look at running code, there are several things that don't jive with the article:
One forms logical boxes around things. For instance, a good cracker knows to identify the boundary between the JIT and the bytecode, know where the security check call is made, and what threads are monitoring the heap and garbage collector.
When cracking, you initially "freeze" the code, the machine, the stack, and the registers. You're working at such a low level, it begins with a step-by-step of understanding how everything fits together.
For example: Imagine the.NET framework itself in a sandbox. You watch as the OS is fed an EXE, it identifies the type and starts to run it. The CLR (potentially) starts up and checks permissions, loads all the JIT stuff, etc. Then, bytecode is churned. You are stepping one instruction at a time, interrupting at each of the CLR's instructions. One notices the buffer used for the JIT and the "feed" going into it. Tools are written that do this watching and drop items (portions of files, by instruction) into logical "components" and each pass becomes a little clearer. By running the application and matching behavior to component, you begin to learn how the application is designed.
Also, you look at the program file itself. THIS is what the article seems to be saying: the bytecode is obsfucated...without context clues you're not going to discern how it works. But you can snap up context many times with a cracking tool. In this article, they seem to imply that each snapshot will be different by scrambling the variable names, or program locations. By seeing how all the names have been crammed, a pattern develops.
Also, I take issue that.NET can be both "open" and yet "secure". Unless the bytecode SPEC is proprietary and unable to be reverse engineered (it is neither, hence the "open" nature of it), one can form a CLR that processes valid-yet-obsfucated code and rebuild a logical image of how the program is designed. I can take the MONO bytecode runtime have it start to partition the code into blocks and examine, for the calls each block makes to layer beneath it, what it is allegedly doing.
Lastly, what makes these tools immune from reverse-engineering themselves? If I know the patterns this DASH-stuff uses, I can begin to reverse them. Unless there's one-way hashing or hardward/networked keys flying around, everything to solve the puzzle is right there, for me and my friends to examine at our leisure. This is done today by virus writers to try to avoid detection by checkers; they know how they work.
If this tool becomes actually as valuable as he claims, then I expect it's own design (stolen or RE'd) to appear in the cracker circles like any other.
But perhaps I'm missing something?
C++ had its day
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
For many, this C derivative is still a daily living. Thats fine. It's powerful enough.
These days, most people approach C++ as a way to "write fast code" or they desired to get to a lower level of the machine. Or, they know C and want to learn all about OO programming. NO harm there either, although I question all these motives.
For the most part though, end-user applications have no need to run in C++. I know the typical exceptions are in gaming, image processing and system internals, but this is a small subset of commercial programming.
I think elementary programming skills can be taught in C++ (i've done it), but you have to peel away so much of the language, one might as well start from C anyway, and then explain OO, and then combine the two. However, the ancestry of the syntax hangs newbies too often.
These days, I think the same goals in being "practical" could be achieved with Java for the same (if not less) effort. Plus, one learns the concepts of Events, Interfaces and a more useful standard library.
I've cranked out over 100K of C++ (haha, not hard to do with low-density langs) but in the end, I wish it would have been a longer-lived system. Many of our framework pieces are now part of the standard Java libraries, and we would have saved quite a bit of time.
But I think it's time for new programmers to move on.
Unless people are actually dying at an alarming rate, no amount of evidence is going to change anything. The US is not focused on being "earth happy" is any way. Be superpower, stay superpower, alone. Through economic and military might now, but perhaps scientific or educational might on a better day.
However, until the Atlantic currents slow to a crawl and we have another Ice Age, we're going to have to just deal with freakish weather and high insurance premiums.
Size and Criteria are good, but...
on
Google's Bigger Index
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Too bad the article doesn't mention how google is trying to fight gaming the PageRank system or any of the other problems like commercials in the results. Still a great search tool though.
That's exactly what Comcast is wondering: Disney isn't just a movie studio, radio station, tv channel, theme park, touring ice skating show, toy brand, ocean cruise line, hotel chain, or marketing monster. It's all of these things.
Pixar doesn't have to beat any of these to be *more* successful than Disney : It merely has to have better ROI, better employee retention, more creative output, and freedom to break the Disney Oversight in all things they do publicly. This is what they suffered from.
Jobs is a smart man to break out now. The crowds will show up for 2 movies past a crap release (proof: Matrix) and Pixar has released blockbusters so far. The Point: Pixar is now a Name Brand.
No need to have foam-headed characters dance around a plaster castle giving out happy meals to sell this stuff; it's good all on its own.
i completely agree. extending the use of these proprietary formats and poorly-secured tools that revamp every 2 years is boo-ooo-ogus!
getting windows, or office, or anything from a prietary company to "run on" another OS doesn't open the format or software, it merely extends a dependence.
if IBM stated that they are licensing the Excel, Access, Word and other document formats for use in their software, including OpenOffice or such, then i'd be happier. but this doesn't seem quite towards that.
nice, second mod5 in the comments at the moment. but this theme gets kicked around every time the concept of blocking cell phones comes up: what about blocking emergency calls!?
look, owning a cell phone is not an entitlement to communication through it, anywhere, anytime. if your cell phone doesn't work, and you feel it's blocked because of one of these tools, AND you are having an emergency, do what prior tech solved in sucessive order : find a stranger to help, find a payphone, run and get help. it's that simple.
i've been in a few emergencies and having a cell phone may have gotten people there more quickly (moutaineering), but for the most part they are abused by scared newbies. i've waited immobilized for a few hours for the helicopters to arrive myself. anecdotes aside, i don't recall any evidence that more cell phone emergency calls are anything more than a conveinence. they don't really seem to make the difference between life and death. if they do, then relying on one is a foolish mistake akin to causing the accident in part.
i've not seen any court cases where people sued a cell phone provider because they did not work adequately in a time of emergency. on the contrary, during large emergencies, cell phone networks seem to be the first to overload.
Howabout a game that encourages cheating? Lag normalized, the constraints are the time you get to react to the incoming stream and build a response. Anything you can do with the incoming data is up to you. I know this gets away from "game" and more into code war, but that sounds more fun overall, especialyl if it lent itself to genetic algorithms. Eh, maybe I just miss Core Wars.
No, not really. If the pattern changed each time, or access-counts, no two sequences would be the same. Add in a larger set of sequences, with some salt, and you get something analogous to encryption, it seems.
Because "the browser is part of the Operating System, and cannot be removed". Microsoft deeply ingrained all things "browser" is a desparate move to avoid getting IE booted from the default install package during the anti-trust lawsuit. Silly enough, it can be rendered practically gone through a few simple file access tricks.
Remember, MS's OS is not like Kernel + layer + layer... its more of a giant monstrosity of "modules" which are interdependent.
True enough. He also takes many tours, interviews servicemen, and reads declassified info via the FIA. The information is there to organize and it only takes the effort (quite a bit of it i add).
From that concept, what is to prevent the minor details of our technology from the hands of terrorists? For example, the Yemen boat attack could have been guided by knowledge of where the ship's hull would be weaker, or where crew/fuel would be present.
In any case, I'm getting at this: If the information released in a disorganized manner about military capabilities, the US may not even know what is available to terrorists. It seems like a difficult problem to solve. Thus, we end up with crap like "be suspicious of people carrying an almanac" (WTF!).
Perhaps if the "war on terrorism" was to face the ideology behind anti-western sentiment, debate it publicly, acknowledge our past mistakes in foreign policy, and open a door for peace would we win over the populations that fuel terrorists organizations. Right now, we see too little of this strategy and too much of the military machine. I argue that we'll wear out our military chasing ghosts and then be an even more cynical country about our nation's leadership.
You shoulda seen our palms after trying to complete the Activision Decathalon on the Atari 2600. Bloddy mess! Or the sore thumbs from combo-attacks in the early fight games. Like two yams, I tell you!
I got over my ADD by having to wait for the tape to play the game into the C64. DungeonSomething took like 30 minutes. I treated that tape like the chalice in the Vatican. It slowly cranked while I shook like a drugged monkey watching it, screaming.
I learned the subtle differences in repetative images by playing Pitfall! I could time scorpion steps in my sleep.
When feeling lethargic, I put in Activision's Warlord. More epileptic-seizure-inducing flashes that a night at the Oscars. I think I'm still twitching.
They turn off all the 'automate EVERYTHING' approaches
OK, MS flopped on this, but browsers are one of the most complex pieces of software out there. More complex than DBMS's in externally-dictated requirements, and perhaps up there with an OS in terms of process management.
Now, that said, MS created a good browser, but not a *great* browser. The distinction (IMHO) is the open source quality level, but thats another post...
You can be assured that coming up in the next release/update of windows is a patch for this bug that surely cripples the performance of IE in some way. Also, look for more MS-specific behaviors to start to find a way into their IE browser/desktop/fileviewer. Verified/signed ActiveX/.NET objects are going to start flowing from ASPX servers - in the MS world. The browser will begin a long slow lockdown that appeals to corporate designers for internal apps. Then, banks and other high security sites will look to implement this.
I think IE is going to move towards the "platform of choice" for secure connections and application-based browsing, abandoning the everyman-tool it has been. There's just no other way to choose a market right now. Plus, once you win the servers, you can force the browsers. I know this sounds crazy, expecially since MS doesn't win easily on the server side, but their real home-user productivity tools are in Office, not IE. Summary: They simply don't have to care as much.
Do we not already have enough ways to communicate with people via the internet?
I mean, if Google is netting millions in their shiney new method, kudos. The FOAF-factor going on here is interesting, but I'm guessing this is going to be a wash-out into simple oblivion any day now, because FOAFs are interesting "Oh, you know monkeyspanker as well!?" but it doesn't carry that far.
If people are open to meeting online, then personals, chat, IRC, blogs, BBS's, Listservs, meetups, clans, MMPORGs, user groups, and the myriads of marketing based events (conventions, openings, book signings, political events) are already a enough? NO! We must also jump into this! well, there's plenty of chatheads to partition into little camps, so away it goes...
Holy cow, so now can I connect my Friendster people to my Orkut people? OH no! Bleed over! Suddenly, we've mapped a lot of spurious relationships. A buddy told me to sign into Friendster, so I did. I wrote a pithy opinion and never went back. At a certain point, it's akin to organizing your photos over and over.
This is true, there are a lot of ideas kicking about. You simply have to solve the problem. Try studying a discipline in IT and using that to improve a product. For example, postgres and mysql are DBMS's with a lot of room to grow. Learn the product, study the science, and build a better mousetrap. Nothing stops you from selling it, much as RH sells their version of Linux.
The same could be said for Linux admin-ware. Study all the packages, the admins out there, and form your own uber-dashboard.
There are tons of these add-on ideas kicking about. OSDN has quite a few, albeit mired in a lot of other projects. However, with people constantly throwing their effort against these concepts, the tools eventually mature. The key is not to reinvent the wheel, like you said, but to not even build on the ground, as it were. Build on top of existing products that people are buying and find lacking.
Hit a large-user-base commercial product and try it there perhaps. ACAD, Microstation, Renderman, SAP, PeopleSoft, Oracle, MS all have applications with APIs to plug into and expand. After the good idea, you're back to the article's best advice: Marketing is everything.
I write for Windows boxen all the time. I use MS's own site, where they host newgroups, BBSs, publish white papers, host sample code, and have entire ".NET channel" TV-like programs to suck bandwidth.
All in all, MS wants nobody to feel confused or threatened using their software, including admins. This means everything is hosted, or sysadmin'd by people who just get to the fact, no BS. So, your slashdot-like knockabout sites are elsewhere. There are lots of them (google Expert/Advice/Programming) in various flavors of competance.
Those thick books people layer on their desk are great now and then, but at ~$50 a pop, you may want to just register for an online book resource. Sorry, no link, but Books24x7 and stuff like that.
So if you want technial knowledge, MS shovels it out. Magazines, websites galore. If you're looking for general "science news" and the resultant BS chatter, then/. is your best choice. Sorry.
Personally I reconcile the two by not trying to change the world everywhere. My company pays me to do technical, and mostly interesting work. If it's on an MS box, an automotive-microcontroller, or just DSP math research in school, you're still in the tech world. So just put up with the flames and read/. for the fun of it. I won't tell anyone you're not a "real geek" if you don't bring it up;)
Funny enough, but listening to the single male Japanese example, and there's no inhaling. This seems easy to incorporate relative to the complexities of vocalizations, but what do i know. Also, the change from one vocal sound (YUUU) to another of a completely different mouth position (AAAH) seems too quick. And the L's still seem a little flat.
In the choruses, the notes suffer from a close harminzation that causes a space-like sound, common with machine-generated choruses. try comparing to some radio jingles... In normal choruses, close is good but too close sounds like a robot. This is the enchanting effect used by chanting monks to really resonate.
After letter it cycle a few times, I'm preferring these singers to actual voices. It's like getting the Moog element for free. There's quite a few songs I'd like redone with this tools.
It's got a long way to go, but it's an interesting stage of output.
That newspaper article is one of the most approachable versions of this saga I've seen in a long time. Hopefully, with more mainstream press, we can see the FUD factor affecting the rank-n-file investors. We need this to be picked up in the WSJ.
More than that. SCO must resolve their fight with Novell AND IBM before anyone is "legally obligated" to license their alledged IP. Simply because you are in court arguing a case doesn't allow you to assume you will win, and thus all others must treat you like that beforehand.
SCO not only fails to act according to this simple logic, they taunt "more legal action" which just prolongs the course of when their suposed IP would be verifed. So, theoretically after IBM were to lose, they sue their next customer, and the chain would be very slow. You can run concurrently, but I would move that they are all related.
Slashdot Mirror
oh but i think it's a "hard problem" but not an unsolvable one.
When on a project that needed fairly basic "data store" capabilities, we wrote it, a C++ lib. Then, some basic searching capabilities were necessary, the API was expanded. Then, indexes were added for performance (larger API). Then persistance, serialization, RI. (we never touched replication, but it is again, solvable). Another layer for simple SQL was added later, including DDL. This was a higher level API.
Then it was wrapped in COM and exposed through SOAP, a high level API. Need ceased there, so programming did as well. Starting with simple set theory and working up to a database takes a lot of research anyway - but i contest it is possible.
I think what people forget is that to have "capabilities" of a relational database, one must partition the behaviors adequately. Performance may suffer in terms of footprint, stack hops, or sheer number of modules, but this is how ala carte API's work, to me. Compilation tricks could be performed for building it with certain capabilities, but then you're relying on the architecture you chose for construction.
It can be done, but since competition is rough (just read any flamewar on products), people would rather have a all the features optimized into a monolithic engine than a series of simple ones that perhaps were a bit more cumbersome.
Well, that seems a bit simplistic. However, when I take a look at running code, there are several things that don't jive with the article:
.NET framework itself in a sandbox. You watch as the OS is fed an EXE, it identifies the type and starts to run it. The CLR (potentially) starts up and checks permissions, loads all the JIT stuff, etc. Then, bytecode is churned. You are stepping one instruction at a time, interrupting at each of the CLR's instructions. One notices the buffer used for the JIT and the "feed" going into it. Tools are written that do this watching and drop items (portions of files, by instruction) into logical "components" and each pass becomes a little clearer. By running the application and matching behavior to component, you begin to learn how the application is designed.
.NET can be both "open" and yet "secure". Unless the bytecode SPEC is proprietary and unable to be reverse engineered (it is neither, hence the "open" nature of it), one can form a CLR that processes valid-yet-obsfucated code and rebuild a logical image of how the program is designed. I can take the MONO bytecode runtime have it start to partition the code into blocks and examine, for the calls each block makes to layer beneath it, what it is allegedly doing.
One forms logical boxes around things. For instance, a good cracker knows to identify the boundary between the JIT and the bytecode, know where the security check call is made, and what threads are monitoring the heap and garbage collector.
When cracking, you initially "freeze" the code, the machine, the stack, and the registers. You're working at such a low level, it begins with a step-by-step of understanding how everything fits together.
For example: Imagine the
Also, you look at the program file itself. THIS is what the article seems to be saying: the bytecode is obsfucated...without context clues you're not going to discern how it works. But you can snap up context many times with a cracking tool. In this article, they seem to imply that each snapshot will be different by scrambling the variable names, or program locations. By seeing how all the names have been crammed, a pattern develops.
Also, I take issue that
Lastly, what makes these tools immune from reverse-engineering themselves? If I know the patterns this DASH-stuff uses, I can begin to reverse them. Unless there's one-way hashing or hardward/networked keys flying around, everything to solve the puzzle is right there, for me and my friends to examine at our leisure. This is done today by virus writers to try to avoid detection by checkers; they know how they work.
If this tool becomes actually as valuable as he claims, then I expect it's own design (stolen or RE'd) to appear in the cracker circles like any other.
But perhaps I'm missing something?
For many, this C derivative is still a daily living. Thats fine. It's powerful enough.
These days, most people approach C++ as a way to "write fast code" or they desired to get to a lower level of the machine. Or, they know C and want to learn all about OO programming. NO harm there either, although I question all these motives.
For the most part though, end-user applications have no need to run in C++. I know the typical exceptions are in gaming, image processing and system internals, but this is a small subset of commercial programming.
I think elementary programming skills can be taught in C++ (i've done it), but you have to peel away so much of the language, one might as well start from C anyway, and then explain OO, and then combine the two. However, the ancestry of the syntax hangs newbies too often.
These days, I think the same goals in being "practical" could be achieved with Java for the same (if not less) effort. Plus, one learns the concepts of Events, Interfaces and a more useful standard library.
I've cranked out over 100K of C++ (haha, not hard to do with low-density langs) but in the end, I wish it would have been a longer-lived system. Many of our framework pieces are now part of the standard Java libraries, and we would have saved quite a bit of time.
But I think it's time for new programmers to move on.
Unless people are actually dying at an alarming rate, no amount of evidence is going to change anything. The US is not focused on being "earth happy" is any way. Be superpower, stay superpower, alone. Through economic and military might now, but perhaps scientific or educational might on a better day.
However, until the Atlantic currents slow to a crawl and we have another Ice Age, we're going to have to just deal with freakish weather and high insurance premiums.
Too bad the article doesn't mention how google is trying to fight gaming the PageRank system or any of the other problems like commercials in the results. Still a great search tool though.
That's exactly what Comcast is wondering: Disney isn't just a movie studio, radio station, tv channel, theme park, touring ice skating show, toy brand, ocean cruise line, hotel chain, or marketing monster. It's all of these things.
Pixar doesn't have to beat any of these to be *more* successful than Disney : It merely has to have better ROI, better employee retention, more creative output, and freedom to break the Disney Oversight in all things they do publicly. This is what they suffered from.
Jobs is a smart man to break out now. The crowds will show up for 2 movies past a crap release (proof: Matrix) and Pixar has released blockbusters so far. The Point: Pixar is now a Name Brand.
No need to have foam-headed characters dance around a plaster castle giving out happy meals to sell this stuff; it's good all on its own.
On the other hand...
There IS no other hand, you insensitive clod! RTFA!
i completely agree. extending the use of these proprietary formats and poorly-secured tools that revamp every 2 years is boo-ooo-ogus!
getting windows, or office, or anything from a prietary company to "run on" another OS doesn't open the format or software, it merely extends a dependence.
if IBM stated that they are licensing the Excel, Access, Word and other document formats for use in their software, including OpenOffice or such, then i'd be happier. but this doesn't seem quite towards that.
nice, second mod5 in the comments at the moment. but this theme gets kicked around every time the concept of blocking cell phones comes up: what about blocking emergency calls!?
look, owning a cell phone is not an entitlement to communication through it, anywhere, anytime. if your cell phone doesn't work, and you feel it's blocked because of one of these tools, AND you are having an emergency, do what prior tech solved in sucessive order : find a stranger to help, find a payphone, run and get help. it's that simple.
i've been in a few emergencies and having a cell phone may have gotten people there more quickly (moutaineering), but for the most part they are abused by scared newbies. i've waited immobilized for a few hours for the helicopters to arrive myself. anecdotes aside, i don't recall any evidence that more cell phone emergency calls are anything more than a conveinence. they don't really seem to make the difference between life and death. if they do, then relying on one is a foolish mistake akin to causing the accident in part.
i've not seen any court cases where people sued a cell phone provider because they did not work adequately in a time of emergency. on the contrary, during large emergencies, cell phone networks seem to be the first to overload.
Howabout a game that encourages cheating? Lag normalized, the constraints are the time you get to react to the incoming stream and build a response. Anything you can do with the incoming data is up to you. I know this gets away from "game" and more into code war, but that sounds more fun overall, especialyl if it lent itself to genetic algorithms. Eh, maybe I just miss Core Wars.
No, not really. If the pattern changed each time, or access-counts, no two sequences would be the same. Add in a larger set of sequences, with some salt, and you get something analogous to encryption, it seems.
Until this evil dictator releases control of the innocent ice, we will continue to convert the ice to water for safe harbor
Because "the browser is part of the Operating System, and cannot be removed". Microsoft deeply ingrained all things "browser" is a desparate move to avoid getting IE booted from the default install package during the anti-trust lawsuit. Silly enough, it can be rendered practically gone through a few simple file access tricks.
Remember, MS's OS is not like Kernel + layer + layer... its more of a giant monstrosity of "modules" which are interdependent.
True enough. He also takes many tours, interviews servicemen, and reads declassified info via the FIA. The information is there to organize and it only takes the effort (quite a bit of it i add).
From that concept, what is to prevent the minor details of our technology from the hands of terrorists? For example, the Yemen boat attack could have been guided by knowledge of where the ship's hull would be weaker, or where crew/fuel would be present.
In any case, I'm getting at this: If the information released in a disorganized manner about military capabilities, the US may not even know what is available to terrorists. It seems like a difficult problem to solve. Thus, we end up with crap like "be suspicious of people carrying an almanac" (WTF!).
Perhaps if the "war on terrorism" was to face the ideology behind anti-western sentiment, debate it publicly, acknowledge our past mistakes in foreign policy, and open a door for peace would we win over the populations that fuel terrorists organizations. Right now, we see too little of this strategy and too much of the military machine. I argue that we'll wear out our military chasing ghosts and then be an even more cynical country about our nation's leadership.
eh, I'm OT.
How much did you get for your spelling book?
Blood clot!? Pshaw! Walk it off soldier.
You shoulda seen our palms after trying to complete the Activision Decathalon on the Atari 2600. Bloddy mess! Or the sore thumbs from combo-attacks in the early fight games. Like two yams, I tell you!
I got over my ADD by having to wait for the tape to play the game into the C64. DungeonSomething took like 30 minutes. I treated that tape like the chalice in the Vatican. It slowly cranked while I shook like a drugged monkey watching it, screaming.
I learned the subtle differences in repetative images by playing Pitfall! I could time scorpion steps in my sleep.
When feeling lethargic, I put in Activision's Warlord. More epileptic-seizure-inducing flashes that a night at the Oscars. I think I'm still twitching.
And we had NO pause buttons, wimps!
Sheesh, kids got it so easy these days.
They turn off all the 'automate EVERYTHING' approaches
OK, MS flopped on this, but browsers are one of the most complex pieces of software out there. More complex than DBMS's in externally-dictated requirements, and perhaps up there with an OS in terms of process management.
Now, that said, MS created a good browser, but not a *great* browser. The distinction (IMHO) is the open source quality level, but thats another post...
You can be assured that coming up in the next release/update of windows is a patch for this bug that surely cripples the performance of IE in some way. Also, look for more MS-specific behaviors to start to find a way into their IE browser/desktop/fileviewer. Verified/signed ActiveX/.NET objects are going to start flowing from ASPX servers - in the MS world. The browser will begin a long slow lockdown that appeals to corporate designers for internal apps. Then, banks and other high security sites will look to implement this.
I think IE is going to move towards the "platform of choice" for secure connections and application-based browsing, abandoning the everyman-tool it has been. There's just no other way to choose a market right now. Plus, once you win the servers, you can force the browsers. I know this sounds crazy, expecially since MS doesn't win easily on the server side, but their real home-user productivity tools are in Office, not IE. Summary: They simply don't have to care as much.
Do we not already have enough ways to communicate with people via the internet?
I mean, if Google is netting millions in their shiney new method, kudos. The FOAF-factor going on here is interesting, but I'm guessing this is going to be a wash-out into simple oblivion any day now, because FOAFs are interesting "Oh, you know monkeyspanker as well!?" but it doesn't carry that far.
If people are open to meeting online, then personals, chat, IRC, blogs, BBS's, Listservs, meetups, clans, MMPORGs, user groups, and the myriads of marketing based events (conventions, openings, book signings, political events) are already a enough? NO! We must also jump into this! well, there's plenty of chatheads to partition into little camps, so away it goes...
Holy cow, so now can I connect my Friendster people to my Orkut people? OH no! Bleed over! Suddenly, we've mapped a lot of spurious relationships. A buddy told me to sign into Friendster, so I did. I wrote a pithy opinion and never went back. At a certain point, it's akin to organizing your photos over and over.
This is true, there are a lot of ideas kicking about. You simply have to solve the problem. Try studying a discipline in IT and using that to improve a product. For example, postgres and mysql are DBMS's with a lot of room to grow. Learn the product, study the science, and build a better mousetrap. Nothing stops you from selling it, much as RH sells their version of Linux.
The same could be said for Linux admin-ware. Study all the packages, the admins out there, and form your own uber-dashboard.
There are tons of these add-on ideas kicking about. OSDN has quite a few, albeit mired in a lot of other projects. However, with people constantly throwing their effort against these concepts, the tools eventually mature. The key is not to reinvent the wheel, like you said, but to not even build on the ground, as it were. Build on top of existing products that people are buying and find lacking.
Hit a large-user-base commercial product and try it there perhaps. ACAD, Microstation, Renderman, SAP, PeopleSoft, Oracle, MS all have applications with APIs to plug into and expand. After the good idea, you're back to the article's best advice: Marketing is everything.
I write for Windows boxen all the time. I use MS's own site, where they host newgroups, BBSs, publish white papers, host sample code, and have entire ".NET channel" TV-like programs to suck bandwidth.
/. is your best choice. Sorry.
/. for the fun of it. I won't tell anyone you're not a "real geek" if you don't bring it up ;)
All in all, MS wants nobody to feel confused or threatened using their software, including admins. This means everything is hosted, or sysadmin'd by people who just get to the fact, no BS. So, your slashdot-like knockabout sites are elsewhere. There are lots of them (google Expert/Advice/Programming) in various flavors of competance.
Those thick books people layer on their desk are great now and then, but at ~$50 a pop, you may want to just register for an online book resource. Sorry, no link, but Books24x7 and stuff like that.
So if you want technial knowledge, MS shovels it out. Magazines, websites galore. If you're looking for general "science news" and the resultant BS chatter, then
Personally I reconcile the two by not trying to change the world everywhere. My company pays me to do technical, and mostly interesting work. If it's on an MS box, an automotive-microcontroller, or just DSP math research in school, you're still in the tech world. So just put up with the flames and read
Funny enough, but listening to the single male Japanese example, and there's no inhaling. This seems easy to incorporate relative to the complexities of vocalizations, but what do i know. Also, the change from one vocal sound (YUUU) to another of a completely different mouth position (AAAH) seems too quick. And the L's still seem a little flat.
In the choruses, the notes suffer from a close harminzation that causes a space-like sound, common with machine-generated choruses. try comparing to some radio jingles... In normal choruses, close is good but too close sounds like a robot. This is the enchanting effect used by chanting monks to really resonate.
Overall, I like it though. It's neat.
After letter it cycle a few times, I'm preferring these singers to actual voices. It's like getting the Moog element for free. There's quite a few songs I'd like redone with this tools.
It's got a long way to go, but it's an interesting stage of output.
That newspaper article is one of the most approachable versions of this saga I've seen in a long time. Hopefully, with more mainstream press, we can see the FUD factor affecting the rank-n-file investors. We need this to be picked up in the WSJ.
Ah...good exmaple. Very true.
More than that. SCO must resolve their fight with Novell AND IBM before anyone is "legally obligated" to license their alledged IP. Simply because you are in court arguing a case doesn't allow you to assume you will win, and thus all others must treat you like that beforehand.
SCO not only fails to act according to this simple logic, they taunt "more legal action" which just prolongs the course of when their suposed IP would be verifed. So, theoretically after IBM were to lose, they sue their next customer, and the chain would be very slow. You can run concurrently, but I would move that they are all related.