In a game of poker, you do not play the casino, but you play the other players. The casino makes money by taking a (small) percentage of the bet. While luck plays a factor, in the long run a good poker player comes out ahead.
I'd argue that is a near-impossible task. My background is in billing systems, so I'll give an example from that realm...
Our company makes billing systems that end up producing your telephone bill. Sounds simple, but the billing system alone clocked in at over 6 million lines of code. Then you have the other two big necessary systems: a CSR application (such as Siebel) and a provisioning system. Not to mention hundreds of smaller apps that feed/collect data from each application. You have no idea how complex the infrastructure can get!
But it's not just that complexity. In our billing system, a customer's account was important because we needed to know who to charge for each transaction. In a CSR application, they care about who to contact. In a provisioning app, they care about where the account is physically. This leads to a different approach to designing something as simple as the account structure in the database. It's not something that could be standardized because each application needs to look at the data differently.
There was some hope of standardization with middleware applications like Vitria, but what we found is that we'd spend insane amounts of time building code that translated our account between our billing system and some common model held by the middleware. The complexity didn't go away -- it got worse!
You won't ever see a standard vendor protocol. Not for lack of wanting one, but simply because it's impossible.
For an outsider looking in, perhaps it's easy to look at something like Google's 23-word front page and say "why can't they all be like that!" Too bad most systems need more than one form element to allow the user to interact with the system. Can you imagine someone telling Adobe to reduce their Photoshop interface down to one or two buttons? It would make no sense simply because editing a digital image is far more complex a process than 'search the web for these terms' to a user (though both may have similarly huge code bases behind them).
Complexity in IT isn't going to go away. In fact, I'd argue it is a necessity. There are some tasks that simply require complex systems and those complex systems require complex data and/or complex user interfaces.
Re:Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, et
on
GPL Revision Coming Soon
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can copyright your code (it is copyrighted automatically but paying the nominal fee to do so explicitly will help in any future legal hassles) and achieve the same effect. If Microsoft goes for a similar patent to one of yours, chances are they'll get it anyway. The number of conflicting patents is only going to grow as prior art searches become next-to-impossible and overly-broad patents keep getting granted.
Patents are very expensive to file, and if you want more than just a US patent you need to file in all the major countries (you are talking thousands of dollars in fees typically). If you use a lawyer to draft the patent (and you really need to) then your fees skyrocket.
By copyrighting your code explicitly you establish prior art should a similar patent ever get granted and a legal battle ensue.
The bloggers, obtaining through leaks partial, in some cases suspect snippets of information from the early "cut" of data gathered by MSM through exit polls, were spreading a story that the network and wire service bosses knew to be incorrect because their own experts - and their journalistic experience -- had warned them of the weaknesses in such data.
The only reason you didn't see the major news outlets doing the same (well, at least they showed some restraint *cough* foxnews *cough*) was because they all got their hands slapped during the 2000 elections doing just what the bloggers were doing during this one.
While I agree with your basic point, look at it from the other side; Joe Dirt is in posession of their "property" which they value at full price. If Joe wasn't willing to pay the $$$, he shouldn't have the benefit of listening/watching the content. If Joe stole a Ferarri he couldn't pay for, you wouldn't be pointing out that wouldn't have been able to $250,000, or that the value of the steel, aluminium, and paint is only $2,000.
I'm glad you put "property" in quotes, but the example you then go on to give still shows a lack of understanding. In order to even try to argue for the **AA's side, you cannot ever equate real property with intellectual property. That deserved some bold text because it is the #1 trap people fall into when debating this issue.
The reason your Ferrari example can't be used as an analogy is because a Ferrari is an example of real property. It's something that has a reproduction cost. To give a proper analogy, how would you feel if Joe paid the $2,000 for paint, steel, and aluminium and built himself a Ferrari? Would you still call him a thief? Could Ferrari still claim a loss as a result, and would you sympathise bad for them if they did?
Marginalizing those of us who have done our research on Diebold with your tinfoil hat references just serve to show how little you understand the risks posed by Diebold and their voting machines.
Let's list some facts about Diebold and their machines:
They have used uncertified code in prior elections and covered it up.
They told one of their developers to "Print 'System tests passed'" on bootup in lieu of actually performing any tests.
One of their main developers has a prior felony conviction.
Their database contains two sets of voting books. A secret key combination enables the hidden book and the machine will report on it.
etc, etc.
I've highlighted the really important bit. It's the giant pink elephant no media organization wanted to touch, and there's no logical explanation for it except to enable vote tampering.
People arguing for the use of voting machines seem to ignore all our warnings because they seem unable to grasp that any company/person would be capable of doing something like this. Once you get rid of that childish notion, you'll be buying your own roll of tinfoil mighty fast.
Since this is a bit of a free-for-all, I figured I'd bring up my story of a recent local election that serves to highlight just how stupid some voters can be and how you need a system to properly deal with them.
I went to vote for my mayor recently, and at the polling station was handed the voting sheet on which were listed the candidates for mayor along with an incomplete arrow beside each name (picture the middle third of an arrow missing). The way you vote is you simply complete the arrow that points to your choice. This was demonstrated to each person picking up the voting card. Even simpler than an 'X', right?
Well, the woman in front of me had her vote rejected by the scanning machine. For some reason she had drawn her own arrows on the form.
Thankfully, the scanning machine worked wonders to detect this spoiled ballot. She was given another ballot and another demonstration on how to vote. That's a pretty good voting system, imho. I just hope we don't have to hear about chads following tomorrow's election!
On its surface your comment was funny, but the problem is that this seems to be all that anyone can offer when asked "now that our jobs are gone, what do we do?"
The jobs that are leaving are high-skilled programming jobs that are probably filled by someone with a degree. What is that person to do? Go back to a community college like Bush suggests? Do these people have any idea what it would be like for those of us in our 30s, 40s, or 50s who would have to go back to school and start at the bottom again? Assuming there are even positions other than Walmart greeter that would be available.
This gov't is making a critcal mistake in equating software jobs with manufacturing jobs. A manufacturing job requires little training and provides no ladder to climb. A software job requires massive training (by comparison) and provides the worker with a background that lets them eventually lead the industry.
This viewpoint represents the naiveté of most people when it comes to programming and software engineering, and I'm not sure what the solution is. Let me be very clear, you cannot design a program (software engineering as you seem to call it) if you have never written code.
These junior programming positions you see going to India aren't "codemonkey positions". They're junior programming positions. Why is this important? Because junior programmers go on to become intermediate, then senior programmers. Then some of them go on to be project managers, other software architects, and other business analysts.
What happens when you cut the bottom rung out of this ladder? In 10 years, India will be full of very experienced managers, architects, and analysts. In the US though, most of those jobs will be gone much like the junior positions are leaving now.
Sure, if you want to install a pirate copy of Windows on a new PC, your only real choice is to order a PC with either no OS or one with a free OS (i.e. Linux). Since none of the big PC makers will even let you order a PC without an OS, guess which one you'll choose.
What an appropriate sig for your comment. The simple fact is that Java memory leaks are pretty common simply because not enough planning goes into coding. A proper UML diagram of an application can go a long way to highlighting possible memory leak situations.
If I made a similar service to filter out stories on copyright, but restricted my searching to the websites of RIAA and all the big hollywood studios, so you believe there would be a bias present in my summary service?
Simple fact is that if Google wanted to have this bias, they could do it very easily. Whether or not they do have this bias is up for question, but the story gives a good demonstration of how negative Google's results made Kerry look.
SCO has zero chance of winning. We know this, but more importantly, they know this too. This has always been the expected outcome. Thankfully the link between SCO and Microsoft has been established, admitted to, and documented, otherwise people like me would still be getting called "tinfoil hat idiots".
As long as this case exists, so does fear, uncertainty, and doubt towards linux. The longer they can stretch it out before a ruling, the better.
it is intended to allay the piracy and business concerns that prevent the studios from releasing films to cable pay-per-view services on the same day they appear on DVD. Such issues also have made premium cable networks reluctant to offer on-demand services that would allow subscribers to watch any episode of, say, ``Six Feet Under'' they choose, at any time.
What piracy concerns? DVDs are available for download the second they hit store shelves (or days before as is often the case). Having some movie on a Tivo isn't going to increase the level of piracy.
...more like, "We don't want everyone to see what we are doing."
Re:You hate it because you cant effectively argue
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 1
It is not a false analogy
No, it really is. Are you honestly going to try to argue that one can treat any OS as being equal when it comes to arguing security. Just because Linux and Windows are both operating systems does not allow you to argue that they therefore have the same security strengths/weaknesses.
The linux camp needs to get past the outdated idea that they are immune from security problems.
Where in my post do I claim Linux is immune? You could argue effectively so you decide to erect a pile of strawmen for me to argue now?
However, there IS an argument as to the merits of the design of one vs the design of the other, and how those design choices affect "security" (whatever you define security to be). However, the design differences do not lead to a self evident conclusion.
Again, very wrong. Linux is based on a UNIX OS design, one that assumes user groups and individual logins from the get-go. Windows is based on a single-user environment, where most applications won't even install correctly unless the user is root. This gives Linux a huge head start when it comes to security.
I think it is a perfectly reasonable argument to make that people looking to exploit systems, especially kiddies using tools, choose targets of common opportunity. You can disagree, but you need to prevent a valid disagreement, not just assert that Ballmers statement is incorrect because you want it to be.
Oh, thank you so much for specifying how I can reply to you. I'm honoured.
Finally, and not to be too much of a jerk, but what qualifications do you have regarding the design of secure operating systems? If you beleive that Windows would be more secure because of your input, and can back that up, Microsoft will be happy to pay you any amount of money you ask for to make it happen.
Jesus you are a giant tool. Where's your qualifications? Actually, never mind those, where is your common sense? If you want to claim Linux is as insecure (or more) than Windows, the onus is on you to prove this. There is no evidence for it now.
I really hate this argument
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 5, Informative
On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.
The way Linux is designed and the way Windows (especially with integrated IE) is designed are fundamentally different, and one (guess which) is by design more insecure.
Adelman thinks that we'll be waiting for the solution for a long time. Resolving the question of P and NP, he says, "would require new and brilliant ideas and not routine incremental progress. From my perspective, we are no nearer to solving the problem now that we were when bell-bottom pants were cool."
The whole thing is a bunch of alarmist speculation.
Except that Bush is against fetal stem cell research. This kind of stem cell research is supported by Bush. This case actually helps Bush's argument.
Actually, since this all happened in Germany, and not in the US, I think it is a pretty good case against Bush's stem cell "policy" (more like religious idiocy, imho).
My wife finished her undergrad genetics degree (at a Canadian university) a couple of years ago, and even then she noticed an increase in the number of people from the US coming up for grad studies, since the type of work they needed to do with stem cells just wasn't possible in the US.
Stem cell research is going to happen, with or without Bush. The only variable is the country in which it is going to happen, and right now it ain't the US.
We're having a bash at SCO for putting out unsubstantiated "facts". Could you provide me with some evidence that there is a connection between Microsft and SCO, and that it has some kind of primary or contributory responsibility for SCOs conduct?
It is now an undisputed fact that Microsoft was behind BayStar investing 50 million in SCO, and a BayStar manager has admitted that they made the investment based on the guidance of Microsoft. Microsoft also purchased SCO license(s) for Linux for an undisclosed sum (I'm assuming it was a bit more than $699).
Slashdot Mirror
I have to reply to your very incorrect post.
In a game of poker, you do not play the casino, but you play the other players. The casino makes money by taking a (small) percentage of the bet. While luck plays a factor, in the long run a good poker player comes out ahead.
I'd argue that is a near-impossible task. My background is in billing systems, so I'll give an example from that realm...
Our company makes billing systems that end up producing your telephone bill. Sounds simple, but the billing system alone clocked in at over 6 million lines of code. Then you have the other two big necessary systems: a CSR application (such as Siebel) and a provisioning system. Not to mention hundreds of smaller apps that feed/collect data from each application. You have no idea how complex the infrastructure can get!
But it's not just that complexity. In our billing system, a customer's account was important because we needed to know who to charge for each transaction. In a CSR application, they care about who to contact. In a provisioning app, they care about where the account is physically. This leads to a different approach to designing something as simple as the account structure in the database. It's not something that could be standardized because each application needs to look at the data differently.
There was some hope of standardization with middleware applications like Vitria, but what we found is that we'd spend insane amounts of time building code that translated our account between our billing system and some common model held by the middleware. The complexity didn't go away -- it got worse!
You won't ever see a standard vendor protocol. Not for lack of wanting one, but simply because it's impossible.
Complexity in IT isn't going to go away. In fact, I'd argue it is a necessity. There are some tasks that simply require complex systems and those complex systems require complex data and/or complex user interfaces.
Patents are very expensive to file, and if you want more than just a US patent you need to file in all the major countries (you are talking thousands of dollars in fees typically). If you use a lawyer to draft the patent (and you really need to) then your fees skyrocket.
By copyrighting your code explicitly you establish prior art should a similar patent ever get granted and a legal battle ensue.
The only reason you didn't see the major news outlets doing the same (well, at least they showed some restraint *cough* foxnews *cough*) was because they all got their hands slapped during the 2000 elections doing just what the bloggers were doing during this one.
I'm glad you put "property" in quotes, but the example you then go on to give still shows a lack of understanding. In order to even try to argue for the **AA's side, you cannot ever equate real property with intellectual property. That deserved some bold text because it is the #1 trap people fall into when debating this issue.
The reason your Ferrari example can't be used as an analogy is because a Ferrari is an example of real property. It's something that has a reproduction cost. To give a proper analogy, how would you feel if Joe paid the $2,000 for paint, steel, and aluminium and built himself a Ferrari? Would you still call him a thief? Could Ferrari still claim a loss as a result, and would you sympathise bad for them if they did?
Marginalizing those of us who have done our research on Diebold with your tinfoil hat references just serve to show how little you understand the risks posed by Diebold and their voting machines.
Let's list some facts about Diebold and their machines:
I've highlighted the really important bit. It's the giant pink elephant no media organization wanted to touch, and there's no logical explanation for it except to enable vote tampering.
People arguing for the use of voting machines seem to ignore all our warnings because they seem unable to grasp that any company/person would be capable of doing something like this. Once you get rid of that childish notion, you'll be buying your own roll of tinfoil mighty fast.
Since this is a bit of a free-for-all, I figured I'd bring up my story of a recent local election that serves to highlight just how stupid some voters can be and how you need a system to properly deal with them.
I went to vote for my mayor recently, and at the polling station was handed the voting sheet on which were listed the candidates for mayor along with an incomplete arrow beside each name (picture the middle third of an arrow missing). The way you vote is you simply complete the arrow that points to your choice. This was demonstrated to each person picking up the voting card. Even simpler than an 'X', right?
Well, the woman in front of me had her vote rejected by the scanning machine. For some reason she had drawn her own arrows on the form.
Thankfully, the scanning machine worked wonders to detect this spoiled ballot. She was given another ballot and another demonstration on how to vote. That's a pretty good voting system, imho. I just hope we don't have to hear about chads following tomorrow's election!
On its surface your comment was funny, but the problem is that this seems to be all that anyone can offer when asked "now that our jobs are gone, what do we do?"
The jobs that are leaving are high-skilled programming jobs that are probably filled by someone with a degree. What is that person to do? Go back to a community college like Bush suggests? Do these people have any idea what it would be like for those of us in our 30s, 40s, or 50s who would have to go back to school and start at the bottom again? Assuming there are even positions other than Walmart greeter that would be available.
This gov't is making a critcal mistake in equating software jobs with manufacturing jobs. A manufacturing job requires little training and provides no ladder to climb. A software job requires massive training (by comparison) and provides the worker with a background that lets them eventually lead the industry.
This viewpoint represents the naiveté of most people when it comes to programming and software engineering, and I'm not sure what the solution is. Let me be very clear, you cannot design a program (software engineering as you seem to call it) if you have never written code.
These junior programming positions you see going to India aren't "codemonkey positions". They're junior programming positions. Why is this important? Because junior programmers go on to become intermediate, then senior programmers. Then some of them go on to be project managers, other software architects, and other business analysts.
What happens when you cut the bottom rung out of this ladder? In 10 years, India will be full of very experienced managers, architects, and analysts. In the US though, most of those jobs will be gone much like the junior positions are leaving now.
I bet his busy sex life is keeping him from having the other two finished for us.
Sure, if you want to install a pirate copy of Windows on a new PC, your only real choice is to order a PC with either no OS or one with a free OS (i.e. Linux). Since none of the big PC makers will even let you order a PC without an OS, guess which one you'll choose.
This doesn't have anything to do with Linux.
What an appropriate sig for your comment. The simple fact is that Java memory leaks are pretty common simply because not enough planning goes into coding. A proper UML diagram of an application can go a long way to highlighting possible memory leak situations.
It still is a precident that can be sighted in cases outside this district. It is hardly a meaningless ruling.
If I made a similar service to filter out stories on copyright, but restricted my searching to the websites of RIAA and all the big hollywood studios, so you believe there would be a bias present in my summary service?
Simple fact is that if Google wanted to have this bias, they could do it very easily. Whether or not they do have this bias is up for question, but the story gives a good demonstration of how negative Google's results made Kerry look.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10
...and I'll say it again.
SCO has zero chance of winning. We know this, but more importantly, they know this too. This has always been the expected outcome. Thankfully the link between SCO and Microsoft has been established, admitted to, and documented, otherwise people like me would still be getting called "tinfoil hat idiots".
As long as this case exists, so does fear, uncertainty, and doubt towards linux. The longer they can stretch it out before a ruling, the better.
it is intended to allay the piracy and business concerns that prevent the studios from releasing films to cable pay-per-view services on the same day they appear on DVD. Such issues also have made premium cable networks reluctant to offer on-demand services that would allow subscribers to watch any episode of, say, ``Six Feet Under'' they choose, at any time.
What piracy concerns? DVDs are available for download the second they hit store shelves (or days before as is often the case). Having some movie on a Tivo isn't going to increase the level of piracy.
"Business concerns" my ass.
...more like, "We don't want everyone to see what we are doing."
It is not a false analogy
No, it really is. Are you honestly going to try to argue that one can treat any OS as being equal when it comes to arguing security. Just because Linux and Windows are both operating systems does not allow you to argue that they therefore have the same security strengths/weaknesses.
The linux camp needs to get past the outdated idea that they are immune from security problems.
Where in my post do I claim Linux is immune? You could argue effectively so you decide to erect a pile of strawmen for me to argue now?
However, there IS an argument as to the merits of the design of one vs the design of the other, and how those design choices affect "security" (whatever you define security to be). However, the design differences do not lead to a self evident conclusion.
Again, very wrong. Linux is based on a UNIX OS design, one that assumes user groups and individual logins from the get-go. Windows is based on a single-user environment, where most applications won't even install correctly unless the user is root. This gives Linux a huge head start when it comes to security.
I think it is a perfectly reasonable argument to make that people looking to exploit systems, especially kiddies using tools, choose targets of common opportunity. You can disagree, but you need to prevent a valid disagreement, not just assert that Ballmers statement is incorrect because you want it to be.
Oh, thank you so much for specifying how I can reply to you. I'm honoured.
Finally, and not to be too much of a jerk, but what qualifications do you have regarding the design of secure operating systems? If you beleive that Windows would be more secure because of your input, and can back that up, Microsoft will be happy to pay you any amount of money you ask for to make it happen.
Jesus you are a giant tool. Where's your qualifications? Actually, never mind those, where is your common sense? If you want to claim Linux is as insecure (or more) than Windows, the onus is on you to prove this. There is no evidence for it now.
You see this argued a lot here on
The way Linux is designed and the way Windows (especially with integrated IE) is designed are fundamentally different, and one (guess which) is by design more insecure.
The whole thing is a bunch of alarmist speculation.
If you had bothered to read the ACLU page linked, you would have seen that the information that was posted is publicly available.
Actually, since this all happened in Germany, and not in the US, I think it is a pretty good case against Bush's stem cell "policy" (more like religious idiocy, imho).
My wife finished her undergrad genetics degree (at a Canadian university) a couple of years ago, and even then she noticed an increase in the number of people from the US coming up for grad studies, since the type of work they needed to do with stem cells just wasn't possible in the US.
Stem cell research is going to happen, with or without Bush. The only variable is the country in which it is going to happen, and right now it ain't the US.
It is now an undisputed fact that Microsoft was behind BayStar investing 50 million in SCO, and a BayStar manager has admitted that they made the investment based on the guidance of Microsoft. Microsoft also purchased SCO license(s) for Linux for an undisclosed sum (I'm assuming it was a bit more than $699).