Okay, I made my subject something that would draw people into the comment. Flame me if you wish. Cringly has written a well thought out, thourough article on the state of Microsoft today. I hope he is wrong but suspect that he may be right.
Microsoft is a business, it isn't run by a bunch of geeks, it is run buy a bunch of geeky businessmen who plan for the future. Business is war and cash reserves are ammunition. Microsoft is laying plans for war against all, including open source. It is good business practice.
Would Microsoft be justified in giving away free software to beat open source? Sure, they would be meeting their competition head-on. Even if everything else were equal, Microsoft would probably win because of their PR budget and their name recognition. Open Soure can't win on price alone. Open Source still has to compte in other areas as well. Areas like quality, security, ease of use, availability.
Can Open Souce beat Microsft? Maybe, maybe not. North Vietnam beat the US and that was a David vs. Goliath battle. David beat Goliath. Yes, it can be done. But the battle isn't on cost alone. It is a hearts and minds kind of battle and on that front I'm afraid that Open Source doesn't have much of a market share (yet).
I'm not trying to say that all of this is right or as it should be but I am saying that this is the way that it is. At least today.
I am concerned from a global level that Microsoft has too much power. With so much of the software market they are in a position to dictate how, where, when, and why computers are used.
I don't think this is a good thing and I think that in a sense it constitutes a global security threat. If computing becomes a Microsoft oriented mono-culture, vunerabilities in the software can (and probably will be) exploited by governments, crime syndicates, and even individuals. I'm not talking about worms and viruses here, I'm talking about people seriously interested in destroying an entities economic existance.
If for no other reason, this is a reason enough for people to work against Microsoft's owning the world!
There is another question that needs to be asked. What happens if Microsoft finds that it has reached the limits in software and in order to continue to grow it decided to diversify? We know the kind of machine it is. Perhaps, they would gobble up someone like AMD and go into building computers? Controling the hardware like they control software would allow them to grow into that industry and control it quite quickly. Especially if they made their software run better on their hardware.
Think of what Walmart has done to merchants in many a small town. When Walmart comes to town, family owned merchants (clothiers and hardware stores especially) who have been in the community for generations have simply had to close their doors. The communities don't die but there is less choice and more money leaves the community and enriches a few people in Bentonville AR.
This is the kind of thing that could happen to computing if Microsoft wins. Only it would happen on a global scale. It would mean that Microsoft would be a superpower.
I'm in the USA. Minneapolis, MN to be more precise.
I don't own an iPod but if I did, there are places where I would elect to leave it safely at home rather than carry it. I live in a fairly nice part of town but am only a few blocks from a tougher part of town. I would not wear an iPod there, nor would I wear one downtown in the evening. It is just common sense really. Sometimes it just isn't worth the risk.
We have similar stupid laws here in the USA. I am allowed to defend myself if there is no other way but if I can evade and choose to fight, then I am liable for my actions even if I am being robbed. At least I have a right to protect myself and my property but it is quite limited in scope when you really think about it.
But laws or no laws, when it comes right down to it, we are the people in charge of our own destiny. We are responsible for putting ourselves in a situation where we may be robbed and we should think about things we can do to minimize our risk.
Several years ago, I stopped by a convenience store after a concert, it was quite late and I needed milk and a few odds and ends. The store was not in the nicest part of town (actually that is an understatement) but it was just a quick stop for things I needed and it was right there. I made my purchase and walked outside. Two people (gangsta's) started walking right along with me. As I came to the corner of the building I realized I was going to be jumped and felt powerless to stop it. I got angry and just growled, angry at myself for being so vunerable. This noise told the gangsta's that I was aware of what was going to happen and it scared them off. I was quite vunerable, my hands were full and nobody was around to help me.
When I thought about it later, I realized what had happened. It was late enough so that almost everyone going into that store that time of night was drinking (it was close to the bar district). Although I was vunerable, I was aware of my surroundings and that scared them off, they were looking for an easier target.
A week later someone was killed at that store, late at night. There were two suspects that matched the description of the guys that followed me. I was lucky. It could have been me. It wasn't me because I was not an easy target. Crooks are lazy, they will choose the most vunerable.
If you are in a rough neighborhood, you are vunerable if you are wearing headphones because you are blocking your sense of hearing. You are probably double vunerable if they are white because that is an indicator of the value of the device.
I had a friend who thought about this kind of stuff a lot. He wondered things like: "Why do cops give out speeding tickets and not spend time investigating felonies?" His conclusion was that cops like janitors, construction workers and most other hourly laborers have a couple of things in common. First they are as lazy as they can be and still keep their jobs. Giving a speeding ticket shows you are working but it is infinately easier than chasing a mugger through the woods and if you are occupied giving a ticket when the call comes, another car will be dispatched. Second, they are motivated by money which in their case means overtime. If they fill their regular hours with speeding tickets, maybe they will need to work overtime to address the real problems.
I don't know if I completely agree with him but it is hard to argue that there is at least some logic there!
When a street cop takes a report of a mugging, and he doesn't catch the mugger what really happens? It becomes a statistic. The more time that passes between the crime the less the chance of solving the crime. That is a fact. Eventually the report reaches the detectives who read it and file it away. When they catch a bad guy, they look at his belongings and compare them to the list of stolen property that way a few (probably very few) things can be returned to their owners, the remainder sold at police auction.
But they have to do something. That something is a crime advisory. It costs nothing. It makes people feel better and it makes it look like the cops are doing something. Of course, it is the minimum possible thing.
Best advice is to be prepared to defend yourself, or to not get into those situations. Your safety and your security are ultimately your responsibility. And that is probably the way it should be.
We Slashdotters are a curious crowd. We come from many walks of life, from many different counties, and political persuasions. When one of us reads a story that we think others may like we submit a short synopsis of it to the editors. If the editors agree, the synopsis and a link to the story are posted on Slashdot. Slashdotters share some common interests, mostly in technology.
You are only one person, but what you have done, what you have said has affected thousands of people. Your story has made us take a good hard look at life, technology, and our own contribution to society. There is a real sadness to your story, a sadness caused by something intended to be good. There is a lesson for all of us in that. Your story shows us what can happen when technology goes wrong.
Your Ghost Ride is more important than you may have imagined. You have reached not only the minds but the hearts of thousands of Slashdot readers. It is a well presented first-person story that reminds that terrible things can and do happen.
It is not uncommon for people familiar with dangers and risks to minimize them. To some degree everyone thinks; "It can't happen here." I'm sure the people of Chernobyl felt that way before the accident. Many of us work in industries where we can apply what you have taught us to our work. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. It doesn't take much of a mistake to cause a chain-reaction that ends in disaster and it doesn't need to be in a nuclear reactor for that to happen.
On Monday, when I go back to work, I pledge to you that I will remain mindful of your story. It will make a difference in my work and in my life.
I urge to take this further. You have told a powerful story. This can be the end of it or, it can be just the beginning. It is up to you. In the days and weeks ahead, you can change lives. You are an exceptional storyteller. What you have done transcends differences in language and in societies. You can be an agent of change. Please use it. I would like to hear more from you!
I have reported a couple of frauds to EBAY and have seen the auctions disappear only to reappear under a different userid so I reported the new userid and the cycle simply repeated. The EBAY fraud reporting policy has privacy restrictions that I feel "protect" the fraudster and that leaves me a little uncomfortable but I still use EBAY and have not been a direct victim of fraud.
To me, EBAY is like a giant flea-market and old time auction house. You can trust most of the people there but have to rely on your gut to tell you when you should pass on a deal. Too good to be true deals that are legit are few and far between. You are better off passing on something that seems too good to be true or, you will be ripped off. Crooks know human nature and will try to take advantage of greed. It is a weakness they can exploit. This is as true in the virtual marketplace as it is in real life.
Yesterday, we read a post about the CA Attorney General who (asting as a shill for either the MPAA or RIAA) said in so many words that the only use for P2P was the illicit sharing of files.
Now today we learn the US government is using this tool in the war on terror.
Don't blame the tool - blame the user of the tool. Tools aren't smart. Neither are some people.
Will auto manufacturers be required to put something in their cars that tell drivers that although their car is designed to be able to drive 120 MPH it is the driver's responsibility to obey the speed limit?
Will knife manufaturers be required to tell their customers that it is their responsibility to use this tool legally?
Come on now. Sheesh. P2P software is a TOOL like a hammer or a knife. What the user does with it makes it a crime not the tool.
I don't mean to sound like a gun advocate, but there is truth (and power) to the bumper sticker that says "Guns don't kill people. People do." P2P software doesn't commit copyright infringment. People do.
At first I just wanted to say "this guy has already made the worst mistake" but then I realized I knew nothing of him, his relationships, and his brother and his girlfriend. At that point I realized that I know of a couple of family businesses that work and I thought about them. In every case, all of the people in the business are mature, responsible and have a real stake in making the business work.
For you to make this work, you have to make sure they are more than employees, they all need responsibility and need to understand that the business's success or failure depends on their individual contribution to the team effort!
Of course, since you mentioned Apple, I have to assume that you cater to a bunch of creative types and that smells like trouble enough to me.
I really hate the fact that the cost of replacement carts can and often do exceed the cost of an inexpensive printer. I don't do a whole lot of printing anymore because of the excessive cost of these danged carts.
When you buy replacement part for a car, you have several choices. You can buy parts from the OEM, you can buy parts on the secondary market from after market manufacturers and you can buy parts from rebuilders. There are advantages and disadvadvantages to each. You know those advantages and purchase accordingly.
It used to be the same with replacement parts for printers but with the DCMA and other regulations, it is now more or less a thing of the past. It is wrong. The manufacturer is now able to say "One of the things that you do when you buy this printer from us is you enter into a relationship with us for as long as you own the printer." This is not what I expected. I wonder what's next - will they develop a printer that only works with the paper they make?
I've contemplated buying a printer and modifying it so that I can easily refill it using syringes filled with ink. But I understand that Lexmark, HP and others have started building in "smart chips" that kind of count the ink that the cart dispenses. These chips then simply shut down after a perscribed amount of time. I don't know how true this is but I think I'll try this with my $35 Lexmark just to see.
I completely agree that an author (of anything) has the right to publish using any license they wish. As I stated right upfront, I was unable to read the original article but felt compelled to say what I felt was important.
Most authors (of music, poetry, stories) "cut their teeth" on personal stuff and gradually work their way into the public domain (as in publicly available - not as in copyrighted). For some software authors, working on free software is a way of sharpening their skills on the way to making it a profession, for others it is a way of giving back to the community, and for other's it is a passion. There are probably as many reasons as there are people who contribute!
There is one exception to that that I can think of. Those people who contibute code that doesn't belong to them. That can inculde plagerists, who take someone else's code as their own and it can also include people who have employment contracts prohibiting such participation. I'm sure there are other people who may fall in to this class too.
99% of the people in the free software movement are in it for all the right reasons. It isn't a formal orginization like the Lion's or Knights of Columbus but the motivations are pretty much the same. The deserve nothing but a pat on the back and a big "THANK YOU" for your contribution!
Bill Gates gives back to the community through his foundation. Most of us can't do something like that so we do what we can when we can. Some of us do it through our church, some voulinteer in the community, and some write free software.
I was unable to read the article, apparently it has been slashdotted.
My first thought when I read the excerpt on Slashdot is that telling this to a young programmer is a lot like telling a young composer to not write music or telling an aspiring author to now write a novel.
In a very complete sense, you can compare authoring software to composing music or to writing a novel. In many cases, the author doesn't necessarily do it for profit but rather because it is something they are either compelled (as in driven) to do or, because they simply enjoy doing it.
Other postings on Slashdot and elsewhere tell us that the term "Free Software" is distinctly different from the term "Open Source Software" and that people like RMS suggest the use of Free over the use of Open Source precisely because we do not want to muddy the waters - we want to be clear that the writing of software is a free speech issue.
I don't want people to not write anything because they think that their thoughts are too valuable. I think it would be quite wrong to think that way.
I am not smart enough to fully appreciate all of the applications that a chip of this nature could perform but after reading the article, I am still wondering what it really is? Is it something akin to the "one chip calculator" that launched the personal computer revolution - a multi-function device that is versitile enough to do many jobs well? Or is it closer to a GPS on a chip - a device that does one job and does it well - that can be interfaced with other components to do a wide variety of tasks?
I'm not going to argue the physics or the legalities. I suspect that the physics are well covered by the professor's work (but not by the press release) and I suspect that the legalities will be addressed but somewhat slowly.
I've seen what radars were like and what they are like today. Things have really changed by integrating GPS, mapping, and radar and integrating the result on an LCD display. Products like this are still kind of expensive but available for recreational boaters who have a few thousand for them.
I can see how this technology, in a "dummed down, cost reduced format" could be integrated into cars and used as a driver's aid (ala On-Star). I can see how it could be "militarized" and used on the battle field and, I can see how it's phased array could be used to direct a wireless signal to specific devices for high-bandwidth data transfer. If it can be produced cheaply enough I'm sure there are thousands of potential uses that nobody has thought of yet.
Frankly, the announcement kind of nags at me for the lack of information that it contains. The more I think about it, I'm gonna drop it into the vaporware category until I see the first products on the market using this technology. There are many hurdles to cross before it goes commercial. I'm suspecting that this is more "pure research" than "applied research." In short, I am not holding my breath. I expect the practical applications that may come from this are still a long way down the road.
Over the past several days I have seen a number of good ideas being posted on Slashdot and elsewhere. It seems when I read the posts I go "Yeah! That's right on!" and then as I think about it I wonder if the idea can transition into practice well.
First, I love the idea of a truely modern, modular, personalizable O/S. It is what I have been looking for! I just hope that considerable thought will be put into making applications and upgrades very easy to install.
Lindows and Lycoris have the kinds of repositories that I am talking about. Lindows calls their's "Click & Run" but you have to pay for it. Lycoris provides theirs free when you buy their distribution. Both offer one click installation services and try to make software installation as easy as possible.
It sounds like an idea that people should be able to grab on to and develop. Maybe one group could concentrate on the "core" (the O/S and a very few simple tools) and another group could develop the installer.
Sounds simple until you start to think about all of the variables that you lose control of when you open the doors to the thousands of different basic configurations that people may try. Just think of the wide variety of Window Managers are out there and you'll start to understand what the loss of control does to complicate things.
I'm not saying it can't be done, nor am I saying that it is a poor choice or bad idea. In fact, I want it to be a success and I am all for it! I really hope it works.
My concern isn't as much technical as it is political. Almost all projects have their share of politics and more than one great idea has failed because of political differences. I sense that this kind of project is probably more susceptible to these kinds of influences than a more "inclusive" project.
I do think that there is a way around these political turf-wars. Rather than fighting over what will be supported and what won't be why not establish a set of guidelines that other projects can use to bring their projects into compliance with this distribution's installation requirements? This way they can borrow heavily from other projects (ie: Debian, Red Hat, and other distro's that have mature installation protocols) and not have to worry so much about the minutia that creates the political struggles.
Sorry to the people that thought it was a troll message... I thought I was being funny. Apparently, either I have a poor sense of humor or some people have no sense of humor.
I really don't understand why I was Modded as flamebait! I was just expressing what I saw in the name. Seriously, I think that it kinda hurts the Linux name in the same way that TRS-80's nickname "Trash-80's" hurt Radio Shack.
Yep, I've used Knoppix to and it works just as well (but), I work for a larger company and our IS Security team advised me that using Knoppix or PE Disk to access the network was a no-no. They are very paranoid. I've been "advised" that using the USB drive is okay as long as I perform a anti-virus scan before I put the data back on the computer and before the computer goes on the network.
Because of this "advice" I've elected to use Bart's PE disk as they will probably feel a little better about something MS Windows based than Linux based. I guess you could call it a political decision.
I have been using Bart's PE disk for a few months now. It is esy to use and is a fantastic resue tool that has pulled my butt out of the fire more than once.
We run Windows 2000 with NTFS and every once in a while the OS blows up on a machine. We gotta get the data off before we re-image it. The data can be worth thousands and our customers don't seem to back up too often.
I use Bart's PE disk and a USB hard drive, Boot using the PE disk and access the borked drive, pull all the data I can find and copy it to the USB drive then reimage the computer and put the data back on. It has never failed to work.
We can turn around a borked machine from anywhere in the country in three days (one day in-house and two days in the mail). Our customers are very happy and Bart's PE disk has made our lives a lot easier.
I'm thinking of writing something for Bart's disk that would automate the process so I can express them the disk, the hard drive, and an ISO of the standard image and let them do it themselves.
No, I did not miss that part. I was attempting to show an example of what may seem to be undetectable to the human eye would still make a difference in the finished product. Printing an image on the reverse side of a transparency would do that.
I know I am in the minority of slashdoters here but I think that HP is being ethical and responsible in their efforts to protect currency from unauthorized duplication.
My concern isn't that they are doing this but that the methods and perhaps the very technology that they use may (and in some cases will) interfere with legit uses. Crooks are smart, inventive, and resourceful. This means that the "lock" that HP and other manufacturers use has to be tough and almost necessarily will interfere with some legal uses.
The part that I keyed on was the front to back registration. If it is so small that humans won't notice it, how will that prevent counterfiting? Yet, in some applications, where you are printing on transparent Mylar, I can see this being a significant drawback! I know that this kind of stuff isn't done by everyone every day but it can be done for artistic purposes now. Laying a background layer on the backside of a transparency adds richness and depth to the foreground. I am not an engineer but I suspect that this same kind of trick is often used when designing limited run double sided circuit board masks.
Crooks can walk into any computer store and buy a box of blank checks and print out whatever they want on the checks including whatever routing number and account number they want. These checks can then be easily passed wherever a check can be cashed using a fake ID purchased over the internet or from someone who specializes in such forgeries. Why hasn't there been a hue and cry over this? Because it isn't currency, banks and people eat the cost of these crimes.
HP has the right idea but needs a better implimentation. People (especially clerks) need to be better at spotting counterfit bills, and even high schoolers with scanners and printers have to be afraid of getting busted. Counterfitting is a crime that is being done more frequently by juveniles who get their hands slapped only if they get caught. The "system" needs to fix this.
Like I said, I am no expert but I would think two access points (at the 1/4 & 3/4 mark) on each floor using 802.11G WAPs (that will do 802.11b as well) wired into a decent router would give pretty decent and even coverage across the building.
I think you could do it for a lot less than 7G too!
I hope we can agree to disagree on margin notes and highlighting. People learn and use books in different ways...
I hope that publishing on demand will come around, it does sound like a great idea to control inventory and costs. I just hope that publishers won't expect us to pay more for something that is a great benefit to them. I guess that I expect that will happen to some degree though.
On the plus side, I can see new, helpful features. Do you want a hardcover, soft cover, or leather bound volume? What cover design do you want? Gold foil lettering will cost you three bucks extra. An inscription will cost you five bucks and so on... Oh, and for the vision impared, big text!
Buying a book will be a little bit like buying a burger, you want fries with that?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I made my subject something that would draw people into the comment. Flame me if you wish. Cringly has written a well thought out, thourough article on the state of Microsoft today. I hope he is wrong but suspect that he may be right.
Microsoft is a business, it isn't run by a bunch of geeks, it is run buy a bunch of geeky businessmen who plan for the future. Business is war and cash reserves are ammunition. Microsoft is laying plans for war against all, including open source. It is good business practice.
Would Microsoft be justified in giving away free software to beat open source? Sure, they would be meeting their competition head-on. Even if everything else were equal, Microsoft would probably win because of their PR budget and their name recognition. Open Soure can't win on price alone. Open Source still has to compte in other areas as well. Areas like quality, security, ease of use, availability.
Can Open Souce beat Microsft? Maybe, maybe not. North Vietnam beat the US and that was a David vs. Goliath battle. David beat Goliath. Yes, it can be done. But the battle isn't on cost alone. It is a hearts and minds kind of battle and on that front I'm afraid that Open Source doesn't have much of a market share (yet).
I'm not trying to say that all of this is right or as it should be but I am saying that this is the way that it is. At least today.
I am concerned from a global level that Microsoft has too much power. With so much of the software market they are in a position to dictate how, where, when, and why computers are used.
I don't think this is a good thing and I think that in a sense it constitutes a global security threat. If computing becomes a Microsoft oriented mono-culture, vunerabilities in the software can (and probably will be) exploited by governments, crime syndicates, and even individuals. I'm not talking about worms and viruses here, I'm talking about people seriously interested in destroying an entities economic existance.
If for no other reason, this is a reason enough for people to work against Microsoft's owning the world!
There is another question that needs to be asked. What happens if Microsoft finds that it has reached the limits in software and in order to continue to grow it decided to diversify? We know the kind of machine it is. Perhaps, they would gobble up someone like AMD and go into building computers? Controling the hardware like they control software would allow them to grow into that industry and control it quite quickly. Especially if they made their software run better on their hardware.
Think of what Walmart has done to merchants in many a small town. When Walmart comes to town, family owned merchants (clothiers and hardware stores especially) who have been in the community for generations have simply had to close their doors. The communities don't die but there is less choice and more money leaves the community and enriches a few people in Bentonville AR.
This is the kind of thing that could happen to computing if Microsoft wins. Only it would happen on a global scale. It would mean that Microsoft would be a superpower.
... would it be a p-Pod?
I'm in the USA. Minneapolis, MN to be more precise.
I don't own an iPod but if I did, there are places where I would elect to leave it safely at home rather than carry it. I live in a fairly nice part of town but am only a few blocks from a tougher part of town. I would not wear an iPod there, nor would I wear one downtown in the evening. It is just common sense really. Sometimes it just isn't worth the risk.
We have similar stupid laws here in the USA. I am allowed to defend myself if there is no other way but if I can evade and choose to fight, then I am liable for my actions even if I am being robbed. At least I have a right to protect myself and my property but it is quite limited in scope when you really think about it.
But laws or no laws, when it comes right down to it, we are the people in charge of our own destiny. We are responsible for putting ourselves in a situation where we may be robbed and we should think about things we can do to minimize our risk.
Several years ago, I stopped by a convenience store after a concert, it was quite late and I needed milk and a few odds and ends. The store was not in the nicest part of town (actually that is an understatement) but it was just a quick stop for things I needed and it was right there. I made my purchase and walked outside. Two people (gangsta's) started walking right along with me. As I came to the corner of the building I realized I was going to be jumped and felt powerless to stop it. I got angry and just growled, angry at myself for being so vunerable. This noise told the gangsta's that I was aware of what was going to happen and it scared them off. I was quite vunerable, my hands were full and nobody was around to help me.
When I thought about it later, I realized what had happened. It was late enough so that almost everyone going into that store that time of night was drinking (it was close to the bar district). Although I was vunerable, I was aware of my surroundings and that scared them off, they were looking for an easier target.
A week later someone was killed at that store, late at night. There were two suspects that matched the description of the guys that followed me. I was lucky. It could have been me. It wasn't me because I was not an easy target. Crooks are lazy, they will choose the most vunerable.
If you are in a rough neighborhood, you are vunerable if you are wearing headphones because you are blocking your sense of hearing. You are probably double vunerable if they are white because that is an indicator of the value of the device.
I had a friend who thought about this kind of stuff a lot. He wondered things like: "Why do cops give out speeding tickets and not spend time investigating felonies?" His conclusion was that cops like janitors, construction workers and most other hourly laborers have a couple of things in common. First they are as lazy as they can be and still keep their jobs. Giving a speeding ticket shows you are working but it is infinately easier than chasing a mugger through the woods and if you are occupied giving a ticket when the call comes, another car will be dispatched. Second, they are motivated by money which in their case means overtime. If they fill their regular hours with speeding tickets, maybe they will need to work overtime to address the real problems.
I don't know if I completely agree with him but it is hard to argue that there is at least some logic there!
When a street cop takes a report of a mugging, and he doesn't catch the mugger what really happens? It becomes a statistic. The more time that passes between the crime the less the chance of solving the crime. That is a fact. Eventually the report reaches the detectives who read it and file it away. When they catch a bad guy, they look at his belongings and compare them to the list of stolen property that way a few (probably very few) things can be returned to their owners, the remainder sold at police auction.
But they have to do something. That something is a crime advisory. It costs nothing. It makes people feel better and it makes it look like the cops are doing something. Of course, it is the minimum possible thing.
Best advice is to be prepared to defend yourself, or to not get into those situations. Your safety and your security are ultimately your responsibility. And that is probably the way it should be.
Elena,
We Slashdotters are a curious crowd. We come from many walks of life, from many different counties, and political persuasions. When one of us reads a story that we think others may like we submit a short synopsis of it to the editors. If the editors agree, the synopsis and a link to the story are posted on Slashdot. Slashdotters share some common interests, mostly in technology.
You are only one person, but what you have done, what you have said has affected thousands of people. Your story has made us take a good hard look at life, technology, and our own contribution to society. There is a real sadness to your story, a sadness caused by something intended to be good. There is a lesson for all of us in that. Your story shows us what can happen when technology goes wrong.
Your Ghost Ride is more important than you may have imagined. You have reached not only the minds but the hearts of thousands of Slashdot readers. It is a well presented first-person story that reminds that terrible things can and do happen.
It is not uncommon for people familiar with dangers and risks to minimize them. To some degree everyone thinks; "It can't happen here." I'm sure the people of Chernobyl felt that way before the accident. Many of us work in industries where we can apply what you have taught us to our work. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. It doesn't take much of a mistake to cause a chain-reaction that ends in disaster and it doesn't need to be in a nuclear reactor for that to happen.
On Monday, when I go back to work, I pledge to you that I will remain mindful of your story. It will make a difference in my work and in my life.
I urge to take this further. You have told a powerful story. This can be the end of it or, it can be just the beginning. It is up to you. In the days and weeks ahead, you can change lives. You are an exceptional storyteller. What you have done transcends differences in language and in societies. You can be an agent of change. Please use it. I would like to hear more from you!
I have reported a couple of frauds to EBAY and have seen the auctions disappear only to reappear under a different userid so I reported the new userid and the cycle simply repeated. The EBAY fraud reporting policy has privacy restrictions that I feel "protect" the fraudster and that leaves me a little uncomfortable but I still use EBAY and have not been a direct victim of fraud.
To me, EBAY is like a giant flea-market and old time auction house. You can trust most of the people there but have to rely on your gut to tell you when you should pass on a deal. Too good to be true deals that are legit are few and far between. You are better off passing on something that seems too good to be true or, you will be ripped off. Crooks know human nature and will try to take advantage of greed. It is a weakness they can exploit. This is as true in the virtual marketplace as it is in real life.
Yesterday, we read a post about the CA Attorney General who (asting as a shill for either the MPAA or RIAA) said in so many words that the only use for P2P was the illicit sharing of files.
Now today we learn the US government is using this tool in the war on terror.
Don't blame the tool - blame the user of the tool. Tools aren't smart. Neither are some people.
Will auto manufacturers be required to put something in their cars that tell drivers that although their car is designed to be able to drive 120 MPH it is the driver's responsibility to obey the speed limit?
Will knife manufaturers be required to tell their customers that it is their responsibility to use this tool legally?
Come on now. Sheesh. P2P software is a TOOL like a hammer or a knife. What the user does with it makes it a crime not the tool.
I don't mean to sound like a gun advocate, but there is truth (and power) to the bumper sticker that says "Guns don't kill people. People do." P2P software doesn't commit copyright infringment. People do.
At first I just wanted to say "this guy has already made the worst mistake" but then I realized I knew nothing of him, his relationships, and his brother and his girlfriend. At that point I realized that I know of a couple of family businesses that work and I thought about them. In every case, all of the people in the business are mature, responsible and have a real stake in making the business work.
For you to make this work, you have to make sure they are more than employees, they all need responsibility and need to understand that the business's success or failure depends on their individual contribution to the team effort!
Of course, since you mentioned Apple, I have to assume that you cater to a bunch of creative types and that smells like trouble enough to me.
I really hate the fact that the cost of replacement carts can and often do exceed the cost of an inexpensive printer. I don't do a whole lot of printing anymore because of the excessive cost of these danged carts.
When you buy replacement part for a car, you have several choices. You can buy parts from the OEM, you can buy parts on the secondary market from after market manufacturers and you can buy parts from rebuilders. There are advantages and disadvadvantages to each. You know those advantages and purchase accordingly.
It used to be the same with replacement parts for printers but with the DCMA and other regulations, it is now more or less a thing of the past. It is wrong. The manufacturer is now able to say "One of the things that you do when you buy this printer from us is you enter into a relationship with us for as long as you own the printer." This is not what I expected. I wonder what's next - will they develop a printer that only works with the paper they make?
I've contemplated buying a printer and modifying it so that I can easily refill it using syringes filled with ink. But I understand that Lexmark, HP and others have started building in "smart chips" that kind of count the ink that the cart dispenses. These chips then simply shut down after a perscribed amount of time. I don't know how true this is but I think I'll try this with my $35 Lexmark just to see.
I completely agree that an author (of anything) has the right to publish using any license they wish. As I stated right upfront, I was unable to read the original article but felt compelled to say what I felt was important.
Most authors (of music, poetry, stories) "cut their teeth" on personal stuff and gradually work their way into the public domain (as in publicly available - not as in copyrighted). For some software authors, working on free software is a way of sharpening their skills on the way to making it a profession, for others it is a way of giving back to the community, and for other's it is a passion. There are probably as many reasons as there are people who contribute!
There is one exception to that that I can think of. Those people who contibute code that doesn't belong to them. That can inculde plagerists, who take someone else's code as their own and it can also include people who have employment contracts prohibiting such participation. I'm sure there are other people who may fall in to this class too.
99% of the people in the free software movement are in it for all the right reasons. It isn't a formal orginization like the Lion's or Knights of Columbus but the motivations are pretty much the same. The deserve nothing but a pat on the back and a big "THANK YOU" for your contribution!
Bill Gates gives back to the community through his foundation. Most of us can't do something like that so we do what we can when we can. Some of us do it through our church, some voulinteer in the community, and some write free software.
I was unable to read the article, apparently it has been slashdotted.
My first thought when I read the excerpt on Slashdot is that telling this to a young programmer is a lot like telling a young composer to not write music or telling an aspiring author to now write a novel.
In a very complete sense, you can compare authoring software to composing music or to writing a novel. In many cases, the author doesn't necessarily do it for profit but rather because it is something they are either compelled (as in driven) to do or, because they simply enjoy doing it.
Other postings on Slashdot and elsewhere tell us that the term "Free Software" is distinctly different from the term "Open Source Software" and that people like RMS suggest the use of Free over the use of Open Source precisely because we do not want to muddy the waters - we want to be clear that the writing of software is a free speech issue.
I don't want people to not write anything because they think that their thoughts are too valuable. I think it would be quite wrong to think that way.
I am not smart enough to fully appreciate all of the applications that a chip of this nature could perform but after reading the article, I am still wondering what it really is? Is it something akin to the "one chip calculator" that launched the personal computer revolution - a multi-function device that is versitile enough to do many jobs well? Or is it closer to a GPS on a chip - a device that does one job and does it well - that can be interfaced with other components to do a wide variety of tasks?
I'm not going to argue the physics or the legalities. I suspect that the physics are well covered by the professor's work (but not by the press release) and I suspect that the legalities will be addressed but somewhat slowly.
I've seen what radars were like and what they are like today. Things have really changed by integrating GPS, mapping, and radar and integrating the result on an LCD display. Products like this are still kind of expensive but available for recreational boaters who have a few thousand for them.
I can see how this technology, in a "dummed down, cost reduced format" could be integrated into cars and used as a driver's aid (ala On-Star). I can see how it could be "militarized" and used on the battle field and, I can see how it's phased array could be used to direct a wireless signal to specific devices for high-bandwidth data transfer. If it can be produced cheaply enough I'm sure there are thousands of potential uses that nobody has thought of yet.
Frankly, the announcement kind of nags at me for the lack of information that it contains. The more I think about it, I'm gonna drop it into the vaporware category until I see the first products on the market using this technology. There are many hurdles to cross before it goes commercial. I'm suspecting that this is more "pure research" than "applied research." In short, I am not holding my breath. I expect the practical applications that may come from this are still a long way down the road.
Over the past several days I have seen a number of good ideas being posted on Slashdot and elsewhere. It seems when I read the posts I go "Yeah! That's right on!" and then as I think about it I wonder if the idea can transition into practice well.
First, I love the idea of a truely modern, modular, personalizable O/S. It is what I have been looking for! I just hope that considerable thought will be put into making applications and upgrades very easy to install.
Lindows and Lycoris have the kinds of repositories that I am talking about. Lindows calls their's "Click & Run" but you have to pay for it. Lycoris provides theirs free when you buy their distribution. Both offer one click installation services and try to make software installation as easy as possible.
It sounds like an idea that people should be able to grab on to and develop. Maybe one group could concentrate on the "core" (the O/S and a very few simple tools) and another group could develop the installer.
Sounds simple until you start to think about all of the variables that you lose control of when you open the doors to the thousands of different basic configurations that people may try. Just think of the wide variety of Window Managers are out there and you'll start to understand what the loss of control does to complicate things.
I'm not saying it can't be done, nor am I saying that it is a poor choice or bad idea. In fact, I want it to be a success and I am all for it! I really hope it works.
My concern isn't as much technical as it is political. Almost all projects have their share of politics and more than one great idea has failed because of political differences. I sense that this kind of project is probably more susceptible to these kinds of influences than a more "inclusive" project.
I do think that there is a way around these political turf-wars. Rather than fighting over what will be supported and what won't be why not establish a set of guidelines that other projects can use to bring their projects into compliance with this distribution's installation requirements? This way they can borrow heavily from other projects (ie: Debian, Red Hat, and other distro's that have mature installation protocols) and not have to worry so much about the minutia that creates the political struggles.
Sorry to the people that thought it was a troll message... I thought I was being funny. Apparently, either I have a poor sense of humor or some people have no sense of humor.
It had to be Osama Bin Laden that caused it!
Saadam is in jail so he is the only remaining suspect.
I really don't understand why I was Modded as flamebait! I was just expressing what I saw in the name. Seriously, I think that it kinda hurts the Linux name in the same way that TRS-80's nickname "Trash-80's" hurt Radio Shack.
Kind of a cute idea and there is nothing wrong with rubbin their noses in it but how long until the name is "morphed" in to:
LinTRASH?
Yep, I've used Knoppix to and it works just as well (but), I work for a larger company and our IS Security team advised me that using Knoppix or PE Disk to access the network was a no-no. They are very paranoid. I've been "advised" that using the USB drive is okay as long as I perform a anti-virus scan before I put the data back on the computer and before the computer goes on the network.
Because of this "advice" I've elected to use Bart's PE disk as they will probably feel a little better about something MS Windows based than Linux based. I guess you could call it a political decision.
I have been using Bart's PE disk for a few months now. It is esy to use and is a fantastic resue tool that has pulled my butt out of the fire more than once.
We run Windows 2000 with NTFS and every once in a while the OS blows up on a machine. We gotta get the data off before we re-image it. The data can be worth thousands and our customers don't seem to back up too often.
I use Bart's PE disk and a USB hard drive, Boot using the PE disk and access the borked drive, pull all the data I can find and copy it to the USB drive then reimage the computer and put the data back on. It has never failed to work.
We can turn around a borked machine from anywhere in the country in three days (one day in-house and two days in the mail). Our customers are very happy and Bart's PE disk has made our lives a lot easier.
I'm thinking of writing something for Bart's disk that would automate the process so I can express them the disk, the hard drive, and an ISO of the standard image and let them do it themselves.
The bundled XP Home with SP4 to cripple it!
No, I did not miss that part. I was attempting to show an example of what may seem to be undetectable to the human eye would still make a difference in the finished product. Printing an image on the reverse side of a transparency would do that.
I know I am in the minority of slashdoters here but I think that HP is being ethical and responsible in their efforts to protect currency from unauthorized duplication.
My concern isn't that they are doing this but that the methods and perhaps the very technology that they use may (and in some cases will) interfere with legit uses. Crooks are smart, inventive, and resourceful. This means that the "lock" that HP and other manufacturers use has to be tough and almost necessarily will interfere with some legal uses.
The part that I keyed on was the front to back registration. If it is so small that humans won't notice it, how will that prevent counterfiting? Yet, in some applications, where you are printing on transparent Mylar, I can see this being a significant drawback! I know that this kind of stuff isn't done by everyone every day but it can be done for artistic purposes now. Laying a background layer on the backside of a transparency adds richness and depth to the foreground. I am not an engineer but I suspect that this same kind of trick is often used when designing limited run double sided circuit board masks.
Crooks can walk into any computer store and buy a box of blank checks and print out whatever they want on the checks including whatever routing number and account number they want. These checks can then be easily passed wherever a check can be cashed using a fake ID purchased over the internet or from someone who specializes in such forgeries. Why hasn't there been a hue and cry over this? Because it isn't currency, banks and people eat the cost of these crimes.
HP has the right idea but needs a better implimentation. People (especially clerks) need to be better at spotting counterfit bills, and even high schoolers with scanners and printers have to be afraid of getting busted. Counterfitting is a crime that is being done more frequently by juveniles who get their hands slapped only if they get caught. The "system" needs to fix this.
Like I said, I am no expert but I would think two access points (at the 1/4 & 3/4 mark) on each floor using 802.11G WAPs (that will do 802.11b as well) wired into a decent router would give pretty decent and even coverage across the building.
I think you could do it for a lot less than 7G too!
I hope we can agree to disagree on margin notes and highlighting. People learn and use books in different ways...
I hope that publishing on demand will come around, it does sound like a great idea to control inventory and costs. I just hope that publishers won't expect us to pay more for something that is a great benefit to them. I guess that I expect that will happen to some degree though.
On the plus side, I can see new, helpful features. Do you want a hardcover, soft cover, or leather bound volume? What cover design do you want? Gold foil lettering will cost you three bucks extra. An inscription will cost you five bucks and so on... Oh, and for the vision impared, big text!
Buying a book will be a little bit like buying a burger, you want fries with that?