While I'm not officially responsible for the build process at my workplace, I've taken that responsibility as we've been porting our code to a new operating system. Here are some things we've learned that may help you.
We recently switched from Make as our build tool to Jam which has worked great. Like you, we didn't have the option of using GCC on every platform, and Jam made it easy to configure all the operating systems we're interested in using with the fewest headaches. After using Jam for quite a while now, I think all of the developers and I are very happy with the decision to axe Make. Honestly, I can sympathize with your effort to use Make to do all your compiling since we gave it some effort before switching to Jam. Try Jam - you'll be amazed at how much simpler your build process becomes.
Whether or not you use Jam (though we use Jam to do this), setting up nightly builds, capturing the output, and sending status emails with the results makes bug finding much simpler, especially on multiple platforms. Part of the nightly builds include built in testing. If any of the tests fail, we know we've broken something in our code.
Another suggestion... Look for a threading wrapper package like CommonC++ or ZThreads. Both are fairly well developed now and make programming multithreaded applications for multiple platforms pretty easy. For multiplatform GUI tools, try FLTK. It's tiny compared to WxWindows or other bloated GUI wrappers, plus it's easy to use.
There's an excellent book called "The Patent Files" by David Lindsay where he describes not only the state of invention and inventors today but goes through his own attempts to patent an idea of his own (including, in a separate attempt, trying to copyright himself). If you can get through his... uh.. casual style, then you'll find it full of good information for any of you out there who have dreams of patents and invention.
Slightly more on topic, from his experiences described in the book, those fees seem about standard. In Lindsay's book, he says he went through the search process, where the searchers didn't find any patents that were similar, then he applied where he was denied his patent because of past inventions (the denial cited six examples, and in his own research he found sixteen before stopping). Despite your own and the attorney's searching, you may end up blowing $6000 on your own patent attempt just to find out ten other people already did what you're trying or that your idea is covered by a similar patent and you haven't added something substantial to it. Nonetheless, if you feel confident that you have a truly original idea that's worthy of a patent, fire away and good luck.
This lawsuit is meaningless to the internet user community. Say Virtumundo (the people who bought the list) wins. All it means is that Mindset (the people who collected the list) have to pay out damages, nothing else. Mindset won't suddenly email all the people in their DB and say "We're sorry we collected your name. Would you like to be taken off?" Nope - they'll just keep on selling their lists to someone else who won't care about who they spam. And Virtumundo will go buy a list from someone else and spam away again, although they'll get it from a more "reputable" source. I applaud Virtumundo for what they're doing, but it's not going to change anything in the end.
I hate it when seemingly consequential stuff gets posted when it's only useless drivel...
Sega announced that Phantasy Star Online 2 will be out for PC, Gamecube, XBox, and PS2 (along with the existing Dreamcast version, but there's no promise of compatability with it) well before Square announced FFXI for those systems. Why didn't PSO2's news make/. headlines? Just because Square has broken down and decided they can make money on all the platforms again doesn't mean they deserve a headline here...
I'm amazed MS let him give that speech in light of the pending antitrust lawsuit against them. Specifically, if his comments (as I am interpreting them from the snippets in the articles) are accurate, he's insinuating that everyone should buy commercial OSs and use passport. Does he not realize that there are already commercial Linux OSs? They're certainly not the traditional companies, but RedHat turned a profit (finally). The coming of age for commercialized Linux OSs and applications is finally here. Deal with it. And about passport... if his comments aren't blatantly screaming "MS RULES PASSPORT," then I don't know what does. We don't need an alternative? Ever heard of a monopoly? Oh, wait.. I guess you have...
Yes, if you own the copyright, you can do whatever you want to do with your material, like putting it on Gnutella and Morpheus. I'm referring to the program's most prominent use - transferring copyrighted material which the users do not own the copyright. Just how many downloads of your band's music have there been? I'm sure you know as well as I that the majority of files on those programs are illegal, and that your band's music probably hasn't propagated much around the net... (if it has, then congrats!)
The sheer intelligence of your comment reflects the deep thought you must have given my comment. Never have I been this amazed at how one sentence can so tersely describe both your sentiment on the issue AND your intelligence level. All that, and the fact that you corageously put your name behind your words speaks to me that you must believe what you're saying is true and just. If everyone was like you, the whole world would be a better place to leave, or at least one where everyone wears protective cups over their groins.
In other words, STFU IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY.
I fear this will give the GPL and free software a bad name. If Morpheus is ever shut down because of copyright violations, then maybe people will associate GPL and free software with distributing warez, mp3s, videos, etc... all these illegal things that Morpheus (and gnutella) let you do.
I really think people associated with free software DO NOT want their reputations attached to software which lets people conduct illegal activities (and don't argue with this - IT IS ILLEGAL). Yes, you could say this about FTPd or apache or other programs, but Morpheus and Gnutella have a single purpose - to let people exchange these files illegally. I just don't want other projects to take the rap for the few bad apples in the bunch... You know - then free software opponents (read as: Microsoft) will come along and paint Linux and other open source projects as "illegal" and "insecure" and "untrustworthy" (which they may or may not be). Anyone out there with the same sentiment?
This is a HUGE blow to the music industry's case. The implication of Judge Patel asking them to produce copyright information is that, if they can't do it, the ENTIRE MUSIC INDUSTRY would be forever changed. Right now, music companies strap artists into super-restrictive contracts where anything the artist makes instantly becomes property of the label. This means that, perhaps, the power of ownership could fall back into the hands of the rightful owners - the artists. The RIAA knows this, and now they have to defend themselves. Ahh, sweet irony...
The other serious side effect of this is that the judge realizes that, like the article said, the music industry is moving into a monopoly of online digital music. We all know that the Napster law suit was raised not because the music industry doesn't want online transmission of music, but because they were late to the game and Napster beat them to the punch (and to the money). Judge Patel is calling their bluff and is saying that you can't shut down Napster just to steal their business.
This is a HUGE turning point to this case, and don't be surprised if the issue of copyright holding in music as a whole is revisited because of this line of inquiry.
Actually, If OS/2 had won (and OS/2 WAS a superior operating system compared to MS's offerings at the time) MS probably would have found some standing to sue IBM and done it. That's not the point though - sigining exclusivity agreements is legal as long as there is equal opportunity in the marketplace for other people to sell similar goods. MS aliging itself with the biggest OEMs automatically destroys any other OS's chance of entering the market, much less creating a sizable user base necessary for sustaining production of the OS. What MS did was blatantly illegal and that's why the findings of fact from the antitrust case stated as such.
Did you actually read the finds of fact from the antitrust case? In fact, it clearly spells out why OS/2, MacOS, and Be (listed under "Fringe Operating Systems") couldn't capture even a minimal share of the OS market. go read it yourself and see. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Apple, IBM, and other OS makers sue Microsoft as a result. Maybe this will start a chain reaction that may be able to slow the giant...
Microsoft will desperately try to settle this out of court rather than go to trial. If it does go to trial and they lose (and they WILL lose if it goes to trial), not only will they have to pay out more damages, they'll also face the repercussions in PR and in their stock value. Just wait and see...
Anyone remember this article only a couple of weeks ago? More and more, courts from around the world are disagreeing with one another in regards to copyright issues and technology. Are DVDs software or film?
This is only the beginning of a slew of court rulings and laws that will confict with each other and throw the already confused state of affairs into absolute chaos.
And why would someone like me want to study this in grad school? Because it's f**king cool - that's why =)
An issue that has recently popped up in courts has been the legality of EULAs (End User Licence Agreements) and how binding they really are. According to what I've been reading, the consensus of courts has been that EULAs are more restrictive than existing copyright laws. More specifically, most software is in a state where you can only use it on one machine and never copy or resell it. The recent rulings imply that software can be bought and sold and used like books - you can burn the book, modify the book, then sell it to someone else. Obviously, the software world won't ever get that liberal with its interpretation of those laws, but there will be changes to how EULAs are made and enforced. Where do you see the future of EULAs going?
Is this related to this slashdot article posted yesterday? What I mean is you're not obligated to agree to the EULA simply by purchasing or even opening the software (the ruling stated that you are essentially agreeing to it by installing it, but the licence is questionable because it's much more restrictive than existing copyright laws). The letter from the lawyer stated that you accept their agreement "upon purchasing a copy of the software." But then if this decision stands, you don't have to agree to their license, and you're free to do pratically whatever you want with the software.
Apple has also forgotten that as soon as something hits the net, it's very hard to retract. I'm interested in seeing what they'll do in response to this method of installation getting out....
You've tried your hand at almost every major role in film/TV production from producer and director to actor and sound editing(?), and now you're going even further by writing for books and magazines. What do you enjoy best out of all the jobs you've tried and why? Also, what can we expect you to do in the future - say several years from now (entertainment industry related or not)?
As you and others were developing The Tick into a live action series, (after watching the first live action episode) you seem to be trying to return to the style of the comic book rather than the animated series. To that end, some things probably weren't appropriate for TV, like having the Tick escape from an insane asylum in the pilot. Other things were created to make the show more appropriate for a tv audience - more character development and making them seem more like "real" people (jobs, cell phones, drinking at the bar, etc.).
How much did you have to give and take between making the live action have content appropriate for tv (ie network censors), adding plot elements and characters to make it appropriate for a (potentially) long running tv series, fighting the cartoon copyright issues, and adapting it to suit your vision of the Tick on tv? Also, what would you like to do with the show that you can't on tv?
or they could face the evil hand of the DMCA like Dmitry Sklyarov did. I wonder what would happen if the crackers had come from america, or if ibm will try to take those guys to court to protect their encryption.
on the other hand, it's already hit the net so it's a pratically public domain now;)
I was as jaded as you were when I graduated with my CS degree a year ago. Most of the problem was I wasn't learning anything new during the last year of my studies - it was just rehashed or applied parts of my previous learning.
Looking at my job now (I've worked a little over a year), I know the parts I've enjoyed the most have been when I worked on a project full time, wholly engrossed with the development and creation of some new software. I would say that most engineers feel the most excited about work when they've created and completed something new from nothing. The lowest parts of my job have been when I have nothing to do - same thing like when you're not learning anything at school. Of course other factors exist - the work environment, coworkers, etc. but having challenging work to do is the part of my job that I enjoy best.
My best advice to you is choose a job that interests you and that will provide lots of challenging projects with the freedom for you do actually create and use your software development skills to their fullest. Otherwise you'll e bored at your desk day in, day out.
Aside from the simple logistics of preventing installations, you'll incur the side effects of driving all of your developers insane. A part of development (and in planning for management) is the dead time needed by developers. No developer in his/her right mind can sit at a computer all day and program nonstop from 8 to 5 (or whatever your hours may be) without ample breaks. I speak from my own experience here; my coworkers and myself don't program 40 hrs a week. I fear a management who would expect anything like that from its workers...
Developers need diversions to keep them sane, and many diversions are available on the computer - games, the web, irc, etc. When you prevent your users from installing their own programs, you're telling them that they are worker drones who will do nothing but program all day long. This also applies to non-programmer types who use the computer to perform many of their day-to-day tasks - secretaries, accountants, HR people, and so on.
Go back to your management and tell them they're making a big mistake by doing this. Not only will you anger your users by preventing the installations, you'll also have to deal with the lowered morale and increased stress as people can't use their computers for their down time.
I tried what the person from Opera suggested with Mozilla - change some letters around from the useragent string in Mozilla and see if it'll trick MSN into letting it through. Unfortunately, 'zilla crashed when I tried that (Mozilla --> Yozilla). I guess you can't fool Mozilla either...
It's hard to miss the names of these big corporations with large Web interests listed at the top of the paper: Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Apple Computer. Of the people listed on the paper, who represented the open source community as the paper was written? Furthermore, how much representation does the open source community have in the W3C? Taking a look at your List of Members, I see lots of corporations with patents and proprietary standards but no open source companies (I do admit I skimmed the list). How can you then claim to be committed to "interoperability and encouraging an open forum for discussion" (taken from your mission statement) when the only involvement that the open source community has is by responding to your RFC's? Remember that the open source community is mostly people who do this because of their belief in open source and not because of financial backing or stock owners.
<rant>The Internet is built on lots of computers who happen to run agreed-upon protocols. These changes seem to want to fracture the 'net from the open standards it was built upon to proprietary 'nets. Also, the biggest proponent of interoperability standards and 'net cohesion is the open source community, who ensures that their software will work with the many pre-existing 'net standards or that their new standards are available for all to use freely. Please tell me that I'm not overreacting when I say that the W3C's first priority should be to the open source community, interoperability, and the standards which have kept the net running from its creation and not to the pockets of the members of the W3C.</rant>
t.
For those of you with some extra CPU cycles left over from running SETI@home, you should check out what Stanford's Pande Group is doing. Their two big distributed programs are Folding@home and Genome@home which do research in protein folding and their geometry. And if you're the type that worries what happens with the research (for profit, non profit, who gets the results, etc.), check the F@H FAQ that answers some of those questions - it's all non profit and eventually the results will be publicly available.
IMHO, I like Folding@home and Genome@home more than SETI because their results hit closer to home than SETI. But it's all in the name of science so as long as everyone can benefit from some spare CPU cycles, it's all good =)
t.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm not officially responsible for the build process at my workplace, I've taken that responsibility as we've been porting our code to a new operating system. Here are some things we've learned that may help you.
We recently switched from Make as our build tool to Jam which has worked great. Like you, we didn't have the option of using GCC on every platform, and Jam made it easy to configure all the operating systems we're interested in using with the fewest headaches. After using Jam for quite a while now, I think all of the developers and I are very happy with the decision to axe Make. Honestly, I can sympathize with your effort to use Make to do all your compiling since we gave it some effort before switching to Jam. Try Jam - you'll be amazed at how much simpler your build process becomes.
Whether or not you use Jam (though we use Jam to do this), setting up nightly builds, capturing the output, and sending status emails with the results makes bug finding much simpler, especially on multiple platforms. Part of the nightly builds include built in testing. If any of the tests fail, we know we've broken something in our code.
Another suggestion... Look for a threading wrapper package like CommonC++ or ZThreads. Both are fairly well developed now and make programming multithreaded applications for multiple platforms pretty easy. For multiplatform GUI tools, try FLTK. It's tiny compared to WxWindows or other bloated GUI wrappers, plus it's easy to use.
There's an excellent book called "The Patent Files" by David Lindsay where he describes not only the state of invention and inventors today but goes through his own attempts to patent an idea of his own (including, in a separate attempt, trying to copyright himself). If you can get through his... uh.. casual style, then you'll find it full of good information for any of you out there who have dreams of patents and invention.
Slightly more on topic, from his experiences described in the book, those fees seem about standard. In Lindsay's book, he says he went through the search process, where the searchers didn't find any patents that were similar, then he applied where he was denied his patent because of past inventions (the denial cited six examples, and in his own research he found sixteen before stopping). Despite your own and the attorney's searching, you may end up blowing $6000 on your own patent attempt just to find out ten other people already did what you're trying or that your idea is covered by a similar patent and you haven't added something substantial to it. Nonetheless, if you feel confident that you have a truly original idea that's worthy of a patent, fire away and good luck.
This lawsuit is meaningless to the internet user community. Say Virtumundo (the people who bought the list) wins. All it means is that Mindset (the people who collected the list) have to pay out damages, nothing else. Mindset won't suddenly email all the people in their DB and say "We're sorry we collected your name. Would you like to be taken off?" Nope - they'll just keep on selling their lists to someone else who won't care about who they spam. And Virtumundo will go buy a list from someone else and spam away again, although they'll get it from a more "reputable" source. I applaud Virtumundo for what they're doing, but it's not going to change anything in the end.
I hate it when seemingly consequential stuff gets posted when it's only useless drivel...
taco
Sega announced that Phantasy Star Online 2 will be out for PC, Gamecube, XBox, and PS2 (along with the existing Dreamcast version, but there's no promise of compatability with it) well before Square announced FFXI for those systems. Why didn't PSO2's news make /. headlines? Just because Square has broken down and decided they can make money on all the platforms again doesn't mean they deserve a headline here...
taco
I'm amazed MS let him give that speech in light of the pending antitrust lawsuit against them. Specifically, if his comments (as I am interpreting them from the snippets in the articles) are accurate, he's insinuating that everyone should buy commercial OSs and use passport. Does he not realize that there are already commercial Linux OSs? They're certainly not the traditional companies, but RedHat turned a profit (finally). The coming of age for commercialized Linux OSs and applications is finally here. Deal with it. And about passport... if his comments aren't blatantly screaming "MS RULES PASSPORT," then I don't know what does. We don't need an alternative? Ever heard of a monopoly? Oh, wait.. I guess you have...
taco
Yes, if you own the copyright, you can do whatever you want to do with your material, like putting it on Gnutella and Morpheus. I'm referring to the program's most prominent use - transferring copyrighted material which the users do not own the copyright. Just how many downloads of your band's music have there been? I'm sure you know as well as I that the majority of files on those programs are illegal, and that your band's music probably hasn't propagated much around the net... (if it has, then congrats!)
taco
The sheer intelligence of your comment reflects the deep thought you must have given my comment. Never have I been this amazed at how one sentence can so tersely describe both your sentiment on the issue AND your intelligence level. All that, and the fact that you corageously put your name behind your words speaks to me that you must believe what you're saying is true and just. If everyone was like you, the whole world would be a better place to leave, or at least one where everyone wears protective cups over their groins.
In other words, STFU IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY.
thank you
taco
I fear this will give the GPL and free software a bad name. If Morpheus is ever shut down because of copyright violations, then maybe people will associate GPL and free software with distributing warez, mp3s, videos, etc... all these illegal things that Morpheus (and gnutella) let you do.
I really think people associated with free software DO NOT want their reputations attached to software which lets people conduct illegal activities (and don't argue with this - IT IS ILLEGAL). Yes, you could say this about FTPd or apache or other programs, but Morpheus and Gnutella have a single purpose - to let people exchange these files illegally. I just don't want other projects to take the rap for the few bad apples in the bunch... You know - then free software opponents (read as: Microsoft) will come along and paint Linux and other open source projects as "illegal" and "insecure" and "untrustworthy" (which they may or may not be). Anyone out there with the same sentiment?
taco
This is a HUGE blow to the music industry's case. The implication of Judge Patel asking them to produce copyright information is that, if they can't do it, the ENTIRE MUSIC INDUSTRY would be forever changed. Right now, music companies strap artists into super-restrictive contracts where anything the artist makes instantly becomes property of the label. This means that, perhaps, the power of ownership could fall back into the hands of the rightful owners - the artists. The RIAA knows this, and now they have to defend themselves. Ahh, sweet irony...
The other serious side effect of this is that the judge realizes that, like the article said, the music industry is moving into a monopoly of online digital music. We all know that the Napster law suit was raised not because the music industry doesn't want online transmission of music, but because they were late to the game and Napster beat them to the punch (and to the money). Judge Patel is calling their bluff and is saying that you can't shut down Napster just to steal their business.
This is a HUGE turning point to this case, and don't be surprised if the issue of copyright holding in music as a whole is revisited because of this line of inquiry.
taco
Does this extend to domain names? Is ihatemicrosoft.com now legal?
Actually, If OS/2 had won (and OS/2 WAS a superior operating system compared to MS's offerings at the time) MS probably would have found some standing to sue IBM and done it. That's not the point though - sigining exclusivity agreements is legal as long as there is equal opportunity in the marketplace for other people to sell similar goods. MS aliging itself with the biggest OEMs automatically destroys any other OS's chance of entering the market, much less creating a sizable user base necessary for sustaining production of the OS. What MS did was blatantly illegal and that's why the findings of fact from the antitrust case stated as such.
taco
Did you actually read the finds of fact from the antitrust case? In fact, it clearly spells out why OS/2, MacOS, and Be (listed under "Fringe Operating Systems") couldn't capture even a minimal share of the OS market. go read it yourself and see. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Apple, IBM, and other OS makers sue Microsoft as a result. Maybe this will start a chain reaction that may be able to slow the giant...
taco
Microsoft will desperately try to settle this out of court rather than go to trial. If it does go to trial and they lose (and they WILL lose if it goes to trial), not only will they have to pay out more damages, they'll also face the repercussions in PR and in their stock value. Just wait and see...
taco
Anyone remember this article only a couple of weeks ago? More and more, courts from around the world are disagreeing with one another in regards to copyright issues and technology. Are DVDs software or film?
This is only the beginning of a slew of court rulings and laws that will confict with each other and throw the already confused state of affairs into absolute chaos.
And why would someone like me want to study this in grad school? Because it's f**king cool - that's why =)
taco
An issue that has recently popped up in courts has been the legality of EULAs (End User Licence Agreements) and how binding they really are. According to what I've been reading, the consensus of courts has been that EULAs are more restrictive than existing copyright laws. More specifically, most software is in a state where you can only use it on one machine and never copy or resell it. The recent rulings imply that software can be bought and sold and used like books - you can burn the book, modify the book, then sell it to someone else. Obviously, the software world won't ever get that liberal with its interpretation of those laws, but there will be changes to how EULAs are made and enforced. Where do you see the future of EULAs going?
t.
Is this related to this slashdot article posted yesterday? What I mean is you're not obligated to agree to the EULA simply by purchasing or even opening the software (the ruling stated that you are essentially agreeing to it by installing it, but the licence is questionable because it's much more restrictive than existing copyright laws). The letter from the lawyer stated that you accept their agreement "upon purchasing a copy of the software." But then if this decision stands, you don't have to agree to their license, and you're free to do pratically whatever you want with the software.
Apple has also forgotten that as soon as something hits the net, it's very hard to retract. I'm interested in seeing what they'll do in response to this method of installation getting out....
t.
You've tried your hand at almost every major role in film/TV production from producer and director to actor and sound editing(?), and now you're going even further by writing for books and magazines. What do you enjoy best out of all the jobs you've tried and why? Also, what can we expect you to do in the future - say several years from now (entertainment industry related or not)?
thanks
t.
Remember that Bruce Campbell wasn't the only one to have his lines ripped off in that game...
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum... and I'm all out of bubble gum." Roddy Piper, They Live
t.
As you and others were developing The Tick into a live action series, (after watching the first live action episode) you seem to be trying to return to the style of the comic book rather than the animated series. To that end, some things probably weren't appropriate for TV, like having the Tick escape from an insane asylum in the pilot. Other things were created to make the show more appropriate for a tv audience - more character development and making them seem more like "real" people (jobs, cell phones, drinking at the bar, etc.).
How much did you have to give and take between making the live action have content appropriate for tv (ie network censors), adding plot elements and characters to make it appropriate for a (potentially) long running tv series, fighting the cartoon copyright issues, and adapting it to suit your vision of the Tick on tv? Also, what would you like to do with the show that you can't on tv?
thanks
t.
or they could face the evil hand of the DMCA like Dmitry Sklyarov did. I wonder what would happen if the crackers had come from america, or if ibm will try to take those guys to court to protect their encryption.
;)
on the other hand, it's already hit the net so it's a pratically public domain now
t.
I was as jaded as you were when I graduated with my CS degree a year ago. Most of the problem was I wasn't learning anything new during the last year of my studies - it was just rehashed or applied parts of my previous learning.
Looking at my job now (I've worked a little over a year), I know the parts I've enjoyed the most have been when I worked on a project full time, wholly engrossed with the development and creation of some new software. I would say that most engineers feel the most excited about work when they've created and completed something new from nothing. The lowest parts of my job have been when I have nothing to do - same thing like when you're not learning anything at school. Of course other factors exist - the work environment, coworkers, etc. but having challenging work to do is the part of my job that I enjoy best.
My best advice to you is choose a job that interests you and that will provide lots of challenging projects with the freedom for you do actually create and use your software development skills to their fullest. Otherwise you'll e bored at your desk day in, day out.
good luck
t.
Aside from the simple logistics of preventing installations, you'll incur the side effects of driving all of your developers insane. A part of development (and in planning for management) is the dead time needed by developers. No developer in his/her right mind can sit at a computer all day and program nonstop from 8 to 5 (or whatever your hours may be) without ample breaks. I speak from my own experience here; my coworkers and myself don't program 40 hrs a week. I fear a management who would expect anything like that from its workers...
Developers need diversions to keep them sane, and many diversions are available on the computer - games, the web, irc, etc. When you prevent your users from installing their own programs, you're telling them that they are worker drones who will do nothing but program all day long. This also applies to non-programmer types who use the computer to perform many of their day-to-day tasks - secretaries, accountants, HR people, and so on.
Go back to your management and tell them they're making a big mistake by doing this. Not only will you anger your users by preventing the installations, you'll also have to deal with the lowered morale and increased stress as people can't use their computers for their down time.
t.
I tried what the person from Opera suggested with Mozilla - change some letters around from the useragent string in Mozilla and see if it'll trick MSN into letting it through. Unfortunately, 'zilla crashed when I tried that (Mozilla --> Yozilla). I guess you can't fool Mozilla either...
t.
It's hard to miss the names of these big corporations with large Web interests listed at the top of the paper: Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Apple Computer. Of the people listed on the paper, who represented the open source community as the paper was written? Furthermore, how much representation does the open source community have in the W3C? Taking a look at your List of Members, I see lots of corporations with patents and proprietary standards but no open source companies (I do admit I skimmed the list). How can you then claim to be committed to "interoperability and encouraging an open forum for discussion" (taken from your mission statement) when the only involvement that the open source community has is by responding to your RFC's? Remember that the open source community is mostly people who do this because of their belief in open source and not because of financial backing or stock owners.
<rant>The Internet is built on lots of computers who happen to run agreed-upon protocols. These changes seem to want to fracture the 'net from the open standards it was built upon to proprietary 'nets. Also, the biggest proponent of interoperability standards and 'net cohesion is the open source community, who ensures that their software will work with the many pre-existing 'net standards or that their new standards are available for all to use freely. Please tell me that I'm not overreacting when I say that the W3C's first priority should be to the open source community, interoperability, and the standards which have kept the net running from its creation and not to the pockets of the members of the W3C.</rant>
t.
For those of you with some extra CPU cycles left over from running SETI@home, you should check out what Stanford's Pande Group is doing. Their two big distributed programs are Folding@home and Genome@home which do research in protein folding and their geometry. And if you're the type that worries what happens with the research (for profit, non profit, who gets the results, etc.), check the F@H FAQ that answers some of those questions - it's all non profit and eventually the results will be publicly available.
IMHO, I like Folding@home and Genome@home more than SETI because their results hit closer to home than SETI. But it's all in the name of science so as long as everyone can benefit from some spare CPU cycles, it's all good =)
t.