How long until the IT outsourcing start's biting companies in the arse?
Definitely! It's not bad enough that doing outsourcing overseas is more complicated and, from what I've seen, more expensive in the long run. Now you have other considerations.
In the case of software development outsourcing, who is to say that the outsourcing company in India isn't going to distribute the software to other parties, either freely or for additional profit for themselves?
Nah, as I've said before... I'm a software developer and I do not fear outsourcing overseas at all. I think it's starting to reach it's peak and things like this are just going to make it that much clearer that there are risks. Combine that with often less-than-incredible savings and, many times, INCREASED cost and we will soon see a lot of that outsourcing coming back to the U.S.
Of course, if the company had exactly $10M of debts and $10M of assets, the CEO would kick in a penny and avoid bankruptcy...;)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can declare bankruptcy just because debts > assets. Many people and companies have more debts than assets. I believe the deciding factor is if there is no reasonable way you'll be able to pay your debts. If you have assets of $10M and debts of $10M and income of $5M I doubt you'd be able to get a court to allow you to file for bankruptcy since there's a reasonable expectation that you'd be able to pay your debt off in a few years.
Ofcourse, research has shown that the people least likely to spend money are the rich. They just hoard money, they don't spend it.
Perhaps as a percentage of income, but I'm sure someone that is earning a cool million per year is spending more than someone who earns $30k per year. That the rich don't spend all their money just makes sense... you can't get rich if expenses=income, and at some point you literally run out of things to buy.
Sadly, it also means that the "waterfall" theory is just that, a theory.
Wrong. Money in the bank stimulates the economy too because it makes money available to institutions that can loan it to yet others which in turn stimulates the economy. Put it this way... if the rich spend all their money buying things then existing businesses are helped. If the rich "hoard" it then the banks have more money to loan which helps new businesses get off the ground and helps many individuals be able to get an affordable loan to buy their first house, etc.
So, basically, it's win win. Save it, spend it. As long as it stays in the economy and provokes economic activity it's a good thing.
Bookmarks on the side, yeah, if you want them. I usually put a folder or two in the personal toolbar, then use them as dropdowns.
Let me see if we're talking about the same thing. At the top you have your standard menu bar "File / Edit / View / etc.". Below that you usually have some of the navigation buttons (Back, Forward, Reload) and the address area where you can type in an URL.
In the space below that you can put folders such that when you click on each folder you get a drop-down list of bookmarks? Or are you talking about clicking on "Favorites" all the way at the top and then selecting a folder from that drop-down which gives you yet another drop-down with the bookmarks you want?
What I have below my "Back / Forward / Reload / Stop" buttons is a single bookmark bar... A quick link to Google (I don't use the browser search function even though it goes to Google, too), Local (a folder of bookmarks of local files), Tech Reference (a folder of bookmarks to tech information of the net), Resources (non-tech resources on the net), and News/Weather. I can get to any of my bookmarks in two clicks--one click to get the appropriate drop-down menu, then click on the bookmark.
When I first got XP I tried to use the IE that came with it, but I simply could not get the above functionality to happen. All I could seem to get was either the "favorites" that pop-up on the left side of the browser window taking up space, or adding them to the "Favorites" drop-down menu option which then required 3 clicks to get to the page I wanted. So I just installed Netscape.
It doesn't really matter to me now since I'm on Linux and I'll never use IE again. But I'd be interested in knowing if what I wanted to achieve with IE the last time I tried is now possible (or perhaps was possible then and I just couldn't figure it out).
but since there won't be any new versions under this engine, I'll have to wait for Longhorn.
Must be a bummer to have to wait for a new OS to get a new version of your browser.:) Meanwhile, Mozilla development keeps on truckin'.
I tend to agree with you. But the browser doesn't specifically have a "pop under" feature. It's just a matter of running some JavaScript to send it to the back. Patenting that is rediculous, but no more rediculous than patenting anything else any given software does.
Which does lead us to the conclusion, of course, that patenting software is silly.
Whitelists and challenge response are the future of email.
Don't get me started on challenge response. That "solution" is just about as evil as spam because it, by design, *contributes* to the spam problem.
If some spammer sends a spam to a user with challenge/response and forges the return address (which is par for the course), the challenge/response will send a challenge to the purported email address. That will be some poor innocent person who had nothing to do with anything, yet he is receiving the challenge. For him, that's spam. So now instead of a single spam being sent and silently filtered upon receipt, a total of two spams have been sent on the network.
If the return address of email were somehow authenticated then I'd have less of a problem with using challenge/response, although I still don't think it's the best solution. But as long as email is anonymous and the return address can be forged I think challenge/response is as obnoxious as spam itself. You are saving yourself from spam by filling up innocent third parties' mailboxes with your challenges.
Lots of pop-ups for you lately?:) Or did you pay to buy some application that does the work that your browser *should* do... namely supress pop-ups you don't want to see.
Really, I've been on Linux/Mozilla since March. Even when I was on Windows before that I used Netscape under XP. The IE interface just is annoying (is there anyway to get bookmarks into drop-down lists that appear docked at the top? Or is the bookmark still some annoying thing that occupies valuable real-estate on the left side of the browser window?).
Now, when I occasionally have to surf on the computer of some poor Windows bastard that uses IE I just can't imagine how anyone can actually use the web with all the pop-ups.
While I am willing to concede that the US has much larger underpopulated areas than most of Europe, the fact still remains that in many densly populated areas, cell coverage may still be relativly poor.
I've found cell coverage in the U.S. is only poor exactly in those large, sparsely populated areas. If you're in the middle of the Mojave desert 100 miles from the nearest gas station, yeah, you probably won't have a cell signal.
That said, I've never had any problems getting a cell signal in any U.S. city I've visited. Not sure which "densely populated areas" you've found where "cell coverage may still be relatively poor." Are you just saying that, or have you really had a problem with cell phone coverage in any major U.S. city?
This is the future of mail, and the only reasonable way to solve the spam problem. In the future you will have the ability to specifically grant email addresses or mail servers the right to send you messages, denying all others.
That'd no longer be email. Once email is no longer open to anyone that wants to send you email or once email starts costing money the email we've known for decades is history. It'll be a burned out shell of the useful and powerful thing that has been email to date and which has caused worldwide communication like no other technology.
I wish more people and companies would start taking approaches to spam that truly target spam rather than saying, "I'd rather not communicate than get spam." We need to get rid of spam, but if we lose the benefits that made email popular and useful in the first place then it's a scorched earth policy.
In other words, what good is implementing some anti-spam idea if it doesn't just get rid of spam but also gets rid of valid communication? These ideas should be non-starters.
Again, this is money that could be used for space exploration
What good is exploration or knowledge if they aren't going to share it? I agree it's going to cost money (although it will cost less if they don't fight it), but I'd say it's worth it in either case.
instead of helping some entertainment company boost their ratings.
This is one of those situations where corporate greed works in our favor. They get their boost in rating and, hopefully, the public will have access to some information that we are rightfully entitled to.
Other cases of corporate greed working in our favor are, for example, ISPs fighting the RIAA. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they're just watching their bottom line--but it happens to work in our favor and is in line with what we believe is right.
If SciFi can boost their ratings and make a buck while at the same time doing something that may benefit all of us, hey, I'm 100% for it! That's capitalism and freedom working hand in hand and everyone coming out ahead.
It's also possible that NASA concluded their "investigation" was such utter bullshit that the whole file consists of a crayon-written letter from a yokel, and a memo saying "don't waste any time on this crap. We have a space race to win!" and that was the end of it.
In which case they're going to look awfully stupid having not released information on the incident over the last 30 years and refusing a FOIA request. If that's all there is, that's all there is. It still should be out there for the public to see.
So SciFi makes an FIA request; NASA says "that's all there is," mostly because aside from this file that's all there fucking is
From what I've read, they haven't responded--they haven't said "that's all there is." They haven't given them anything. Do some surfing to read up on what happened. There are plenty of people wanting more information, not just the SciFi channel.
then SciFi sues, desperate not to scuttle a project they've already invested $n in, thereby wasting more time and money, but it's all okay because it's not their money,
Believe it or not, it's their money in the sense that it isn't zero-cost to sue NASA. It's going to cost them money and will only cost NASA money if they fight it. If they release the information then it will just cost them whatever it costs them to get the information together, but that's their responsibility anyway under the FOIA.
it's ours, and it's not being used on space exploration.
NASA hasn't done a whole lot to explore space since they started flying the Space Shuttle. And if there's a chance that they are sitting on information that is potentially more interesting and useful than what we're going to get flying in circles in LEO then I'd rather they spend some money in getting that information to the public.
On the other hand, if they have their little UFO episode this weekend and then promptly decide not to sue anyone after all then I'll agree it was just corporate greed, looking for ratings, and nothing more and will probably never watch their channel again. But if they follow through and go after the information they're seeking even after this weekend then I'm completely fine with them boosting their ratings in the process.
However, I doubt that is the method NASA would use to make their official press release.
Exactly. If we were invaded in ID4 fashion, sure, people would panic--and rightfully so. But as you said, a dead alien or recovered spaceship with no guns blazing would most probably not cause a spontaneous cultural collapse. Especially if it happened 30 years ago.
While I don't go overboard on conspiracy theories, we're definitely not being told everything the government knows about UFOs and specific incidents such as these, as well as the JFK incident. Does the government know that JFK was killed by the CIA? Does it know it was a conspiracy but they never figured out who? Does the government know UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin? Or does it have conclusive evidence it was all interesting cold-war era technology? Or maybe JFK was killed by UFOs, hence the cover-up on both topics?:)
I don't know... But the government definitely has information on all these topics that they've decided not to share with the citizens and they better be some real important and well-justified NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES if they want to keep holding back.
Anyway, War of the World was over half a century ago and was intentionally transmitted as entertainment to get people concerned or feared. Just like going to a horror film today is supposed to scare you (even though you usually just laugh), that was designed to provoke fear and panic. It worked. The problem was it worked so well people thought it was real and UFOs were attacking. UFOs ATTACKING would cause me fear, too.
But I really doubt the knowledge than an extraterrestrial, intelligent object crashed in PA in 1965 would have people running in the streets. Yes, it would change the way many people look at many things. Heck, it might even lead to PEACE on earth as humans around the world realize we are all "the same."
But I really doubt that people today would riot in the streets out of fear of something that happened 38 years ago--even something as significant as the knowledge that we are not alone.
It's only taxpayer-funded if the government (NASA) refuses to cooperate. Since NASA exists on our dime to acquire knowledge for all our benefit the fact that they are not willing to voluntarily give up knowledge they acquired bothers me. Yes, it is a shame that anyone or any organization has to SUE to get information from the government. But if that's what it takes to get the government to be more open with those of us who fund it, I'm all for it.
The government has wasted money on things much less important than freedom of information.
Some people would not believe it. Some would think the revelation was a conspiracy. Many others would just grip their bibles and squeeze their eyes shut. Some would panic. They would kill themselves or run naked through the streets.
How is that any different than the current, normal state of affairs?
So PGP allows you to prevent people to which you send an email from forwarding it to someone outside of your domain? Or from forwarding it at all?
No, but as I said, neither will this. In reality, once you send something it's up to the receiver what happens to it. This MS stuff supposedly restricts what the receiver can do with it, but it's not that hard to get around. In worst case it can be screen-shot into a 3rd party app or a digital picture can be taken. The reality is that there's no way to stop emails from being forwarded. Yes, you can make it require a little more effort, but it still can be forwarded.
So now you'll have some people that blindly trust the marketing that will trust that when they set the "No forwarding" flag that it can't be forwarded and then will be shocked when it appears on a competitor's website.
The point is that for anyone to suggest that this actually impedes forwarding or printing is wrong. It makes it a little more difficult, but not that much more difficult. It's better that computer illiterate people realize that anything they send can be forwarded and thus are careful with what they send rather than giving them some false sense of security and having them trust that security to allow them to send stuff they would otherwise think twice of sending.
It really comes down to fairly simple logic: Don't send content to somebody you don't trust. If you're not sure someone is going to keep confidential information confidential, why are you sending it to them in the first place? In such a situation your security problem isn't the software, it's the human factor. And trusting technology to work so that you don't have to trust the human factor is just bad.
as there were no terrorist acts committed on US soil during his term?
Heheh, are you stupid or just so young you honestly don't remember?:) As mentioned above, Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing. And if you want to include attacks on U.S. outside of our soil, consider the two embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the Cole, and the Khobar Towers attack.
The U.S. actually suffered more terrorist attacks under Clinton than Bush. And it's obvious that 9/11 was planned primarily during the Clinton presidency and apparently wasn't detected or stopped under his administration--so blaming Bush because they didn't stop in 8 months when Clinton's administration didn't even detect in 8 years is just silly.
Anyway, welcome to the real world. Get your facts right next time.
I find it amusing how Slashdot reacts to computer security issues with such fervor, but when a type of security comes around that they don't like, it's oh so evil!
Well, it's Microsoft. We have reason not to trust them.
Plus, more effective encryption (PGP) is available and works on all platforms. So why invent the wheel in such a way that requires that Microsoft become some kind of middleman?
Again, the idea that an email will "self-destruct" is a lie. It will only give a false sense of security to computer users that will actually trust such a technology. It's more dangerous that they think they are protected and trust it than not being protected at all but knowing it.
Seems like this is pretty silly. Trying to control what a recipient does with email after you sent it is like trying to reconstruct a nuclear bomb after it detonates. It's too late... it's out there and you really can't say what's going to happen.
If anything, this may give stupid senders a false sense of security. They may think "Well, since I put limits on this email it will never get out." Right. What about copy/paste? Ok, they probably disable copy/paste in the window context. What about a print-screen/snapshot of the entire email? Paint Shop Pro would certainly do the trick.
Also funny was the line "Microsoft says a free viewing program will be available for those who receive a protected document but are not using Office 2003." Yeah, I'm sure there'll be one available for Linux. Doesn't matter. If someone sends me a non-standard email that I can't read it goes to the bit bucket. I may or may not ask them to send it again.
"He's one of the top 10 minds in America." "Someday I hope to be two of them."
"This, this is ice, this is what happens to water when it gets too cold. This, this is Kent, this is what happens when someone gets too sexually frustrated."
"I passed, but I failed, yeah!" "Well then I'm happy and sad for you!"
"I had a problem with the sport coat, so I threw it out."
"These military types are so untrusting." (complaint as they hack into a military computer).
"Hi, this is Jerry Hathaway with Everything."
"Is that your real hair?" "Is there any chance Mitch was adopted?" "No." "Amazing!" "Isn't it though?"
"Let me give you some advice. Always.... Never... forget to cite your references. I think the young ones like it when I 'get down', verbally."
Sorry, you're right. The article was instantly./'d so I wasn't able to read the article until someone posted it here.
Still, the header probably should have listed "Fat Client/Server Model" rather than "Client/Server" dying since the latter includes most of where things are going these days... web services, etc. are obviously all client/server--perhaps even "Fat client" depending on what browser you use.:)
Yeah, that reminded me I wanted to reinstall Wine and get it working--hadn't done that since moving to Redhat 9.0. Anyway, downloaded the latest version from WineHq, installed it. Paint Shop Pro used to work, but it doesn't seem to now--although GIF Construction Set does, as does Sim City 2000.
Seems very, very slow though. I'll probably continue to run Win4Lin rather than Wine. It'd be nice to just be able to run an app quickly under Wine, but it actually seems that running Win4Lin is faster than Wine--and Win4Lin has yet to fail to run any Win application I give it.
Whether they built prototypes or models, the point is that the Americans never tried to bring them into production for commercial use because it was clear it was not commercially viable. Just as France and the UK have realized--or accepted--26 years later.
What, you think Boeing and Lockheed Martin can't build a supersonic aircraft?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely! It's not bad enough that doing outsourcing overseas is more complicated and, from what I've seen, more expensive in the long run. Now you have other considerations.
In the case of software development outsourcing, who is to say that the outsourcing company in India isn't going to distribute the software to other parties, either freely or for additional profit for themselves?
Nah, as I've said before... I'm a software developer and I do not fear outsourcing overseas at all. I think it's starting to reach it's peak and things like this are just going to make it that much clearer that there are risks. Combine that with often less-than-incredible savings and, many times, INCREASED cost and we will soon see a lot of that outsourcing coming back to the U.S.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can declare bankruptcy just because debts > assets. Many people and companies have more debts than assets. I believe the deciding factor is if there is no reasonable way you'll be able to pay your debts. If you have assets of $10M and debts of $10M and income of $5M I doubt you'd be able to get a court to allow you to file for bankruptcy since there's a reasonable expectation that you'd be able to pay your debt off in a few years.
Of course I could be wrong.
Perhaps as a percentage of income, but I'm sure someone that is earning a cool million per year is spending more than someone who earns $30k per year. That the rich don't spend all their money just makes sense... you can't get rich if expenses=income, and at some point you literally run out of things to buy.
Sadly, it also means that the "waterfall" theory is just that, a theory.
Wrong. Money in the bank stimulates the economy too because it makes money available to institutions that can loan it to yet others which in turn stimulates the economy. Put it this way... if the rich spend all their money buying things then existing businesses are helped. If the rich "hoard" it then the banks have more money to loan which helps new businesses get off the ground and helps many individuals be able to get an affordable loan to buy their first house, etc.
So, basically, it's win win. Save it, spend it. As long as it stays in the economy and provokes economic activity it's a good thing.
Let me see if we're talking about the same thing. At the top you have your standard menu bar "File / Edit / View / etc.". Below that you usually have some of the navigation buttons (Back, Forward, Reload) and the address area where you can type in an URL.
In the space below that you can put folders such that when you click on each folder you get a drop-down list of bookmarks? Or are you talking about clicking on "Favorites" all the way at the top and then selecting a folder from that drop-down which gives you yet another drop-down with the bookmarks you want?
What I have below my "Back / Forward / Reload / Stop" buttons is a single bookmark bar... A quick link to Google (I don't use the browser search function even though it goes to Google, too), Local (a folder of bookmarks of local files), Tech Reference (a folder of bookmarks to tech information of the net), Resources (non-tech resources on the net), and News/Weather. I can get to any of my bookmarks in two clicks--one click to get the appropriate drop-down menu, then click on the bookmark.
When I first got XP I tried to use the IE that came with it, but I simply could not get the above functionality to happen. All I could seem to get was either the "favorites" that pop-up on the left side of the browser window taking up space, or adding them to the "Favorites" drop-down menu option which then required 3 clicks to get to the page I wanted. So I just installed Netscape.
It doesn't really matter to me now since I'm on Linux and I'll never use IE again. But I'd be interested in knowing if what I wanted to achieve with IE the last time I tried is now possible (or perhaps was possible then and I just couldn't figure it out).
but since there won't be any new versions under this engine, I'll have to wait for Longhorn.
Must be a bummer to have to wait for a new OS to get a new version of your browser. :) Meanwhile, Mozilla development keeps on truckin'.
I tend to agree with you. But the browser doesn't specifically have a "pop under" feature. It's just a matter of running some JavaScript to send it to the back. Patenting that is rediculous, but no more rediculous than patenting anything else any given software does.
Which does lead us to the conclusion, of course, that patenting software is silly.
Don't get me started on challenge response. That "solution" is just about as evil as spam because it, by design, *contributes* to the spam problem.
If some spammer sends a spam to a user with challenge/response and forges the return address (which is par for the course), the challenge/response will send a challenge to the purported email address. That will be some poor innocent person who had nothing to do with anything, yet he is receiving the challenge. For him, that's spam. So now instead of a single spam being sent and silently filtered upon receipt, a total of two spams have been sent on the network.
If the return address of email were somehow authenticated then I'd have less of a problem with using challenge/response, although I still don't think it's the best solution. But as long as email is anonymous and the return address can be forged I think challenge/response is as obnoxious as spam itself. You are saving yourself from spam by filling up innocent third parties' mailboxes with your challenges.
Really, I've been on Linux/Mozilla since March. Even when I was on Windows before that I used Netscape under XP. The IE interface just is annoying (is there anyway to get bookmarks into drop-down lists that appear docked at the top? Or is the bookmark still some annoying thing that occupies valuable real-estate on the left side of the browser window?).
Now, when I occasionally have to surf on the computer of some poor Windows bastard that uses IE I just can't imagine how anyone can actually use the web with all the pop-ups.
I've found cell coverage in the U.S. is only poor exactly in those large, sparsely populated areas. If you're in the middle of the Mojave desert 100 miles from the nearest gas station, yeah, you probably won't have a cell signal.
That said, I've never had any problems getting a cell signal in any U.S. city I've visited. Not sure which "densely populated areas" you've found where "cell coverage may still be relatively poor." Are you just saying that, or have you really had a problem with cell phone coverage in any major U.S. city?
That'd no longer be email. Once email is no longer open to anyone that wants to send you email or once email starts costing money the email we've known for decades is history. It'll be a burned out shell of the useful and powerful thing that has been email to date and which has caused worldwide communication like no other technology.
I wish more people and companies would start taking approaches to spam that truly target spam rather than saying, "I'd rather not communicate than get spam." We need to get rid of spam, but if we lose the benefits that made email popular and useful in the first place then it's a scorched earth policy.
In other words, what good is implementing some anti-spam idea if it doesn't just get rid of spam but also gets rid of valid communication? These ideas should be non-starters.
What good is exploration or knowledge if they aren't going to share it? I agree it's going to cost money (although it will cost less if they don't fight it), but I'd say it's worth it in either case.
instead of helping some entertainment company boost their ratings.
This is one of those situations where corporate greed works in our favor. They get their boost in rating and, hopefully, the public will have access to some information that we are rightfully entitled to.
Other cases of corporate greed working in our favor are, for example, ISPs fighting the RIAA. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they're just watching their bottom line--but it happens to work in our favor and is in line with what we believe is right.
If SciFi can boost their ratings and make a buck while at the same time doing something that may benefit all of us, hey, I'm 100% for it! That's capitalism and freedom working hand in hand and everyone coming out ahead.
It's also possible that NASA concluded their "investigation" was such utter bullshit that the whole file consists of a crayon-written letter from a yokel, and a memo saying "don't waste any time on this crap. We have a space race to win!" and that was the end of it.
In which case they're going to look awfully stupid having not released information on the incident over the last 30 years and refusing a FOIA request. If that's all there is, that's all there is. It still should be out there for the public to see.
So SciFi makes an FIA request; NASA says "that's all there is," mostly because aside from this file that's all there fucking is
From what I've read, they haven't responded--they haven't said "that's all there is." They haven't given them anything. Do some surfing to read up on what happened. There are plenty of people wanting more information, not just the SciFi channel.
then SciFi sues, desperate not to scuttle a project they've already invested $n in, thereby wasting more time and money, but it's all okay because it's not their money,
Believe it or not, it's their money in the sense that it isn't zero-cost to sue NASA. It's going to cost them money and will only cost NASA money if they fight it. If they release the information then it will just cost them whatever it costs them to get the information together, but that's their responsibility anyway under the FOIA.
it's ours, and it's not being used on space exploration.
NASA hasn't done a whole lot to explore space since they started flying the Space Shuttle. And if there's a chance that they are sitting on information that is potentially more interesting and useful than what we're going to get flying in circles in LEO then I'd rather they spend some money in getting that information to the public.
On the other hand, if they have their little UFO episode this weekend and then promptly decide not to sue anyone after all then I'll agree it was just corporate greed, looking for ratings, and nothing more and will probably never watch their channel again. But if they follow through and go after the information they're seeking even after this weekend then I'm completely fine with them boosting their ratings in the process.
Exactly. If we were invaded in ID4 fashion, sure, people would panic--and rightfully so. But as you said, a dead alien or recovered spaceship with no guns blazing would most probably not cause a spontaneous cultural collapse. Especially if it happened 30 years ago.
While I don't go overboard on conspiracy theories, we're definitely not being told everything the government knows about UFOs and specific incidents such as these, as well as the JFK incident. Does the government know that JFK was killed by the CIA? Does it know it was a conspiracy but they never figured out who? Does the government know UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin? Or does it have conclusive evidence it was all interesting cold-war era technology? Or maybe JFK was killed by UFOs, hence the cover-up on both topics? :)
I don't know... But the government definitely has information on all these topics that they've decided not to share with the citizens and they better be some real important and well-justified NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES if they want to keep holding back.
Anyway, War of the World was over half a century ago and was intentionally transmitted as entertainment to get people concerned or feared. Just like going to a horror film today is supposed to scare you (even though you usually just laugh), that was designed to provoke fear and panic. It worked. The problem was it worked so well people thought it was real and UFOs were attacking. UFOs ATTACKING would cause me fear, too.
But I really doubt the knowledge than an extraterrestrial, intelligent object crashed in PA in 1965 would have people running in the streets. Yes, it would change the way many people look at many things. Heck, it might even lead to PEACE on earth as humans around the world realize we are all "the same."
But I really doubt that people today would riot in the streets out of fear of something that happened 38 years ago--even something as significant as the knowledge that we are not alone.
It's only taxpayer-funded if the government (NASA) refuses to cooperate. Since NASA exists on our dime to acquire knowledge for all our benefit the fact that they are not willing to voluntarily give up knowledge they acquired bothers me. Yes, it is a shame that anyone or any organization has to SUE to get information from the government. But if that's what it takes to get the government to be more open with those of us who fund it, I'm all for it.
The government has wasted money on things much less important than freedom of information.
How is that any different than the current, normal state of affairs?
No, but as I said, neither will this. In reality, once you send something it's up to the receiver what happens to it. This MS stuff supposedly restricts what the receiver can do with it, but it's not that hard to get around. In worst case it can be screen-shot into a 3rd party app or a digital picture can be taken. The reality is that there's no way to stop emails from being forwarded. Yes, you can make it require a little more effort, but it still can be forwarded.
So now you'll have some people that blindly trust the marketing that will trust that when they set the "No forwarding" flag that it can't be forwarded and then will be shocked when it appears on a competitor's website.
The point is that for anyone to suggest that this actually impedes forwarding or printing is wrong. It makes it a little more difficult, but not that much more difficult. It's better that computer illiterate people realize that anything they send can be forwarded and thus are careful with what they send rather than giving them some false sense of security and having them trust that security to allow them to send stuff they would otherwise think twice of sending.
It really comes down to fairly simple logic: Don't send content to somebody you don't trust. If you're not sure someone is going to keep confidential information confidential, why are you sending it to them in the first place? In such a situation your security problem isn't the software, it's the human factor. And trusting technology to work so that you don't have to trust the human factor is just bad.
Heheh, are you stupid or just so young you honestly don't remember? :) As mentioned above, Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing. And if you want to include attacks on U.S. outside of our soil, consider the two embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the Cole, and the Khobar Towers attack.
The U.S. actually suffered more terrorist attacks under Clinton than Bush. And it's obvious that 9/11 was planned primarily during the Clinton presidency and apparently wasn't detected or stopped under his administration--so blaming Bush because they didn't stop in 8 months when Clinton's administration didn't even detect in 8 years is just silly.
Anyway, welcome to the real world. Get your facts right next time.
Even if you take a karma hit, you spoke the truth man!
Well, it's Microsoft. We have reason not to trust them.
Plus, more effective encryption (PGP) is available and works on all platforms. So why invent the wheel in such a way that requires that Microsoft become some kind of middleman?
Again, the idea that an email will "self-destruct" is a lie. It will only give a false sense of security to computer users that will actually trust such a technology. It's more dangerous that they think they are protected and trust it than not being protected at all but knowing it.
If anything, this may give stupid senders a false sense of security. They may think "Well, since I put limits on this email it will never get out." Right. What about copy/paste? Ok, they probably disable copy/paste in the window context. What about a print-screen/snapshot of the entire email? Paint Shop Pro would certainly do the trick.
Also funny was the line "Microsoft says a free viewing program will be available for those who receive a protected document but are not using Office 2003." Yeah, I'm sure there'll be one available for Linux. Doesn't matter. If someone sends me a non-standard email that I can't read it goes to the bit bucket. I may or may not ask them to send it again.
"This, this is ice, this is what happens to water when it gets too cold. This, this is Kent, this is what happens when someone gets too sexually frustrated."
"I passed, but I failed, yeah!" "Well then I'm happy and sad for you!"
"I had a problem with the sport coat, so I threw it out."
"These military types are so untrusting." (complaint as they hack into a military computer).
"Hi, this is Jerry Hathaway with Everything."
"Is that your real hair?" "Is there any chance Mitch was adopted?" "No." "Amazing!" "Isn't it though?"
"Let me give you some advice. Always.... Never... forget to cite your references. I think the young ones like it when I 'get down', verbally."
Still, the header probably should have listed "Fat Client/Server Model" rather than "Client/Server" dying since the latter includes most of where things are going these days... web services, etc. are obviously all client/server--perhaps even "Fat client" depending on what browser you use. :)
Seems very, very slow though. I'll probably continue to run Win4Lin rather than Wine. It'd be nice to just be able to run an app quickly under Wine, but it actually seems that running Win4Lin is faster than Wine--and Win4Lin has yet to fail to run any Win application I give it.
What, you think Boeing and Lockheed Martin can't build a supersonic aircraft? :)