Well, it actually depends on how the plans are to do this... if it's via a laser transmission, that has it's own set of flaws, while a radio peer-to-peer has another set.
Lasers:
(1) Weather. If it's rainy (Seattle), smoggy (L.A.) or snowy (Canada), then you have problems. Also, other 'obstacles' like pigeons and such can be fairly hazardous to a connection...:P
(2) Precision. Laser transmission has to be fairly precise, or you're going to lose packets. Which is not a good way to promote the efficiency of your product. ("We only lose 30% of your information")
(3) Power. Laser transmission can be very ineffective, power-wise, and the further it has to travel, the tighter the beam (what with precision and all) has to be. You have to be careful about power output in open areas.
(4) Interference: What happens if two or more lasers cross? Packet data swaps? Corruption of data? Nothing?
Now, mind you, in a relatively small, enclosed area (I believe an arcology has been mentioned), it might be more feasible.
Radio peer-to-peer:
(1) Available frequencies: If every 'user' is on their own sub-frequency, in large metropolitan areas, you can run out of sub-frequencies rather quickly. What with radio traffic already there, you have to be able to devote a frequency to a user that can be assured of less then a fixed amount of interference.
(2) Jamming: If you're using a radio peer-to-peer, it's possible to be jammed fairly easily. It's fairly simple to set up a broad-band radio jammer to mess with local radio stations right now (with most, if not all of the parts available at Radio Shack). It may not work over a very wide area, mind you, but it can be done.
(3) Privacy: Radio peer-to-peer, unless properly encrypted, can be 'listened' in on by practically any other user of a radio ptp. And with the right software, encryption can be circumvented, for the most part. After all, you have to be able to insure that the receiver can read it. You can't just send a PGP key with this, because potentially, anyone could 'see' it.
If you're out in the middle of East Armpit, Texas, this becomes less of an issue, but in major metro areas, you'll have all kinds of d00dz playing around with their toys.
IMAO, radio peer-to-peer is not the way to go for now, but for all I know, all of my concerns have been addressed already. Laser transmission offers it's own problems as well, which I really can't see certain ways around. The last thing I want is a 'laser grid' in the sky full of information. Too many possibilites that something could go wrong.
Well, it depends. Frankly, some code is proprietary, and as such, we cannot legally look at it. We still can see what it does, and if we know what language it was written in, we can reverse-engineer it, but there will most likely be differences between that code and the original.
Also, I can understand, from a security standpoint, that some code may not be made freely available in order to provide greater security for the program that the code is for. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it.
Now, given that Carnivore can be accessed from outside secure facilities, it would be a bad idea not to make this as secure as possible. While I don't automatically trust the FBI with what they are doing or where they are going with this whole data collection scheme, I would prefer to see it be as secure as possible, to avoid the possibility that some hacker geek can get into the system easily.
Finally, I have to agree with a previous article and position on Slashdot: Information does not want to be free; people want information to be free. Frankly, until society is free of people who would act irresponsibly with information, I prefer it if not all information is free.
Possible, but given the size of the heat sinks in the computers I've taken a look at lately (admittedly, these are some older computers with big heat sinks), they could decrease the actual volume of the heat sinks and still redirect enough heat efficiently enough.
Also, you could use the carbon nanotubes to "move" the heat to heat sinks in the base of the computer (as an example) away from all the vital components. Imagine a sheath around the processor converging into a "wire" of nanotubes that leads to the heat sinks. It may make it more difficult to modify the processor, as you would have to be careful about damaging the sheath, but it may be worth it.
Of course, I could just be blowing smoke.... obviously there's going to have to be a lot of configuration testing done.
Ahh, but it is illegal to purchase pornographic materials until you are the appropriate age. Nowhere on the back of Quake 3 (as an example) does it say that you need to be 18 before K-mart will "let" you buy it.
It's a simple parallel:
You don't need to be a certain age to buy normal comic books or to buy Quake 3.
You do need to meet an age minimum to buy adult comics and adult games (I'm sure there's some out there, although not at K-mart).
See?
The people I see getting hurt by this the most is actually K-mart. To my knowledge, no other outlet store is enforcing this kind of policy, so it looks like their sales of computer games will dip just a wee little bit. Oh well, time to dump that K-mart stock...
It's not illegal to own these games (yet). It's not illegal to possess these games. There's no current age restriction on most of them (I have yet to see a violent game carry a sticker saying that you have to be 18 to own it).
So how the heck can they legally enforce this? While I am not a parent, I can understand that maybe all of these violent games are not the best for little Junior, but shouldn't that be my decision, not K-mart's?
I really find this to be an infringement on the ability of the public to freely purchase legal products. What's next, refusing to allow minors to buy aspirin because of the "no-drugs" policy at many schools?
Well, duh... computer software warranties are incredibly vague, intentional written in crypto-speak (or so it seems), and often not available until after you buy the product. The way to handle this is to force software makers to use the same standards as the manufactureres of other goods. If they have to follow the same rules (and I can't see any reason why they shouldn't), then while we still might not get better software, at least we will be able to do something else about it.
Of course, if the software makers like Micro$oft, etc. don't want to do this (and lobby against it), then, hey... more reason to use freeware and Open Source products. Because with those, if it's bad, it's not like you spent any money on it, so you're not really out anything. Also, because it's free, there is a greater tendency to make sure it works right, because who knows how many people will be using it? (I can't see a whole lot of market tracking on freeware.)
Ideally, it should be a combination of both. Software makers should use the same standards as other makers of consumer goods. But, Open Source should also be at the forefront of this, putting their $0.02 out and showing what software should be like... (you know, free...)
...there is no reason at all to pursue a degree in IT or Computer Science any more, at least if the program I went through is any indication. We were only barely taught C/C++; the same with Java; there was no course for VB. The Unix work was introductory and sparse, and the only classes that taught any kind of "Web design" did not count for credit if you were a Comp. Sci. major.
In the light of this kind of attitude (the only reason to get a B.S. in Comp. Sci. is to go to Graduate School), I can understand why more and more people are trying to forego the degree and jump straight into the IT industry.
Also, the proliferation of applications that teach you how to program in C/C++, Java, VB, etc. are growing. It is much easier to learn this stuff on your own, at least for the early parts, and then get a job where they train you in the rest. Frankly, I think that most colleges and universities need to update their curricula and teach what needs to be taught instead of class after class of "useless" theory. (It's useless in the sense that if you're not going for a Ph.D., you'll never use most of this stuff after you get out of college.)
A recent article on MSNBC.com shows that the tiny Polynesian country of Tuvalu has recieved $17 million to date because of the Internet domain name it has of ".tv".
Basically, this country (not necessarily the inhabitants thereof, mind you) is getting suddenly wealthy off of the Internet and the potential market value of the.tv domain. If this isn't a "Merchant Nation" in the same vein, then I don't know what is...
Hrm... let's see... my choice is either to pay (as an example) $40.00 for a program, or rent it as a per use program for a dime per use. Hrm... let me think on this... Even at 400 uses before I exceed the cost of the app, I don't like this idea... I use some apps 15 times a day....
Of course "Big Business" loves this idea. It only takes a little while, even at 'cheap' rates to equal and/or exceed the list cost of any given software application (of course, you all already realize this, being Slashdot fanatics).
So what to do? Convince all of your friends to go with Open Source apps or freeware. If Microsoft wants to go to a rental format for software, let them. I'll convert every single person I know to Unix that much easier with that kind of thing going on.
My question is, how do the software companies think they can get away with this? Sure, rental methods exist for a lot of things (cars, for example), but how can they honestly think that it will work with software? I'm sorry, but no one in their right mind is going to "rent" a lot of the apps that exist. (I ignore certain games like Evercrack as a useful nuisance that keeps more Anonymous Cowards off of Slashdot.)
Is Open Source and freeware not that much of a threat yet? Beats me for sure, but in the paraphrased words of Yoda, "It will be..."
A couple of things Adam Curry doesn't address (or chooses to ignore) in his article.
(1) Stations sell advertising to businesses for cash. This cash is what keeps the station going, especially if the format isn't the most popular in a given area. More popular radio stations can charge more because more people are listening and can potentially be influenced by the advertising.
(2) Stations don't play songs that aren't popular (at least not for long). If the song doesn't have an appreciable fan-base, it doesn't get played nearly as often as the latest pablum from boy-bands or teenage-blond-singer-of-the-week.
(3) What the heck does this mean?
Don't expect any major radio networks to really jump on the bandwagon of "Formats" the way Curry outlined it. Radio stations do not want the listeners to be able to cut out the ads, or modify the playlists by 'subtracting' artists from the playlist. Yes, there will be web-casts, but they
will be what the radio station wants to play.
That's for major radio networks. Independent web-radios can play whatever the heck they want, for the most part, because they aren't dependent on advertising. Heck, it might be nothing other then the DJ ranting on local stuff for hours on end. But the prolificacy of web-radio means that if you search long enough, you can find whatever you want, be it "All-Metallica, All The Time", or 24-Hour Reggae...
Now, assuming that Napster doesn't die the Good Death due to Mssr. Ulrich and Co. any time soon, I do see Napster (and Gnutella and others) updating their programs by using "Formats" and ID3 tags to seperate the music out to make it easier to locate what you want. Napster will always have the inherent drawback of listing the.mp3s as whatever the user has them at, but if the ID3 tags are properly used, as least potential "shoppers" could restrict their searches to the type of music they want. (Of course, adapting a really good SQL database could work too...)
All in all, while using "Formats" would definitely be beneficial to the music browsing process, it is ultimately dependent on the User, as they are the ones who need to set the ID3 tags correctly.
The problem with encrypting everything is that we want the 'Net to be faster... encryption is necessary for certain things, of course, but I see no need personally to encrypt 90% of the stuff on the 'Net.
Who cares if my personal web page is unencrypted? Not me... nothing is on there...
On the other hand, if I want to keep certain things out of the hands of others, then I encrypt it, pray my skills (or my encryption program) is up to snuff, and hope no teenage hackers decide to have fun...
However, encrypting everything in counter-productive unless you are trying to restrict the number of people who can read things. For corporations, it makes sense. For highly sensitive material, it makes sense. For proprietary information, it makes sense. For Jim Bob's Chili Recipe page, it doesn't.
True, especially if all the people on the NT network are responsible users, and do not try and make it do all kinds of nasty things or change the user config 30 times a week.
However, in my case, I was referring to a NT network that over 200 students had access to. From that standpoint, the stability of NT does fall a little bit short, while the Linux network (and the BSD network) worked fine, with even more users.
I've also done some crash-testing on Windows 2000
and NT 4.0, and they are remarkably easy to break, even moreso when they are 'crippled' by being the student copies available to Comp. Sci. students. (Seems they don't want us to have full access for _some_ reason.)
Whereas, I've never been able to crash Linux at all. Mind you, I've tried a few things that did crash NT, but Linux seemed to have no problems with spawning multiple copies of the same app, running 12 different graphics apps, etc. (Yes, I was using the University resources... I don't have that much computer of my own...)
All in all, Linux is preferable simply for uptime between crashes, which unless you do something evil to Linux, can be years between crashes. NT lasts, what, a couple of days before the GPFs hit?
...it should be relatively simple to patch. Like the article mentioned, it should be easy to implement a constantly changing pseudonym based on any number of schema...
Just off the top of my head, they could use an algorithm based off of the user ID characters, the date, the time, or practically anything else.
Also, the problem with dropping a bug in a cybercafe could be resolved by making the transmission more tight-beamed. This might increase the amount of radiation output slightly, as it will require more energy to focus the transmission beam, but it could be worth it. Basically, you'd end up having to place the 'bug' in precisely the right spot to catch a transmission.
...That it makes no sense _not_ to hire former and convicted hackers and crackers. Face it, they've already been convicted, so people are already watching them like hawks. And would you rather have the people who can find security holes working against you, or working for you?
I would have appreciated a class like this when I was working on my Computer Science degree. While there were a few lectures on when certain developments were made, the courses were lacking in genuine historical background.
Personally, I think it would be beneficial to have a course where you learned about the people who made these developments and the environment that they were made in. Maybe it could show Comp. Sci. students that not everything has to be done in a cubicle...
Of course, it would also be nice if they actually taught some courses for current programming languages as well....
What is happening here is that since the computer comes "ordered" with the MS products automatically (because of how much OS and browser share they have) that there is no reason for most computer wholesalers to even think about ordering it any other way.
It doesn't cost the wholesaler anything extra to get the computer without Windows, because of the "great" incentives that MS offers, but it doesn't cost any less either. Basically, because of the incentives, the licenses are fairly cheap, if not "free" (other then the hassle of actually using Windows).
Your best bet is to find a good download of your favorite flavour of Unix and just get the computer sans Windows. You're paying (or rather not paying) for the licenses anyway, but you might as well start without Windows anyways. It will make it that much easier on you.
Well, it's definitely struggling at this point. I believe that the major reason it was included was for older networks. Let's face it, a lot of colleges with networks can't afford SOTA computer gear, at least for their Computer Science majors (Why do the Humanities majors always have more computer then they need?), and some of this stuff is still taught in Comp. Sci. classes.
Ideally, though, it should not have been included as a major point, and Samba should have. Although, you do have to keep in mind that this book was probably finished months ago and is only being published now. That mitigates things slightly, but only slightly.
I don't think we have to worry, right this second, about a future that looks like the dystopic vision of Terminator. Keep in mind that the computer designed these robots to fit only the criteria supplied to it. From the article, it seems to me that the robots thus created were only designed to 'walk' across a flat table. If the criteria had included angled surfaces or obstacles, the robots produced would have been differently configured.
Basically, what this boils down to is that this system (and I have no doubts they will try to improve on it) will only work with the criteria and parameters given it, and cannot consider ones that it hasn't been given. Those flat surface robots may have a difficult time with any other conditions.
However, it does allow for some interesting possibilities. If you are creating a robot for a limited set of environmental conditions, this may be the way to go. Now, the number of different parts involved will increase the complexity and computation time involved, but depending on the job the robot is needed for, it may be worth it.
After all, the computer does seem to test generational limits of the robots it constructs, and did produce three robots to fit the criteria.
Side note: I would love to see the performance stats of those robots as compared to ones designed by us 'mere humans'.
See, I'm not one of those "all information deserves to be free" geeks who thinks that it is perfectly okay in all cases to spread copyrighted information all over the place. So I can support the concept of using this to track copyrighted documents in most cases.
However, I can't stand the idea that outside of that limited arena that anyone can track the documents I read if they have any of these embedded graphics files. I have enough problems with cookies tracking how often I check certain web sites. This is intolerable. At the very least, it's an invasion of privacy, and the simple matter of 'turning off cookies' falls on deaf ears as most of the End Users won't know about this invasion of privacy or the need to turn off cookies.
In any case, Microsoft is coming out of this looking like the bad guys again, and they _still_ can't differentiate between OS's and apps...:P
Excuse me, I mis-spoke. While NASA itself may be using NT more and more for the ground-based operations, it no longer uses it for the shuttle. NT did not meet the requirements needed between crashes to satisfy NASA, so they went to a version of UNIX. It took some testing to insure that the two would talk to each other, but I expected that. (Make sure it communicates, instead of assuming.)
Okay, for one thing it all depends on what kind of company we are talking about here. Quite obviously, if the company is involved in computer software, you are going to have a much higher percentage of people who really know how to work a computer, as opposed to (as an example) a real estate agency that is on the 'net. You have to consider the capabilities of the average User of your company. If that capability is not very high (i.e. they know how to web surf, write text files and send e-mail) then you will most likely have to take many less precautions then when dealing with a company full of people who write their own apps for fun.
You also have to consider the number of people who will have access. If you only have two web-capable terminals, then it is that much easier to keep a hold of who is doing what on the 'net. For most businesses, it is usually more involved. One option is setting up a firewall to protect your system from spam-mail, as well as limit who has outside access for e-mail purposes. Another option is to dramatically limit what web-pages employees can get to. In 99.9% of the cases, having employees viewing porn sites while at work is defintelu not productive, so a good web filter helps. (Just make sure that it doesn't get rid of Slashdot.)
Finally, it is a good idea to store all e-mails on one of the computers and limit the access to the storage server to a very few people. That way, if you need to, you can see what e-mail they are sending out, but you don't have nearly as many problems with privacy or "expectation of privacy" issues. Be sure to make it publicly known to your employees that this exists. Paranoia will probably keep them from abusing the e-mail system.
But HackersQuest is probably in for a major lawsuit. It's one thing to make a mod for Diablo II, which won't work on the Realms servers, but it's another thing entirely to make your own server for someone else's game like this.
And yes, before it gets brought up, it's because Everquest is a pay-to-play game. If it was a free multi-player game (as in no cost to play multi-player) then the point would be moot. But the whole point of Everquest is to play online, and give X dollars a month to Sony.
Sorry to say it, but they are cruising for a lawsuit....
What you have to realize is that a lot of End Users don't know about the existence of free OS's. Most of them can be classified as Clueless Newbies. They're on the Internet because their TV shows them commercials with.com in it every time they change a channel. Practically every single product, from cars to movies has it's own URL.
This, in turn, leads people to by computers they don't know how to use, and quite frankly, since MS has most of the OS share (at least for now), then that's the one they get with their computer.
And if it can be proved that MS overcharged for that self-same OS, then there IS a case.
Actually, I don't think it matters, at least in the way that you're stating it. Now, it's been a while since I've really studied any sort of astrophysics, but here's what I recall. (I fully expect to be corrected if I am wrong.)
Theoretically, a black hole can be formed when a star collapses. Theories have been advanced that other celestial bodies can compact into black holes, but stars, IMAO, have much greater density then other celestial bodies, so it is generally assumed that they are the 'source'. (Unless you believe in Dark Matter.)
If a star 'collapses' in a slow fashion, it can become a neutron star or a pulsar (usually going to this state from a gas giant). If it 'collapses' too quickly or too unstably, it can form a black hole.
Now with a black hole, all of the mass of the star is compacted into an infitesimally small point. Hence, it has a very high mass density.
Now, black holes do attract other matter. But the mass (and mass density) of the black hole determines how far out it affects other celestial bodies and the range it can pull in other matter. However, based on the original mass of the star (and resultant black hole) it's equivalent to putting a small can of peas on the back of an elephant and seeing how much more it weighs.
It's not so much how much matter it collects, but the mass of the original celestial body before it collapsed into a black hole.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it actually depends on how the plans are to do this... if it's via a laser transmission, that has it's own set of flaws, while a radio peer-to-peer has another set.
:P
Lasers:
(1) Weather. If it's rainy (Seattle), smoggy (L.A.) or snowy (Canada), then you have problems. Also, other 'obstacles' like pigeons and such can be fairly hazardous to a connection...
(2) Precision. Laser transmission has to be fairly precise, or you're going to lose packets. Which is not a good way to promote the efficiency of your product. ("We only lose 30% of your information")
(3) Power. Laser transmission can be very ineffective, power-wise, and the further it has to travel, the tighter the beam (what with precision and all) has to be. You have to be careful about power output in open areas.
(4) Interference: What happens if two or more lasers cross? Packet data swaps? Corruption of data? Nothing?
Now, mind you, in a relatively small, enclosed area (I believe an arcology has been mentioned), it might be more feasible.
Radio peer-to-peer:
(1) Available frequencies: If every 'user' is on their own sub-frequency, in large metropolitan areas, you can run out of sub-frequencies rather quickly. What with radio traffic already there, you have to be able to devote a frequency to a user that can be assured of less then a fixed amount of interference.
(2) Jamming: If you're using a radio peer-to-peer, it's possible to be jammed fairly easily. It's fairly simple to set up a broad-band radio jammer to mess with local radio stations right now (with most, if not all of the parts available at Radio Shack). It may not work over a very wide area, mind you, but it can be done.
(3) Privacy: Radio peer-to-peer, unless properly encrypted, can be 'listened' in on by practically any other user of a radio ptp. And with the right software, encryption can be circumvented, for the most part. After all, you have to be able to insure that the receiver can read it. You can't just send a PGP key with this, because potentially, anyone could 'see' it.
If you're out in the middle of East Armpit, Texas, this becomes less of an issue, but in major metro areas, you'll have all kinds of d00dz playing around with their toys.
IMAO, radio peer-to-peer is not the way to go for now, but for all I know, all of my concerns have been addressed already. Laser transmission offers it's own problems as well, which I really can't see certain ways around. The last thing I want is a 'laser grid' in the sky full of information. Too many possibilites that something could go wrong.
Kierthos
Well, it depends. Frankly, some code is proprietary, and as such, we cannot legally look at it. We still can see what it does, and if we know what language it was written in, we can reverse-engineer it, but there will most likely be differences between that code and the original.
Also, I can understand, from a security standpoint, that some code may not be made freely available in order to provide greater security for the program that the code is for. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it.
Now, given that Carnivore can be accessed from outside secure facilities, it would be a bad idea not to make this as secure as possible. While I don't automatically trust the FBI with what they are doing or where they are going with this whole data collection scheme, I would prefer to see it be as secure as possible, to avoid the possibility that some hacker geek can get into the system easily.
Finally, I have to agree with a previous article and position on Slashdot: Information does not want to be free; people want information to be free. Frankly, until society is free of people who would act irresponsibly with information, I prefer it if not all information is free.
Kierthos
Possible, but given the size of the heat sinks in the computers I've taken a look at lately (admittedly, these are some older computers with big heat sinks), they could decrease the actual volume of the heat sinks and still redirect enough heat efficiently enough.
Also, you could use the carbon nanotubes to "move" the heat to heat sinks in the base of the computer (as an example) away from all the vital components. Imagine a sheath around the processor converging into a "wire" of nanotubes that leads to the heat sinks. It may make it more difficult to modify the processor, as you would have to be careful about damaging the sheath, but it may be worth it.
Of course, I could just be blowing smoke.... obviously there's going to have to be a lot of configuration testing done.
Kierthos
Ahh, but it is illegal to purchase pornographic materials until you are the appropriate age. Nowhere on the back of Quake 3 (as an example) does it say that you need to be 18 before K-mart will "let" you buy it.
It's a simple parallel:
You don't need to be a certain age to buy normal comic books or to buy Quake 3.
You do need to meet an age minimum to buy adult comics and adult games (I'm sure there's some out there, although not at K-mart).
See?
The people I see getting hurt by this the most is actually K-mart. To my knowledge, no other outlet store is enforcing this kind of policy, so it looks like their sales of computer games will dip just a wee little bit. Oh well, time to dump that K-mart stock...
Kierthos
It's not illegal to own these games (yet). It's not illegal to possess these games. There's no current age restriction on most of them (I have yet to see a violent game carry a sticker saying that you have to be 18 to own it).
So how the heck can they legally enforce this? While I am not a parent, I can understand that maybe all of these violent games are not the best for little Junior, but shouldn't that be my decision, not K-mart's?
I really find this to be an infringement on the ability of the public to freely purchase legal products. What's next, refusing to allow minors to buy aspirin because of the "no-drugs" policy at many schools?
Kierthos
Well, duh... computer software warranties are incredibly vague, intentional written in crypto-speak (or so it seems), and often not available until after you buy the product. The way to handle this is to force software makers to use the same standards as the manufactureres of other goods. If they have to follow the same rules (and I can't see any reason why they shouldn't), then while we still might not get better software, at least we will be able to do something else about it.
Of course, if the software makers like Micro$oft, etc. don't want to do this (and lobby against it), then, hey... more reason to use freeware and Open Source products. Because with those, if it's bad, it's not like you spent any money on it, so you're not really out anything. Also, because it's free, there is a greater tendency to make sure it works right, because who knows how many people will be using it? (I can't see a whole lot of market tracking on freeware.)
Ideally, it should be a combination of both. Software makers should use the same standards as other makers of consumer goods. But, Open Source should also be at the forefront of this, putting their $0.02 out and showing what software should be like... (you know, free...)
Kierthos
...there is no reason at all to pursue a degree in IT or Computer Science any more, at least if the program I went through is any indication. We were only barely taught C/C++; the same with Java; there was no course for VB. The Unix work was introductory and sparse, and the only classes that taught any kind of "Web design" did not count for credit if you were a Comp. Sci. major.
In the light of this kind of attitude (the only reason to get a B.S. in Comp. Sci. is to go to Graduate School), I can understand why more and more people are trying to forego the degree and jump straight into the IT industry.
Also, the proliferation of applications that teach you how to program in C/C++, Java, VB, etc. are growing. It is much easier to learn this stuff on your own, at least for the early parts, and then get a job where they train you in the rest. Frankly, I think that most colleges and universities need to update their curricula and teach what needs to be taught instead of class after class of "useless" theory. (It's useless in the sense that if you're not going for a Ph.D., you'll never use most of this stuff after you get out of college.)
Kierthos
A recent article on MSNBC.com shows that the tiny Polynesian country of Tuvalu has recieved $17 million to date because of the Internet domain name it has of ".tv".
.tv domain. If this isn't a "Merchant Nation" in the same vein, then I don't know what is...
Basically, this country (not necessarily the inhabitants thereof, mind you) is getting suddenly wealthy off of the Internet and the potential market value of the
Kierthos
Hrm... let's see... my choice is either to pay (as an example) $40.00 for a program, or rent it as a per use program for a dime per use. Hrm... let me think on this... Even at 400 uses before I exceed the cost of the app, I don't like this idea... I use some apps 15 times a day....
Of course "Big Business" loves this idea. It only takes a little while, even at 'cheap' rates to equal and/or exceed the list cost of any given software application (of course, you all already realize this, being Slashdot fanatics).
So what to do? Convince all of your friends to go with Open Source apps or freeware. If Microsoft wants to go to a rental format for software, let them. I'll convert every single person I know to Unix that much easier with that kind of thing going on.
My question is, how do the software companies think they can get away with this? Sure, rental methods exist for a lot of things (cars, for example), but how can they honestly think that it will work with software? I'm sorry, but no one in their right mind is going to "rent" a lot of the apps that exist. (I ignore certain games like Evercrack as a useful nuisance that keeps more Anonymous Cowards off of Slashdot.)
Is Open Source and freeware not that much of a threat yet? Beats me for sure, but in the paraphrased words of Yoda, "It will be..."
Kierthos
A couple of things Adam Curry doesn't address (or chooses to ignore) in his article.
.mp3s as whatever the user has them at, but if the ID3 tags are properly used, as least potential "shoppers" could restrict their searches to the type of music they want. (Of course, adapting a really good SQL database could work too...)
(1) Stations sell advertising to businesses for cash. This cash is what keeps the station going, especially if the format isn't the most popular in a given area. More popular radio stations can charge more because more people are listening and can potentially be influenced by the advertising.
(2) Stations don't play songs that aren't popular (at least not for long). If the song doesn't have an appreciable fan-base, it doesn't get played nearly as often as the latest pablum from boy-bands or teenage-blond-singer-of-the-week.
(3) What the heck does this mean?
Don't expect any major radio networks to really jump on the bandwagon of "Formats" the way Curry outlined it. Radio stations do not want the listeners to be able to cut out the ads, or modify the playlists by 'subtracting' artists from the playlist. Yes, there will be web-casts, but they
will be what the radio station wants to play.
That's for major radio networks. Independent web-radios can play whatever the heck they want, for the most part, because they aren't dependent on advertising. Heck, it might be nothing other then the DJ ranting on local stuff for hours on end. But the prolificacy of web-radio means that if you search long enough, you can find whatever you want, be it "All-Metallica, All The Time", or 24-Hour Reggae...
Now, assuming that Napster doesn't die the Good Death due to Mssr. Ulrich and Co. any time soon, I do see Napster (and Gnutella and others) updating their programs by using "Formats" and ID3 tags to seperate the music out to make it easier to locate what you want. Napster will always have the inherent drawback of listing the
All in all, while using "Formats" would definitely be beneficial to the music browsing process, it is ultimately dependent on the User, as they are the ones who need to set the ID3 tags correctly.
Kierthos
The problem with encrypting everything is that we want the 'Net to be faster... encryption is necessary for certain things, of course, but I see no need personally to encrypt 90% of the stuff on the 'Net.
Who cares if my personal web page is unencrypted? Not me... nothing is on there...
On the other hand, if I want to keep certain things out of the hands of others, then I encrypt it, pray my skills (or my encryption program) is up to snuff, and hope no teenage hackers decide to have fun...
However, encrypting everything in counter-productive unless you are trying to restrict the number of people who can read things. For corporations, it makes sense. For highly sensitive material, it makes sense. For proprietary information, it makes sense. For Jim Bob's Chili Recipe page, it doesn't.
Kierthos
True, especially if all the people on the NT network are responsible users, and do not try and make it do all kinds of nasty things or change the user config 30 times a week.
However, in my case, I was referring to a NT network that over 200 students had access to. From that standpoint, the stability of NT does fall a little bit short, while the Linux network (and the BSD network) worked fine, with even more users.
Kierthos
You can get Linux for free...
I've also done some crash-testing on Windows 2000
and NT 4.0, and they are remarkably easy to break, even moreso when they are 'crippled' by being the student copies available to Comp. Sci. students. (Seems they don't want us to have full access for _some_ reason.)
Whereas, I've never been able to crash Linux at all. Mind you, I've tried a few things that did crash NT, but Linux seemed to have no problems with spawning multiple copies of the same app, running 12 different graphics apps, etc. (Yes, I was using the University resources... I don't have that much computer of my own...)
All in all, Linux is preferable simply for uptime between crashes, which unless you do something evil to Linux, can be years between crashes. NT lasts, what, a couple of days before the GPFs hit?
Kierthos
...it should be relatively simple to patch. Like the article mentioned, it should be easy to implement a constantly changing pseudonym based on any number of schema...
Just off the top of my head, they could use an algorithm based off of the user ID characters, the date, the time, or practically anything else.
Also, the problem with dropping a bug in a cybercafe could be resolved by making the transmission more tight-beamed. This might increase the amount of radiation output slightly, as it will require more energy to focus the transmission beam, but it could be worth it. Basically, you'd end up having to place the 'bug' in precisely the right spot to catch a transmission.
Kierthos
...That it makes no sense _not_ to hire former and convicted hackers and crackers. Face it, they've already been convicted, so people are already watching them like hawks. And would you rather have the people who can find security holes working against you, or working for you?
Frankly, I'd rather have them working for me...
Kierthos
I would have appreciated a class like this when I was working on my Computer Science degree. While there were a few lectures on when certain developments were made, the courses were lacking in genuine historical background.
Personally, I think it would be beneficial to have a course where you learned about the people who made these developments and the environment that they were made in. Maybe it could show Comp. Sci. students that not everything has to be done in a cubicle...
Of course, it would also be nice if they actually taught some courses for current programming languages as well....
Kierthos
Or "How much would you like to pay today?"
What is happening here is that since the computer comes "ordered" with the MS products automatically (because of how much OS and browser share they have) that there is no reason for most computer wholesalers to even think about ordering it any other way.
It doesn't cost the wholesaler anything extra to get the computer without Windows, because of the "great" incentives that MS offers, but it doesn't cost any less either. Basically, because of the incentives, the licenses are fairly cheap, if not "free" (other then the hassle of actually using Windows).
Your best bet is to find a good download of your favorite flavour of Unix and just get the computer sans Windows. You're paying (or rather not paying) for the licenses anyway, but you might as well start without Windows anyways. It will make it that much easier on you.
Kierthos
Well, it's definitely struggling at this point. I believe that the major reason it was included was for older networks. Let's face it, a lot of colleges with networks can't afford SOTA computer gear, at least for their Computer Science majors (Why do the Humanities majors always have more computer then they need?), and some of this stuff is still taught in Comp. Sci. classes.
Ideally, though, it should not have been included as a major point, and Samba should have. Although, you do have to keep in mind that this book was probably finished months ago and is only being published now. That mitigates things slightly, but only slightly.
Kierthos
I don't think we have to worry, right this second, about a future that looks like the dystopic vision of Terminator. Keep in mind that the computer designed these robots to fit only the criteria supplied to it. From the article, it seems to me that the robots thus created were only designed to 'walk' across a flat table. If the criteria had included angled surfaces or obstacles, the robots produced would have been differently configured.
Basically, what this boils down to is that this system (and I have no doubts they will try to improve on it) will only work with the criteria and parameters given it, and cannot consider ones that it hasn't been given. Those flat surface robots may have a difficult time with any other conditions.
However, it does allow for some interesting possibilities. If you are creating a robot for a limited set of environmental conditions, this may be the way to go. Now, the number of different parts involved will increase the complexity and computation time involved, but depending on the job the robot is needed for, it may be worth it.
After all, the computer does seem to test generational limits of the robots it constructs, and did produce three robots to fit the criteria.
Side note: I would love to see the performance stats of those robots as compared to ones designed by us 'mere humans'.
Kierthos
See, I'm not one of those "all information deserves to be free" geeks who thinks that it is perfectly okay in all cases to spread copyrighted information all over the place. So I can support the concept of using this to track copyrighted documents in most cases.
:P
However, I can't stand the idea that outside of that limited arena that anyone can track the documents I read if they have any of these embedded graphics files. I have enough problems with cookies tracking how often I check certain web sites. This is intolerable. At the very least, it's an invasion of privacy, and the simple matter of 'turning off cookies' falls on deaf ears as most of the End Users won't know about this invasion of privacy or the need to turn off cookies.
In any case, Microsoft is coming out of this looking like the bad guys again, and they _still_ can't differentiate between OS's and apps...
Kierthos
Excuse me, I mis-spoke. While NASA itself may be using NT more and more for the ground-based operations, it no longer uses it for the shuttle. NT did not meet the requirements needed between crashes to satisfy NASA, so they went to a version of UNIX. It took some testing to insure that the two would talk to each other, but I expected that. (Make sure it communicates, instead of assuming.)
Kierthos
Okay, for one thing it all depends on what kind of company we are talking about here. Quite obviously, if the company is involved in computer software, you are going to have a much higher percentage of people who really know how to work a computer, as opposed to (as an example) a real estate agency that is on the 'net. You have to consider the capabilities of the average User of your company. If that capability is not very high (i.e. they know how to web surf, write text files and send e-mail) then you will most likely have to take many less precautions then when dealing with a company full of people who write their own apps for fun.
You also have to consider the number of people who will have access. If you only have two web-capable terminals, then it is that much easier to keep a hold of who is doing what on the 'net. For most businesses, it is usually more involved. One option is setting up a firewall to protect your system from spam-mail, as well as limit who has outside access for e-mail purposes. Another option is to dramatically limit what web-pages employees can get to. In 99.9% of the cases, having employees viewing porn sites while at work is defintelu not productive, so a good web filter helps. (Just make sure that it doesn't get rid of Slashdot.)
Finally, it is a good idea to store all e-mails on one of the computers and limit the access to the storage server to a very few people. That way, if you need to, you can see what e-mail they are sending out, but you don't have nearly as many problems with privacy or "expectation of privacy" issues. Be sure to make it publicly known to your employees that this exists. Paranoia will probably keep them from abusing the e-mail system.
Kierthos
But HackersQuest is probably in for a major lawsuit. It's one thing to make a mod for Diablo II, which won't work on the Realms servers, but it's another thing entirely to make your own server for someone else's game like this.
And yes, before it gets brought up, it's because Everquest is a pay-to-play game. If it was a free multi-player game (as in no cost to play multi-player) then the point would be moot. But the whole point of Everquest is to play online, and give X dollars a month to Sony.
Sorry to say it, but they are cruising for a lawsuit....
Kierthos
What you have to realize is that a lot of End Users don't know about the existence of free OS's. Most of them can be classified as Clueless Newbies. They're on the Internet because their TV shows them commercials with .com in it every time they change a channel. Practically every single product, from cars to movies has it's own URL.
This, in turn, leads people to by computers they don't know how to use, and quite frankly, since MS has most of the OS share (at least for now), then that's the one they get with their computer.
And if it can be proved that MS overcharged for that self-same OS, then there IS a case.
Kierthos
Actually, I don't think it matters, at least in the way that you're stating it. Now, it's been a while since I've really studied any sort of astrophysics, but here's what I recall. (I fully expect to be corrected if I am wrong.)
Theoretically, a black hole can be formed when a star collapses. Theories have been advanced that other celestial bodies can compact into black holes, but stars, IMAO, have much greater density then other celestial bodies, so it is generally assumed that they are the 'source'. (Unless you believe in Dark Matter.)
If a star 'collapses' in a slow fashion, it can become a neutron star or a pulsar (usually going to this state from a gas giant). If it 'collapses' too quickly or too unstably, it can form a black hole.
Now with a black hole, all of the mass of the star is compacted into an infitesimally small point. Hence, it has a very high mass density.
Now, black holes do attract other matter. But the mass (and mass density) of the black hole determines how far out it affects other celestial bodies and the range it can pull in other matter. However, based on the original mass of the star (and resultant black hole) it's equivalent to putting a small can of peas on the back of an elephant and seeing how much more it weighs.
It's not so much how much matter it collects, but the mass of the original celestial body before it collapsed into a black hole.
Kierthos