But then if they argue a "filesystem was legally a database", then I think filesystem uses pre-date this patent by a looong shot. They'd have a tough time arguing the Desktop Database Apple was using for years before this patent was applied for, is covered by this patent.
If this is a cost cutting venture, then why does MS get its knickers in such a twist whenever a free MS update (say XP SP2) hits the P2P networks? Its not like MS couldn't be the ones hosting the.torrent files. Instead, they send cease and desist letters to sites that do host the torrents.
IMO, would be a MS bid to control the distribution network itself, not just what gets distributed.
DBut he was, as has been pointed out, responding to paper that was attempting to describe something he produced. And point out the paper was incorrect.
I'd say he was responding to the deluge of friends/journalists/total strangers who were bugging him about "this new thing from Microsoft that's faster than anything you've done."
His response (expreme paraphrasing) : The "new thing" doesn't actually exist, and even if it did exist, there's no guarantee it would actually be any faster.
A properly configured and maintained Windows machine with an adequate firewall and antivirus measures is far more productive and reliable than any Linux box, thanks.
I agree with your general sentiment, but isn't this statement a little like saying, "If you forget about all the stuff that makes it less productive, Windows is more productive than Linux."?
Not that in many cases it isn't still more productive...
They could maintain a high degree of control by doing so, while expanding their marketshare.
The big question is, will that increased marketshare translate into more profit for the clone maker at the expense of Apple's bottom line? That's why they killed the clones the first time around.
Another way of looking at it, are we talking increased marketshare of Apple hardware (Macs), or OS X?
OTOH, IMO its much better than the slew of Longhorn "might this" or "might that" stories we've been getting for the last 6 months. For a while it was amusing that sites like cnet could come up with 2 or 3 headline/top news stories a day about Longhorn for a such a looong time.
But like I said, I'm a Mac fanatic. So now its my duty spending the next year trying to decipher Intels code names for their chips and chip technologies (us Mac users like it simple, you know, G3, G4, G5...).
They just need to have the ability to filter those sites listed by the AG
Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder where one applies for the job of surfing the net looking for porn sites to add the *ahem* "Black List" in the AG's office.
if the idea is to keep minnors away from adult material.. i am wondering why the government or companies are doing the job of parents.
parents need to know what their damn job is and not blame the world.. take some responsiblity
Well, theoretically, the government is there for the people (many of them parents), who in this case have decided that is how they want to protect their children. Some would say that is the parents doing their job.
Some communities put in crossing walks, have crossing guards and special speed restrictions, drug/weapon/smut free zones around schools. There are all kinds of laws and policies enacted for the sole reason of protecting children. Nobody argues these are unnecessary because good parents keep track of what their kids are doing every second. I mean good parents are with their kids every minute, holding their hand, right?
Personally, I think this law is a dud. It won't help parents the way they think it will. I say this because, unlike you, I think most parents do take responsibility for their children. As such, they have already dealt with the "internet problem" in a way that fits their way of parenting. Thus the law should be moderated -1 ; Redundant.
Still as true today as back in the old Usenet days when people would waste their lives argueing over CLI vs. GUI. I guess there's a whole new generation that hasn't figured it out yet.
Which, IMO, is what is happening now to a certain degree.
It used to be that a high degree of physical fitness, resistance to disease and genetic fitness was necessary to survive. Now, intelligence (IMO) is supplanting those requirements.
Where even just decades ago, certain genetic defects/diseases meant an early death, these days a person with the same affliction can live a long lifespan, including reproducing. Diseases that used to wipe out "the weak" are now treated with a drug.
Seems we are now able to trade-in some level of "physical fitness" for intelligence (as a society).
Remember, this was thought to be a terrorist group attacking the US. Just guessing, but I assume security teams had to be sent out to lock down the facilities, assess damages and begin trying to figure out where these attacks came. That's just the start.
Part of the "lock down" may even include completely replaing large systems not only so you can start clean, but also so the compromised systems can be assessed, studied and used for evidence.
Then you have to figure out what other areas may have been exposed by these breakins and do some heavy duty damage control there as well.
Then there's the cost of teams of investigators and their expenses. We're talking an international, multi-year investigation.
All those expenses can really start to add up. Doing an investigation "the right way" can really cost a lot.
Security didn't become the dominant issue until later. Seems to me that the Register/Security Focus has a short (dare I say "revisionist") memory.
Security for desktops, yes. But security for servers was an issue long before.
Which is where my memory diverges from TFA. When MS first started writing an OS and software destined to be for servers, security should have been a major concern -even at that time. That it wasn't is simply an indication (to me) that MS, a desktop company at the time, didn't do its homework. From the first versions of NT released, security pros were deriding it for its lack of security, but that all fell on deaf ears in Redmond. It wasn't until they'd been burned several times, and it was starting to hurt the bottom line, that MS started its security "initiative" (if reaction = initiative).
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the computer doesn't control the iPod, it just shuffles files to and from it.
In fact, since Firewire is a peer-to-peer protocol, if you've connected that way, the computer doesn't really control it at all.
But not on a computer.
But IIRC, both Apple IIs and Macs were used to control MIDI devices. Nothing new about computer controlled music players there.
After careful review, I believe Apple left off the butt ugly graphics, which were an integral part of the claim.
So how many people use iTunes without an iPod?
Well, start with all the Mac users who don't have an iPod...
OK,... so that doesn't help much.
And all these years I thought Apple got their ideas for menus from Xerox.
But then if they argue a "filesystem was legally a database", then I think filesystem uses pre-date this patent by a looong shot. They'd have a tough time arguing the Desktop Database Apple was using for years before this patent was applied for, is covered by this patent.
The original idea (I think) was something along the lines of playing the music on a computer-controlled MIDI device.
But then Apple was actually doing that in the mid to late-80's with Apple II's and Macs IIRC.
And the description they use does sound like a database, but then so is the Desktop Database Macs have always used to store files and file attributes.
I'll leave this one up to the lawyers.
If this is a cost cutting venture, then why does MS get its knickers in such a twist whenever a free MS update (say XP SP2) hits the P2P networks? Its not like MS couldn't be the ones hosting the .torrent files. Instead, they send cease and desist letters to sites that do host the torrents.
IMO, would be a MS bid to control the distribution network itself, not just what gets distributed.
DBut he was, as has been pointed out, responding to paper that was attempting to describe something he produced. And point out the paper was incorrect.
I'd say he was responding to the deluge of friends/journalists/total strangers who were bugging him about "this new thing from Microsoft that's faster than anything you've done."
His response (expreme paraphrasing) : The "new thing" doesn't actually exist, and even if it did exist, there's no guarantee it would actually be any faster.
Add N ECC blocks such that the entire file can be reconstructed from any N blocks
Maybe getting in a little over my head here, but don't they still have to be N linearly independent blocks, not just any N blocks?
A properly configured and maintained Windows machine with an adequate firewall and antivirus measures is far more productive and reliable than any Linux box, thanks.
I agree with your general sentiment, but isn't this statement a little like saying, "If you forget about all the stuff that makes it less productive, Windows is more productive than Linux."?
Not that in many cases it isn't still more productive...
I read it, and it doesn't make any sense to me.
But that could just be me.
Anybody who understands it willing and able to describe it in a way that makes sense to any idiot (or at leas this one)?
They could maintain a high degree of control by doing so, while expanding their marketshare.
The big question is, will that increased marketshare translate into more profit for the clone maker at the expense of Apple's bottom line? That's why they killed the clones the first time around.
Another way of looking at it, are we talking increased marketshare of Apple hardware (Macs), or OS X?
This Mac fanatic is...
OTOH, IMO its much better than the slew of Longhorn "might this" or "might that" stories we've been getting for the last 6 months. For a while it was amusing that sites like cnet could come up with 2 or 3 headline/top news stories a day about Longhorn for a such a looong time.
But like I said, I'm a Mac fanatic. So now its my duty spending the next year trying to decipher Intels code names for their chips and chip technologies (us Mac users like it simple, you know, G3, G4, G5...).
I'm guessing that Apple probably has chosen, its just that none of us (or the authors of the articles) know what they've chosen.
OTOH, it sounds like quite a few decisions are still up in the air, so who knows? (Not me anyway).
No kid surf porn in the living room.
At least not while Mom & Dad are home.
Or maybe I'm a bad parent for leaving teens home alone on occasion!
They just need to have the ability to filter those sites listed by the AG
Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder where one applies for the job of surfing the net looking for porn sites to add the *ahem* "Black List" in the AG's office.
if the idea is to keep minnors away from adult material .. i am wondering why the government or companies are doing the job of parents.
parents need to know what their damn job is and not blame the world.. take some responsiblity
Well, theoretically, the government is there for the people (many of them parents), who in this case have decided that is how they want to protect their children. Some would say that is the parents doing their job.
Some communities put in crossing walks, have crossing guards and special speed restrictions, drug/weapon/smut free zones around schools. There are all kinds of laws and policies enacted for the sole reason of protecting children. Nobody argues these are unnecessary because good parents keep track of what their kids are doing every second. I mean good parents are with their kids every minute, holding their hand, right?
Personally, I think this law is a dud. It won't help parents the way they think it will. I say this because, unlike you, I think most parents do take responsibility for their children. As such, they have already dealt with the "internet problem" in a way that fits their way of parenting. Thus the law should be moderated -1 ; Redundant.
"the right tool for the right job"
Still as true today as back in the old Usenet days when people would waste their lives argueing over CLI vs. GUI. I guess there's a whole new generation that hasn't figured it out yet.
So just substitute "social and cultural backlash" for "a lawsuit".
Its not unheard of for reviewers (or editors) to can a paper because of politics or social beliefs.
Which, IMO, is what is happening now to a certain degree.
It used to be that a high degree of physical fitness, resistance to disease and genetic fitness was necessary to survive. Now, intelligence (IMO) is supplanting those requirements.
Where even just decades ago, certain genetic defects/diseases meant an early death, these days a person with the same affliction can live a long lifespan, including reproducing. Diseases that used to wipe out "the weak" are now treated with a drug.
Seems we are now able to trade-in some level of "physical fitness" for intelligence (as a society).
Simple. They gave them an easier test the second time. Or maybe they did give them the exact same test again.
Not that I think that's what happened, just saying...
4. The Geek Syndrome
From TFA, "Autism - and its milder cousin Asperger's syndrome - is surging among the children of Silicon Valley. Are math-and-tech genes to blame?
Remember, this was thought to be a terrorist group attacking the US. Just guessing, but I assume security teams had to be sent out to lock down the facilities, assess damages and begin trying to figure out where these attacks came. That's just the start.
Part of the "lock down" may even include completely replaing large systems not only so you can start clean, but also so the compromised systems can be assessed, studied and used for evidence.
Then you have to figure out what other areas may have been exposed by these breakins and do some heavy duty damage control there as well.
Then there's the cost of teams of investigators and their expenses. We're talking an international, multi-year investigation.
All those expenses can really start to add up. Doing an investigation "the right way" can really cost a lot.
Security didn't become the dominant issue until later. Seems to me that the Register/Security Focus has a short (dare I say "revisionist") memory.
Security for desktops, yes. But security for servers was an issue long before.
Which is where my memory diverges from TFA. When MS first started writing an OS and software destined to be for servers, security should have been a major concern -even at that time. That it wasn't is simply an indication (to me) that MS, a desktop company at the time, didn't do its homework. From the first versions of NT released, security pros were deriding it for its lack of security, but that all fell on deaf ears in Redmond. It wasn't until they'd been burned several times, and it was starting to hurt the bottom line, that MS started its security "initiative" (if reaction = initiative).