Do you think MS doesn't even use their own software?...
Personally, I see this being used in corporate law departments and in R&D divisions, where the ability to lock people out of something even if they do have possession of it would be invaluable.
The next time MS gets sued, how many of the documents subpoenaed will (via DRM expiry etc.) be unobtainable by the other party?
The spin that the media can place upon such a story will be catastrophic to the companie's image
But let's not forget who we're talking about right now - Microsoft. Irregardless of the astroturf campaigns etc. they have been up to before, we've not really seen a proper, concerted effort by them to push for something they want (by "we" I mean the general public, not the various number of small unfortunate companies they'd decided to kill in the past, e.g. Netscape).
If the media start attacking MS in earnest, will we find out how much of "the media" MS can buy with their effectively-untouched warchest of $40-50b?
haha, yeah, I couldn't remember which news site I read it from and was searching....
anyways i think I shall stop posting, plenty of people have pointed out
(a) seems to be a repost (well I don't *remember* seenig it before, but...)
(b) my thinking that eventually they'll scale up the ornithopters to passenger-capability seems to be universally considered a dumb idea, and after thinking about the motion-sickness aspect I am now thinking I need to read less Dune,
(c) I really don't understand the different branches of the US military
But anyways, on the off chance anyone out there IS reading what I'm saying, I think you all need to check out the Harrier article at the LA times, it's very interesting....
Many of the Harrier's ailments can be traced directly to its innovative vertical-thrust technology. But despite the investment of tax dollars, aircraft and pilots' lives, there is little evidence that the Harrier's noncombat deaths have been redeemed in any significant way on the battlefield
In the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the hot thrust-producing nozzles in the heart of the fuselage -- the devices that allow the Harrier to rise and balance in the air -- made the plane a magnet for heat-seeking missiles. Its loss rate was more than double that of the war's other leading U.S. combat jets. Five Harriers were shot down and two pilots died.
"It's the most vulnerable plane that's in service now," said Franklin C. "Chuck" Spinney, who evaluates tactical aircraft for the Pentagon.
That's the point I'm thinking. VTOL fixed-wing aircraft of ALL stripes so far all seem to be flying coffins.
Re:Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 2, Informative
44 accidents in its first five years compared to just two in the Osprey's first five years
There was (is?) a scandal about how a lot of the personnel who were involved in the Osprey project have systematically been fudging reports to make things look better than they really are. This makes evaluating its performance hard because you can no longer trust any "good" reports.
When you say accidents, what are we talking about exactly? The kind of thing where nobody walks away from, or? (i.e. are we comparing apples to oranges, with the Ospreys crashes involving quite a lot of fatalities).
VTOL planes always seem to be plenty risky - the Harriers are also quite widely known for killing their pilots, aren't they?
Re:Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I get the point you're making, but the way I see it is, "flapping wings" basically are generally maneuverable in a way fixed-wing aircraft aren't and "were never meant to be".
In a fundamental sense (at least the way I see it) the flap-wing aircraft would just be doing things "within parameters" though, yes, it's at a "university project" stage now.
If we change to a different email protocol we can still use the old protocol alongside of the new, and when the new protocol is widely accepted and in use, just shut down the old mail service
Actually, should we also move off to a different "naming scheme" as well?
The protocol allows you to build a "trusted/known", signed network, but what do you do about the untrusted parts of the net?
If we're going to have parallel mail systems, having one kind gateway into the other will defeat the purpose of spam prevention (all this does is it funnels SMTP-traffic onto AMTP-accepting machines which also accept SMTP, no?). Spam problem not solved, and it also does nothing to mark off a date whereby we can kill the old SMTP setup. On the receiving end it also does not help except as a kind of inbox-filtering tool where you know which incoming mails came via AMTP and are signed, and which are not - but then you still have to go through the "possible junk mail" folder to try to discover people still sending from SMTP machines.
You could have people who cannot send mail to a@b.c because they're on an SMTP machine and the recipient is "AMTP only", but then to the end-user there's no clear difference because his email address also looks the same (d@e.f).
But joe-on-the-street is helped to understand "Instant Messaging" != "email" by the fact that, e.g., IM uses nicks/UINs and not "a@b.c".
Choosing a new symbol to replace "@" is goign to be tough, though.
The islam has proven to be very scientific hundreds of years ago, nobody knows how fast science might have advanced had christian crusaders not burned all those islamic bibliaries.
The islamic world also was able to govern itself without sinking into anarchy, before it was raped by the christian world.
But being first doesn't mean all that much. Did Islamic society have the internal factors that would lead to change or - because of it's very success - would it just "solidify"?
I think this is a very pertinent question because, well, take the Chinese. They discovered (among other thingS) gunpowder first, BUT then sat on it for god-knows-how-long, using it mostly for entertainment (quarrying rocks etc. was still done by peasants!!).
You can't argue that the Chinese also did not make discoveries in astronomy, mathematics etc. - I don't mean this to be a comparative "who were better, Arabs or Chinese?" thing. What I want to point out is that the Chinese eventually seem to have "stratified" (or, look at the Japanese!) until outsiders came in and forced them to change.
It's alright (I guess) for "solidification" to occur if what is being solidified is "good", but there were a heck of a lot of problems in traditional Chinese society - cruel treatment of women (this is commonly the case in almost all pre-modern societies I believe?), e.g. witness the crippling foot-binding for "aesthetic" purposes.
Likewise, historical Arabic/Islamic society had/has its problems. "Able to govern itself" - there weren't any intra-Arabic wars? Or was there peace in the Ottoman Empire because someone had already won and killed all other comers? (At least until the next cycle of internal-imperial-unrest, e.g. again the Chinese?)
I think it's been pointed out before that in terms of the "philosophies" of development (let's separate the business-management side of Microsoft with the development side - and let's also recognise that in an organisation as large as they are, "the development side" is going to be a fairly heterogenous group of varying abilities, goals etc.), MS has almost always gone for being "featureful" (again, a separate question from whether they pull it off successfully - it's also been pointed out that MS doesn't get things working until v3.0 or so).
Leaving all sorts of ports open - from a security standpoint, terrible. But from an "operability" standpoint - what's wrong with that? Having everything "enabled" allows you to do things.
Plenty of other OSes also ship with many ports etc. open - much of my work (when I was working) involved hardening Solaris boxes etc. before putting them live on the net, hardening which would be unnecessary if it was in a "trusted" network environment, and which also makes things somewhat troublesome when you want to enable a service later (3 or 4 separate.ALLOW or.DENY files to edit).
So one way of looking at it is, it's not so much "oh these guys should have done so-and-so", but rather "why are there so many bastards out there making life difficult?". It's because the Bastard Quotient of the Universe isn't likely to be lower-able that defensive measures like sealing ports/locking down/hardening systems are critical/necessary, but the primary root of the problem isn't the locked-down-or-not status.
One analogy should make clear what I'm trying to say: look at SMTP. Just too "trusting" of the universe, and thereby allowing in this day and age the major - and quite possibly unstoppable - spam problem. Yet it served the trustworthy intra-academic environment of the early internet pretty well. It's only when the bastards come into the mix that there is a problem. But although there's been criticism of the SMTP design, it doesn't quite seem as vehement as when MS leaves ports open by default (a "crime" that many Linux distributions were also committing not quite so long ago!). But arguably, all these mail-virii etc. problems, are they more the fault of MS (who've had the patches out for months), OR are they the fault of the SMTP creators (who never forsaw the use to which their presumably quick-and-dirty protocol would be relied upon decades down the road) for not designing into the protocol/system some manner of providing a foolproof authentication trail?
(in which case the originator of the bloody mail virii/spam/whatever) can be tracked down with certainty and then eliminated with or without prejudice?)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think MS doesn't even use their own software? ...
Personally, I see this being used in corporate law departments and in R&D divisions, where the ability to lock people out of something even if they do have possession of it would be invaluable.
The next time MS gets sued, how many of the documents subpoenaed will (via DRM expiry etc.) be unobtainable by the other party?
The spin that the media can place upon such a story will be catastrophic to the companie's image
But let's not forget who we're talking about right now - Microsoft. Irregardless of the astroturf campaigns etc. they have been up to before, we've not really seen a proper, concerted effort by them to push for something they want (by "we" I mean the general public, not the various number of small unfortunate companies they'd decided to kill in the past, e.g. Netscape).
If the media start attacking MS in earnest, will we find out how much of "the media" MS can buy with their effectively-untouched warchest of $40-50b?
haha, yeah, I couldn't remember which news site I read it from and was searching... .
.
anyways i think I shall stop posting, plenty of people have pointed out
(a) seems to be a repost (well I don't *remember* seenig it before, but...)
(b) my thinking that eventually they'll scale up the ornithopters to passenger-capability seems to be universally considered a dumb idea, and after thinking about the motion-sickness aspect I am now thinking I need to read less Dune,
(c) I really don't understand the different branches of the US military
But anyways, on the off chance anyone out there IS reading what I'm saying, I think you all need to check out the Harrier article at the LA times, it's very interesting...
http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/harrier/
hrm. ok. if I had mod points I'd mod you up... .
Hi, read this article some time back:
Harriers - the Widowmaker (from the LA Times)
Some excerpts:
Far From Battlefield, Marines Lose One-Third of Harrier Fleet
The corps, pursuing its long-held dream of a unique flying force, pays a heavy price: 45 of its elite officers killed.
Many of the Harrier's ailments can be traced directly to its innovative vertical-thrust technology. But despite the investment of tax dollars, aircraft and pilots' lives, there is little evidence that the Harrier's noncombat deaths have been redeemed in any significant way on the battlefield
In the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the hot thrust-producing nozzles in the heart of the fuselage -- the devices that allow the Harrier to rise and balance in the air -- made the plane a magnet for heat-seeking missiles. Its loss rate was more than double that of the war's other leading U.S. combat jets. Five Harriers were shot down and two pilots died.
"It's the most vulnerable plane that's in service now," said Franklin C. "Chuck" Spinney, who evaluates tactical aircraft for the Pentagon.
Next time, do your research
I actually did, you'd be pleased to know.
The poster's theory that the ornithopter will somehow make this superfluous is a bit ludicrous.
:-)
.
Hrm.... ok... I get your point...
*sigh* Everybody's a critic. But I guess this is for good reason
Guess I just got carried away after rewatching the Dune series again last week
Now all we need are personal shields and we can all get back to sword/knife-fighting again...
Well, ok if that's how you feel.... :-)
but another 2 cents of mine:
Look at how many people died to make the Harrier
That's the point I'm thinking. VTOL fixed-wing aircraft of ALL stripes so far all seem to be flying coffins.
44 accidents in its first five years compared to just two in the Osprey's first five years
There was (is?) a scandal about how a lot of the personnel who were involved in the Osprey project have systematically been fudging reports to make things look better than they really are. This makes evaluating its performance hard because you can no longer trust any "good" reports.
When you say accidents, what are we talking about exactly? The kind of thing where nobody walks away from, or? (i.e. are we comparing apples to oranges, with the Ospreys crashes involving quite a lot of fatalities).
VTOL planes always seem to be plenty risky - the Harriers are also quite widely known for killing their pilots, aren't they?
I get the point you're making, but the way I see it is, "flapping wings" basically are generally maneuverable in a way fixed-wing aircraft aren't and "were never meant to be".
In a fundamental sense (at least the way I see it) the flap-wing aircraft would just be doing things "within parameters" though, yes, it's at a "university project" stage now.
If we change to a different email protocol we can still use the old protocol alongside of the new, and when the new protocol is widely accepted and in use, just shut down the old mail service
Actually, should we also move off to a different "naming scheme" as well?
The protocol allows you to build a "trusted/known", signed network, but what do you do about the untrusted parts of the net?
If we're going to have parallel mail systems, having one kind gateway into the other will defeat the purpose of spam prevention (all this does is it funnels SMTP-traffic onto AMTP-accepting machines which also accept SMTP, no?). Spam problem not solved, and it also does nothing to mark off a date whereby we can kill the old SMTP setup. On the receiving end it also does not help except as a kind of inbox-filtering tool where you know which incoming mails came via AMTP and are signed, and which are not - but then you still have to go through the "possible junk mail" folder to try to discover people still sending from SMTP machines.
You could have people who cannot send mail to a@b.c because they're on an SMTP machine and the recipient is "AMTP only", but then to the end-user there's no clear difference because his email address also looks the same (d@e.f).
But joe-on-the-street is helped to understand "Instant Messaging" != "email" by the fact that, e.g., IM uses nicks/UINs and not "a@b.c".
Choosing a new symbol to replace "@" is goign to be tough, though.
... so how long before some TextBook Publishers Association of America (a la MPAA/RIAA) appears and declares it illegal/theft/morally wrong?
The islam has proven to be very scientific hundreds of years ago, nobody knows how fast science might have advanced had christian crusaders not burned all those islamic bibliaries.
The islamic world also was able to govern itself without sinking into anarchy, before it was raped by the christian world.
But being first doesn't mean all that much. Did Islamic society have the internal factors that would lead to change or - because of it's very success - would it just "solidify"?
I think this is a very pertinent question because, well, take the Chinese. They discovered (among other thingS) gunpowder first, BUT then sat on it for god-knows-how-long, using it mostly for entertainment (quarrying rocks etc. was still done by peasants!!).
You can't argue that the Chinese also did not make discoveries in astronomy, mathematics etc. - I don't mean this to be a comparative "who were better, Arabs or Chinese?" thing. What I want to point out is that the Chinese eventually seem to have "stratified" (or, look at the Japanese!) until outsiders came in and forced them to change.
It's alright (I guess) for "solidification" to occur if what is being solidified is "good", but there were a heck of a lot of problems in traditional Chinese society - cruel treatment of women (this is commonly the case in almost all pre-modern societies I believe?), e.g. witness the crippling foot-binding for "aesthetic" purposes.
Likewise, historical Arabic/Islamic society had/has its problems. "Able to govern itself" - there weren't any intra-Arabic wars? Or was there peace in the Ottoman Empire because someone had already won and killed all other comers? (At least until the next cycle of internal-imperial-unrest, e.g. again the Chinese?)
dangling ports
.ALLOW or .DENY files to edit).
I think it's been pointed out before that in terms of the "philosophies" of development (let's separate the business-management side of Microsoft with the development side - and let's also recognise that in an organisation as large as they are, "the development side" is going to be a fairly heterogenous group of varying abilities, goals etc.), MS has almost always gone for being "featureful" (again, a separate question from whether they pull it off successfully - it's also been pointed out that MS doesn't get things working until v3.0 or so).
Leaving all sorts of ports open - from a security standpoint, terrible. But from an "operability" standpoint - what's wrong with that? Having everything "enabled" allows you to do things.
Plenty of other OSes also ship with many ports etc. open - much of my work (when I was working) involved hardening Solaris boxes etc. before putting them live on the net, hardening which would be unnecessary if it was in a "trusted" network environment, and which also makes things somewhat troublesome when you want to enable a service later (3 or 4 separate
So one way of looking at it is, it's not so much "oh these guys should have done so-and-so", but rather "why are there so many bastards out there making life difficult?". It's because the Bastard Quotient of the Universe isn't likely to be lower-able that defensive measures like sealing ports/locking down/hardening systems are critical/necessary, but the primary root of the problem isn't the locked-down-or-not status.
One analogy should make clear what I'm trying to say: look at SMTP. Just too "trusting" of the universe, and thereby allowing in this day and age the major - and quite possibly unstoppable - spam problem. Yet it served the trustworthy intra-academic environment of the early internet pretty well. It's only when the bastards come into the mix that there is a problem. But although there's been criticism of the SMTP design, it doesn't quite seem as vehement as when MS leaves ports open by default (a "crime" that many Linux distributions were also committing not quite so long ago!). But arguably, all these mail-virii etc. problems, are they more the fault of MS (who've had the patches out for months), OR are they the fault of the SMTP creators (who never forsaw the use to which their presumably quick-and-dirty protocol would be relied upon decades down the road) for not designing into the protocol/system some manner of providing a foolproof authentication trail?
(in which case the originator of the bloody mail virii/spam/whatever) can be tracked down with certainty and then eliminated with or without prejudice?)
Any chance he goes around calling himself "Zero Cool"?
I feel there would be a thriving underground economy of industrial espionage and personal information theft because it would be so easy.
:-)
Isn't a thriving economy a good thing?