Do companies operating under one countries legal structure gain the same amount of protection when operating (or having their goods sold) in another country?
I find an interesting correlation here between "lassaie faire" business practices and the anti-corporation/IP movement. The movement wants corporations to recieve no help from the government for their business practices (IP, relief from economic hardship, etc), which are essentially leftist ideals. However, the fairly right ideal of lassaise faire essentially espouses the same thing, no? By all means correct me if I'm off base here.
(btw: sorry for the poli-labeling, but it helps to illustrate the constrasts in my point.)
The debate over abadonware has been going on for awhile now (though it usually centers around the gaming arena).
It's good to see someone with ranking stature taking on such a muddled but oddly important issue. The reason most companies would be against giving away outright their copyright on "abandonded" products is the fear of repackaging and their loss on what could be someone else's gain. However, if legislation (or a license) could be produced to qualm these kinds of fears while still allowing legitimate uses of abandonded products to take place, I think a happy medium between both sides would be found.
While I won't agree with ALL of your points, I will say that I agree with you, at least in the broad sense.
However, you fail to make an important distinction, and that is the difference between the advancement of Linux and open source as a software alternative, and the commercial viability of Linux and open source.
Open source itself has been present since before Microsoft, and Linux was doing well (at least among old hat hackers and the like) before it ever appeared on the public radar. The advancement of the community as a whole has grown exponentially in part due to the distaste of Microsoft, however, I believe the multitudes flocking to program for open source software are doing so now because they finally knew it existed in some tangible and reachable form.
The commercial viability of Linux and o.s., however, is VERY linked to the perception of Microsoft at a given moment. This is a phenomena that affects ALL industries when an upstart is going against an entrenched industry leader. If there is no particular distate against said leader, then the demand for an alternative is much less. Linux may obviously offer more on the server front (and hopefully eventually on the desktop), however, that success is based upon the amount of people actually looking for an alternative.
So in effect, o.s. and Linux (as the two are at this point inexorably linked together) need to find a way to fufill commercial viability. The developer core and attraction will always be there, IMHO.
What the article seems to push at (albiet around the bush) is that there are less companies willing to stake their future on the sales of service for Open Source work. Although RedHat and a few others are posting profits, the overall tech downturn is probably preventing any speculation in o.s. based companies.
I think the point is missed however, if this article is taken as a view of an overall decline in open source work. If anything, now is the time for developers to be able to work at a less pressured pace, since they aren't worried about advancing the project so that Company X doesn't go out of business before it can put together a viable distribution/product/release.
I would tend to agree that OOP might be the wrong solution. It seems to me that OOP is designed to generalize code to solve broad problems. Engineering, and other applications which require minute changes depending on multiple factors might be better served by procedural code designed to specifically handle those problems.
An interesting point that is raised is the fact that OOP, while an enormously helpful tool to many programmers and despite its advantages in many other theaters of software design, does not have to be an end all be all for programming as a whole. The tool that works should be the tool that is used.
Wasn't it not all that long ago that Ashcroft (and the Bush administration) were beating their chests over the Clinton era "mistake" of lightening export restrictions on encryption software?
Anyone know what the impetus behind this move was?
I read this yesterday in the New York Post. Apparently 'Nsync play almost faceless Jedi in the background of a battle. A few second after they appear, they are slaughtered by battle drones.
So basically, all of us who hate 'Nsync get our wishes fufilled, and see them obliterated.
Here's an even bigger question.....who's to collect the keys?
Let's just assume for a second that Johnny Terrorist uses a program generating keys based upon the "approved" encryption standard. Does a gaggle of armed guards come to his door with a floppy instantly to collect the key?
A key escrow system is probably the most workable of all the insane schemes surrounding this. However considering the logistical/administrative nightmares of making such an escrow and keeping its contents current, I think it is as much vapor as the furor over this eventual/legislation.
The workable solution that I would envision would be the oft proposed "key escrow" system, where the government would hold a copy of each person's secret key/password. A court order would be required in order to access the key, much like a search warrant process.
There are a few holes in this, though. Most obviously, are we actually expecting "mis-users" of encryption to hand over that information?
Given that, there really aren't all that many systems that seen workable to me.
A "skeleton key" for encryption? God forbid that ever get into the wrong hands.
Programmed back-doors? See above.
The whole problem with an encryption back door is it is basically like leaving a house key with someone. There has to be absolute trust that they will not allow it to be stolen/misused.
Personally, I felt the only thing the mini-series had to offer was its adherance to the actual dialog and action of the book itself (which Lynch's obviously did not). With that, the b-movie acting and ungodly costume design could be overlooked, since Dune fans could finally see a somewhat literal interpretation of the book.
Both messiah and children of dune are infinately complex in their own right as they expound on the minuate of an Empire and its "holy" leaders. By cutting them down and attempting to push that much intrigue into a single mini-series, they are destroying the best part about having sci-fi produce these in the first place.
Back in the days when I ran a BBS, there was the constant threat of being siezed for software piracy. However, a loophole had been found that allowed us to act as a "file lending library", allowing them to download any content legally for 24 hours, and then it must be erased.
Now, this may have been a mass net myth, but wouldn't it ease the situation with gnutella (and other p2p systems)?
I still dont see why the "path to aim.exe" is such a bad idea.
While it would incur having users go to aim.aol.com and download the binary (to bypass third party distribution restrictions), it seems so much simpler and streamlined than having the "freenet response database" suggested in the article.
While this is more novelty than anything else, I think it underlines the main point that people have been repeating about open-sourcing the CueCat system.
Open platforms allow creativity to flourish
It is very much the right of DC to demand that their CueCat be based on a closed proprietary platform. However, it is the duty of people with different uses for it to show the true extent for which the device can be used.
Okay, while I'm not debating that this is a great thing, I have a few ponderances.
One, I understand that the field of pins acts as a representational map of an image, and reacts to color depths(?). However, how does this help on a text/image page, where there are muitiple images with different functions?
Two, as far as the audio component is concerned, what does it draw its instructions from, in regards to web/technology use? ALT tags? The NAME property? Therefore, the technology is only as foolproof as the careless web designer who forgets to fill out alt tags?
Three, wouldn't image maps drive this thing nutty?
Such as I said, I think this is a marvelous idea. However, those questions seemed to jump instantly to mind on its ability to be a viable technology to bring graphic-based interfaces to the blind.
I'm usually a background supporter of Microsoft, much to the chagrin of many friends. However, this is rather funny:
"Microsoft will not ship support for a standard that they can't guarantee a great user experience on."
ha.hahaha.hahahahhaaha.
In the end tho, this is probably a good decision. Microsoft supports a viable and tested technology, and also supports a competitor (which is good PR for its current tarnished image). The slight fact is that this isn't going to matter much to anyone anyway at the release date, due to the low number of USB 2.0 devices in circulation. However, this is a great position for WinXP's update feature to get shown off, if and when USB 2.0 begins to take off (plug in a device and your computer automatically updates itself with usb 2.0 support?).
I'll agree that the technology and need for such devices have grown since the days of Microsoft Bob (hint to all CEO's: never let your wife develop software). XML, and SOAP designed services, could definately make this work the way it is supposed to (and so often does not).
There are, however, a few major caveats to this sytem working. First, every device you want has to have some sort of networking capibility. While I've seen alot of press and smoke over such things, I have yet to go down to the Wiz and select from a broad variety of networked consumer electronics. There is also the thought of rising prices of such interconnected goods, due to probably integrated wireless technology, unless everyone feels like rewiring their homes with new cable. You know, if bluetooth actually, like, worked properly, it could fill this gap.
Next, hate to beat the old/. horse to death here, but what about security? We frequently feel violated when even broad aggregate data is collected about us. What are the implications of litteraly everything we do being sent over wire? Read Gibson's "Idoru" to get a sense of worst case situations.
The real problem here for the politico's lies in the fact that the age old practice of "villification" won't work here.
Usually in the past when confronted with a situation or crisis, we can point to specific incidents which stir the American public to believe that the other side is at fault, that they are treating Americans unfairly, and basically, make the job of standing on firm ground alot easier on them (even if its not particularly the correct position).
In this case, however, we are left with a deplorable situation where both sides made mistakes, both refuse to accept that fact, and there is no clear villan.
Was the United States spying on its trade partner and at least tenous friend, China? Yes. However, China has been guarded in its criticism of the purpose of the plane, considering their own espionage efforts against the United States.
Were the Chinese planes perhaps flying unsafely close to the American plane? Well, until a statement by the pilots is released, or flight logs seen, we wont really know. However, there has been acknowledged evidence in the past by multiple countries that China's pilots aren't exact the best in the world, and they tend to intercept at extremely close ranges.
Are the Chinese being unfair? Yes, in the fact that (at least as far as I can read), they haven't issued their apology for dangerous interception practices. However, post-incident, they have been extremely low-key and even gracious towards the situation. Their "prisoners" are being treated well by any standards and its not as if they are threating military action for this situation.
Is the United States being hard ass? Yes, and mostly due to political climates and military attitudes than due to lack of culpability. Now, dont get me wrong. I WANT a macho armed forces. But I also want one that can admit their wrong (considering many top leaders still believe in the Vietnam effort, perhaps I'm being naive here.)
See? No clear winners and losers. That makes taking a clear stand neigh impossible. Which is uncharted waters for both countries diplomatic corps, who usually follow a political and philosophical dogma which is, at least to them, unimpeachable.
Isn't this how all successfull revolutions (or extreme changes in culture)get filtered down to the masses?
Think about this historically. Every revolution, be it social, political, or ideological, has an almost eerily similar pattern. Indulge me, if you will:
1) A few central figures begin a small movement of ideas. 2) This movement begins to gain ground and new converts. 3) These second-wave converts espouse self-righteousness over their new ideals. 4) The movement is then noticed by the general public in some way, be it through art, popular culture, or media. 5)After an initial period of usual human resistance to change, the mass public teaches themselves how to categorize the converts to this new belief structure. 6)Once the movement can be categorized and broken down to simple yes/no questions of membership by the general public, the thirst for bits and pieces of its belief structure filter themselves into the everday world. 7)In order to satisfy the public demand, the movement is accosted and marketed by those who look to make profit.
The simple fact is that the general public cannot readily understand that usual fanatacism that comes along with movements in thought during their early stages. Since they are not "in the know", the unaccessibility of those feelings of idealism leave them out in the cold. Therefore, the populace needs a common anchor of representation, a "base of reference" from which to comprehend what movement x means to them. In the production of this "base of reference" lies the position of the media and popular culture companies, who spit out propoganda (with a pro-company spit) that the average person can understand and identify to.
Herein lies the sense of a "stalled" movement. At this point, the fanaticsm with which technological advancement was pursued for the past decade is being digested by those who were hesitant at first to embrace it. As a culture and a society, people are still attempting to digest the absolutely enormous amount of data and new knowledge they have been given to process and understand.
Although us slashdotters and netizens are well familiar with the original aims and goals of the Internet, the mass public, for the most part, is not (yet). A steady effort of activism and information distribution will get us over this "processing lag" by John/Jane Q. Public. Lets give those members of society not born with above-average technology skills time to catch up, before the real fun begins.
Normally I stay out of the anti/pro Microsoft debate, but i'm feeling a bit randy today, so here we go....
After reading Jon Katz's diatribe, I wanted to find him and shake his hand. His above writing was probably the first thought out, non-zealot based discussion piece on Microsoft that I've ever seen on/. (okay, enuff with the shameless kiss ass stuff)
I am fairly rare in the *nix/geek communities, being a linux user and promoter, but also holding a pro-microsoft view point. Now, before you gather up the villagers, let me explain why.
1) Would it be a better world if all software didn't suck and was perfect and had no bugs? Naturally. However, this just isn't the case. Does Microsoft charge for buggy software? Yes. But so does every linux distribution if/when they ship development or non-perfect opensource software on those cd's people buy.
2) Would it be a better world if all software was open source, so every programmer who had the know how could dip into the source and fix it? Eh..probably so. However, I do not recall any law, nor even any major consensus, that this had to be so. Microsoft was not always a huge mega-global corporation. It was once a startup, with four guys, two products, and a one room office. They took the approach to develop products, or buy and market products, keep the source closed so the product would be only theirs, and keep all the profits for themselves. Greedy?
Perhaps, but considering those profits are shared between all Microsoft employees, as well as anyone who wishes to invest a few dollars in them on the Stock Exchange, I think there is evidence of their generosity as well.
3)I dont think there's even an argument about the whole netscape issue. Microsoft built a better product, and had a platform to launch it from. Saying that they had no right to distributed it or tie it in with windows makes no sense to me. They threw alot of time and money into making a product. They had a marketing platform to use to get the product out there. Problem? That's called capitilism, and its not always nice.
(and yes, the netscape/ie debate could go on as long as the mac/pc debate, but lets not get into that here)
4)People constantly blame Microsoft for people using their software. Huh? Did it come on their new pc? Yes. However, Windows also comes with a program called fdisk. They were more than free to remove that operating system and put on something better. Whats that you say? That the hardware companies were forced to deal with Microsoft? Why is that? Consumer demand. If the majority of pc users were crying out for an *nix variant, then pc's would come standard with it. But they weren't. Notice that after demand got high enough, several manufacturers began offering linux pc's.
Now let me answer a few common points:
5)"The OS doesn't live up to my high standards of coding for this platform/architecture/setup la la la la la"...maybe because windows is not supposed to be the most superior os on the planet (at least, not yet). Microsoft aims at a specific base with its desktop products, and at another specific base with its server products. Do they say they are the best? Naturally. EVERY company in every industry likes to claim "they are #1"or that their product is the best. Its called marketing. Its not illegal, nor really all that unethical. Also, if your ideas are so superior, start a company and write a new os. That's the beauty of the system. Compete, damnit.
6) Bill Gates is decadant with his money. Perfectly his right. He made Microsoft the company it is today. His money is based upon a company he built from the ground up and made a fortune doing that. Its not as if he woke up one day and suddenly had billions (yes,his parents had money. blah blah blah). He worked his ass off for his current status.
Why not enjoy a little bit of his wealth? Sorry, but if someone handed many of you several billion dollars, I dont see you acting ALL that much differently.
7)"Microsofts software has alot of security holes". Yes. They do. Point granted.
8)(this is to that gent who said ms has given us the ILOVEYOU virus) "Microsoft has caused virii/worms/trojans..", riiight...and *nix has never had ANY of these problems.
9) "Microsoft has arrogant Employees". Oh god. They have more employees than certain cities probably have populations. They cannot be responsible for the comments of ALL of them. I mean, i've heard some O.S. people say some pretty f'ing stupid things too. Do i automatically assume the entire community agrees with them? No.
And lastly, my number one example why I support Microsoft:
Recently, my grandmother celebrated her 78th birthday (happy birthday, grams). I built her a computer so she could talk to some friends in the old country (for her age, grams is still pretty sharp and intelligent). Modem, webcam, all the goodies. Put it on her desk, put in a winME cd, filled in the serial number, and clicked next a bunch of times. OS installed. Plugged in the webcam, had her install the drivers, to see if she could. She did. Within two hours she was up and running. Since then, she's installed some other software, and had a blast.
Now, while I reccomend *nix/xwin to all my geek friends, I shudder at the thought of her trying to figure out the complexities of library dependencies, configure scripts, even command line options for rpm or dpkg.
Microsoft and windows has its uses. Nothing should ever be EXACTLY ONE WAY. That is why I support open source...but also why i see the good in microsoft.
They are a corporation, they are ruthless competitors. That I am not arguing. However, there is nothing wrong with that. To say that they dont produce anything useful, and that everything they do automatically is evil and useless, is just plain...well..false.
blah..okay....im on the pillory. Commence with the rotten vegetable tossing.
I'm a firm believer in the notion of a hands off policy about the Internet from the government. This is a new territory, not contained within the bounds of any one nation, yet governments attempt to enforce their will on it.
This is a case where the veracity of the Internet communities request for autonomy is really called into question. Can we have it both ways? Can we call in the cops when needed, but kick them out as soon as we are done with them?
I think this seems good on the surface, but has set a dangerous precendent about how much interference we are willing to allow by a national government. However, the question would remain, how would the Internet police itself and enforce judgement, without the help of nations?
This might be the most deceptively dangerous action in the Internet in the past few years, IMHO.
"However, it's the "freedom" issue that bothers me. In any sort of a media state (like the US, but not only the US) opposing viewpoints get no recognition. If you have something different to say, you're told to go elsewhere, to find the minority who agree with you. In ages past, philosophers, thinkers, novelists, and writers all had the ability to have their works disseminated over a wide base to people who didn't already agree with the ideas. That's no longer the case when the media controls the distribution."
Get up and do something about it. The attitude of "its farked and will not get any better so why even try" is often why governments go to pieces. Its citizens merely accept what is given to them, and do not fight for anything better.
Is the media owned and controled? To a degree, yes. So, create your own outlets. The reliance on the system to create channels of output for you is ludicrous and will only lead to more apathy, as people decide that unless it is given to them, they dont and cant have it.
If you want change, no one is going to drop it into your lap. You have to go out and EFFECT to happen. It might be hard. You might even fail. But the attempt is what matters.
The fact that we here on Slashdot (and about 100000000 other places) bitch and moan about the United States and its problems proves just how great and strong our nation still is. While it may seem to be in the grips of political, social, and economic apathy, there is still an undercurrent of respect and desire to achieve a base of freedoms which is either unavailable or unattainable elswhere in the world.
Does the United States, its governement and corporate structure, have problems? Of course. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of living in a perfect Utopia. The problems of the U.S. are the problems of human beings as a whole, they are a reflection on our attitudes and actions towards one another on a scale of history. However, moving from place to place, in an attempt to avoid dealing with the human issues that could topple a country, isnt really the answer. By moving once things get tough, you would essentially be running from a greater responsiblity to help make your country a place that YOU can believe in again.
Remember, when this country was founded by some revolutionary crazies a few hundred years ago, popular support was with the British. Most people could care less about any vague notions about future governments, just as long as they had peace and entertainment. It was up to the men (and women) who believed in something greater and better to move the minds of the masses, and effect the change that freed us from the rule of a dictator (which, no matter what others say, IMHO still have not regressed to).
Constant pundancy and demonstration. These are things that can actually change a government, and it has been proven time and time again, in country after country (no matter how naive it sounds). The more desperate the situation, the louder you should raise your voice. That is why the founders of the country included those rights in our constitution, and why they must continue to be practiced, even in the fact of governmental ignorance of our basic rights as Americans (yet another thing to change).
I still believe in the basic ideals of freedom and equality this country was founded on. Were grevious mistakes made along the way, rights taken and people slandered without hope or cause? Yes. Again, we are, unfortunately, human and governed by nothing more than flawed human beings. However, to negate the idea of a good government because of the flaws of humans is a mistake.
Dont give up on the U.S. just yet. Not when it most needs your help.
I really hope that doesn't fall under the realm of national bias (it might, and i apologize). I was just trying to address your disillusionment in the U.S.
This might just be the shot in the arm that Transmeta needs to get it back to where it belongs.
Unfortunately, as all know, the recent failure of Transmeta to really secure a company willing to openly use its technology (with the one exception of Sony) has hurt it in the public eye. I'm willing to bet that, at least on some level, irrepreable damage was done a week after launch when compaq pulled out, and IBM chose to rethink their position.
However, a new major backer, especially another semi-established chip company, might just be the major backer that T needs to go from in the dark chip company to what it really should be, a publically watch company with a great force in the future.
Unfortunately, there is a simple problem with the Napster alternatives, which would keep P2P free for n's untold millions of users. That is, unfortunately, Napster got there early, and big, and has entrenched itself. Right about now, you can start thinking of it as the Microsoft of peer to peer.
These days, especially on the Internet (or anything to do with technology really) there are always alternatives, which may offer better options than the service you are using. It might be free, or faster, or smaller, or skinnable, or hackable. However, the simple fact of the matter is that people who dont do much else with their computer than turn them on and double click their MSN/AOL icon dont really care about bigger, better, faster, more when it comes to software, and especially software dealing with Peer to Peer.
They want familiarity. They want what they can call their sister for help with. They want what is spoon fed to them by mass media. They want Napster. Now, if they are soon required to pay some almost indecernable fee ($5 a month or what have you) to continue to use the service just as they have, with no upgrades in software, the majority of users will just pony up and forget about it. These days, we dont have an army of freedom fighters. We have legions of corp-drones.
Now, specifically, there shouldn't be a concern over paying for downloaded music (within reasonable limits) or electronically distributed music. What should be the concern is to whom the fee will be payed?
I, for one, find it interesting and hilarious that the RIAA and labels scream about the rights of the artists. Do not be fooled. They dont care about the rights of the artists. What labels care about is their profits. When you download music, you aren't taking $16-18 out of the mouth of the artist (who only gets at most maybe 10 cents per album sale), you are taking
$15.90 out of the hands of the label. Why else would so few artists be complaining (Metallica and Dr. Dre not withstanding) and yet the labels screaming bloody murder?
In my naive idealistic brain, I saw Napster as a tool against the record labels, who charge consumers/fans bloody hell prices, yet pay artists mere PENNIES per album. I dislike Napster's new policy of cooing up to the labels. What would have been smarter, and the more forward-thinking system, is for them to have setup trusts for the ARTISTS, and have them payed directly. Would you really complain if you had to pay.05 cents to an artist for a try-before-buy (or even a try-and-never-buy) rather than.05 cents to some conglomerate who would give the actual creator of the music about a billionth of that?
Now here is where the O.S. community can come in and make a major triumph. The average consumer is going to need a reason to change from fee-based, label-paying napster to another client. What is the O.S. community could setup a system to pay the correct people, with a constantly evolving yet stable (and maybe auto-updating, for the comp-illterate) client and service system? Maybe appealing to peoples sense of honesty and fairness (the same that would make many of them pay the Napster fee) would get them to switch to a service that works the same, but pays out to the right people?
Slashdot Mirror
Do companies operating under one countries legal structure gain the same amount of protection when operating (or having their goods sold) in another country?
I find an interesting correlation here between "lassaie faire" business practices and the anti-corporation/IP movement. The movement wants corporations to recieve no help from the government for their business practices (IP, relief from economic hardship, etc), which are essentially leftist ideals. However, the fairly right ideal of lassaise faire essentially espouses the same thing, no? By all means correct me if I'm off base here.
(btw: sorry for the poli-labeling, but it helps to illustrate the constrasts in my point.)
Lovely. Now that California has lead the way, when do you think other states will follow suit?
Is there actually a "spam lobby" anywhere that could prevent (read give money to) politicans from supporting or passing such bills in other states?
The debate over abadonware has been going on for awhile now (though it usually centers around the gaming arena).
It's good to see someone with ranking stature taking on such a muddled but oddly important issue. The reason most companies would be against giving away outright their copyright on "abandonded" products is the fear of repackaging and their loss on what could be someone else's gain. However, if legislation (or a license) could be produced to qualm these kinds of fears while still allowing legitimate uses of abandonded products to take place, I think a happy medium between both sides would be found.
While I won't agree with ALL of your points, I will say that I agree with you, at least in the broad sense.
However, you fail to make an important distinction, and that is the difference between the advancement of Linux and open source as a software alternative, and the commercial viability of Linux and open source.
Open source itself has been present since before Microsoft, and Linux was doing well (at least among old hat hackers and the like) before it ever appeared on the public radar. The advancement of the community as a whole has grown exponentially in part due to the distaste of Microsoft, however, I believe the multitudes flocking to program for open source software are doing so now because they finally knew it existed in some tangible and reachable form.
The commercial viability of Linux and o.s., however, is VERY linked to the perception of Microsoft at a given moment. This is a phenomena that affects ALL industries when an upstart is going against an entrenched industry leader. If there is no particular distate against said leader, then the demand for an alternative is much less. Linux may obviously offer more on the server front (and hopefully eventually on the desktop), however, that success is based upon the amount of people actually looking for an alternative.
So in effect, o.s. and Linux (as the two are at this point inexorably linked together) need to find a way to fufill commercial viability. The developer core and attraction will always be there, IMHO.
What the article seems to push at (albiet around the bush) is that there are less companies willing to stake their future on the sales of service for Open Source work. Although RedHat and a few others are posting profits, the overall tech downturn is probably preventing any speculation in o.s. based companies.
I think the point is missed however, if this article is taken as a view of an overall decline in open source work. If anything, now is the time for developers to be able to work at a less pressured pace, since they aren't worried about advancing the project so that Company X doesn't go out of business before it can put together a viable distribution/product/release.
I would tend to agree that OOP might be the wrong solution. It seems to me that OOP is designed to generalize code to solve broad problems. Engineering, and other applications which require minute changes depending on multiple factors might be better served by procedural code designed to specifically handle those problems.
An interesting point that is raised is the fact that OOP, while an enormously helpful tool to many programmers and despite its advantages in many other theaters of software design, does not have to be an end all be all for programming as a whole. The tool that works should be the tool that is used.
Wasn't it not all that long ago that Ashcroft (and the Bush administration) were beating their chests over the Clinton era "mistake" of lightening export restrictions on encryption software?
Anyone know what the impetus behind this move was?
I read this yesterday in the New York Post. Apparently 'Nsync play almost faceless Jedi in the background of a battle. A few second after they appear, they are slaughtered by battle drones.
So basically, all of us who hate 'Nsync get our wishes fufilled, and see them obliterated.
Here's an even bigger question.....who's to collect the keys?
Let's just assume for a second that Johnny Terrorist uses a program generating keys based upon the "approved" encryption standard. Does a gaggle of armed guards come to his door with a floppy instantly to collect the key?
A key escrow system is probably the most workable of all the insane schemes surrounding this. However considering the logistical/administrative nightmares of making such an escrow and keeping its contents current, I think it is as much vapor as the furor over this eventual/legislation.
The workable solution that I would envision would be the oft proposed "key escrow" system, where the government would hold a copy of each person's secret key/password. A court order would be required in order to access the key, much like a search warrant process.
There are a few holes in this, though. Most obviously, are we actually expecting "mis-users" of encryption to hand over that information?
Given that, there really aren't all that many systems that seen workable to me.
A "skeleton key" for encryption? God forbid that ever get into the wrong hands.
Programmed back-doors? See above.
The whole problem with an encryption back door is it is basically like leaving a house key with someone. There has to be absolute trust that they will not allow it to be stolen/misused.
Personally, I felt the only thing the mini-series had to offer was its adherance to the actual dialog and action of the book itself (which Lynch's obviously did not). With that, the b-movie acting and ungodly costume design could be overlooked, since Dune fans could finally see a somewhat literal interpretation of the book. Both messiah and children of dune are infinately complex in their own right as they expound on the minuate of an Empire and its "holy" leaders. By cutting them down and attempting to push that much intrigue into a single mini-series, they are destroying the best part about having sci-fi produce these in the first place.
Okay, so this may not apply anymore, but...
Back in the days when I ran a BBS, there was the constant threat of being siezed for software piracy. However, a loophole had been found that allowed us to act as a "file lending library", allowing them to download any content legally for 24 hours, and then it must be erased.
Now, this may have been a mass net myth, but wouldn't it ease the situation with gnutella (and other p2p systems)?
I still dont see why the "path to aim.exe" is such a bad idea.
While it would incur having users go to aim.aol.com and download the binary (to bypass third party distribution restrictions), it seems so much simpler and streamlined than having the "freenet response database" suggested in the article.
While this is more novelty than anything else, I think it underlines the main point that people have been repeating about open-sourcing the CueCat system.
Open platforms allow creativity to flourish
It is very much the right of DC to demand that their CueCat be based on a closed proprietary platform. However, it is the duty of people with different uses for it to show the true extent for which the device can be used.
Okay, while I'm not debating that this is a great thing, I have a few ponderances.
One, I understand that the field of pins acts as a representational map of an image, and reacts to color depths(?). However, how does this help on a text/image page, where there are muitiple images with different functions?
Two, as far as the audio component is concerned, what does it draw its instructions from, in regards to web/technology use? ALT tags? The NAME property? Therefore, the technology is only as foolproof as the careless web designer who forgets to fill out alt tags?
Three, wouldn't image maps drive this thing nutty?
Such as I said, I think this is a marvelous idea. However, those questions seemed to jump instantly to mind on its ability to be a viable technology to bring graphic-based interfaces to the blind.
ha.hahaha.hahahahhaaha.
In the end tho, this is probably a good decision. Microsoft supports a viable and tested technology, and also supports a competitor (which is good PR for its current tarnished image). The slight fact is that this isn't going to matter much to anyone anyway at the release date, due to the low number of USB 2.0 devices in circulation. However, this is a great position for WinXP's update feature to get shown off, if and when USB 2.0 begins to take off (plug in a device and your computer automatically updates itself with usb 2.0 support?).
Agent systems again?
/. horse to death here, but what about security? We frequently feel violated when even broad aggregate data is collected about us. What are the implications of litteraly everything we do being sent over wire? Read Gibson's "Idoru" to get a sense of worst case situations.
I'll agree that the technology and need for such devices have grown since the days of Microsoft Bob (hint to all CEO's: never let your wife develop software). XML, and SOAP designed services, could definately make this work the way it is supposed to (and so often does not).
There are, however, a few major caveats to this sytem working. First, every device you want has to have some sort of networking capibility. While I've seen alot of press and smoke over such things, I have yet to go down to the Wiz and select from a broad variety of networked consumer electronics. There is also the thought of rising prices of such interconnected goods, due to probably integrated wireless technology, unless everyone feels like rewiring their homes with new cable. You know, if bluetooth actually, like, worked properly, it could fill this gap.
Next, hate to beat the old
The real problem here for the politico's lies in the fact that the age old practice of "villification" won't work here.
Usually in the past when confronted with a situation or crisis, we can point to specific incidents which stir the American public to believe that the other side is at fault, that they are treating Americans unfairly, and basically, make the job of standing on firm ground alot easier on them (even if its not particularly the correct position).
In this case, however, we are left with a deplorable situation where both sides made mistakes, both refuse to accept that fact, and there is no clear villan.
Was the United States spying on its trade partner and at least tenous friend, China? Yes. However, China has been guarded in its criticism of the purpose of the plane, considering their own espionage efforts against the United States.
Were the Chinese planes perhaps flying unsafely close to the American plane? Well, until a statement by the pilots is released, or flight logs seen, we wont really know. However, there has been acknowledged evidence in the past by multiple countries that China's pilots aren't exact the best in the world, and they tend to intercept at extremely close ranges.
Are the Chinese being unfair? Yes, in the fact that (at least as far as I can read), they haven't issued their apology for dangerous interception practices. However, post-incident, they have been extremely low-key and even gracious towards the situation. Their "prisoners" are being treated well by any standards and its not as if they are threating military action for this situation.
Is the United States being hard ass? Yes, and mostly due to political climates and military attitudes than due to lack of culpability. Now, dont get me wrong. I WANT a macho armed forces. But I also want one that can admit their wrong (considering many top leaders still believe in the Vietnam effort, perhaps I'm being naive here.)
See? No clear winners and losers. That makes taking a clear stand neigh impossible. Which is uncharted waters for both countries diplomatic corps, who usually follow a political and philosophical dogma which is, at least to them, unimpeachable.
Isn't this how all successfull revolutions (or extreme changes in culture)get filtered down to the masses?
Think about this historically. Every revolution, be it social, political, or ideological, has an almost eerily similar pattern. Indulge me, if you will:
1) A few central figures begin a small movement of ideas.
2) This movement begins to gain ground and new converts.
3) These second-wave converts espouse self-righteousness over their new ideals.
4) The movement is then noticed by the general public in some way, be it through art, popular culture, or media.
5)After an initial period of usual human resistance to change, the mass public teaches themselves how to categorize the converts to this new belief structure.
6)Once the movement can be categorized and broken down to simple yes/no questions of membership by the general public, the thirst for bits and pieces of its belief structure filter themselves into the everday world.
7)In order to satisfy the public demand, the movement is accosted and marketed by those who look to make profit.
The simple fact is that the general public cannot readily understand that usual fanatacism that comes along with movements in thought during their early stages. Since they are not "in the know", the unaccessibility of those feelings of idealism leave them out in the cold. Therefore, the populace needs a common anchor of representation, a "base of reference" from which to comprehend what movement x means to them. In the production of this "base of reference" lies the position of the media and popular culture companies, who spit out propoganda (with a pro-company spit) that the average person can understand and identify to.
Herein lies the sense of a "stalled" movement. At this point, the fanaticsm with which technological advancement was pursued for the past decade is being digested by those who were hesitant at first to embrace it. As a culture and a society, people are still attempting to digest the absolutely enormous amount of data and new knowledge they have been given to process and understand.
Although us slashdotters and netizens are well familiar with the original aims and goals of the Internet, the mass public, for the most part, is not (yet). A steady effort of activism and information distribution will get us over this "processing lag" by John/Jane Q. Public. Lets give those members of society not born with above-average technology skills time to catch up, before the real fun begins.
Normally I stay out of the anti/pro Microsoft debate, but i'm feeling a bit randy today, so here we go....
/. (okay, enuff with the shameless kiss ass stuff)
After reading Jon Katz's diatribe, I wanted to find him and shake his hand. His above writing was probably the first thought out, non-zealot based discussion piece on Microsoft that I've ever seen on
I am fairly rare in the *nix/geek communities, being a linux user and promoter, but also holding a pro-microsoft view point. Now, before you gather up the villagers, let me explain why.
1) Would it be a better world if all software didn't suck and was perfect and had no bugs? Naturally. However, this just isn't the case. Does Microsoft charge for buggy software? Yes. But so does every linux distribution if/when they ship development or non-perfect opensource software on those cd's people buy.
2) Would it be a better world if all software was open source, so every programmer who had the know how could dip into the source and fix it? Eh..probably so. However, I do not recall any law, nor even any major consensus, that this had to be so. Microsoft was not always a huge mega-global corporation. It was once a startup, with four guys, two products, and a one room office. They took the approach to develop products, or buy and market products, keep the source closed so the product would be only theirs, and keep all the profits for themselves. Greedy?
Perhaps, but considering those profits are shared between all Microsoft employees, as well as anyone who wishes to invest a few dollars in them on the Stock Exchange, I think there is evidence of their generosity as well.
3)I dont think there's even an argument about the whole netscape issue. Microsoft built a better product, and had a platform to launch it from. Saying that they had no right to distributed it or tie it in with windows makes no sense to me. They threw alot of time and money into making a product. They had a marketing platform to use to get the product out there. Problem? That's called capitilism, and its not always nice.
(and yes, the netscape/ie debate could go on as long as the mac/pc debate, but lets not get into that here)
4)People constantly blame Microsoft for people using their software. Huh? Did it come on their new pc? Yes. However, Windows also comes with a program called fdisk. They were more than free to remove that operating system and put on something better. Whats that you say? That the hardware companies were forced to deal with Microsoft? Why is that? Consumer demand. If the majority of pc users were crying out for an *nix variant, then pc's would come standard with it. But they weren't. Notice that after demand got high enough, several manufacturers began offering linux pc's.
Now let me answer a few common points:
5)"The OS doesn't live up to my high standards of coding for this platform/architecture/setup la la la la la"...maybe because windows is not supposed to be the most superior os on the planet (at least, not yet). Microsoft aims at a specific base with its desktop products, and at another specific base with its server products. Do they say they are the best? Naturally. EVERY company in every industry likes to claim "they are #1"or that their product is the best. Its called marketing. Its not illegal, nor really all that unethical. Also, if your ideas are so superior, start a company and write a new os. That's the beauty of the system. Compete, damnit.
6) Bill Gates is decadant with his money. Perfectly his right. He made Microsoft the company it is today. His money is based upon a company he built from the ground up and made a fortune doing that. Its not as if he woke up one day and suddenly had billions (yes,his parents had money. blah blah blah). He worked his ass off for his current status.
Why not enjoy a little bit of his wealth? Sorry, but if someone handed many of you several billion dollars, I dont see you acting ALL that much differently.
7)"Microsofts software has alot of security holes". Yes. They do. Point granted.
8)(this is to that gent who said ms has given us the ILOVEYOU virus) "Microsoft has caused virii/worms/trojans..", riiight...and *nix has never had ANY of these problems.
9) "Microsoft has arrogant Employees". Oh god. They have more employees than certain cities probably have populations. They cannot be responsible for the comments of ALL of them. I mean, i've heard some O.S. people say some pretty f'ing stupid things too. Do i automatically assume the entire community agrees with them? No.
And lastly, my number one example why I support Microsoft:
Recently, my grandmother celebrated her 78th birthday (happy birthday, grams). I built her a computer so she could talk to some friends in the old country (for her age, grams is still pretty sharp and intelligent). Modem, webcam, all the goodies. Put it on her desk, put in a winME cd, filled in the serial number, and clicked next a bunch of times. OS installed. Plugged in the webcam, had her install the drivers, to see if she could. She did. Within two hours she was up and running. Since then, she's installed some other software, and had a blast.
Now, while I reccomend *nix/xwin to all my geek friends, I shudder at the thought of her trying to figure out the complexities of library dependencies, configure scripts, even command line options for rpm or dpkg.
Microsoft and windows has its uses. Nothing should ever be EXACTLY ONE WAY. That is why I support open source...but also why i see the good in microsoft.
They are a corporation, they are ruthless competitors. That I am not arguing. However, there is nothing wrong with that. To say that they dont produce anything useful, and that everything they do automatically is evil and useless, is just plain...well..false.
blah..okay....im on the pillory. Commence with the rotten vegetable tossing.
Hrmm....
I'm a firm believer in the notion of a hands off policy about the Internet from the government. This is a new territory, not contained within the bounds of any one nation, yet governments attempt to enforce their will on it.
This is a case where the veracity of the Internet communities request for autonomy is really called into question. Can we have it both ways? Can we call in the cops when needed, but kick them out as soon as we are done with them?
I think this seems good on the surface, but has set a dangerous precendent about how much interference we are willing to allow by a national government. However, the question would remain, how would the Internet police itself and enforce judgement, without the help of nations?
This might be the most deceptively dangerous action in the Internet in the past few years, IMHO.
"However, it's the "freedom" issue that bothers me. In any sort of a media state (like the US, but not only the US) opposing viewpoints get no recognition. If you have something different to say, you're told to go elsewhere, to find the minority who agree with you. In ages past, philosophers, thinkers, novelists, and writers all had the ability to have their works disseminated over a wide base to people who didn't already agree with the ideas. That's no longer the case when the media controls the distribution."
Get up and do something about it. The attitude of "its farked and will not get any better so why even try" is often why governments go to pieces. Its citizens merely accept what is given to them, and do not fight for anything better.
Is the media owned and controled? To a degree, yes. So, create your own outlets. The reliance on the system to create channels of output for you is ludicrous and will only lead to more apathy, as people decide that unless it is given to them, they dont and cant have it.
If you want change, no one is going to drop it into your lap. You have to go out and EFFECT to happen. It might be hard. You might even fail. But the attempt is what matters.
I still reccomed the U.S.
The fact that we here on Slashdot (and about 100000000 other places) bitch and moan about the United States and its problems proves just how great and strong our nation still is. While it may seem to be in the grips of political, social, and economic apathy, there is still an undercurrent of respect and desire to achieve a base of freedoms which is either unavailable or unattainable elswhere in the world.
Does the United States, its governement and corporate structure, have problems? Of course. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of living in a perfect Utopia. The problems of the U.S. are the problems of human beings as a whole, they are a reflection on our attitudes and actions towards one another on a scale of history. However, moving from place to place, in an attempt to avoid dealing with the human issues that could topple a country, isnt really the answer. By moving once things get tough, you would essentially be running from a greater responsiblity to help make your country a place that YOU can believe in again.
Remember, when this country was founded by some revolutionary crazies a few hundred years ago, popular support was with the British. Most people could care less about any vague notions about future governments, just as long as they had peace and entertainment. It was up to the men (and women) who believed in something greater and better to move the minds of the masses, and effect the change that freed us from the rule of a dictator (which, no matter what others say, IMHO still have not regressed to).
Constant pundancy and demonstration. These are things that can actually change a government, and it has been proven time and time again, in country after country (no matter how naive it sounds). The more desperate the situation, the louder you should raise your voice. That is why the founders of the country included those rights in our constitution, and why they must continue to be practiced, even in the fact of governmental ignorance of our basic rights as Americans (yet another thing to change).
I still believe in the basic ideals of freedom and equality this country was founded on. Were grevious mistakes made along the way, rights taken and people slandered without hope or cause? Yes. Again, we are, unfortunately, human and governed by nothing more than flawed human beings. However, to negate the idea of a good government because of the flaws of humans is a mistake.
Dont give up on the U.S. just yet. Not when it most needs your help.
I really hope that doesn't fall under the realm of national bias (it might, and i apologize). I was just trying to address your disillusionment in the U.S.
This might just be the shot in the arm that Transmeta needs to get it back to where it belongs.
Unfortunately, as all know, the recent failure of Transmeta to really secure a company willing to openly use its technology (with the one exception of Sony) has hurt it in the public eye. I'm willing to bet that, at least on some level, irrepreable damage was done a week after launch when compaq pulled out, and IBM chose to rethink their position.
However, a new major backer, especially another semi-established chip company, might just be the major backer that T needs to go from in the dark chip company to what it really should be, a publically watch company with a great force in the future.
Unfortunately, there is a simple problem with the Napster alternatives, which would keep P2P free for n's untold millions of users. That is, unfortunately, Napster got there early, and big, and has entrenched itself. Right about now, you can start thinking of it as the Microsoft of peer to peer.
.05 cents to an artist for a try-before-buy (or even a try-and-never-buy) rather than .05 cents to some conglomerate who would give the actual creator of the music about a billionth of that?
These days, especially on the Internet (or anything to do with technology really) there are always alternatives, which may offer better options than the service you are using. It might be free, or faster, or smaller, or skinnable, or hackable. However, the simple fact of the matter is that people who dont do much else with their computer than turn them on and double click their MSN/AOL icon dont really care about bigger, better, faster, more when it comes to software, and especially software dealing with Peer to Peer.
They want familiarity. They want what they can call their sister for help with. They want what is spoon fed to them by mass media. They want Napster. Now, if they are soon required to pay some almost indecernable fee ($5 a month or what have you) to continue to use the service just as they have, with no upgrades in software, the majority of users will just pony up and forget about it. These days, we dont have an army of freedom fighters. We have legions of corp-drones.
Now, specifically, there shouldn't be a concern over paying for downloaded music (within reasonable limits) or electronically distributed music. What should be the concern is to whom the fee will be payed?
I, for one, find it interesting and hilarious that the RIAA and labels scream about the rights of the artists. Do not be fooled. They dont care about the rights of the artists. What labels care about is their profits. When you download music, you aren't taking $16-18 out of the mouth of the artist (who only gets at most maybe 10 cents per album sale), you are taking $15.90 out of the hands of the label. Why else would so few artists be complaining (Metallica and Dr. Dre not withstanding) and yet the labels screaming bloody murder?
In my naive idealistic brain, I saw Napster as a tool against the record labels, who charge consumers/fans bloody hell prices, yet pay artists mere PENNIES per album. I dislike Napster's new policy of cooing up to the labels. What would have been smarter, and the more forward-thinking system, is for them to have setup trusts for the ARTISTS, and have them payed directly. Would you really complain if you had to pay
Now here is where the O.S. community can come in and make a major triumph. The average consumer is going to need a reason to change from fee-based, label-paying napster to another client. What is the O.S. community could setup a system to pay the correct people, with a constantly evolving yet stable (and maybe auto-updating, for the comp-illterate) client and service system? Maybe appealing to peoples sense of honesty and fairness (the same that would make many of them pay the Napster fee) would get them to switch to a service that works the same, but pays out to the right people?