I am not disputing whether anything is legal or illegal. However, it does a disservice to allow a private organization unilaterally classify behavior as illegal. Things are illegal when the government establishes a law making it so
It depends upon the type of law and the complaint. Governments don't usually enforce civil law, instead depending upon citzens and corporations to defend their own rights in court. In fact, most law is civil in nature. It is up to the injured party to sue the person who broke the law.
Whether you feel it is right or wrong, the law making bodies in the various countries have absolute power to define what is legal and illegal in handling copyrighted material. The Congress of the United States has recently redefined copyright legislation to give the copyright holder much more power on how their material is distributed. We might not like the law, but we still have to obey it.
In the United States, copyright law gives the holder of the copyright great powers to say how their work is distributed, how you may use that work, and in what formats. The law makes it a crime to crack DRM software, or to assist others in breaking the law. Laws like this have been passed before and the courts have had no problem with their consitutionality.
Can a company claim that recording their TV show is breaking their copyright? Yes, if you recorded it on a DVD. No, if you record it on a VHS tape. Can copying songs off the radio and sharing them with friends be considered a copyright violation? Yes.
The reason you could record TV shows on VHS tape and songs on audio tape was not due to some organic right. It had to do with a complex set of agreements between the record industry, the TV producers, and the manufacturers of recording equipment. Whenever you bought a blank tape in the U.S., part of that money went to the various industry representitives. They in turn granted a license to allow you to copy their work onto tape.
Things are different now. In the 1970s, there were content owners, distributors, and the manufacturers of the recording equipment. Each had their own interests. Now, companies like Sony owns the content, the distribution and the manufacturing sides. Unlike VHS and audio tapes, there is no industrial agreement to allow you to copy content onto blank DVDs or CDs.
Instead, the entertainment industry went right to Congress and got the laws changed. Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it from the copyright holder. And, the copyright holder has every right to say you broke the law and drag you into court if you break that copyright agreement.
I generally like T-Mobile. Unlike Verizon, they don't hobble the BlueTooth on their phones. I can upload and download files to my computer without using the network. I can take all the MP3s on my computer and use them for ring tones. I can use my phone to transfer files. Most importantly, I can sync my cellphone with the phonebook on my computer. Verizon makes all sorts of excuses why they can't let you connect your BlueTooth phone directly to your computer, but it mainly has to do with selling ringtones and charging you for sending pictures back and forth between your phone and your computer.
Unlike ATT/Cingular, T-Mobile also haven't changed my terms of service multiple times without telling me, "extended" my contract without telling me, or charged me for things that are suppose to be included in my service. Last time I had ATT, they suddenly decided that my house was located in a "roaming" area and charged me 50 cents per minute for using my cellphone.
At least T-Mobile is being pretty up front about the whole thing -- not allowing IM and VOIP is strictly a business decision. They've concluded that most business users aren't heavy users of IM and VOIP, and by not offering these services, they can prevent non-business users from signing up. I bet its more to make sure they don't oversubscribe the network more than anything else. Allowing VOIP and IM would probably more than double the number of people who'd want to sign up.
I also find hope that T-Moble says this is not necessarily a permanent decision. If their customers demand it, they'll open up the service to VOIP and IM. I bet you they do this with in 12 to 18 months. Once the service gets going, and they increase the available bandwidth, they'll start to welcome non-business users.
the son of a respected Deal rabbi, is also vice president of the 300-plus student Deal Yeshiva
Oh, there are lots of features only found in MS Word that aren't in OpenOffice. These are things like their document wizard, VBA scripting, object insertion, watermarking, cross-referencing, index marking, and our favorite, Clippy the paperclip.
Ever used these features? No? That's probably why they're not in OpenOffice.
There are several reasons for all of these features: You've got one application that's trying to make sure that anyone who uses it can find the features they need. Because MS has hundreds of developers working full time on MS office, and they got to do something to justify their jobs. It looks good in ad copy (millions of features!). And, it is an important element of FUD. (If you switch to OpenOffice, there might be some feature not in OpenOffice that you will need.)
* Links to the Backgammon, Hearts, Reversi, Spades, and Checkers games on MSN Gaming Zone have been removed. * Windows Mail has no support for HTTP mail via the WebDAV protocol * rexec, rsh, finger and some other command-line tools primarily used to communicate with UNIX-based systems have been removed from the default installation. Services for Unix still provides them as an optional component. * Services for Macintosh are removed. * FrontPage Server Extensions has been dropped is being replaced with Windows SharePoint Services client support. * Significant changes to the logon and authentication architecture has resulted in the removal of GINA. * Support for enabling a folder for "Web Sharing" with Internet Information Services via the Windows Explorer interface has been removed.
* All the links to MSN are being removed. Probably for business or regulatory reasons. No links means you're (in theory) not pushing MSN, and you're being Web Homepage neutral. Or, it could be they're giving up on MSN? That would be very hard to believe. * Unix tools are now optional? Considering the growth of Linux, this is surprising since more and more businesses actually are using these tools (especially "rsh" and "ssh". You'd think they'd want more compatibility than less. Wonder if "optional installation" means that you have to select it when you install it, or whether you have to pay for it. My take: Dell will probably include them anyway since so many people need them. * FrontPage is a major component for many web pages and is a major feature for ISPs. How will this affect all those FrontPage webpages? Will FrontPage still be an optional component in the Server version? If not, how will this affect the ISPs? * Lack of email support for HTTP via WebDAV: Is this a security concern? How will this affect people? Do a lot of Webmails still do this?
===============
Cringely has a whole theory that Apple (using MS own source code) will include the Windows XP API in their next release of OS X. (See http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420. html - the second half of the story). That will mean you could actually run MS Office XP directly on a Mac without Windows. He believes Apple has the rights to use this code since Apple signed a cross licensing agreement with MS back in 1997 or 1998. Windows XP was out in 2002, so Apple would have rights to the code.
I find it hard to believe that Apple would actually be able to do this. However, people I know who work in these places tell me that Apple actually does have licensing rights to the Windows 2000 API (and therefore to most of Windows XP API). Rumors have it that MS gave Apple the licensing rights in exchange for the licensing rights for Mac OS 9 and the NeXTstep code. If that's true, Steve certainly got Bill to drink quite a bit of Koolaid.
We should eliminate all top level domains and simply go with country domains. At least this way, the legal aspects of trademarks and their domains can be handled where they belong.
I'd even get rid of.com. Each country would have its own independent domain structure. For example, you might have a *.com.us domain for U.S. corporations. Microsoft would become Microsoft.com.us in the United States, and Microsoft.co.uk in Britain. There would no longer be a Microsoft.com.
And we should get rid of the.gov domain. Whitehouse.gov would become Whitehouse.gov.us. In the U.S., you'd have senate.gov.us, while you have senate.gov.ca in Canada.
In federated republics like the U.S., each state or province would have its own Subdomain much like the old U.S. domain setup (execept I'd include a com.us, edu.us, and gov.us domains for country wide institutions). That way, Widgets R Us in Texas would not have the same domain as Widgets R Us in California (unless, of course, Widgets R Us is a nationwide chain). Basically, where ever you register your trademark, that's where your domain will be.
The top level domains would become virtual domains. That is Microsoft.com in the U.S. would become Microsoft.com.us while Microsoft.com in Britain would be Microsoft.co.uk. This could easily be resolved by the nameserver.
No more ICANN, no more cybersquatting, no more land grabs for every new toplevel domain that's opened up.
It isn't hard to make things smaller. It's the power supply that's the problem. No good shrinking something like this down to the size of an eyeglass screw if you've got to strap a AAA battery to make it fly.
We've got to create new nanoscopic power sources before this type of technology can really take off.
It was a trade secret, but...
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
However you slice it, it was a trade secret, and Apple has full right to use legal recource to find out who leaked it. They also have a right to go after non-employees who purposely are involved in the leaking of these secrets.
Now, is it the thing Apple should have done? It certainly didn't help create the normal Apple love-fest that usually follows these tradeshows, and it didn't improve Apple's relationship with Geekdom. In the end, the leak didn't hurt Apple financially, and if I was part of Apple's legal team, I would recommend to drop the whole thing very quietly. They got our point across,
Heck, I've been reading these blogs for years. Right before every Macworld, These blogs list a plethora of the products that never come to be (Apple will announce a personal jetpack called the iPack! We've got photoshopped pictures to prove it!). No one ever takes these speculations seriously. I originally thought Apple's legal wrangles was a publicity gimmick. They got the world's attention, and suddenly everyone wanted a gander at the next hot Apple product. Once the Macworld was over, Apple would simply drop everything.
I mean you'd have to be some sort of control-freak egomaniac to keep on pushing something like this, and that certainly doesn't describe anyone I know of at Apple.
Microsoft has a unique position where they never have to worry about Windows piracy since almost all PC automatically come with a Windows license. This saves Microsoft a lot of money in its anti-piracy efforts.
What Microsoft is probably doing is targeting manufacturers who don't produce any PCs with Windows licenses. Microsoft probably suspects that a majority these machines are getting pirated copies of Windows installed, and they're probably right. After all, it is a lot cheaper for a manufacturer to license Windows for each and every PC they produce than to purposely license only 95% of their PCs, so the last 5% can be used by the alternate OS market.
Just because a PC is licensed for Windows doesn't mean it has to come with Windows. A lot of manufactures are now selling Linux only PCs -- especially server models because of the demand. The demand for non-windows PCs would have to rise to about 15% to 20% of the market for it to be cheaper for a manufacturer to stop licensing Windows for each PC they produce. At that point, Microsoft will find it almost impossible to enforce its Windows licensing.
I use BlueTooth for quite a few things. I started with simply keeping my phone's addressbook with my computers, then moved to the keyboard and mouse combo. I also use it to stream MP3s on my computer to my earphones.
Yes, I use a Mac. I'd like to do the same with my Windows PC, but Microsoft implementation is pretty bad. It doesn't have to be, but MS so far hasn't designated it as a built in Windows service. If they did, all PCs would have Bluetooth capability and the connections would be seemless.
Why not simply use WiFi? WiFi has too much overhead. It's designed to connect many to many. Great for mesh networking or for a basestation to connect to multiple computers. It has built in IP capabilities. Bluetooth is for one to one connectivity and has built in encryption which doesn't require password passing and is fairly secure. (The Bluetooth security holes have to do with unauthorized pairing due to poor Bluetooth implementation. Basically it's cellphones that tried to make it easy for users to connect their earphones by making pairing automated.)
Faster Bluetooth connectivity would allow such things as disk drives to connect to systems without having to be physically connected to the computer. In data farms, it isn't always practical to have the external drives physically next to the machines, and snaking thick cables across the floor is a pain. Imagine transfering data realtime from video cameras and digital cameras without having to plug them in.
Like USB, making it faster doesn't necessarily make everything incompatible. I have no problems using USB 2.0 devices on my USB 1.1 port (although I'd love to have the USB 2.0 speed). However, by making Bluetooth faster, you make it much more useful.
Too bad Microsoft hasn't gotten behind Bluetooth yet. I remember hearing the same complaints about USB and WiFi when they first came out -- it doesn't work and only Mac people use it. Maybe with the faster implementation, Microsoft might feel the need to redefine it as a required Windows service. Then you could have wireless game controllers, wireless connectivity to your Windows based Home Entertainment center, and sync'ing Windows based PDAs to your computer.
Another thing you are underestimating - how many good arabic speakers do you think there are in the US?
Or, even better. How many Arabic speakers do you think there are in the U.S. who aren't gay?
Right before Gulf War I, the U.S. military dismissed dozens of Arabic transaltors for being gay. The DIA and NSA found itself in the position temporarily hiring them back when the war broke out.
Personally, I do find this posting of documents a bit suspicious. As others have already pointed out, the U.S. certainly can't dump documents in the public without the slightest idea of what is in them.
What if these documents included what Iraq knew of U.S. military intelligence? Maybe the names of American intelligence agents or their identities. Maybe the methods and means that the U.S. uses to gather intelligence.
Even worse, what if the documents included embarrasing information about the U.S. intelligence operations? Hiring of prostitutes, buying off unsavory characters, deals with criminal or fanatical elements. Or, what these documents might show about our so-called allies in the Mid-East. What if the documents painted a bad picture of the governments in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? Certainly not something the U.S. wants to publicize.
Nope, I believe these documents have aready been carefully combed through and throughly cleared. The posting of these documents is mainly for propoganda purposes. Show Sadam as corrupt, incompentent, and brutal. Show that he craved WMDs. Nothing we don't already know or don't want the world to know.
I can't blame the administration for this one (although I'll be more than happy to blame them for many other things). These are "war trophies", and if I was president, I'd be doing the same thing.
I found it interesting that GoDaddy didn't make a joint announcement with Microsoft on this issue. Nor, is this mentioned on GoDaddy's website. Apparently, GoDaddy didn't think this was that big an announcement. I also noticed that only the nameservers are mentioned (which are relatively few machines), and not the rest of GoDaddy's infrastructure.
GoDaddy offers multiple Linux platforms, and their Windows platforms don't offer such services as PHP hosting, Ruby on Rails, or Perl/CGI scripting. Their Windows platforms only do ASP and.NET stuff. Certainly, if GoDaddy was abandoning Linux, they'd switch their PHP, Ruby, and Perl hosting to Windows too.
I suspect that GoDaddy and Microsoft worked out an agreement where Microsoft would provide free technical assistance, free software, and maybe some hardware if GoDaddy agreed to switch their nameservers from Linux to Windows. GoDaddy would get help setting up.NET hosting, and Microsoft gets to make a big announcement about a big Windows win over Linux.
China (like all counties) controls its own country level domain and can do what it wants with it. If you want a *.cn domain, you have to get it from China. If you want a *.uk domain, you have to get it from Great Britain. If you want a *.fr domain, you have to get it from France. (Okay, not really, these countries have licensed other companies to sell their domain names, but you get the idea).
All they are doing is reorganizing it to make some sub-level domains. They'll have a *.co.cn for commerical enteprises, *.mil.cn for military, etc. Great Britain already uses this type of system. They'll also use a state/city domain like the old *.us domain use to (*.tx.us, *.ia.us, etc.).
ICCAN only assigns internet domains to the top level domains:.com,.edu,.gov,.int,.mil,.net,.org,.biz,.info,.name, and.pro. They have no say in how the country level domains are run.
This is more social engineering rather than finding a security hole:
* Claims to be a file of interest. Usually picture of a hot nekkid girl. This is for Mac Geeks, so it's a picture of a hot screen shot of the next OS.
* Pasted a copy of the JPEG icon onto the app. Could happen in any OS.
* You'll be asked for the SysAdmin password in order to "view" this JPEG. Some users may get suspicious about that, others will blindly type it in.
* Again, shows that hiding extensions is not a good idea. If extensions are shown, the.app extension would let everyone know this is an app and not a picture.
=======
This is a problem much in the same light like the email phishing scams. I'd like to see a mask applied to executable icons, so that looking at an icon will let you know if its a program or not -- even if the developer attempts to make you think the file is benign by pasting over another icon on top of it. The mask will let you know it's really an executable.
The other is user education. Users should know that viewing a JPEG shouldn't require the System Administrator's password.
We see a few "Web 2.0" apps, and we make our comments based upon those. However, that's like looking at Alexander Graham Bell's demonstration of his first telephone and comment that it would never get anywhere because of its technical limitations.
* What if instead of your Web 2.0 application using a remote server, it used your own desktop machine as a server. Would you still need your Internet connection?
* What if businesses ran their own Ajax applications for wordprocessing, spreadsheets, and whatever else they do instead of needing every application loaded on each and every PC?
* What if you could quickly switch from one HTTP server (running from say Google.com) to another HTTP server (running on your desktop). What if the application could store your data remotely and locally? You could use a remote server when you have good service and switch to your local server when you don't have Internet connectivity.
* What if you decide not to lug around your desktop machine, but rather work on a PC laptop? Maybe not even a laptop, but a Linux based PDA?
Do you see where this could be heading?
With "Web 2.0" applications, you could be running an application from your "desktop server", from your company's server, or even from a public server. It doesn't matter! Your application will still work.
With "Web 2.0", your data could be stored locally, remotely, or even both. It is even possible for a remote server to "update" your local instance of your application when you decide to work locally. When you switch to your local desktop server, you still have the same up to date application you had on the Web.
With "Web 2.0", you're not tied down to a particular piece of hardware or even a single platform. You could be using your Windows XP desktop at work, switch to your laptop on the train ride home, switch to your Mac at home, and when you go off on your well deserved ski vacation, switch to your handheld Linux powered PDA. Each and every device would have access to all the applications and data you need. There's no difference between one piece of hardware vs. another.
Corporations are no longer have to preload their desktop machines with the applications their workers need. They're not tied down to a particular platform. No more waiting for that MSCE to show up in order to install that application you need. Heck, if a meteor came flying through the window and smashed your desktop PC, you could get on another one and not miss a lick of work. You'll still have the same desktop and the same applications. The last time my PC died at work, it took me two weeks to get back up and running.
When an application is updated, everyone at your company has the latest copy. You don't have to install it on tens of thousands PCs. Desktop support is much simpler. You don't have to worry whether someone has the same version of your appliction (or even if they have your application).
That's why everyone is so excited by "Web 2.0".
Unfortunately, I don't believe AJAX is going to be the way to go. (Of course, what do I know? I thought Windows 95 would be a flop.) Ajax is too iffy. JavaScript is not the "universal" language we all think it is. Every browser on every hardware platform implements it a bit differently. Its even worse than Sun's "write once, run everywhere" JVM platform. I'm playing around with Ruby on Rails to see if that feels any better.
I read the appeals court's opinion. It stated that there were over 50 CD-Rs in the man's possession. It didn't state whether or not this was a "personal" collection, or the guy was possibly distributing them.
My assumption is that the prosecutor argued that the sheer number of CDs showed an intent to distribute. This is considered a valid argument even if there is no proof that the man actually distributed anything. The same type of argument is made in drug cases all the time. If someone has a few ounces of marijuana on him, it is assumed to be for personal use. If that person has three or four kilos, it is assumed that person is a distributor. If you are caught with contraband, you don't need absolute proof that you intended to be a distributor. Just the amount of contraband can show that.
I buy an iPod loaded with music, sync it to my computer, and wham, I have no more music on my iPod. (Yes, I know you can "mount" an iPod as a disk and take the software off that way. But, it comes with out any meta-information (including the name of the song) and if it is copy protected, you couldn't easily play the files anyway.
If this is a scam, why bother with an iPod? Get a CHEAP MP3 player, and "sell" that.
C*al*s! XXX! Your PayPay Account
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Spam has been going down recently. I've noticed it. Problem ain't solved, but it isn't as bad as it once was. I chalk it up to the following:
* A few major spam court cases. Suddenly, there might be a downside to being a spammer.
* Filtering has made spam less effective with fewer people replying.
* People are more use to email and are less likely to respond to spam.
* Last, but not least: There is a self-regulatory process here. When there's too much spam, people, each individual piece of spam becomes less likely to be noticed. What are your chances of selling your junk if 10 other people have packed that mailbox with the same ad? Spammers drop out. This is where we are right now. Unfortunately, this tread won't last. Fewer spams means each piece of spam is more likely to get noticed and generate a response. Fewer spams means more people are starting to use their email. This makes spamming more effective which will attract more spammers.
I predict that we'll go through several waves of spam over the next few years as the amount of spam reaches its "optimal" level.
One of the reasons why NeXT was only offered for the education market was an agreement Jobs worked out with Apple. Apple wouldn't sue NeXT if he kept NeXT just in the college market and stayed out of the other Markets Apple thought they were in.
And what if the fact that businesses refuse to serve a certain group of individuals start affecting the rights of those individuals?
I take it that you didn't live in the 60s and 70s in the midst of the civil rights battles. It is one thing if a single store refuses to serve a person, but what if all of the businesses did this?
What if you couldn't use the dressing rooms in any department store? What if you couldn't get a job no matter how well qualified you were? What if you couldn't get buy a house because no one will sell one to you? What if you couldn't eat in a restaurant, use a water fountain, or even use the bus because in "Free Enteprise", people have the right to refuse to serve you?
I suggest you read "Black Like Me" and "Carry Me Home : Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution". Imagine being a Black individual back then and see how libertarian you'd be.
A person does have the right to run their business as they see fit, but that right must be balanced by the rights of other individuals. That's why the government can implement safety and employee regulations. It is also why they can tell a business that they are not allowed to discriminate.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends upon the type of law and the complaint. Governments don't usually enforce civil law, instead depending upon citzens and corporations to defend their own rights in court. In fact, most law is civil in nature. It is up to the injured party to sue the person who broke the law.
Whether you feel it is right or wrong, the law making bodies in the various countries have absolute power to define what is legal and illegal in handling copyrighted material. The Congress of the United States has recently redefined copyright legislation to give the copyright holder much more power on how their material is distributed. We might not like the law, but we still have to obey it.
In the United States, copyright law gives the holder of the copyright great powers to say how their work is distributed, how you may use that work, and in what formats. The law makes it a crime to crack DRM software, or to assist others in breaking the law. Laws like this have been passed before and the courts have had no problem with their consitutionality.
Can a company claim that recording their TV show is breaking their copyright? Yes, if you recorded it on a DVD. No, if you record it on a VHS tape. Can copying songs off the radio and sharing them with friends be considered a copyright violation? Yes.
The reason you could record TV shows on VHS tape and songs on audio tape was not due to some organic right. It had to do with a complex set of agreements between the record industry, the TV producers, and the manufacturers of recording equipment. Whenever you bought a blank tape in the U.S., part of that money went to the various industry representitives. They in turn granted a license to allow you to copy their work onto tape.
Things are different now. In the 1970s, there were content owners, distributors, and the manufacturers of the recording equipment. Each had their own interests. Now, companies like Sony owns the content, the distribution and the manufacturing sides. Unlike VHS and audio tapes, there is no industrial agreement to allow you to copy content onto blank DVDs or CDs.
Instead, the entertainment industry went right to Congress and got the laws changed. Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it from the copyright holder. And, the copyright holder has every right to say you broke the law and drag you into court if you break that copyright agreement.
I generally like T-Mobile. Unlike Verizon, they don't hobble the BlueTooth on their phones. I can upload and download files to my computer without using the network. I can take all the MP3s on my computer and use them for ring tones. I can use my phone to transfer files. Most importantly, I can sync my cellphone with the phonebook on my computer. Verizon makes all sorts of excuses why they can't let you connect your BlueTooth phone directly to your computer, but it mainly has to do with selling ringtones and charging you for sending pictures back and forth between your phone and your computer.
Unlike ATT/Cingular, T-Mobile also haven't changed my terms of service multiple times without telling me, "extended" my contract without telling me, or charged me for things that are suppose to be included in my service. Last time I had ATT, they suddenly decided that my house was located in a "roaming" area and charged me 50 cents per minute for using my cellphone.
At least T-Mobile is being pretty up front about the whole thing -- not allowing IM and VOIP is strictly a business decision. They've concluded that most business users aren't heavy users of IM and VOIP, and by not offering these services, they can prevent non-business users from signing up. I bet its more to make sure they don't oversubscribe the network more than anything else. Allowing VOIP and IM would probably more than double the number of people who'd want to sign up.
I also find hope that T-Moble says this is not necessarily a permanent decision. If their customers demand it, they'll open up the service to VOIP and IM. I bet you they do this with in 12 to 18 months. Once the service gets going, and they increase the available bandwidth, they'll start to welcome non-business users.
Oh, there are lots of features only found in MS Word that aren't in OpenOffice. These are things like their document wizard, VBA scripting, object insertion, watermarking, cross-referencing, index marking, and our favorite, Clippy the paperclip.
Ever used these features? No? That's probably why they're not in OpenOffice.
There are several reasons for all of these features: You've got one application that's trying to make sure that anyone who uses it can find the features they need. Because MS has hundreds of developers working full time on MS office, and they got to do something to justify their jobs. It looks good in ad copy (millions of features!). And, it is an important element of FUD. (If you switch to OpenOffice, there might be some feature not in OpenOffice that you will need.)
You know how hard it is to find a cup of hot coffee in the U.S. Maybe there needs to be a few more Starbucks.
This is coffee placed into a can, stored for God knows how long, then reheated. Sounds delicious.
* All the links to MSN are being removed. Probably for business or regulatory reasons. No links means you're (in theory) not pushing MSN, and you're being Web Homepage neutral. Or, it could be they're giving up on MSN? That would be very hard to believe.
* Unix tools are now optional? Considering the growth of Linux, this is surprising since more and more businesses actually are using these tools (especially "rsh" and "ssh". You'd think they'd want more compatibility than less. Wonder if "optional installation" means that you have to select it when you install it, or whether you have to pay for it. My take: Dell will probably include them anyway since so many people need them.
* FrontPage is a major component for many web pages and is a major feature for ISPs. How will this affect all those FrontPage webpages? Will FrontPage still be an optional component in the Server version? If not, how will this affect the ISPs?
* Lack of email support for HTTP via WebDAV: Is this a security concern? How will this affect people? Do a lot of Webmails still do this?
===============
Cringely has a whole theory that Apple (using MS own source code) will include the Windows XP API in their next release of OS X. (See http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420
I find it hard to believe that Apple would actually be able to do this. However, people I know who work in these places tell me that Apple actually does have licensing rights to the Windows 2000 API (and therefore to most of Windows XP API). Rumors have it that MS gave Apple the licensing rights in exchange for the licensing rights for Mac OS 9 and the NeXTstep code. If that's true, Steve certainly got Bill to drink quite a bit of Koolaid.
Cringely wrote about Microsoft vs. Burst back in June 2002 and August 2003. This provides some background on Burst and their lawsuit against Apple:
. html>. html>. html>
s ting-people/200309/msg00116.html>
s ting-people/200309/msg00123.html>
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020620
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030821
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030828
Also some "Cringely vs. Microsoft" discussions:
Microsoft responds to Cringely:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/intere
Cringely responds to Microsoft's response:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/intere
We should eliminate all top level domains and simply go with country domains. At least this way, the legal aspects of trademarks and their domains can be handled where they belong.
.com. Each country would have its own independent domain structure. For example, you might have a *.com.us domain for U.S. corporations. Microsoft would become Microsoft.com.us in the United States, and Microsoft.co.uk in Britain. There would no longer be a Microsoft.com.
.gov domain. Whitehouse.gov would become Whitehouse.gov.us. In the U.S., you'd have senate.gov.us, while you have senate.gov.ca in Canada.
I'd even get rid of
And we should get rid of the
In federated republics like the U.S., each state or province would have its own Subdomain much like the old U.S. domain setup (execept I'd include a com.us, edu.us, and gov.us domains for country wide institutions). That way, Widgets R Us in Texas would not have the same domain as Widgets R Us in California (unless, of course, Widgets R Us is a nationwide chain). Basically, where ever you register your trademark, that's where your domain will be.
The top level domains would become virtual domains. That is Microsoft.com in the U.S. would become Microsoft.com.us while Microsoft.com in Britain would be Microsoft.co.uk. This could easily be resolved by the nameserver.
No more ICANN, no more cybersquatting, no more land grabs for every new toplevel domain that's opened up.
It isn't hard to make things smaller. It's the power supply that's the problem. No good shrinking something like this down to the size of an eyeglass screw if you've got to strap a AAA battery to make it fly.
We've got to create new nanoscopic power sources before this type of technology can really take off.
However you slice it, it was a trade secret, and Apple has full right to use legal recource to find out who leaked it. They also have a right to go after non-employees who purposely are involved in the leaking of these secrets.
Now, is it the thing Apple should have done? It certainly didn't help create the normal Apple love-fest that usually follows these tradeshows, and it didn't improve Apple's relationship with Geekdom. In the end, the leak didn't hurt Apple financially, and if I was part of Apple's legal team, I would recommend to drop the whole thing very quietly. They got our point across,
Heck, I've been reading these blogs for years. Right before every Macworld, These blogs list a plethora of the products that never come to be (Apple will announce a personal jetpack called the iPack! We've got photoshopped pictures to prove it!). No one ever takes these speculations seriously. I originally thought Apple's legal wrangles was a publicity gimmick. They got the world's attention, and suddenly everyone wanted a gander at the next hot Apple product. Once the Macworld was over, Apple would simply drop everything.
I mean you'd have to be some sort of control-freak egomaniac to keep on pushing something like this, and that certainly doesn't describe anyone I know of at Apple.
This product has been around for quite a while. They use it to put six whole tomatoes into a can of Hunts Tomato Paste.
(Boy, am I dating myself...)
Microsoft has a unique position where they never have to worry about Windows piracy since almost all PC automatically come with a Windows license. This saves Microsoft a lot of money in its anti-piracy efforts.
What Microsoft is probably doing is targeting manufacturers who don't produce any PCs with Windows licenses. Microsoft probably suspects that a majority these machines are getting pirated copies of Windows installed, and they're probably right. After all, it is a lot cheaper for a manufacturer to license Windows for each and every PC they produce than to purposely license only 95% of their PCs, so the last 5% can be used by the alternate OS market.
Just because a PC is licensed for Windows doesn't mean it has to come with Windows. A lot of manufactures are now selling Linux only PCs -- especially server models because of the demand. The demand for non-windows PCs would have to rise to about 15% to 20% of the market for it to be cheaper for a manufacturer to stop licensing Windows for each PC they produce. At that point, Microsoft will find it almost impossible to enforce its Windows licensing.
I use BlueTooth for quite a few things. I started with simply keeping my phone's addressbook with my computers, then moved to the keyboard and mouse combo. I also use it to stream MP3s on my computer to my earphones.
Yes, I use a Mac. I'd like to do the same with my Windows PC, but Microsoft implementation is pretty bad. It doesn't have to be, but MS so far hasn't designated it as a built in Windows service. If they did, all PCs would have Bluetooth capability and the connections would be seemless.
Why not simply use WiFi? WiFi has too much overhead. It's designed to connect many to many. Great for mesh networking or for a basestation to connect to multiple computers. It has built in IP capabilities. Bluetooth is for one to one connectivity and has built in encryption which doesn't require password passing and is fairly secure. (The Bluetooth security holes have to do with unauthorized pairing due to poor Bluetooth implementation. Basically it's cellphones that tried to make it easy for users to connect their earphones by making pairing automated.)
Faster Bluetooth connectivity would allow such things as disk drives to connect to systems without having to be physically connected to the computer. In data farms, it isn't always practical to have the external drives physically next to the machines, and snaking thick cables across the floor is a pain. Imagine transfering data realtime from video cameras and digital cameras without having to plug them in.
Like USB, making it faster doesn't necessarily make everything incompatible. I have no problems using USB 2.0 devices on my USB 1.1 port (although I'd love to have the USB 2.0 speed). However, by making Bluetooth faster, you make it much more useful.
Too bad Microsoft hasn't gotten behind Bluetooth yet. I remember hearing the same complaints about USB and WiFi when they first came out -- it doesn't work and only Mac people use it. Maybe with the faster implementation, Microsoft might feel the need to redefine it as a required Windows service. Then you could have wireless game controllers, wireless connectivity to your Windows based Home Entertainment center, and sync'ing Windows based PDAs to your computer.
Or, even better. How many Arabic speakers do you think there are in the U.S. who aren't gay?
Right before Gulf War I, the U.S. military dismissed dozens of Arabic transaltors for being gay. The DIA and NSA found itself in the position temporarily hiring them back when the war broke out.
Personally, I do find this posting of documents a bit suspicious. As others have already pointed out, the U.S. certainly can't dump documents in the public without the slightest idea of what is in them.
What if these documents included what Iraq knew of U.S. military intelligence? Maybe the names of American intelligence agents or their identities. Maybe the methods and means that the U.S. uses to gather intelligence.
Even worse, what if the documents included embarrasing information about the U.S. intelligence operations? Hiring of prostitutes, buying off unsavory characters, deals with criminal or fanatical elements. Or, what these documents might show about our so-called allies in the Mid-East. What if the documents painted a bad picture of the governments in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? Certainly not something the U.S. wants to publicize.
Nope, I believe these documents have aready been carefully combed through and throughly cleared. The posting of these documents is mainly for propoganda purposes. Show Sadam as corrupt, incompentent, and brutal. Show that he craved WMDs. Nothing we don't already know or don't want the world to know.
I can't blame the administration for this one (although I'll be more than happy to blame them for many other things). These are "war trophies", and if I was president, I'd be doing the same thing.
I found it interesting that GoDaddy didn't make a joint announcement with Microsoft on this issue. Nor, is this mentioned on GoDaddy's website. Apparently, GoDaddy didn't think this was that big an announcement. I also noticed that only the nameservers are mentioned (which are relatively few machines), and not the rest of GoDaddy's infrastructure.
.NET stuff. Certainly, if GoDaddy was abandoning Linux, they'd switch their PHP, Ruby, and Perl hosting to Windows too.
.NET hosting, and Microsoft gets to make a big announcement about a big Windows win over Linux.
GoDaddy offers multiple Linux platforms, and their Windows platforms don't offer such services as PHP hosting, Ruby on Rails, or Perl/CGI scripting. Their Windows platforms only do ASP and
I suspect that GoDaddy and Microsoft worked out an agreement where Microsoft would provide free technical assistance, free software, and maybe some hardware if GoDaddy agreed to switch their nameservers from Linux to Windows. GoDaddy would get help setting up
Gee, it sure is nice to be able to work with an unlimited budget. Remote control cockroaches and damn the expense!
China (like all counties) controls its own country level domain and can do what it wants with it. If you want a *.cn domain, you have to get it from China. If you want a *.uk domain, you have to get it from Great Britain. If you want a *.fr domain, you have to get it from France. (Okay, not really, these countries have licensed other companies to sell their domain names, but you get the idea).
.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, .org, .biz, .info, .name, and .pro. They have no say in how the country level domains are run.
All they are doing is reorganizing it to make some sub-level domains. They'll have a *.co.cn for commerical enteprises, *.mil.cn for military, etc. Great Britain already uses this type of system. They'll also use a state/city domain like the old *.us domain use to (*.tx.us, *.ia.us, etc.).
ICCAN only assigns internet domains to the top level domains:
This is more social engineering rather than finding a security hole:
.app extension would let everyone know this is an app and not a picture.
* Claims to be a file of interest. Usually picture of a hot nekkid girl. This is for Mac Geeks, so it's a picture of a hot screen shot of the next OS.
* Pasted a copy of the JPEG icon onto the app. Could happen in any OS.
* You'll be asked for the SysAdmin password in order to "view" this JPEG. Some users may get suspicious about that, others will blindly type it in.
* Again, shows that hiding extensions is not a good idea. If extensions are shown, the
=======
This is a problem much in the same light like the email phishing scams. I'd like to see a mask applied to executable icons, so that looking at an icon will let you know if its a program or not -- even if the developer attempts to make you think the file is benign by pasting over another icon on top of it. The mask will let you know it's really an executable.
The other is user education. Users should know that viewing a JPEG shouldn't require the System Administrator's password.
We see a few "Web 2.0" apps, and we make our comments based upon those. However, that's like looking at Alexander Graham Bell's demonstration of his first telephone and comment that it would never get anywhere because of its technical limitations.
* What if instead of your Web 2.0 application using a remote server, it used your own desktop machine as a server. Would you still need your Internet connection?
* What if businesses ran their own Ajax applications for wordprocessing, spreadsheets, and whatever else they do instead of needing every application loaded on each and every PC?
* What if you could quickly switch from one HTTP server (running from say Google.com) to another HTTP server (running on your desktop). What if the application could store your data remotely and locally? You could use a remote server when you have good service and switch to your local server when you don't have Internet connectivity.
* What if you decide not to lug around your desktop machine, but rather work on a PC laptop? Maybe not even a laptop, but a Linux based PDA?
Do you see where this could be heading?
With "Web 2.0" applications, you could be running an application from your "desktop server", from your company's server, or even from a public server. It doesn't matter! Your application will still work.
With "Web 2.0", your data could be stored locally, remotely, or even both. It is even possible for a remote server to "update" your local instance of your application when you decide to work locally. When you switch to your local desktop server, you still have the same up to date application you had on the Web.
With "Web 2.0", you're not tied down to a particular piece of hardware or even a single platform. You could be using your Windows XP desktop at work, switch to your laptop on the train ride home, switch to your Mac at home, and when you go off on your well deserved ski vacation, switch to your handheld Linux powered PDA. Each and every device would have access to all the applications and data you need. There's no difference between one piece of hardware vs. another.
Corporations are no longer have to preload their desktop machines with the applications their workers need. They're not tied down to a particular platform. No more waiting for that MSCE to show up in order to install that application you need. Heck, if a meteor came flying through the window and smashed your desktop PC, you could get on another one and not miss a lick of work. You'll still have the same desktop and the same applications. The last time my PC died at work, it took me two weeks to get back up and running.
When an application is updated, everyone at your company has the latest copy. You don't have to install it on tens of thousands PCs. Desktop support is much simpler. You don't have to worry whether someone has the same version of your appliction (or even if they have your application).
That's why everyone is so excited by "Web 2.0".
Unfortunately, I don't believe AJAX is going to be the way to go. (Of course, what do I know? I thought Windows 95 would be a flop.) Ajax is too iffy. JavaScript is not the "universal" language we all think it is. Every browser on every hardware platform implements it a bit differently. Its even worse than Sun's "write once, run everywhere" JVM platform. I'm playing around with Ruby on Rails to see if that feels any better.
Suppose, you are an idiot. Now suppose your a major Telcom ISP provider, but I repeat myself...
(Apologies to Mark Twain)
What? This guy is suing Apple?
No seriously, could you repeat it. I had my iPod on and wasn't paying attention...
I read the appeals court's opinion. It stated that there were over 50 CD-Rs in the man's possession. It didn't state whether or not this was a "personal" collection, or the guy was possibly distributing them.
My assumption is that the prosecutor argued that the sheer number of CDs showed an intent to distribute. This is considered a valid argument even if there is no proof that the man actually distributed anything. The same type of argument is made in drug cases all the time. If someone has a few ounces of marijuana on him, it is assumed to be for personal use. If that person has three or four kilos, it is assumed that person is a distributor. If you are caught with contraband, you don't need absolute proof that you intended to be a distributor. Just the amount of contraband can show that.
I buy an iPod loaded with music, sync it to my computer, and wham, I have no more music on my iPod. (Yes, I know you can "mount" an iPod as a disk and take the software off that way. But, it comes with out any meta-information (including the name of the song) and if it is copy protected, you couldn't easily play the files anyway.
If this is a scam, why bother with an iPod? Get a CHEAP MP3 player, and "sell" that.
Spam has been going down recently. I've noticed it. Problem ain't solved, but it isn't as bad as it once was. I chalk it up to the following:
* A few major spam court cases. Suddenly, there might be a downside to being a spammer.
* Filtering has made spam less effective with fewer people replying.
* People are more use to email and are less likely to respond to spam.
* Last, but not least: There is a self-regulatory process here. When there's too much spam, people, each individual piece of spam becomes less likely to be noticed. What are your chances of selling your junk if 10 other people have packed that mailbox with the same ad? Spammers drop out. This is where we are right now. Unfortunately, this tread won't last. Fewer spams means each piece of spam is more likely to get noticed and generate a response. Fewer spams means more people are starting to use their email. This makes spamming more effective which will attract more spammers.
I predict that we'll go through several waves of spam over the next few years as the amount of spam reaches its "optimal" level.
One of the reasons why NeXT was only offered for the education market was an agreement Jobs worked out with Apple. Apple wouldn't sue NeXT if he kept NeXT just in the college market and stayed out of the other Markets Apple thought they were in.
And what if the fact that businesses refuse to serve a certain group of individuals start affecting the rights of those individuals?
I take it that you didn't live in the 60s and 70s in the midst of the civil rights battles. It is one thing if a single store refuses to serve a person, but what if all of the businesses did this?
What if you couldn't use the dressing rooms in any department store? What if you couldn't get a job no matter how well qualified you were? What if you couldn't get buy a house because no one will sell one to you? What if you couldn't eat in a restaurant, use a water fountain, or even use the bus because in "Free Enteprise", people have the right to refuse to serve you?
I suggest you read "Black Like Me" and "Carry Me Home : Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution". Imagine being a Black individual back then and see how libertarian you'd be.
A person does have the right to run their business as they see fit, but that right must be balanced by the rights of other individuals. That's why the government can implement safety and employee regulations. It is also why they can tell a business that they are not allowed to discriminate.