If I had to pick an Atari product, I'd agree with you. Where Atari was innovative was their game consoles (2600, 5200, 7800) - doing more with less hardware. The computers were good, but seemed do be outclassed by products like TI and Commodore. The 800 was really cool, and was actually a useful computer once you bought the disk drive, the interface box and a printer.
I agree on the Amiga. The ST was a non-starter and was for the most part a knock off not as well done amiga as the amiga. The TRS-80, particluarly the model II and the portable 100 effectively predated the business desktop PC and the laptop computer. The 100 is still useful in it's decent keyboard, small screen, boot from rom package.
If only NeXT had an affordable x86 OS in the early and mid 90s... If only Netscape had debugged... If only HP stuck to developing their software... (openview, others)
Matter of fact i am neither sure nuclear energy is bad, nor am i sure it is good.
I appreciate your open mindedness. Here's one truth: technologies are neither good nor bad. Only the application of a given technology can be good or bad. Take the hammer. In the wrong hands, it is used to murder and kill. In the right hands it is a powerful tool for building and repairing.
Didn't you forget the forth issue, waste disposal?
Please don't take this as a swipe at a deep personal value - it's not. I didn't leave the issue out. It's a total non-starter. Waste disposal is really an overrated issue. It's also an issue that is used by the non-proliferationist camp to keep nuclear power from the forefront. Yes, there is dangerous waste associated with nuclear power. Some of it can be procsessed. Some must be stored.
Compared to other forms of energy, nuclear doesn't produce nearly as much danger to the environment or to human beings and other members of the plant and animal kingdom in particular. The difference is that nuclear power produces a small ammount of highly dangerous material whereas other system create:
* PCPs and other poisonous or carcinogenic hazardous waste. * Massive quantities of greenhouse gasses * Sulfuric, carbonic, hydrochloric, and other acids. * Combustion byproducts, some of which are radioactive.
Most of these substances are released directly into the environment. Some of these are stored as hazardous waste.
There are only a handful of truly clean sources of power:
* wind * Heated water solar (photoelectric creates problems in the manufacturing process)
Neither produce power regularly or reliably to be anything but a small scale source or "auxillary" source. Regardless, my personal feelings are that people who oppose nuclear power over environmental issues are hurting the environment more than helping:
* Current energy generation is causing GLOBAL polution and massive problems that affect the GLOBAL ecosystem.
* Nuclear energy has the potential to cause small, localized environmental problems. The location of theses potential problems can be controlled (i.e. store it in the desert).
If you don't agree, you will when you can't afford to run your air conditioner because oil and coal are scarce and the global temperature is up by 10 degrees...
Nuclear power is a subject that is near and dear to my heart having spent a part of my life working in the industry for Uncle Sam. There are three real issues with Nuclear power that keep it a hot button issue:
* Proliferation of WMD. Widespread use of nuclear power creates huge opportunites for people to get their hands on fissile material or highly radioactive material. A "dirty bomb" consisting of a few hundred pounds of waste and a few hundred pounds of explosives could do incalcuable damage. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are NOT high tech. It's technology from the era of propeller airplanes, black and white movies, radio and vaccum tube electronics.
* Economics: widespread use of nuclear power would render a large sector of the global economy useless. There is a substantial interest in keeping the world dependent on our dwindling supplies of fossil fuel -- remember suply and demand? What happens when the supply decreases and demand increases? Many nations, corporations, and ultimately individuals stand to get very, very rich by monopolizing the resource (OPEC is a benign example compared to what we'll see in the future)
* Finally, there is a more practical issue: much of today's power challenges are demand side issues. Most people are blissfully unaware of what it takes to supply a couple of killowatt hours to their homes and especially businesses.
It's about time the computer media started holding people's feet to the fire for puking up sylable soup instead of answers. Since I got my first copy of Byte and PC World back in the 80s I've been amazed by how easy the media go on companies:
* They actually buy into stupid products like MS Bob, Lotus Jazz and the internet appliance doomed to failure of the week. Then they lament the product's demise as being ahead of it's time or too powerfull.
* They let executives off the hook way too easy:
Reporter: what does your e-storagewizard.com professional do?
Exec:It enables your information technology team to exploits synergies in your networked digital storage infrastructure leveraging economies of scale to deliver a competitive advantage and superior return on investment.
Reporter: What's your sales outlook for next year?
Product shootouts tested by _______mag labs are always a crock.
Finally, they don't report on things that really would help IT pros. I would love to see an article that actually warned that buying a crappy enterprise software app was bad for your career:
DO NOT BUY ____________
After _________mag labs testing, we have determined that _________, ________'s flagship enterprise package is rife with bugs, security liabilites and flat-out does not work as billed. In fact last year 10 out of 15 CxOs who bought _______ were canned.
This begs the question: Is it better for security researchers to avoid publicly criticizing e-voting flaws?
The answer is pretty straightforward: NO. Security researchers and other whistle blowers serve a valuable role in public. This isn't even an interesting question. A more suitable qustion for discussion is:
* Why is the incumbent party in power supporting untrustworthy voting machines?
* Why would someone oppose a simple request for accountability being built in to our democratic process?
* How is it so difficult to see there is an opportunity to create the worlds possibly first trustworthy election system? All we need is a paper backup...
Personal websites are a good idea, in theory -- but, in practice, there are far too many useless, egotistical homepages. That was maybe acceptable in the infancy of the internet, but people are getting smarter now. Blogs are better because they give what people care about -- your opinions and knowledge -- without the self-advertising.
A better way to put it is this:
* Most people don't have anything new to say. * What most people put on their homepage has little value to you.
It's a little arrogant and egotistical to assume that a blog is a better way to say your opinion and share your knowlede - which in itself is based on the same arrogant assumption as most personal websites.
Personally, I like personal sites. I agree with most of the posetr who lament how difficult it is to publish a web page today. Then again, it helps to have something to say:)
On the $100K per head thing... Yes. I've spent a lot of time analyzing income to payroll and believe it or not most companies that prosper do so in the $80K-$120K/per employee range. Go lower and you are schlock. Go higher and it is difficult to sustain. Many tech startups get crunched as they have a totally unrealistic expectation of revenue per employee... They think you can pay everyone $70K-$120K/yr or that you can make a big profit by selling at 8%-12% margin.
Matthew - If you were looking for an opportunity to start a small business (size at peak $25 Million revenue, perhaps 250 employees) in the Linux world, where would you go?
Let's look at the history of digital storage media and copy protection:
* Floppy Disk - lots of stuff got tried, it all got hacked. * Hard Disks - lots of stuff got tried, it all got hacked. * Removable Media - lots of stuff got tried, it all got hacked. * CDs/DVDs - Still trying lots of stuff, it all got hacked. * Removable RAM/ROM storage - been around forever, and for the most part has mostly been hacked. * paper thin thumbnail size media - stuff will get tried, it will get hacked.
You would think in 30-40 years of computer technology that someone would figure out it's next to impossible to secure digital information FROM BEING DUPLICATED.
The paper thin, thumbnail media is cool. DRM is a waste of time and money.
Get a clue buddy, digital cameras don't cost $10.99 to make, and if you try and abuse this, this will stop! This brings me to an interesting point. If the product was being sold as a rental, then shame on those that abuse the rental. If it's being sold like a disposable camera then shame on Ritz for not being honest. In fact, if Ritz isn't selling it as a rental, then guess what: they are getting what they asked for.
It's not ethical to do the iOpener model:
* Sell product as product. * Force consumer to use product your way with your $ervice.
If you are going to sell a rental, just be clear about it. That is the difference between DirectTV and the infamous iOpener . In DirectTV's case it is clear to the consumer at the time of purchase that their service is required to make it work. In the case of the iOpener the product was sold as a cheap computer. When you got home you found out it was useless without their expensive ISP service. Hackers then hacked it and eliminated the need for their product to use iOpener's service. The market forced the iOpener people to be honest and when they did, consumers just didn't like their deal and the iOpener people ended up (warning profanity)here.
Ethics do matter. If you are honest people can bargain and enter into agreements with you. If you are deceptive and someone calls your bluff you are left with an empty bag or worse, with heavy fines.
I agree. I can't think of one reason to subpoena these people unless they are trying to prove the chain of custody for some information. I'm surprised the publisher of Minix hasn't been drug out of the woodwork...
This case kills me. It comes down to three issues:
* Does Linux infringe SCO's copyright?
* Did IBM violate their Unix License? * If so, did IBM harm SCO by doing so?
Frankly, if SCO had a case, they would show the code, show the infringement, then show the contract, show the proof IBM violated it, followed by showing the effect IBM's actions had on their business. Fact is SCO cannot proove any of it for these reasons:
* Linux is not an infringement (less than 1% simmilar code)
* IBM did NOT break their Unix agreement and even if they did:
* SCO is responsible for their own situation. FreeBSD and Linux long ago eclipsed SCO Unix in the x86 marketplace because of price/function/value. There's little reason to buy SCO product other than fear they will sue you for not buying their own product.
I'm a consultant and I see it in all kinds of forms (both software and physical security) at companies I visit. I'm not a consultant, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. I agree. People try some of the most ridiculous strategies for security - and most of the time overlook the obvious and most serious threat of all. Cover the basics before you worry about the extremes.
Where I work, if I walk in with a phone that contains recording devices of any kind beyong phone number storage, many burly men in black suits will wrestle me to the ground and pummel me into submission while tossing my phone into an incinerator.
INCREDIBLE! They wont trust you with a five minute digital recorder, but they will trust you with a very high quality four hour long range bug otherwise known as a cell phone? Ask any salesperson - the cell phone is the ultimate bug:
1) Dial out to say your personal cell phone or assistant - make sure called party hits mute on their phone. 2) do not hang up or end call. 3) leave cell phone on table (or floor or chair) 4) listen to prospects discussing your presentation or even evesdrop on the next salesperson or three 5) Hang up (the cell phone will disconnect automagically). 6) Call front desk tell them you think you left your cell phone in the conference room.
My god security is a foreign concept to many human beings. Either they trust you or they dont. Cell phones are bad in sensitive areas. As bad or worse than recorders.
There are two issues here: First, the question of mission critical Microsoft. Second, the question of moving your software.
If I were you, Mr. CIO, I'd avoid this little stunt. Mainframes and the software mainframes run exist in mainframe form for three reasons:
* Speed - Process more data in less time * Accuracy - With less mistakes * Reliability - and a minimum of downtime
In none of these areas does Microsoft have a credible track record. You simply have to look elsewhere. Anyone who goes with MS on this is putting their carreer at risk.
That said - would migrating off of Cobol to a more modern development environment make sense? That's a situational question, and one that has to be answered on a case by case basis. In some cases, legacy software is a competitive advantage. In others, it's a business obstacle. In most cases, there's no compelling reason to do or not to do.
I enjoyed all three movies. Far and away my favorite was the first. Reloaded and Revolutions were pretty good. If anything Revolutions tied up the story too tightly - and we are all so used to being left guessing.
Two comments: First, this movie felt like a two hour conclusion, with no introduction, no rising action. It was as if it was literally the resolution of the second movie.
Second, A lot of the griping I've read is of the "it would have been better if" variety. Movies are frusterating in this respect - after the first movie in a series, everyone has preconceptions of the way the story will flow.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd pitch in a vote for the Atari 400/800
If I had to pick an Atari product, I'd agree with you. Where Atari was innovative was their game consoles (2600, 5200, 7800) - doing more with less hardware. The computers were good, but seemed do be outclassed by products like TI and Commodore. The 800 was really cool, and was actually a useful computer once you bought the disk drive, the interface box and a printer.
Jeeze, how could he forget NeXT?
The same way the market did. Overpriced, under developed. Great programming tools and GUI, though.
Display Postscript was OK... But an embedded 24 bit DSP rocked. Way ahead there.
I agree on the Amiga. The ST was a non-starter and was for the most part a knock off not as well done amiga as the amiga. The TRS-80, particluarly the model II and the portable 100 effectively predated the business desktop PC and the laptop computer. The 100 is still useful in it's decent keyboard, small screen, boot from rom package.
add to your list:
If only NeXT had an affordable x86 OS in the early and mid 90s...
If only Netscape had debugged...
If only HP stuck to developing their software... (openview, others)
The list goes on.
Matter of fact i am neither sure nuclear energy is bad, nor am i sure it is good.
I appreciate your open mindedness. Here's one truth: technologies are neither good nor bad. Only the application of a given technology can be good or bad. Take the hammer. In the wrong hands, it is used to murder and kill. In the right hands it is a powerful tool for building and repairing.
Nuclear energy is no different.
Didn't you forget the forth issue, waste disposal?
Please don't take this as a swipe at a deep personal value - it's not. I didn't leave the issue out. It's a total non-starter. Waste disposal is really an overrated issue. It's also an issue that is used by the non-proliferationist camp to keep nuclear power from the forefront. Yes, there is dangerous waste associated with nuclear power. Some of it can be procsessed. Some must be stored.
Compared to other forms of energy, nuclear doesn't produce nearly as much danger to the environment or to human beings and other members of the plant and animal kingdom in particular. The difference is that nuclear power produces a small ammount of highly dangerous material whereas other system create:
* PCPs and other poisonous or carcinogenic hazardous waste.
* Massive quantities of greenhouse gasses
* Sulfuric, carbonic, hydrochloric, and other acids.
* Combustion byproducts, some of which are radioactive.
Most of these substances are released directly into the environment. Some of these are stored as hazardous waste.
There are only a handful of truly clean sources of power:
* wind
* Heated water solar (photoelectric creates problems in the manufacturing process)
Neither produce power regularly or reliably to be anything but a small scale source or "auxillary" source. Regardless, my personal feelings are that people who oppose nuclear power over environmental issues are hurting the environment more than helping:
* Current energy generation is causing GLOBAL polution and massive problems that affect the GLOBAL ecosystem.
* Nuclear energy has the potential to cause small, localized environmental problems. The location of theses potential problems can be controlled (i.e. store it in the desert).
If you don't agree, you will when you can't afford to run your air conditioner because oil and coal are scarce and the global temperature is up by 10 degrees...
This whole exercise probably costs far less than the shuttle's zero-G toilet
Whew. Thank God it wasn't as expensive as the coffee maker.
Nuclear power is a subject that is near and dear to my heart having spent a part of my life working in the industry for Uncle Sam. There are three real issues with Nuclear power that keep it a hot button issue:
* Proliferation of WMD. Widespread use of nuclear power creates huge opportunites for people to get their hands on fissile material or highly radioactive material. A "dirty bomb" consisting of a few hundred pounds of waste and a few hundred pounds of explosives could do incalcuable damage. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are NOT high tech. It's technology from the era of propeller airplanes, black and white movies, radio and vaccum tube electronics.
* Economics: widespread use of nuclear power would render a large sector of the global economy useless. There is a substantial interest in keeping the world dependent on our dwindling supplies of fossil fuel -- remember suply and demand? What happens when the supply decreases and demand increases? Many nations, corporations, and ultimately individuals stand to get very, very rich by monopolizing the resource (OPEC is a benign example compared to what we'll see in the future)
* Finally, there is a more practical issue: much of today's power challenges are demand side issues. Most people are blissfully unaware of what it takes to supply a couple of killowatt hours to their homes and especially businesses.
It's about time the computer media started holding people's feet to the fire for puking up sylable soup instead of answers. Since I got my first copy of Byte and PC World back in the 80s I've been amazed by how easy the media go on companies:
* They actually buy into stupid products like MS Bob, Lotus Jazz and the internet appliance doomed to failure of the week. Then they lament the product's demise as being ahead of it's time or too powerfull.
* They let executives off the hook way too easy:
Reporter: what does your e-storagewizard.com professional do?
Exec:It enables your information technology team to exploits synergies in your networked digital storage infrastructure leveraging economies of scale to deliver a competitive advantage and superior return on investment.
Reporter: What's your sales outlook for next year?
Product shootouts tested by _______mag labs are always a crock.
Finally, they don't report on things that really would help IT pros. I would love to see an article that actually warned that buying a crappy enterprise software app was bad for your career:
DO NOT BUY ____________
After _________mag labs testing, we have determined that _________, ________'s flagship enterprise package is rife with bugs, security liabilites and flat-out does not work as billed. In fact last year 10 out of 15 CxOs who bought _______ were canned.
One can hope.
This begs the question: Is it better for security researchers to avoid publicly criticizing e-voting flaws?
The answer is pretty straightforward: NO. Security researchers and other whistle blowers serve a valuable role in public. This isn't even an interesting question. A more suitable qustion for discussion is:
* Why is the incumbent party in power supporting untrustworthy voting machines?
* Why would someone oppose a simple request for accountability being built in to our democratic process?
* How is it so difficult to see there is an opportunity to create the worlds possibly first trustworthy election system? All we need is a paper backup...
Personal websites are a good idea, in theory -- but, in practice, there are far too many useless, egotistical homepages. That was maybe acceptable in the infancy of the internet, but people are getting smarter now. Blogs are better because they give what people care about -- your opinions and knowledge -- without the self-advertising.
:)
A better way to put it is this:
* Most people don't have anything new to say.
* What most people put on their homepage has little value to you.
It's a little arrogant and egotistical to assume that a blog is a better way to say your opinion and share your knowlede - which in itself is based on the same arrogant assumption as most personal websites.
Personally, I like personal sites. I agree with most of the posetr who lament how difficult it is to publish a web page today. Then again, it helps to have something to say
On the $100K per head thing... Yes. I've spent a lot of time analyzing income to payroll and believe it or not most companies that prosper do so in the $80K-$120K/per employee range. Go lower and you are schlock. Go higher and it is difficult to sustain. Many tech startups get crunched as they have a totally unrealistic expectation of revenue per employee... They think you can pay everyone $70K-$120K /yr or that you can make a big profit by selling at 8%-12% margin.
I bought my first cd some time in the late eighties but cd burners didn't become affordable until the year 2000.
The CD burner was under $200 external in 1996 and media was about $2. I bought an HP 2x burner and made a killing doing hard drive backups for people.
Matthew - If you were looking for an opportunity to start a small business (size at peak $25 Million revenue, perhaps 250 employees) in the Linux world, where would you go?
Let's look at the history of digital storage media and copy protection:
* Floppy Disk - lots of stuff got tried, it all got hacked.
* Hard Disks - lots of stuff got tried, it all got hacked.
* Removable Media - lots of stuff got tried, it all got hacked.
* CDs/DVDs - Still trying lots of stuff, it all got hacked.
* Removable RAM/ROM storage - been around forever, and for the most part has mostly been hacked.
* paper thin thumbnail size media - stuff will get tried, it will get hacked.
You would think in 30-40 years of computer technology that someone would figure out it's next to impossible to secure digital information FROM BEING DUPLICATED.
The paper thin, thumbnail media is cool. DRM is a waste of time and money.
Get a clue buddy, digital cameras don't cost $10.99 to make, and if you try and abuse this, this will stop!
This brings me to an interesting point. If the product was being sold as a rental, then shame on those that abuse the rental. If it's being sold like a disposable camera then shame on Ritz for not being honest. In fact, if Ritz isn't selling it as a rental, then guess what: they are getting what they asked for.
It's not ethical to do the iOpener model:
* Sell product as product.
* Force consumer to use product your way with your $ervice.
If you are going to sell a rental, just be clear about it. That is the difference between DirectTV and the infamous iOpener . In DirectTV's case it is clear to the consumer at the time of purchase that their service is required to make it work. In the case of the iOpener the product was sold as a cheap computer. When you got home you found out it was useless without their expensive ISP service. Hackers then hacked it and eliminated the need for their product to use iOpener's service. The market forced the iOpener people to be honest and when they did, consumers just didn't like their deal and the iOpener people ended up (warning profanity)here.
Ethics do matter. If you are honest people can bargain and enter into agreements with you. If you are deceptive and someone calls your bluff you are left with an empty bag or worse, with heavy fines.
Hoist by their own petard, they are.
I agree. I can't think of one reason to subpoena these people unless they are trying to prove the chain of custody for some information. I'm surprised the publisher of Minix hasn't been drug out of the woodwork...
This case kills me. It comes down to three issues:
* Does Linux infringe SCO's copyright?
* Did IBM violate their Unix License?
* If so, did IBM harm SCO by doing so?
Frankly, if SCO had a case, they would show the code, show the infringement, then show the contract, show the proof IBM violated it, followed by showing the effect IBM's actions had on their business. Fact is SCO cannot proove any of it for these reasons:
* Linux is not an infringement (less than 1% simmilar code)
* IBM did NOT break their Unix agreement and even if they did:
* SCO is responsible for their own situation. FreeBSD and Linux long ago eclipsed SCO Unix in the x86 marketplace because of price/function/value. There's little reason to buy SCO product other than fear they will sue you for not buying their own product.
IBM's move is an endgame and I'm happy to see it.
The mind boggles! Sontag is asking IBM to deluge him in paper?
Clearly, not enough billable hours for SCO's lawyers.
I'm a consultant and I see it in all kinds of forms (both software and physical security) at companies I visit.
I'm not a consultant, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. I agree. People try some of the most ridiculous strategies for security - and most of the time overlook the obvious and most serious threat of all. Cover the basics before you worry about the extremes.
Where I work, if I walk in with a phone that contains recording devices of any kind beyong phone number storage, many burly men in black suits will wrestle me to the ground and pummel me into submission while tossing my phone into an incinerator.
INCREDIBLE! They wont trust you with a five minute digital recorder, but they will trust you with a very high quality four hour long range bug otherwise known as a cell phone? Ask any salesperson - the cell phone is the ultimate bug:
1) Dial out to say your personal cell phone or assistant - make sure called party hits mute on their phone.
2) do not hang up or end call.
3) leave cell phone on table (or floor or chair)
4) listen to prospects discussing your presentation or even evesdrop on the next salesperson or three
5) Hang up (the cell phone will disconnect automagically).
6) Call front desk tell them you think you left your cell phone in the conference room.
My god security is a foreign concept to many human beings. Either they trust you or they dont. Cell phones are bad in sensitive areas. As bad or worse than recorders.
Screw all this. I want to be able to use my TV same way I have for 30 years. And I want it to look pretty and sound good.
I could care less about licensing and so on.
The people at MS truly don't get it with respect to Open Source. All that the strategy of highlighting problems with Linux will do is:
1) Make developers aware of bugs.
2) Encourage developers to fix said bugs
3) Ulitmately, Linux will get more reliable and secure.
MS should learn from their attempt to beat Apache - Open Source is a force of nature.
There are two issues here: First, the question of mission critical Microsoft. Second, the question of moving your software.
If I were you, Mr. CIO, I'd avoid this little stunt. Mainframes and the software mainframes run exist in mainframe form for three reasons:
* Speed - Process more data in less time
* Accuracy - With less mistakes
* Reliability - and a minimum of downtime
In none of these areas does Microsoft have a credible track record. You simply have to look elsewhere. Anyone who goes with MS on this is putting their carreer at risk.
That said - would migrating off of Cobol to a more modern development environment make sense? That's a situational question, and one that has to be answered on a case by case basis. In some cases, legacy software is a competitive advantage. In others, it's a business obstacle. In most cases, there's no compelling reason to do or not to do.
I enjoyed all three movies. Far and away my favorite was the first. Reloaded and Revolutions were pretty good. If anything Revolutions tied up the story too tightly - and we are all so used to being left guessing.
Two comments: First, this movie felt like a two hour conclusion, with no introduction, no rising action. It was as if it was literally the resolution of the second movie.
Second, A lot of the griping I've read is of the "it would have been better if" variety. Movies are frusterating in this respect - after the first movie in a series, everyone has preconceptions of the way the story will flow.