If he is going for a degree just to get a job, it's a bad plan. If he really is interested in computer science as a field he should go for it. It is never a good plan to choose a course of study just for a line on a resume. Over time that line falls farther and farther down the page. It always pays to study what you love - even though you may find it doesn't help you get a job at all.
There is a difference between setting up my own server and running it and having a service available for some subscription rate that would relieve me of the cost and management of a server. Notice that I said they were replacing the need for a centralized filestore. They have bought huge chunks of dark fiber for something. Offering database services, offering file services accesible anywhere ( which they haven't done, yet, any way) seems like the direction they are headed. This could also be just my imagination, but the point is I wouldn't need to set up and manage a webDAV server with a raid array on it. I have one BTW, or, at least, until next Monday I have one - it costs a lot of money to run your own. Once you set it up it's not that hard to manage, but it still requires 4-5 hours a week checking server logs and doing general maintenance. Reliable, ubiquitous web fileservice that I don't have to manage is freeing.
In broad outlines, and incrementally, Google seems to be replacing the need for a centralized computer/filestore with an ubiquitous web fileservice. While this may not replace the need for an OS and applications, if I could get access to my information and files securely frome everywhere that I can see a google server it really does change the computer paradigm.
As much as three-quarters of the value of publicly traded companies in America comes from intangible assets, up from around 40% in the early 1980s.
Of course the argument that IP is important because intangible assets are so important to business valuations could be seen as a misunderstanding. Maybe the company valuations are 50% too high, and IP is a rationalization of an untenable market?
There is a difference between living things attempting to create a monopoly - which they do, absolutely, and Nature RATIFYING a monopoly. Even in man-made life ( economics) as opposed to natural life ( biology) a successful monopoly destroys itself. As soon as a creature dominates its niche entirely it seems to exhaust its niche, or maybe there is some other reason - but no natural monopoly survives for long. Though, as I said at the outset, you are undeniably correct that all things work toward monopoly.
And so another company that had an emerging monopoly blows all of its accumulated goodwill and demonstrates why monopolies are ALWAYS bad. And, no, there is no such thing as a NATURAL monopoly. Nature abhors monopolies.
I wonder how long the rule will survive the courts, since you could probably argue that a built in backdoor to communications was a violation of the fourth amendment. It is a blanket warrantless search on everyone, whether they execute an actual search or not. Yet courts have allowed roadblocks to test for drunk driving ( which is the conceptually the same ) and they allow random bag searches it the Port Authority and the airports. All of these are really fourth amendment violations. Some day a court will probably swing the other way and forbid them ( would that make them liberal or conservative ? Bonus points for the correct answer! ), but for now the paranoids rule. I suppose the key question is what will they do to police the situation, If A sends B an encrypted packet, and A and B are using a well known port ( 22, say) and the packet crosses D's network, is D responsible for insuring that the packet is compliant? How is D to know? As long as A and B have access to an encryption software that has no backdoor I don't see how it matters whether Skype has a backdoor or not. Or is this a case where, as recently was reported, even owning encryption software of this type will be 'evidence of intent'?
For certain applications ( which he alludes to in TFA ) - Graphics, visualization, scientific computing, etc. the desktop is still essential. But the reason isn't that it sits on a desk, or is tethered to the wall, its because you need faster processing power, faster hard drives and much, much bigger screen real estate. I would love to move to a laptop, but the small screen and slow hard drive make large scale image editing ( a small file is 120MB, a big file is 1.6GB) impossible. Plus heat. These things run hat for constant use.
What's changed is that more users are able to find a better fit with the computing power that they actually need ( part time use, web surfing, email and word processing, and number crunching in the accountiing, not scientific data, sense.) This isn't so much the end of the desktop as the rise of something new. In a few years ( Google willing) we'll be reading stories of the demise of the laptop, as web based filesystems and ubiquitous broadband wireless allow cheap cell phone processing to.... Whatever. The fact is that computing is becoming available everywhere and all the time and that means it is becoming invisible. It will be built into the fabric of everything. It won't be separate anymore.
Regular users MAY be slow to move, but if businesses take action one of the main targets of an exploit vanishes and the incentive to write an actual exploit goes down.
The cost of secrecy is high. Reasonable response times ( up to, say, 3 months) before disclosure should be allowed - even for firms that seem to be sitting on their hands, and if the firm is close to a patch and they are willing to communicate and work with the researcher a longer time may be reasonable. Overall, disclosure of a problem is always in the USERS best interest, and secrecy is always in the SOFTWARE FIRMS best interest. The longer a known security issue exists, in secret, the more likely it is that someone else has found it - and that puts everyone at risk. The rights of users ( who are victims of the software firms bad code) should always come before the rights of the software firm. Always. So this means disclosure should be seen as a blessing. Those who complain about irresponsible researchers putting everyone at risk are wrong - everyone is already AT RISK. Failure to let me know what risks I face should be seen as the problem. I need to know.
Sociology doesn't HAVE to be crap, but it ususlly is. Sociobiology has the potential to rescue the endeavor - put it on a hard science, rather than soft science basis. But when I was in school sociobiology wasn't even named yet.
Actually. we had no requirement to take sociology - so I didn't. I took a lot of History(though it wasn't my major), but the History Department was mostly interested in uncovering reality, and most of the history professors seemed to believe that any power group would behave about the same as any other power group. Which I think is basically true. My favorite test was one in which a History professor gave us a map of a region France in the early 1700's and early 1800's along with a set of birth records and death records for the villages in the region for random dates over the century. He just asked us to explain what happened.
Exactly, what the bones tell us is an important indicator of whether or not it was a violent struggle or a quiet fade-out under other pressures ( loss of habitat, isolation when the next glaciation occurred, resource depletion by the new dominant hominid). I don't know all the bone evidence, but I haven't seen clear evidence of carnage. That doesn't mean it isn't out there, just that I haven't seen it. BTW, I was a liberal arts major.
The terms crushing and ousting imply an intent, when it could be massive ignorance. I think ignorance kills even more frequently than intent, though even when we finally realize what we are doing we seem rather reluctant to stop. 1000 years is not a long time evolutionarily, but if you think in terms of a concerted effort at the eradication of a reasonably small population it is an enormous timescale. Of course, it is possible that peaceful coexistence broke down and the end came swiftly. I admittedly don't know what the bones say about cross species violence. I guess my original point was that we jump to the dramatic ( and admittedly human) explanations, but more complex (or less complex) human behaviors could also be at work. A lot of species die off as a by-product of our activities, and we are not even aware of their existence. Although we certainly eould have been aware of a very large primate in the area. You are, however quite right that objectively there is no difference - we caused their demise- which is a liklihood.
From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive.
Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two? Isn't it equally likely that in the ebb and flow of occupation of the area humans eventually exhausted the resources that the Neanderthal relied upon, while being able to exploit other resources that the Neanderthal couldn't? Since 1,000 years is the overlap epoch it doesn't appear that a policy of active antipathy is at work.
Agreed. The real reason to block is that your services are being abused in a way that either threatens you or annoys users, virus emails, spam, etc. Remote zombie requests for services you aren't providing are only dangerous if they rise to DOS frequencies. To make all users guilty because they reside in an IP block that sees a lot of zombies borders on unethical for a web-hosting service, if they don't disclose the policy to their own clients. I would be completely PO'd if I found no one in China or Korea could access our web-site ( we're a textiles firm). Why not block the specific ports one isn't using?
"The human right of a free press depends upon the human right of private property in newsprint."--Murray N. Rothbard [1]
Anyone who quotes the great Murray Rothbard is undoubtable.
Imagine the possibilities! Sony, and Samsung and RCA and Toshiba and (everyone else) can charge Hollywood studios to be able to play their Movies on my TV, DVD and VCR. DRM we can truly love! But the irony would be sweet.
Yes, but Karl Rove was the funniest of the names I tried in the sentence. John Kerry? Funny last year, lame today. Bill Clinton? So last century. Fox News? Too expected. It was a joke, not a pure political comment. A joke, remember those?
Slashdot Mirror
But remember the requirement - 90 days for the POLICE to crack the encryption- I don't know why they don't just make it 'indefinite detention'.
If he is going for a degree just to get a job, it's a bad plan. If he really is interested in computer science as a field he should go for it. It is never a good plan to choose a course of study just for a line on a resume. Over time that line falls farther and farther down the page. It always pays to study what you love - even though you may find it doesn't help you get a job at all.
There is a difference between setting up my own server and running it and having a service available for some subscription rate that would relieve me of the cost and management of a server. Notice that I said they were replacing the need for a centralized filestore. They have bought huge chunks of dark fiber for something. Offering database services, offering file services accesible anywhere ( which they haven't done, yet, any way) seems like the direction they are headed. This could also be just my imagination, but the point is I wouldn't need to set up and manage a webDAV server with a raid array on it. I have one BTW, or, at least, until next Monday I have one - it costs a lot of money to run your own. Once you set it up it's not that hard to manage, but it still requires 4-5 hours a week checking server logs and doing general maintenance. Reliable, ubiquitous web fileservice that I don't have to manage is freeing.
In broad outlines, and incrementally, Google seems to be replacing the need for a centralized computer/filestore with an ubiquitous web fileservice. While this may not replace the need for an OS and applications, if I could get access to my information and files securely frome everywhere that I can see a google server it really does change the computer paradigm.
As much as three-quarters of the value of publicly traded companies in America comes from intangible assets, up from around 40% in the early 1980s. Of course the argument that IP is important because intangible assets are so important to business valuations could be seen as a misunderstanding. Maybe the company valuations are 50% too high, and IP is a rationalization of an untenable market?
There is a difference between living things attempting to create a monopoly - which they do, absolutely, and Nature RATIFYING a monopoly. Even in man-made life ( economics) as opposed to natural life ( biology) a successful monopoly destroys itself. As soon as a creature dominates its niche entirely it seems to exhaust its niche, or maybe there is some other reason - but no natural monopoly survives for long. Though, as I said at the outset, you are undeniably correct that all things work toward monopoly.
And so another company that had an emerging monopoly blows all of its accumulated goodwill and demonstrates why monopolies are ALWAYS bad. And, no, there is no such thing as a NATURAL monopoly. Nature abhors monopolies.
RTFA
Quite possibly because it is suspected of destroying the ozone layer, and its use is banned.
I wonder how long the rule will survive the courts, since you could probably argue that a built in backdoor to communications was a violation of the fourth amendment. It is a blanket warrantless search on everyone, whether they execute an actual search or not. Yet courts have allowed roadblocks to test for drunk driving ( which is the conceptually the same ) and they allow random bag searches it the Port Authority and the airports. All of these are really fourth amendment violations. Some day a court will probably swing the other way and forbid them ( would that make them liberal or conservative ? Bonus points for the correct answer! ), but for now the paranoids rule. I suppose the key question is what will they do to police the situation, If A sends B an encrypted packet, and A and B are using a well known port ( 22, say) and the packet crosses D's network, is D responsible for insuring that the packet is compliant? How is D to know? As long as A and B have access to an encryption software that has no backdoor I don't see how it matters whether Skype has a backdoor or not. Or is this a case where, as recently was reported, even owning encryption software of this type will be 'evidence of intent'?
For certain applications ( which he alludes to in TFA ) - Graphics, visualization, scientific computing, etc. the desktop is still essential. But the reason isn't that it sits on a desk, or is tethered to the wall, its because you need faster processing power, faster hard drives and much, much bigger screen real estate. I would love to move to a laptop, but the small screen and slow hard drive make large scale image editing ( a small file is 120MB, a big file is 1.6GB) impossible. Plus heat. These things run hat for constant use. What's changed is that more users are able to find a better fit with the computing power that they actually need ( part time use, web surfing, email and word processing, and number crunching in the accountiing, not scientific data, sense.) This isn't so much the end of the desktop as the rise of something new. In a few years ( Google willing) we'll be reading stories of the demise of the laptop, as web based filesystems and ubiquitous broadband wireless allow cheap cell phone processing to.... Whatever. The fact is that computing is becoming available everywhere and all the time and that means it is becoming invisible. It will be built into the fabric of everything. It won't be separate anymore.
So we want Chinese peasants to pay to watch "Steamboat Willie", but real, live inventors are SOL. God, what a country!
Regular users MAY be slow to move, but if businesses take action one of the main targets of an exploit vanishes and the incentive to write an actual exploit goes down.
Point taken.
The cost of secrecy is high. Reasonable response times ( up to, say, 3 months) before disclosure should be allowed - even for firms that seem to be sitting on their hands, and if the firm is close to a patch and they are willing to communicate and work with the researcher a longer time may be reasonable. Overall, disclosure of a problem is always in the USERS best interest, and secrecy is always in the SOFTWARE FIRMS best interest. The longer a known security issue exists, in secret, the more likely it is that someone else has found it - and that puts everyone at risk. The rights of users ( who are victims of the software firms bad code) should always come before the rights of the software firm. Always. So this means disclosure should be seen as a blessing. Those who complain about irresponsible researchers putting everyone at risk are wrong - everyone is already AT RISK. Failure to let me know what risks I face should be seen as the problem. I need to know.
Sociology doesn't HAVE to be crap, but it ususlly is. Sociobiology has the potential to rescue the endeavor - put it on a hard science, rather than soft science basis. But when I was in school sociobiology wasn't even named yet.
Actually. we had no requirement to take sociology - so I didn't. I took a lot of History(though it wasn't my major), but the History Department was mostly interested in uncovering reality, and most of the history professors seemed to believe that any power group would behave about the same as any other power group. Which I think is basically true. My favorite test was one in which a History professor gave us a map of a region France in the early 1700's and early 1800's along with a set of birth records and death records for the villages in the region for random dates over the century. He just asked us to explain what happened.
Exactly, what the bones tell us is an important indicator of whether or not it was a violent struggle or a quiet fade-out under other pressures ( loss of habitat, isolation when the next glaciation occurred, resource depletion by the new dominant hominid). I don't know all the bone evidence, but I haven't seen clear evidence of carnage. That doesn't mean it isn't out there, just that I haven't seen it. BTW, I was a liberal arts major.
The terms crushing and ousting imply an intent, when it could be massive ignorance. I think ignorance kills even more frequently than intent, though even when we finally realize what we are doing we seem rather reluctant to stop. 1000 years is not a long time evolutionarily, but if you think in terms of a concerted effort at the eradication of a reasonably small population it is an enormous timescale. Of course, it is possible that peaceful coexistence broke down and the end came swiftly. I admittedly don't know what the bones say about cross species violence. I guess my original point was that we jump to the dramatic ( and admittedly human) explanations, but more complex (or less complex) human behaviors could also be at work. A lot of species die off as a by-product of our activities, and we are not even aware of their existence. Although we certainly eould have been aware of a very large primate in the area. You are, however quite right that objectively there is no difference - we caused their demise- which is a liklihood.
From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive. Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two? Isn't it equally likely that in the ebb and flow of occupation of the area humans eventually exhausted the resources that the Neanderthal relied upon, while being able to exploit other resources that the Neanderthal couldn't? Since 1,000 years is the overlap epoch it doesn't appear that a policy of active antipathy is at work.
Agreed. The real reason to block is that your services are being abused in a way that either threatens you or annoys users, virus emails, spam, etc. Remote zombie requests for services you aren't providing are only dangerous if they rise to DOS frequencies. To make all users guilty because they reside in an IP block that sees a lot of zombies borders on unethical for a web-hosting service, if they don't disclose the policy to their own clients. I would be completely PO'd if I found no one in China or Korea could access our web-site ( we're a textiles firm). Why not block the specific ports one isn't using?
"The human right of a free press depends upon the human right of private property in newsprint."--Murray N. Rothbard [1] Anyone who quotes the great Murray Rothbard is undoubtable.
Imagine the possibilities! Sony, and Samsung and RCA and Toshiba and (everyone else) can charge Hollywood studios to be able to play their Movies on my TV, DVD and VCR. DRM we can truly love! But the irony would be sweet.
Yes, but Karl Rove was the funniest of the names I tried in the sentence. John Kerry? Funny last year, lame today. Bill Clinton? So last century. Fox News? Too expected. It was a joke, not a pure political comment. A joke, remember those?
Karl Rove has known this for years.