I bet VeriSign will point out the awful mess (think of the risk!) of trying to redistribute control of.com to anyone else.
By the time 2011 roles around, there will [most probably] be an onslaught of new generic top level domains (like.firm, etc.) If that is in fact true (as seems to be the case from this slashdot article, then redistributing.com names might just be a moot point.
And plus, if you have a single, well-done april fools story in with a bunch of real news, you throw people off appropriately.
If April Fools day were simply 24 hours of pranks (which is what it seems like on/. today) then it becomes very obvious and the posts get very trite very quickly. Newsworthy stuff did happen today. So we [the slashdot population] would read the articles with a grain of salt, but then again, everything should not be read like it was the word of god in the first place. Sprinkling real news with the occasional farce might even make the real news more interesting, and the fake news that much funnier. Doing this on a daily basis would be bad. But on April Fool's day, it has vast potential.
Seriously, what kind of advice is 'use good design'?... Given two reasonably intelligent programs, the choice of language makes a huge difference in the speed of an application.
Umm, I think you're missing Sheldon's point. He's not really saying "use good design", he's saying "know your design first". This is vital when determining what language to code your program in.
Chapter 3 of The Practice of Programming by Brain W. Kernighan and Rob Pike is devouted to exactly this kind of situation. Knowing how your project is/will be structured can help you choose the right language. This can also lead to shorter, crisper programs and more understandable code. Why write a simple one-line regexp in Perl when you can write the same thing in a few hundred lines of C?
A program designed well but written in the wrong language can run horribly slowly. The same is true if you're using a language that you're not very familiar with. Use a language you know, and use a language which fits the design of your program. Taking these two things into account, I feel, yields the best results.
So, I think the best solution comes when you add your comment with Sheldon's. Given two reasonably designed programs, the choice of the language makes a huge difference in the speed of the resulting application.
All that this proof says is that the three skew lines always intersect. This is an interesting fact, but I can't see how it's hailled as a big new theorem. It feels more like a correlary to theorem which states that the perpendicular bisectors of a triangle's three sides all meet at a unique point (which is either the center of the circumscribed or inscribed circle [I'm sorry I don't remember, someone correct me]).
What would be really cool is if this point had some sort of significance - like generating the center of [circum|in]scribed circle which I mentioned before.
Eventually, a mathematician in the Netherlands used Josh's result in his own work and prepared an article for academic publication.
That's what I'm really curious about. Does anyone have any info on that publication?
There was an article on informationweek.com about this last week. The article talks about all the different flavors of Linux, and how great it is to have something which you can make so unique to you with so little effort, but how bad this can be to business. The main point of the article is that, without standards, Linux isn't a viable platoform for businesses.
It's an interresting read, check it out.
[Note: Informationweek updates a lot, so the article may get flushed to an archive soon. I suggest someone paste it below if they find it as usefull as I did.]
I see one major flaw with what Arbor Networks is suggesting.
As they sample, the probes use complex statistical algorithms to take a ''fingerprint'' of normal traffic patterns on the network. That way, they can immediately detect unusual patterns, the kind generated by attacking zombies. ''In real time,'' said Arbor chief scientist Farnam Jahanian, ''we come up with a fingerprint for that anomaly.''
So what do these "statistical algorithms" say about large articles on major websites (say the frontpage article of the New York Times, a press release by IBM, etc.), or sites where traffic builds quickly due to word of mouth (sort of like a slashdotting)?
My point is simple: What if script kiddies just take their time? Don't start with a DDoS attack, slowly start pinging servers, or whatever it is that they do, and build up, over time, to a heavy DDoS attack. How would these "statistical algorithms" differentiate this from a bonafide [sic] interest in the site?
I think one major point which has been missed in the previous discussion was the aspect of debugging code.
I know when I started out, I rarely used a debugger when coding. I'd print out hard copies of my code, go over it with a pen, show it to others, but never touch a debugger. I know many professional programmers who also don't know the value of a good debugger.
My point is simple: teach aspiring programmers that no one can code perfectly, and show them how to debug their code appropriately. gdb is fine. ddd is better for beginners. There are other debuggers for other languages. I have no clue what can be used under windows or on a macintosh, but I'm sure there are good debuggers for them too.
One of the tenets of being a good programmer is writing solid code and knowing it's limitiations. Stress testing extreme conditions, and not being afraid of sanity checks. I've seen professional apps die from OBOBs (off by one bugs), come on guys, that should never happen, it's so easy to test for.
I know I've been babbling, so this is my last point. Teach people that just because a program compiles and runs without crashing, doesn't mean it always will.
I see this causing the same sort of problems that the Pentium III chip had when it came out.
Likely, it will cause the same sort of solution: consumers will probably gain the ability to disable the tag. At least, that's what I hope will happen.
Just keep in mind, giving products unique IDs is something which has happened all the time in the past. Intel did it. Microsoft did it. Don't be surprised. On the other hand, these companies tend to not be able to get away with these ids once the public notices. I hope the same thing happens with these tags as with the others. If not, that would be the surprise.
I'm not really sure how you can classify this as being "in sharp contrast to the music and movie industries' attempts to control access to content". Most of these "movies" are quite short, and date back from the 40s and before (although there are a few newer ones).
The movie and music industries are trying to control attempts to download free music or videos which are still currently "hot" things. It's sort of like downloading the newest Metallica song versus downloading Mozart. One produces money for a specific artist or company, the other is available from many different sources and doesn't guarantee anyone specific money.
It's almost 2am, so I hope I made sense. On the other hand, it is a cool resource, and I guess what will really make the difference is the content of the next 600 or so additions.
I didn't say that Barnes and Nobles wanted to change the tide of IP law, I said that it was this law firm that probably has the best chance of making changes in the future. In specific, they've been taking on a lot of frivolous patents lately. Well, to be accurate, they've been hired to take on a lot of frivolous lawsuits lately.
Maybe they'll be able to force some changes in patent law. Maybe not. That's all I was saying.
I completely understand what you're saying, but this is what the patent field has looked like to me for ages: it's not how new it is, or how obvious it is, it's how fast you can patent it. Seeing that a patent comes out today for something which has been around for years has a very different feel to it than when a patent comes out for something "obvious" before it's caught on.
I know that this patent coming out now seems a little fishy, but looking over the page at delphion.com, it says the patent was filed on April 8, 1998. This was almost three years ago, and wireless devices with access to the internet were pretty scarce, if not non-existant back then. If my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't until late '99/early '00 that wireless devices with internet access became as well known as they are today.
I just think that the date the patent was filed adds a new dimension to how it should be looked at. Sure, it wasn't granted until Jan 9th, 2001, but that's due to the United States Patent Office, not GeoWorks.
This would only stop people who have no interest in circumventing the restrictions. If you really don't want someone to know where your email is coming from, use a remailer intelligently. If you don't want someone to know where you are surfing from, use a service like the Anonymizer intelligently.
I really don't see how you can regulate people from different geographic location when there is an abundance of ways to make it look like you're coming from somewhere else. XHost is a wonderful thing, be in France and run netscape off a machine with an American IP address. Damn that's hard.
But then again, I don't really know what techniques are being used to determine where a person is located, but I am truly very sceptical about the prospect of geographic tenderred material being close to 100% effective. I just don't buy it.
To qualify for a utility patent, an invention must be new, useful, and "nonobvious."
I still have trouble seeing how GraceNote can claim what they are doing is "nonobvious" when so many other people were eaily able to emulate what they did with ease: just look at freedb.
"Federal regulators are expected to consider a controversial proposal Thursday that would require telephone users to dial 10 digits for all local and long-distance calls."
I personally don't have much of a problem with switching to 10 digit phone numbers, but I truly see this causing a massive public outcry. I just don't believe that most Americans are ready to give up the ease of making local calls. I remember how much of a pain it was in New York City when 212 got split into 212 and 646. And with the 718 and 917 area codes in NYC as well, it's just a pain to call someone down the street from you. 10 digit dialing is viable, and New York has managed pretty well, but I'm wonderring how the entire country would react. Lot's of people react poorly to change, and changing how one makes local calls is just going to be a hefty change for most people, even if it doesn't seem that big of a deal.
"One such approach is to publish the Carnivore source code for public review. Although an extraordinary step, we urge the DoJ to consider it seriously. "
I wonder how many people at the department of justice would actually seriously concider that? Wouldn't if be funny to run across the source-code with a GPL-like license which happens to read "And now that you've read this, we'll have to kill you." For National Security reasons of course.
I have a few problems with what you have said. Keep in mind that I agree with a lot too. The problem is that it is now too late do decide within reasonable extents who was dully elected President on November 7th. What I am going to say is purely my opinion, and I don't want to sway anyone who's made up their mind. If you still think Gore won, fine. If you think Bush won, fine. If you think Nader deserves those 25 electoral votes, you might have a case too.
So let me start with "The states *can* do recounts. In fact they have done recounts." Everyone knows that is not true in Florida with regards to this election. Many recounts have *started*, but none have been finished within the counties where there are realy disputes with any degree of finality. But you are right, at this point, Bush has won. And Palm Beach did throw out ten year old rule, and there's even more you didn't mention which doesn't really matter. The fact is that the ballots were cast (albeit some incorrectly and/or erroneously) but counted poorly. There are problems here which both sides have addressed validly, and neither side has been able to debunk the other. That's the problem when you have two valid arguments, you can't convince the others who believe differently. This is a slightly skewed image, but think of an atheist and a devout Christian, or Jew, or Buddhist, or Moslem (etc.) getting into an argument over God. Neither side will nor can win. Your fundamentals are different, and your belief in who should win out will prevail. Period.
Which brings me to your arguments about Florida's Supreme Court. Ugh. At them, not you. I think the Florida Supreme Court is filled with scum for very different reasons than you. You say that they FSC delayed the deadline in order to rack up more points for the Democrats. Come on. They were playing partisan harball, and wanted it to look like that: after all, they are up for re-election by Democrats. In truth, the FSC did nothing! Really. All they did was push back a deadline a little to make it look like they were doing something while actually doing nothing. As Justice Scalia pointed out (and I normally don't agree with him, but here he was right on), the FSC didn't push back the deadline far enough to actually resolve the issue brought before them. The issue was the conflict between the deadline and the need for time in populous counties to perform a recount. After they ruled, there was still not enough time, so their ruling did nothing. Bush lost 400 votes he didn't really have, but was still ahead by 537. He still won. It's dirty and disgusting, but he was certified, and the games should really be stopping, because at this point whoever is elected will be largely screwed on valid charges of illegitimacy. The longer this goes on, the stronger those valid claims will look, regardless of who is in the White House.
The rest of what you say is very crisp and clear and I agree completely. This is really the case of an imcompetent court or a court so hamperred by politics (hey, they made it look like they did something while doing nothing at all, after all) that they are renderred inactive when they must act. That is just as bad, or possibly worse.
Florida needs a new Supreme Court. America will have a new President. The President will be plagued by claims of invalidity, be he Gore or Bush, and the only way things will be accomplished is if an end is put to this ridiculous partisan bickerring on captitol hill. Will that happen? How would I know?
Slashdot Mirror
By the time 2011 roles around, there will [most probably] be an onslaught of new generic top level domains (like
---
And plus, if you have a single, well-done april fools story in with a bunch of real news, you throw people off appropriately.
/. today) then it becomes very obvious and the posts get very trite very quickly. Newsworthy stuff did happen today. So we [the slashdot population] would read the articles with a grain of salt, but then again, everything should not be read like it was the word of god in the first place. Sprinkling real news with the occasional farce might even make the real news more interesting, and the fake news that much funnier. Doing this on a daily basis would be bad. But on April Fool's day, it has vast potential.
If April Fools day were simply 24 hours of pranks (which is what it seems like on
---
Umm, I think you're missing Sheldon's point. He's not really saying "use good design", he's saying "know your design first". This is vital when determining what language to code your program in.
Chapter 3 of The Practice of Programming by Brain W. Kernighan and Rob Pike is devouted to exactly this kind of situation. Knowing how your project is/will be structured can help you choose the right language. This can also lead to shorter, crisper programs and more understandable code. Why write a simple one-line regexp in Perl when you can write the same thing in a few hundred lines of C?
A program designed well but written in the wrong language can run horribly slowly. The same is true if you're using a language that you're not very familiar with. Use a language you know, and use a language which fits the design of your program. Taking these two things into account, I feel, yields the best results.
So, I think the best solution comes when you add your comment with Sheldon's. Given two reasonably designed programs, the choice of the language makes a huge difference in the speed of the resulting application.
---
What would be really cool is if this point had some sort of significance - like generating the center of [circum|in]scribed circle which I mentioned before.
That's what I'm really curious about. Does anyone have any info on that publication?
---
There was an article on informationweek.com about this last week. The article talks about all the different flavors of Linux, and how great it is to have something which you can make so unique to you with so little effort, but how bad this can be to business. The main point of the article is that, without standards, Linux isn't a viable platoform for businesses.
It's an interresting read, check it out.
[Note: Informationweek updates a lot, so the article may get flushed to an archive soon. I suggest someone paste it below if they find it as usefull as I did.]
---
My bad. Next time I'll spell euroderf correctly.
---
So what do these "statistical algorithms" say about large articles on major websites (say the frontpage article of the New York Times, a press release by IBM, etc.), or sites where traffic builds quickly due to word of mouth (sort of like a slashdotting)?
My point is simple: What if script kiddies just take their time? Don't start with a DDoS attack, slowly start pinging servers, or whatever it is that they do, and build up, over time, to a heavy DDoS attack. How would these "statistical algorithms" differentiate this from a bonafide [sic] interest in the site?
---
And I'm not kidding.
I've done it before, works like a charm.
---
Is can it change pennies into quarters?
---
I think one major point which has been missed in the previous discussion was the aspect of debugging code.
I know when I started out, I rarely used a debugger when coding. I'd print out hard copies of my code, go over it with a pen, show it to others, but never touch a debugger. I know many professional programmers who also don't know the value of a good debugger.
My point is simple: teach aspiring programmers that no one can code perfectly, and show them how to debug their code appropriately. gdb is fine. ddd is better for beginners. There are other debuggers for other languages. I have no clue what can be used under windows or on a macintosh, but I'm sure there are good debuggers for them too.
One of the tenets of being a good programmer is writing solid code and knowing it's limitiations. Stress testing extreme conditions, and not being afraid of sanity checks. I've seen professional apps die from OBOBs (off by one bugs), come on guys, that should never happen, it's so easy to test for.
I know I've been babbling, so this is my last point. Teach people that just because a program compiles and runs without crashing, doesn't mean it always will.
---
You're on.
---
I see this causing the same sort of problems that the Pentium III chip had when it came out.
Likely, it will cause the same sort of solution: consumers will probably gain the ability to disable the tag. At least, that's what I hope will happen.
Just keep in mind, giving products unique IDs is something which has happened all the time in the past. Intel did it. Microsoft did it. Don't be surprised. On the other hand, these companies tend to not be able to get away with these ids once the public notices. I hope the same thing happens with these tags as with the others. If not, that would be the surprise.
---
I'm not really sure how you can classify this as being "in sharp contrast to the music and movie industries' attempts to control access to content". Most of these "movies" are quite short, and date back from the 40s and before (although there are a few newer ones).
The movie and music industries are trying to control attempts to download free music or videos which are still currently "hot" things. It's sort of like downloading the newest Metallica song versus downloading Mozart. One produces money for a specific artist or company, the other is available from many different sources and doesn't guarantee anyone specific money.
It's almost 2am, so I hope I made sense. On the other hand, it is a cool resource, and I guess what will really make the difference is the content of the next 600 or so additions.
---
I didn't say that Barnes and Nobles wanted to change the tide of IP law, I said that it was this law firm that probably has the best chance of making changes in the future. In specific, they've been taking on a lot of frivolous patents lately. Well, to be accurate, they've been hired to take on a lot of frivolous lawsuits lately.
Maybe they'll be able to force some changes in patent law. Maybe not. That's all I was saying.
---
All that I can say is, I know the patent attornies who are working for Barnes and Nobles, and these are the best guys in the business.
I've worked with them before, and I've got to say, if anyone can change the tide of Intellectual Property law, it's these guys.
If any of you were wonderring, they're Pennie & Edmonds, LLP. Expensive as hell, but worth every cent.
---
The USPO issues patents for business ideas. ." and submit the patent.
Taco, just rewrite your idea starting with "The method of . .
If you think I'm kidding, you are sadly mistaken.
---
I completely understand what you're saying, but this is what the patent field has looked like to me for ages: it's not how new it is, or how obvious it is, it's how fast you can patent it. Seeing that a patent comes out today for something which has been around for years has a very different feel to it than when a patent comes out for something "obvious" before it's caught on.
I know that this patent coming out now seems a little fishy, but looking over the page at delphion.com, it says the patent was filed on April 8, 1998. This was almost three years ago, and wireless devices with access to the internet were pretty scarce, if not non-existant back then. If my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't until late '99/early '00 that wireless devices with internet access became as well known as they are today.
I just think that the date the patent was filed adds a new dimension to how it should be looked at. Sure, it wasn't granted until Jan 9th, 2001, but that's due to the United States Patent Office, not GeoWorks.
I see one very large problem being created by this movie, err, documentary.
If this makes Charlton Heston the publicly known voice for the open source community, I am going to shoot myself.
Slashdot has had so many articles about patents and patent-law that I know this is a moot point, but I'll repeat it anyway.
Just because there is prior art does not mean that the patent will become invalidated.
Read this response by werdna to the article about Archie posted a few days ago, I think it's very clear on this point.
This would only stop people who have no interest in circumventing the restrictions. If you really don't want someone to know where your email is coming from, use a remailer intelligently. If you don't want someone to know where you are surfing from, use a service like the Anonymizer intelligently.
I really don't see how you can regulate people from different geographic location when there is an abundance of ways to make it look like you're coming from somewhere else. XHost is a wonderful thing, be in France and run netscape off a machine with an American IP address. Damn that's hard.
But then again, I don't really know what techniques are being used to determine where a person is located, but I am truly very sceptical about the prospect of geographic tenderred material being close to 100% effective. I just don't buy it.
If anyone's interested: Patent Law
To qualify for a utility patent, an invention must be new, useful, and "nonobvious."
I still have trouble seeing how GraceNote can claim what they are doing is "nonobvious" when so many other people were eaily able to emulate what they did with ease: just look at freedb.
"Federal regulators are expected to consider a controversial proposal Thursday that would require telephone users to dial 10 digits for all local and long-distance calls."
I personally don't have much of a problem with switching to 10 digit phone numbers, but I truly see this causing a massive public outcry. I just don't believe that most Americans are ready to give up the ease of making local calls. I remember how much of a pain it was in New York City when 212 got split into 212 and 646. And with the 718 and 917 area codes in NYC as well, it's just a pain to call someone down the street from you. 10 digit dialing is viable, and New York has managed pretty well, but I'm wonderring how the entire country would react. Lot's of people react poorly to change, and changing how one makes local calls is just going to be a hefty change for most people, even if it doesn't seem that big of a deal.
"One such approach is to publish the Carnivore source code for public review. Although an extraordinary step, we urge the DoJ to consider it seriously. "
I wonder how many people at the department of justice would actually seriously concider that? Wouldn't if be funny to run across the source-code with a GPL-like license which happens to read "And now that you've read this, we'll have to kill you." For National Security reasons of course.
I have a few problems with what you have said. Keep in mind that I agree with a lot too. The problem is that it is now too late do decide within reasonable extents who was dully elected President on November 7th. What I am going to say is purely my opinion, and I don't want to sway anyone who's made up their mind. If you still think Gore won, fine. If you think Bush won, fine. If you think Nader deserves those 25 electoral votes, you might have a case too.
So let me start with "The states *can* do recounts. In fact they have done recounts." Everyone knows that is not true in Florida with regards to this election. Many recounts have *started*, but none have been finished within the counties where there are realy disputes with any degree of finality. But you are right, at this point, Bush has won. And Palm Beach did throw out ten year old rule, and there's even more you didn't mention which doesn't really matter. The fact is that the ballots were cast (albeit some incorrectly and/or erroneously) but counted poorly. There are problems here which both sides have addressed validly, and neither side has been able to debunk the other. That's the problem when you have two valid arguments, you can't convince the others who believe differently. This is a slightly skewed image, but think of an atheist and a devout Christian, or Jew, or Buddhist, or Moslem (etc.) getting into an argument over God. Neither side will nor can win. Your fundamentals are different, and your belief in who should win out will prevail. Period.
Which brings me to your arguments about Florida's Supreme Court. Ugh. At them, not you. I think the Florida Supreme Court is filled with scum for very different reasons than you. You say that they FSC delayed the deadline in order to rack up more points for the Democrats. Come on. They were playing partisan harball, and wanted it to look like that: after all, they are up for re-election by Democrats. In truth, the FSC did nothing! Really. All they did was push back a deadline a little to make it look like they were doing something while actually doing nothing. As Justice Scalia pointed out (and I normally don't agree with him, but here he was right on), the FSC didn't push back the deadline far enough to actually resolve the issue brought before them. The issue was the conflict between the deadline and the need for time in populous counties to perform a recount. After they ruled, there was still not enough time, so their ruling did nothing. Bush lost 400 votes he didn't really have, but was still ahead by 537. He still won. It's dirty and disgusting, but he was certified, and the games should really be stopping, because at this point whoever is elected will be largely screwed on valid charges of illegitimacy. The longer this goes on, the stronger those valid claims will look, regardless of who is in the White House.
The rest of what you say is very crisp and clear and I agree completely. This is really the case of an imcompetent court or a court so hamperred by politics (hey, they made it look like they did something while doing nothing at all, after all) that they are renderred inactive when they must act. That is just as bad, or possibly worse.
Florida needs a new Supreme Court. America will have a new President. The President will be plagued by claims of invalidity, be he Gore or Bush, and the only way things will be accomplished is if an end is put to this ridiculous partisan bickerring on captitol hill. Will that happen? How would I know?