Seems like these days, about the only one making threats at Microsoft are Gates and Ballmer. The real work is done by proxy -- through SCO, which at this point in time looks like a faliure. Also at ADTI, which was an abysmal failure. Now, a two year old scare memo from HP. Why is it surfacing now? From whom did it come -- and what is their motivation to put out an ancient strategy memo? In the world of computing, two years is a lifetime.
Putting my tinfoil-hat on, I seriously wonder if someone somehow at HP's dear partner Microsoft asked for a leak of this memo. It would certainly fit right in with the FUD-by-proxy strategy that Microsoft seems to be using to tide them over until their Next Big Big Big OS Release (tm).
Still it is a chilling look at the tactics that those of us who have been in the industry a couple of decades have grown used to.
... the government space program would have been a lot better off if it had been purely military rather than "civilian".
There would likely have been far less competition between the governmental and private sector.
Ummm, the military relies upon private contractors to build (and many times operate) their equipment. NASA did exactly the same thing to build their moon rockets, as they do with the space shuttle. North American Rockwell, General Dynamics, Grumman, others have all created much space hardware for NASA. The competition, BTW, was viewed as not only a good thing, but a vital aspect of yielding the best design possible at the most reasonable price for the taxpayers.
NASA's original charter was to be a civilian organization because of fears of the militarization of space. The US did not want Soviet or Chinese nuclear bombs orbiting over our country, nor did those other Cold War powers. Had NASA been an outgrowth of the Air Force's space efforts (note that Kennedy Space Center is adjacent to Patrick Air Force Base) then the one-upmanship race that was the COld War of that era may have indeed led to full-scale militarization of outer space.
That said, it was a political move for NASA to be viewed as a civilian organization. In fact, however, most of the original two sets of astronauts came from the military, with the notable exception of Neil Armstrong, who was a civilian test pilot. That may have had much to do with Armstrong's being named Commander of the Apollo 11 mission, something that did not sit with with Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin, who felt himself the most capable in that particular crew. You know the rest, it is old history now.
Linux already has a market share the size of Apples (OS wise). At some point, there will be enough graphic design folks who have migrated from the windows side that Adobe will make a linux native version of Photoshop"
What you are missing here is that these are generally users who refused to switch to Windows because the Macintosh is a superior OS from a usability standpoint. The graphics art/advertising community is the most loyal base that Apple has, and the only thing that will "make" them switch to Linux is when Apple switches their OS away from the BSD kernel to the Linux kernel.
Besides, other than the Apple proprietary add-ons (Finder, etc.) seems to me like Apple users who use OS/X are already in the NIX-like camp. As for Apple charging for the features they add to the BSD kernel, well, Crossover Office is not free, nor is Veritas, nor are a number of GNU/Linux tools. Quite frankly, compared to KDE or Gnome, the price of OS/X is worth the cost three times over.
And by the way, it will be quite a while before anyone outside the top 15 or so markets begins producing in HDTV, so you can look forward to actually enjoying the 16:9 only on network shows and DVDs.
That's interesting, because WRAL-TV and WRAZ-TV in Raleigh, NC is definitely NOT a top 15 market station, yet not only are there news programs in HDTV, they also produce HD content, and also broadcast 16 Carolina Hurricanes hockey games in HD annually. So, if they aren't a Top 15 market, why are they producing in HD?
Many have already noted the comments where a DDOS may be launched via sending out spam in order to deliberately draw the attention of IP blocking filters, but at the same time, it is also worth noting that many web servers have multiple domains on one IP address using both virtual directories and virtual domains. In fact, almost every ISP does this, in order to give their users a place to oput Mom and Dad's pictures with the kids, etc.
So, if implemented uninteliigently, filtering by ISPs would simply p/o their own customers. All script-kiddie John has to do is get an account on say, Earthlink, put his little target V-iagra content there and then use an SMTP mailer to draw the attention of Earthlink's own IP blocker after his mails rattle along the 'net.
Sure, they'd clean it up pretty quick, and then unblock, but do you really think that Mr. and Mrs. Non-Techie User are going to be so understanding while their fabulous portraits of their kids are intermittently available as this little war plays itself over and over again? I think not. Grandma is even less technical than them and just can't understand why her AOL dialup can't open the web site where they were just yesterday.
That said, the spam content IP blocking idea has merit, but it's not going to be as simple as merely blocking an IP address. It's probably going to have to be quite smart, smarter than both spammers AND script-kiddies in order to work and thus be accepted. I say the technology merits study but is not ready for prime-time.
There is a certain responsibility that comes with being a part of the internet, one that has become greatly understated since the commoditization and commercialization of the 'net as a whole: do not become a danger or a malfeasance to the rest of the machines that are also connected.
Unfortunately, this is something that seems to be lost on the clients of broadband always-on connections, especially those that are used by folks with little or no proficiency. While they have no intention of becoming spam-hosts, or DDOS platforms, by not keeping their machines protected against the various evils that lie in waiting out there, they unwittingly become part of the problem.
This does not reduce the hassles and costs to other sysadmins and users of the 'net as a whole. That said, it seems only fair for an ISP to mitigate the problem by pulling the connection of a user whose systems(s) are spewing out malware.
There are reasonable precautions one should take, that is, having a good firewall, keeping the machine patched and having good virus protection. No, this does not come without some effort and not always without cost. But, to be connected to the internet full-time, it is a cost of doing business, not unlike having insurance for your car in case you cause an accident. Liability insurance is to protect the public, and you from losing everything should you do harm to others. Keeping worms, trojans and viruses off of your machine also protect not only you but others as well.
According to this site: http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/
NASA intends to eventually replace the Hubble with the James Webb Space Telescope:
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an orbiting infrared observatory that will take the place of the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of this decade. It will study the Universe at the important but previously unobserved epoch of galaxy formation. It will peer through dust to witness the birth of stars and planetary systems similar to our own. And using JWST, scientists hope to get a better understanding of the intriguing dark matter problem. The JWST is also a key element in NASA's Origins Program.
So, between the JWST and the terrestrial observatories using new adaptive optic technologies, over the long haul it makes better sense to re-allocate our scarce space resources not only on these projects, but also towards the new goals announced by GWB. Remember that Bush hardly increased NASA's budget, so they cannot afford to do everything at once.
More facts about the JWST as it stands now.
Proposed Launch Date: August 2011
Proposed Launch Vehicle: Ariane 5
Mission Duration: 5 - 10 years
Total payload mass: Approx 6200 kg, including observatory, on-orbit consumables and launch vehicle adaptor.
Diameter of primary Mirror: ~6.5 m (21.3 ft)
Clear aperture of primary Mirror: 25 m2
Primary mirror material: beryllium
Mass of primary mirror: about one-third as much as Hubble's
Focal length: TBD
Number of primary mirror segments: 18
Optical resolution: ~0.1 arc-seconds
Wavelength coverage: 0.6 - 28 microns
Size of sun shield: ~22 m x 10 m (72 ft x 33 ft)
Orbit: 1.5 million km from Earth at L2 Point
Operating Temperature:
Cost: $824.8 million
Note that it is planned to launch the JWST using an Arianne rocket, which is far cheaper, and can also get the device to the L2 point. Yes, the shuttle could launch JWST into LEO (low earth orbit) but it would then have to travel up on an additional rocket. Seems like they have accounted for this and are going to use a cheaper expendable vehicle to do the job.
Computer Security In General
on
Security Warrior
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
IMHO, computer security is like trying to make something idiot-proof...as soon as it is (idiot-proof) someone perfect a better idiot. In regards to computers, there is no 100% safe way to fully protect your data -- except by rendering the machine inaccessable and turning it off. Of course, that's highly counterproductive.
So, at the end of the day, all a sysadmin can do is operate the machine in a prudent manner (set it up to have security reasonable to the risk), keep it patched and raise the bar to keep as many potential foes out as possible. But bear in mind, no matter what you do, if one is determined enough, they WILL be able to break into your machine.
After all, the best hackers are the ones you hve never heard of. Their best exploits are the ones that no one knows about. Children brag about their shenanigans, a wise criminal keeps his tools to himself so they keep working.
Linux and other OSS projects have a community to identify the risks, but not even a community nor the author(s) of a given piece of code as complex as a working modern Linux system can identify them all.
First of all, $300,000 is extravagant by any standards. He should have charged his actual costs, after all, he did agree to do the site in exchange for publicity. Thus, the designer should have asked to have the county pay the real cost. I simply cannot imagine the ISP involved was charging that much.
Secondly, the designer should have never shut the site down without sending the county properly served due notice. In other words, registered or certified mails, preferably coming from an attorney.
Finally, the designer should have sued the county, and then through the litigation a settlement would have been obtained -- most likely through binding arbitration.
But, at the same time, to settle a civil disagreement through criminal prosecution seems to be abuse of power at most naked.
Both of the parties should be spanked by their Mamas.
This is short sighted... China would then be ostracized (sp?) by other countries and possibly have economic sanctions brought against them (especially by the USA to whom they have the biggest trading surplus)... nope, it ain't gonna happen. China values trade more than stomping on one little IT company.
No, there would be great whining, wringing of hands and lots of posturing, but at the end of the day, nothing concrete would come of it except more hot air over Washington, D.C. Why?
1. Have you noticed that China has become a large market for many US companies? (Microsoft included.) Do you think that these companies would appreciate being locked out of this market because China decided to punish the punishers?
2. China has become a large manufacturing sector for many American products. Many Fortune 500 firms do a lot of manufacturing in that country. No doubt they would not appreciate problems and reprecussions.
3. As mentioned elsewhere, China is largely funding our budget deficit by buying Treasury notes. In other words, they're cashing George Bush's checks and he knows it.
Finally, everyone is quick to jump the gun to say that the Chinese have released Microsoft source code. For all we know, it could have been anyone. However, I wouldn't want to be that person/organization/country as they will then have the wrath of a company whose worth is more than many nations upon them, not to mention the powers that be in the US government. In other words, prepare yourself for a long stay in a cold cell.
So after the Lord of the Rings, comes another well-regarded piece of literature in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Hollywood did well by LOTR, let's hope "they" learned their lesson and will let a piece of classic writing stand on it's own and not try to stuff the story into a 2-hour formula.
My great fear of this is that the wit, sarcasm and anti-religious rage will be written out and instead, we'll get...Spy Kids in Space. The anti-religious part will be the first to go, otherwise Pat Robertson will be ranting and railing on Fox News about a horrible, blasephemous film coming from that esteemed home of children's entertainment, Disney. But it's a part of 'The Guide' and should stay in. Otherwise, it becomes...something else.
On the other hand, I suppose Disney should be given a little benefit of the doubt, after all, Pirates of the Caribbean was a highly entertaining film.
It will interesting to see what happens with this. I was hoping secretly Peter Jackson would handle the director's chair, given the respect he gave LOTR as literature. To me, Hitchhiker's Guide is a classic and should not be "messed with."
Let's assume for a moment that Senators and/or their staffers were illegally accessing systems that they were not supposed to be gaining entry to.
Using the same Draconian laws that they themselves enacted, these people could end up serving hard time for their deeds, losing their rights to privacy, vote and carry a gun. That and losing their jobs and pensions, not to mention medical benefits, etc. In other words, as felons, they become no-ones.
Dont underestimate this. Go read that letter. Its designed to appeal directly to the politician in every fasion you can possibly do so. It mentions tax revenue losses, US supremecy in world markets, degredation of copyright laws (which RIAA and the MPAA are yelling in the other ear about), and loss of american jobs.
If you can't win your case in court, try it in public. If the public laughs you off as a buffoon, go an change the darned laws. These guys quite clearly have no regard for truth OR the American way.
tax revenue losses
I am quite certain that Indian and other offshore programmers pay no American income tax. Yet Microsoft, IBM, and most other major software publishers send jobs out of country without remorse.
US supremecy in world markets
See above. Unemploying American programmers certainly aids us in our quest to retain supremacy. Besides, the computer market is inexorably globalizing. Nothing will probably change that, because it is foolish to believe that we are the only nation capable of programming a computer to do useful things that people would like to do. See: SAP.
degredation of copyright laws
Which is a clear misrepresentation and they know it, unless they are stupid. The GNU licenses allow the author to retain copyright. How many times does Darl need this pointed out to him? Lying to Congress is always a way to win their hearts and minds.
and loss of american jobs
And ironically, at tghe same time, IBM is hiring Linux programmers, which clearly negates that argument and renders it specious ranting.
But you are right that perception is everything. I think IBM would be wise to reply to Congress with the truth, which should be enough. After all, who are Congressmen going to listen to? A litigous small company or a multi-billion dollar industry leader?
Pay me to save Hubble or something could happen to your fancy schmancy new one.
While space launches have become far more reliable than they were in the early days of NASA, it is still hardly a given that any particular payload will make it to orbit -- rockets still veer off course, malgunction and just plain blow up. Again, it's not as often as it once was, however, it does indeed happen still.
That said, it makes sense to keep the Hubble until it truly has been proven far obsolete. Even if it is not a state-of-the-art leading edge observatory, it can (and I think should) be kept for use as an educational unit -- "once you master the Hubble, well then, you can use our fancy-schmancy new Webb!" All too often, we fall into the trap of "new is better so old is useless."
I find it troubling that a government that is supposedly FOR free and open competition in the marketplace decides to use a proprietary interface as a legal standard for electronic signatures. Surely there is a platform and application neutral solution that can be utilized not only by Micrsoft's office applications but also by those that choose to use other means -- be they Linux, Macintosh or other. For example, a significant number of law firms still use WordPerfect Office.
Of course, Microsoft Word is by and far away the market leader in word processing, as is their IE product. But also consider that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and now comes the government to further propogate their disproportionate market share which was gained (as decided by the courts) by illegal means.
Makes you wonder, exactly whom does our government represent? This would appear to be another brick in the edifice of evidence that it is not us, the people, but instead, them the corporate interests.
Blake Stowell is quoted as saying, "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
Yet, in their Motion to Compel Discovery, they want to get AIX source code, etc. etc. from IBM in order to determine if there is a copyright violation therein.
In other words, they want IBM to send them the pond in order to see if there are any fish in it.
Now they are saying that they are not suing IBM in regards to a contract, er, a copyright, no, umm, no, a contract issue. And meanwhile ignoring a court order to provide discovery. Remember, SCO was compelled to provide discovery by 12-JAN-04.
That said, the good judge in Utah now has the right to dismiss their case -- they refused to provide evidence as required by the law and demanded by the courts. Hopefully, this will be a dismissal with prejudice and the countersuits can roll in like a hurricane over at SCO's headquarters.
While nearly all of us who have PVR's enjoy the ability to skip screaming car salesmen, corporate drug pushers (pharmaceutical companies), incredibly heart warming financial companies touting their trustwothiness, etc. etc. et. all ad nauseum, eliminating them from our entertainment will be all but impossible. In fact, by eliminating the containerized thirty or sixty second ads, we'll instead get blasted by pop-ups and embedded product placements, etc., AND the traditional commercial. In fact, it is already happening. To wit:
Disney owns ABC, ESPN and the Discovery Channel. How often on ESPN does one see "the stars" of that great new hit on ABC? How often does ABC tout programs on ESPN? And now, Discovery is in the act too, offering us "documentaries" on the magic behind Disney World in Orlando. And of course, who owns Disney World? Disney.
Films made by Sony's studios almost always feature Sony equipment when a given character is using his or her PC. Also, the word "SONY" is often in huge black letters on the rear of a monitor, even though they aren't usually so prominent on the products shipped to Joe Consumer from the factory.
Add to that the PAID product placements like Coca-Cola being drunk by a given character. There are many of those.
And finally, the grand-daddy of product advertising discguised as content: NASCAR. Each car is festooned with no less than twenty different sponsors, starting with the make and model of the auto being raced (even they have exactly one part in common with their street version: the roof panel) plus the major sponsor of the driver, plus the minor sponsor plus all the super-minor sponsors not the least of which is NACAR itself. The whole race is a rotating advertisement, one which the competitors are trying not only to beat each other but also to gain the most exposure time for their sponsors. A higher position on the track means more "impressions" for the sponsors on the viewers. Best of all, when a driver is interviewed, he thanks 1) God 2) his crew and of course his sponsors for painting his "Folger's/Viargra/Ford/Taurus" in their colors. The entire event is, in short, an ad.
That's direction we're headed. Like death, taxes and Microsoft security flaws, one simply cannot avoid marketing. It's simply more malleable than are the viewers or listeners of a given content.
Microsoft may have been slowed by Linux, but if history has taught computer users anything over the last twenty-odd years, it's that Microsoft is exceptional adept at re-tooling itself and resuming it's domination of the software industry.
Their doom has been forecast many times, yet it seems that they always rebound stronger and more profitable than ever before. Until they have shown YEARS of decline, I for one refuse to believe any reports of their death, much less serious injury.
To wit, they seem to have a palpable strategy in place to combat Linux. Basically, it is their hope that the questions of IP will slow adoption long enough for them to lock their corporate customers into the Windows 2003 server,.NET and Longhorn product cycles. Then, of course, armed to the teeth with their own patent portfolios and unique proprietary technologies, their customer base will remain (they hope) safely in the Microsoft fold.
Remember that Office 2003 is actually a salvo in the Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy -- their XML formats are just proprietary enough to make that so, given the inertia that they have with the largest installed office-suite base as well as (frankly, like it or not) the most functionally integrated package on the market. Add to that the B2B interaction of sending Word, Powerpoint and Excel files and their strategy very well might work once again.
Windows Server 2003 and it's embedded technologies promises much of the same....And when Longhorn comes out and ties it all together, the One Evil Ring will very possibly remain firmly on Bill Gates finger.
I say all this not as a Microsoft apologist but simply as a realist. While I strongly prefer Linux both on the server and on the desktop, the fact remains that there is much to be done, very much indeed, before it will topple the likes of a Microsoft.
Here's a quote from a film made not only when Adams was alive, but during the time he was still doing good, vibrant work. It is a good assesment of the arsenal that Ansel used to create his photographs, and it is reasonable to extrapolate that he would have used digital gear were he working today, though not exclusively. Despite the assertations of many amateur photographers, film size does exceed that of 35mm and medium format, and it is from the large formats that acutance unavailable to digital, 35mm and medium format is to be had.
View, for example, Monolith, The Face of Half Dome in person and of a print that Adams himself made, and you see a tonality and level of detail that modern science has yet to be able to create digitally, at least in a form available to a consumer. That is not to say that it cannot or will not be done, because in my opinion it is a matter of time before digital surpasses ANY film. Nevertheless, that day is still in the future, at least in regards to a piece of 4X5 or 8X10 sheet film.
Beaumont Newhall narrated Larry Dawson's 1957 film, Ansel Adams, Photographer, and described Adams's photographic gear:
"...A fine craftsman employs different tools for different purposes. Item: one 8 x 10 view camera, 20 holders, 4 lenses -- 1 Cooke Convertible, 1 ten-inch Wide Field Ektar, 1 9-inch Dagor, one 6-3/4-inch Wollensak wide angle. Item: one 7 x 17 special panorama camera with a Protar 13-1/2-inch lens and five holders. Item: one 4 x 5 view camera, 6 lenses -- 12-inch Collinear, 8-1/2 Apo[chromatic] Lentar, 9-1/4 Apo[chromatic] Tessar, 4-inch Wide Field Ektar, Dallmeyer [...] telephoto.
"Item: One Hasselblad camera outfit with 38, 60, 80, 135, & 200 millimeter lenses. Item: One Koniflex 35 millimeter camera. Item: 2 Polaroid cameras. Item: 3 exposure meters. One SEI, and two Westons -- in case he drops one.
"Item: Filters for each camera. K1, K2, minus blue, G, X1, A, C5 &B, F, 85B, 85C, light balancing, series 81 and 82. Two tripods: one light, one heavy. Lens brush, stopwatch, level, thermometer, focusing magnifier, focusing cloth, hyperlight strobe portrait outfit, 200 feet of cable, special storage box for film.
[Ansel's car (a Cadillac) with platform pulls away from camera.]
"Item: One ancient, eight-passenger limousine with 5 x 9-foot camera platform on top."
Mr. Lessig had an equally interesting rebuttal of the latest FUD from Darl the other day:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001611.shtml
Despite RMS's aversion to the term, the GPL trades on a property right that the laws of the US and EU grant "authors" for their creative work. A property right means that the owner of the right has the right to do with his property whatever he wishes, consistent with the laws of the land. If he chooses to give his property away, that does not make it any less a property right. If he chooses to sell it for $1,000,000, that doesn't make it any less a property right. And if he chooses to license it on the condition that source code be made free, that doesn't make it any less a property right.
The laws of the US and the EU don't purport to restrict the conditions under which the owner of a copyright in software might license his software (except in ways that are not relevant to this debate). Under those laws, the owner of this property right has the right to sell his property, or license his property, or lock his property in a drawer. Again, it is his property, and he gets to do with it as he wishes.
The GPL thus precisely advances the "effect" of Congress's and the EU's copyright laws: it gives the owner of a property right the right to do with his property what he wants.
Basically, Darl seems to be saying that copyrights exist only where financial gain is to be made...and somehow overlooks the fact that a copyright is a property and thusly may be dealt with as the owner wishes within the context of law.
It's easy to see why SCO recklessly continues their pursuit of a fatally flawed litigation when the management of SCO has such a skewed and obviously fallacious view of American law. At the same time, you have to wonder why their legal team continues this pursuit with them. Surely they are smart enough to know at the end of the day (hopefully real soon now) they are all going to end up with large chunks of egg all over their collective faces.
So after a little digging, we traced this serious UNIX(TM) violation to a hacker outfit called "Caldera Inc." The email was datelined 23 Jan 2002.
Perhaps using an assumed identity, the hacker signed himself as "Dion L. Johnson II - Product Manager and one of many open source enthusiasts in Caldera Intl."
Seems like the article, despite it's obviously acerbic tone, it indeed names names and in fact has been verified.
Let's say that an e-mail tax is indeed made law. There are some considerations that make this a terrible idea:
1. Who collects the taxes? Are collecting the fees going to fall on the backs of ISP's, on consumers or on anyone who operates a mail server?
2. Will other countries co-operate? Say someone in Germany wants to send e-mails to America. Problem! The e-mail tax must be paid! If it is waived for foreign senders, then all you'd get is a tax and massive offshore spamming operations. Think of the internet gambling phenomenom. Most of those sites are operated offshore because they run contrary to American law. Even if most countries agree and implement, you'd see several that saw an oppurtunity and go along.
3. Will legitimate companies agree to have their cost of doing business raised so drastically? Think of the price a 3M or other large multinational would be exposed to. They certainly wouldn't like that.
There are far more than that, but time to get back to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like these days, about the only one making threats at Microsoft are Gates and Ballmer. The real work is done by proxy -- through SCO, which at this point in time looks like a faliure. Also at ADTI, which was an abysmal failure. Now, a two year old scare memo from HP. Why is it surfacing now? From whom did it come -- and what is their motivation to put out an ancient strategy memo? In the world of computing, two years is a lifetime.
Putting my tinfoil-hat on, I seriously wonder if someone somehow at HP's dear partner Microsoft asked for a leak of this memo. It would certainly fit right in with the FUD-by-proxy strategy that Microsoft seems to be using to tide them over until their Next Big Big Big OS Release (tm).
Still it is a chilling look at the tactics that those of us who have been in the industry a couple of decades have grown used to.
Final thought: might this bode well for Apple?
Ummm, the military relies upon private contractors to build (and many times operate) their equipment. NASA did exactly the same thing to build their moon rockets, as they do with the space shuttle. North American Rockwell, General Dynamics, Grumman, others have all created much space hardware for NASA. The competition, BTW, was viewed as not only a good thing, but a vital aspect of yielding the best design possible at the most reasonable price for the taxpayers.
NASA's original charter was to be a civilian organization because of fears of the militarization of space. The US did not want Soviet or Chinese nuclear bombs orbiting over our country, nor did those other Cold War powers. Had NASA been an outgrowth of the Air Force's space efforts (note that Kennedy Space Center is adjacent to Patrick Air Force Base) then the one-upmanship race that was the COld War of that era may have indeed led to full-scale militarization of outer space.
That said, it was a political move for NASA to be viewed as a civilian organization. In fact, however, most of the original two sets of astronauts came from the military, with the notable exception of Neil Armstrong, who was a civilian test pilot. That may have had much to do with Armstrong's being named Commander of the Apollo 11 mission, something that did not sit with with Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin, who felt himself the most capable in that particular crew. You know the rest, it is old history now.
"Never?
Linux already has a market share the size of Apples (OS wise). At some point, there will be enough graphic design folks who have migrated from the windows side that Adobe will make a linux native version of Photoshop"
What you are missing here is that these are generally users who refused to switch to Windows because the Macintosh is a superior OS from a usability standpoint. The graphics art/advertising community is the most loyal base that Apple has, and the only thing that will "make" them switch to Linux is when Apple switches their OS away from the BSD kernel to the Linux kernel.
Besides, other than the Apple proprietary add-ons (Finder, etc.) seems to me like Apple users who use OS/X are already in the NIX-like camp. As for Apple charging for the features they add to the BSD kernel, well, Crossover Office is not free, nor is Veritas, nor are a number of GNU/Linux tools. Quite frankly, compared to KDE or Gnome, the price of OS/X is worth the cost three times over.
And by the way, it will be quite a while before anyone outside the top 15 or so markets begins producing in HDTV, so you can look forward to actually enjoying the 16:9 only on network shows and DVDs. That's interesting, because WRAL-TV and WRAZ-TV in Raleigh, NC is definitely NOT a top 15 market station, yet not only are there news programs in HDTV, they also produce HD content, and also broadcast 16 Carolina Hurricanes hockey games in HD annually. So, if they aren't a Top 15 market, why are they producing in HD?
Many have already noted the comments where a DDOS may be launched via sending out spam in order to deliberately draw the attention of IP blocking filters, but at the same time, it is also worth noting that many web servers have multiple domains on one IP address using both virtual directories and virtual domains. In fact, almost every ISP does this, in order to give their users a place to oput Mom and Dad's pictures with the kids, etc.
So, if implemented uninteliigently, filtering by ISPs would simply p/o their own customers. All script-kiddie John has to do is get an account on say, Earthlink, put his little target V-iagra content there and then use an SMTP mailer to draw the attention of Earthlink's own IP blocker after his mails rattle along the 'net.
Sure, they'd clean it up pretty quick, and then unblock, but do you really think that Mr. and Mrs. Non-Techie User are going to be so understanding while their fabulous portraits of their kids are intermittently available as this little war plays itself over and over again? I think not. Grandma is even less technical than them and just can't understand why her AOL dialup can't open the web site where they were just yesterday.
That said, the spam content IP blocking idea has merit, but it's not going to be as simple as merely blocking an IP address. It's probably going to have to be quite smart, smarter than both spammers AND script-kiddies in order to work and thus be accepted. I say the technology merits study but is not ready for prime-time.
There is a certain responsibility that comes with being a part of the internet, one that has become greatly understated since the commoditization and commercialization of the 'net as a whole: do not become a danger or a malfeasance to the rest of the machines that are also connected.
Unfortunately, this is something that seems to be lost on the clients of broadband always-on connections, especially those that are used by folks with little or no proficiency. While they have no intention of becoming spam-hosts, or DDOS platforms, by not keeping their machines protected against the various evils that lie in waiting out there, they unwittingly become part of the problem.
This does not reduce the hassles and costs to other sysadmins and users of the 'net as a whole. That said, it seems only fair for an ISP to mitigate the problem by pulling the connection of a user whose systems(s) are spewing out malware.
There are reasonable precautions one should take, that is, having a good firewall, keeping the machine patched and having good virus protection. No, this does not come without some effort and not always without cost. But, to be connected to the internet full-time, it is a cost of doing business, not unlike having insurance for your car in case you cause an accident. Liability insurance is to protect the public, and you from losing everything should you do harm to others. Keeping worms, trojans and viruses off of your machine also protect not only you but others as well.
So, it is really a matter of responsibility.
NASA intends to eventually replace the Hubble with the James Webb Space Telescope:
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an orbiting infrared observatory that will take the place of the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of this decade. It will study the Universe at the important but previously unobserved epoch of galaxy formation. It will peer through dust to witness the birth of stars and planetary systems similar to our own. And using JWST, scientists hope to get a better understanding of the intriguing dark matter problem. The JWST is also a key element in NASA's Origins Program. So, between the JWST and the terrestrial observatories using new adaptive optic technologies, over the long haul it makes better sense to re-allocate our scarce space resources not only on these projects, but also towards the new goals announced by GWB. Remember that Bush hardly increased NASA's budget, so they cannot afford to do everything at once.
More facts about the JWST as it stands now.
Proposed Launch Date: August 2011
Proposed Launch Vehicle: Ariane 5
Mission Duration: 5 - 10 years
Total payload mass: Approx 6200 kg, including observatory, on-orbit consumables and launch vehicle adaptor.
Diameter of primary Mirror: ~6.5 m (21.3 ft)
Clear aperture of primary Mirror: 25 m2
Primary mirror material: beryllium
Mass of primary mirror: about one-third as much as Hubble's
Focal length: TBD
Number of primary mirror segments: 18
Optical resolution: ~0.1 arc-seconds
Wavelength coverage: 0.6 - 28 microns
Size of sun shield: ~22 m x 10 m (72 ft x 33 ft)
Orbit: 1.5 million km from Earth at L2 Point
Operating Temperature: Cost: $824.8 million
Note that it is planned to launch the JWST using an Arianne rocket, which is far cheaper, and can also get the device to the L2 point. Yes, the shuttle could launch JWST into LEO (low earth orbit) but it would then have to travel up on an additional rocket. Seems like they have accounted for this and are going to use a cheaper expendable vehicle to do the job.
IMHO, computer security is like trying to make something idiot-proof...as soon as it is (idiot-proof) someone perfect a better idiot. In regards to computers, there is no 100% safe way to fully protect your data -- except by rendering the machine inaccessable and turning it off. Of course, that's highly counterproductive.
So, at the end of the day, all a sysadmin can do is operate the machine in a prudent manner (set it up to have security reasonable to the risk), keep it patched and raise the bar to keep as many potential foes out as possible. But bear in mind, no matter what you do, if one is determined enough, they WILL be able to break into your machine.
After all, the best hackers are the ones you hve never heard of. Their best exploits are the ones that no one knows about. Children brag about their shenanigans, a wise criminal keeps his tools to himself so they keep working.
Linux and other OSS projects have a community to identify the risks, but not even a community nor the author(s) of a given piece of code as complex as a working modern Linux system can identify them all.
First of all, $300,000 is extravagant by any standards. He should have charged his actual costs, after all, he did agree to do the site in exchange for publicity. Thus, the designer should have asked to have the county pay the real cost. I simply cannot imagine the ISP involved was charging that much.
Secondly, the designer should have never shut the site down without sending the county properly served due notice. In other words, registered or certified mails, preferably coming from an attorney.
Finally, the designer should have sued the county, and then through the litigation a settlement would have been obtained -- most likely through binding arbitration.
But, at the same time, to settle a civil disagreement through criminal prosecution seems to be abuse of power at most naked.
Both of the parties should be spanked by their Mamas.
This is short sighted... China would then be ostracized (sp?) by other countries and possibly have economic sanctions brought against them (especially by the USA to whom they have the biggest trading surplus)... nope, it ain't gonna happen. China values trade more than stomping on one little IT company.
No, there would be great whining, wringing of hands and lots of posturing, but at the end of the day, nothing concrete would come of it except more hot air over Washington, D.C. Why?
1. Have you noticed that China has become a large market for many US companies? (Microsoft included.) Do you think that these companies would appreciate being locked out of this market because China decided to punish the punishers?
2. China has become a large manufacturing sector for many American products. Many Fortune 500 firms do a lot of manufacturing in that country. No doubt they would not appreciate problems and reprecussions.
3. As mentioned elsewhere, China is largely funding our budget deficit by buying Treasury notes. In other words, they're cashing George Bush's checks and he knows it.
Finally, everyone is quick to jump the gun to say that the Chinese have released Microsoft source code. For all we know, it could have been anyone. However, I wouldn't want to be that person/organization/country as they will then have the wrath of a company whose worth is more than many nations upon them, not to mention the powers that be in the US government. In other words, prepare yourself for a long stay in a cold cell.
So after the Lord of the Rings, comes another well-regarded piece of literature in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Hollywood did well by LOTR, let's hope "they" learned their lesson and will let a piece of classic writing stand on it's own and not try to stuff the story into a 2-hour formula.
My great fear of this is that the wit, sarcasm and anti-religious rage will be written out and instead, we'll get...Spy Kids in Space. The anti-religious part will be the first to go, otherwise Pat Robertson will be ranting and railing on Fox News about a horrible, blasephemous film coming from that esteemed home of children's entertainment, Disney. But it's a part of 'The Guide' and should stay in. Otherwise, it becomes...something else.
On the other hand, I suppose Disney should be given a little benefit of the doubt, after all, Pirates of the Caribbean was a highly entertaining film.
It will interesting to see what happens with this. I was hoping secretly Peter Jackson would handle the director's chair, given the respect he gave LOTR as literature. To me, Hitchhiker's Guide is a classic and should not be "messed with."
Let's assume for a moment that Senators and/or their staffers were illegally accessing systems that they were not supposed to be gaining entry to.
Using the same Draconian laws that they themselves enacted, these people could end up serving hard time for their deeds, losing their rights to privacy, vote and carry a gun. That and losing their jobs and pensions, not to mention medical benefits, etc. In other words, as felons, they become no-ones.
That to me, is the definition of irony.
Dont underestimate this. Go read that letter. Its designed to appeal directly to the politician in every fasion you can possibly do so. It mentions tax revenue losses, US supremecy in world markets, degredation of copyright laws (which RIAA and the MPAA are yelling in the other ear about), and loss of american jobs.
If you can't win your case in court, try it in public. If the public laughs you off as a buffoon, go an change the darned laws. These guys quite clearly have no regard for truth OR the American way.
tax revenue losses
I am quite certain that Indian and other offshore programmers pay no American income tax. Yet Microsoft, IBM, and most other major software publishers send jobs out of country without remorse.
US supremecy in world markets
See above. Unemploying American programmers certainly aids us in our quest to retain supremacy. Besides, the computer market is inexorably globalizing. Nothing will probably change that, because it is foolish to believe that we are the only nation capable of programming a computer to do useful things that people would like to do. See: SAP.
degredation of copyright laws
Which is a clear misrepresentation and they know it, unless they are stupid. The GNU licenses allow the author to retain copyright. How many times does Darl need this pointed out to him? Lying to Congress is always a way to win their hearts and minds.
and loss of american jobs
And ironically, at tghe same time, IBM is hiring Linux programmers, which clearly negates that argument and renders it specious ranting.
But you are right that perception is everything. I think IBM would be wise to reply to Congress with the truth, which should be enough. After all, who are Congressmen going to listen to? A litigous small company or a multi-billion dollar industry leader?
Pay me to save Hubble or something could happen to your fancy schmancy new one.
While space launches have become far more reliable than they were in the early days of NASA, it is still hardly a given that any particular payload will make it to orbit -- rockets still veer off course, malgunction and just plain blow up. Again, it's not as often as it once was, however, it does indeed happen still.
That said, it makes sense to keep the Hubble until it truly has been proven far obsolete. Even if it is not a state-of-the-art leading edge observatory, it can (and I think should) be kept for use as an educational unit -- "once you master the Hubble, well then, you can use our fancy-schmancy new Webb!" All too often, we fall into the trap of "new is better so old is useless."
I find it troubling that a government that is supposedly FOR free and open competition in the marketplace decides to use a proprietary interface as a legal standard for electronic signatures. Surely there is a platform and application neutral solution that can be utilized not only by Micrsoft's office applications but also by those that choose to use other means -- be they Linux, Macintosh or other. For example, a significant number of law firms still use WordPerfect Office.
Of course, Microsoft Word is by and far away the market leader in word processing, as is their IE product. But also consider that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and now comes the government to further propogate their disproportionate market share which was gained (as decided by the courts) by illegal means.
Makes you wonder, exactly whom does our government represent? This would appear to be another brick in the edifice of evidence that it is not us, the people, but instead, them the corporate interests.
Boo!
Blake Stowell is quoted as saying, "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
Yet, in their Motion to Compel Discovery, they want to get AIX source code, etc. etc. from IBM in order to determine if there is a copyright violation therein.
In other words, they want IBM to send them the pond in order to see if there are any fish in it.
Now they are saying that they are not suing IBM in regards to a contract, er, a copyright, no, umm, no, a contract issue. And meanwhile ignoring a court order to provide discovery. Remember, SCO was compelled to provide discovery by 12-JAN-04.
That said, the good judge in Utah now has the right to dismiss their case -- they refused to provide evidence as required by the law and demanded by the courts. Hopefully, this will be a dismissal with prejudice and the countersuits can roll in like a hurricane over at SCO's headquarters.
While nearly all of us who have PVR's enjoy the ability to skip screaming car salesmen, corporate drug pushers (pharmaceutical companies), incredibly heart warming financial companies touting their trustwothiness, etc. etc. et. all ad nauseum, eliminating them from our entertainment will be all but impossible. In fact, by eliminating the containerized thirty or sixty second ads, we'll instead get blasted by pop-ups and embedded product placements, etc., AND the traditional commercial. In fact, it is already happening. To wit:
Disney owns ABC, ESPN and the Discovery Channel. How often on ESPN does one see "the stars" of that great new hit on ABC? How often does ABC tout programs on ESPN? And now, Discovery is in the act too, offering us "documentaries" on the magic behind Disney World in Orlando. And of course, who owns Disney World? Disney.
Films made by Sony's studios almost always feature Sony equipment when a given character is using his or her PC. Also, the word "SONY" is often in huge black letters on the rear of a monitor, even though they aren't usually so prominent on the products shipped to Joe Consumer from the factory.
Add to that the PAID product placements like Coca-Cola being drunk by a given character. There are many of those.
And finally, the grand-daddy of product advertising discguised as content: NASCAR. Each car is festooned with no less than twenty different sponsors, starting with the make and model of the auto being raced (even they have exactly one part in common with their street version: the roof panel) plus the major sponsor of the driver, plus the minor sponsor plus all the super-minor sponsors not the least of which is NACAR itself. The whole race is a rotating advertisement, one which the competitors are trying not only to beat each other but also to gain the most exposure time for their sponsors. A higher position on the track means more "impressions" for the sponsors on the viewers. Best of all, when a driver is interviewed, he thanks 1) God 2) his crew and of course his sponsors for painting his "Folger's/Viargra/Ford/Taurus" in their colors. The entire event is, in short, an ad.
That's direction we're headed. Like death, taxes and Microsoft security flaws, one simply cannot avoid marketing. It's simply more malleable than are the viewers or listeners of a given content.
Microsoft may have been slowed by Linux, but if history has taught computer users anything over the last twenty-odd years, it's that Microsoft is exceptional adept at re-tooling itself and resuming it's domination of the software industry.
.NET and Longhorn product cycles. Then, of course, armed to the teeth with their own patent portfolios and unique proprietary technologies, their customer base will remain (they hope) safely in the Microsoft fold.
...And when Longhorn comes out and ties it all together, the One Evil Ring will very possibly remain firmly on Bill Gates finger.
Their doom has been forecast many times, yet it seems that they always rebound stronger and more profitable than ever before. Until they have shown YEARS of decline, I for one refuse to believe any reports of their death, much less serious injury.
To wit, they seem to have a palpable strategy in place to combat Linux. Basically, it is their hope that the questions of IP will slow adoption long enough for them to lock their corporate customers into the Windows 2003 server,
Remember that Office 2003 is actually a salvo in the Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy -- their XML formats are just proprietary enough to make that so, given the inertia that they have with the largest installed office-suite base as well as (frankly, like it or not) the most functionally integrated package on the market. Add to that the B2B interaction of sending Word, Powerpoint and Excel files and their strategy very well might work once again.
Windows Server 2003 and it's embedded technologies promises much of the same.
I say all this not as a Microsoft apologist but simply as a realist. While I strongly prefer Linux both on the server and on the desktop, the fact remains that there is much to be done, very much indeed, before it will topple the likes of a Microsoft.
Here's a quote from a film made not only when Adams was alive, but during the time he was still doing good, vibrant work. It is a good assesment of the arsenal that Ansel used to create his photographs, and it is reasonable to extrapolate that he would have used digital gear were he working today, though not exclusively. Despite the assertations of many amateur photographers, film size does exceed that of 35mm and medium format, and it is from the large formats that acutance unavailable to digital, 35mm and medium format is to be had.
View, for example, Monolith, The Face of Half Dome in person and of a print that Adams himself made, and you see a tonality and level of detail that modern science has yet to be able to create digitally, at least in a form available to a consumer. That is not to say that it cannot or will not be done, because in my opinion it is a matter of time before digital surpasses ANY film. Nevertheless, that day is still in the future, at least in regards to a piece of 4X5 or 8X10 sheet film.
Beaumont Newhall narrated Larry Dawson's 1957 film, Ansel Adams, Photographer, and described Adams's photographic gear:
"...A fine craftsman employs different tools for different purposes. Item: one 8 x 10 view camera, 20 holders, 4 lenses -- 1 Cooke Convertible, 1 ten-inch Wide Field Ektar, 1 9-inch Dagor, one 6-3/4-inch Wollensak wide angle. Item: one 7 x 17 special panorama camera with a Protar 13-1/2-inch lens and five holders. Item: one 4 x 5 view camera, 6 lenses -- 12-inch Collinear, 8-1/2 Apo[chromatic] Lentar, 9-1/4 Apo[chromatic] Tessar, 4-inch Wide Field Ektar, Dallmeyer [...] telephoto.
"Item: One Hasselblad camera outfit with 38, 60, 80, 135, & 200 millimeter lenses. Item: One Koniflex 35 millimeter camera. Item: 2 Polaroid cameras. Item: 3 exposure meters. One SEI, and two Westons -- in case he drops one.
"Item: Filters for each camera. K1, K2, minus blue, G, X1, A, C5 &B, F, 85B, 85C, light balancing, series 81 and 82. Two tripods: one light, one heavy. Lens brush, stopwatch, level, thermometer, focusing magnifier, focusing cloth, hyperlight strobe portrait outfit, 200 feet of cable, special storage box for film.
[Ansel's car (a Cadillac) with platform pulls away from camera.]
"Item: One ancient, eight-passenger limousine with 5 x 9-foot camera platform on top."
"Would Ansel Adams Have Gone Digital?"
Of course not. He didn't even go color.
Wrong-o. Ansel Adams did much of his commercial work in color and even has a book of his color landscapes available on Amazon
Ansel Adams in Color, ISBN 0821219804, Bulfinch Press 1993.
Here's
a color landscape that's on the cover of that very book.
My father was a complete camera nut; he had a couple of Nikon FX (?) camera backs, and about a hundred different lenses.
Everything from super-wide-angle to "count nosehairs from 1km away"
It'd be really cool to have a digital camera that could make use of all these standardized (?) lenses.
Anybody got a source?
Nikon's Digital SLR cameras will accept F-mount lenses and use them just fine, albeit with automatic features disabled.
Mr. Lessig had an equally interesting rebuttal of the latest FUD from Darl the other day:
l
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001611.shtm
Despite RMS's aversion to the term, the GPL trades on a property right that the laws of the US and EU grant "authors" for their creative work. A property right means that the owner of the right has the right to do with his property whatever he wishes, consistent with the laws of the land. If he chooses to give his property away, that does not make it any less a property right. If he chooses to sell it for $1,000,000, that doesn't make it any less a property right. And if he chooses to license it on the condition that source code be made free, that doesn't make it any less a property right.
The laws of the US and the EU don't purport to restrict the conditions under which the owner of a copyright in software might license his software (except in ways that are not relevant to this debate). Under those laws, the owner of this property right has the right to sell his property, or license his property, or lock his property in a drawer. Again, it is his property, and he gets to do with it as he wishes.
The GPL thus precisely advances the "effect" of Congress's and the EU's copyright laws: it gives the owner of a property right the right to do with his property what he wants.
Basically, Darl seems to be saying that copyrights exist only where financial gain is to be made...and somehow overlooks the fact that a copyright is a property and thusly may be dealt with as the owner wishes within the context of law.
It's easy to see why SCO recklessly continues their pursuit of a fatally flawed litigation when the management of SCO has such a skewed and obviously fallacious view of American law. At the same time, you have to wonder why their legal team continues this pursuit with them. Surely they are smart enough to know at the end of the day (hopefully real soon now) they are all going to end up with large chunks of egg all over their collective faces.
Are you sure you fully trust that story?
Read the whole article:
So after a little digging, we traced this serious UNIX(TM) violation to a hacker outfit called "Caldera Inc." The email was datelined 23 Jan 2002.
Perhaps using an assumed identity, the hacker signed himself as "Dion L. Johnson II - Product Manager and one of many open source enthusiasts in Caldera Intl."
Seems like the article, despite it's obviously acerbic tone, it indeed names names and in fact has been verified.
Let's say that an e-mail tax is indeed made law. There are some considerations that make this a terrible idea:
1. Who collects the taxes? Are collecting the fees going to fall on the backs of ISP's, on consumers or on anyone who operates a mail server?
2. Will other countries co-operate? Say someone in Germany wants to send e-mails to America. Problem! The e-mail tax must be paid! If it is waived for foreign senders, then all you'd get is a tax and massive offshore spamming operations. Think of the internet gambling phenomenom. Most of those sites are operated offshore because they run contrary to American law. Even if most countries agree and implement, you'd see several that saw an oppurtunity and go along.
3. Will legitimate companies agree to have their cost of doing business raised so drastically? Think of the price a 3M or other large multinational would be exposed to. They certainly wouldn't like that.
There are far more than that, but time to get back to work.