... My type of story is worthless to any investigation. In fact, all first hand accounts are worthless. Interesting results from any new scientific research will be found from satellite surveilance photos, weather balloons, radar, and other such objective instruments. The past fifty years of conducting interviews and then processing these with stats have been a complete waste of time. --M
Not that I believe aliens are buzzing Earth, but..
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
... *sigh* Since I've admitted this on/. and around the net before, I might as well make a fool of myself and admit it again. In September of 1994 I saw a silver disc shaped object in broad daylight perform outrageous maneuvers. Yes, I was completely sober. No, they weren't lights in the sky. No, it wasn't a balloon, helicopter, or airplane at an odd viewing angle.
What I saw:
At the time I had just moved to Cincinnati and was driving back from a flea market with two other friends. We had just stopped at a gas station to fill up the van in which we were driving. The driver (a female) stepped inside to pay the bill while my other friend went inside to take a leak. I stepped outside and walked away from the van (and gas pumps) to smoke a butt.
Looking past the road was a large grass covered crest which dropped down and then much farther back came up into a tree covered hill/mountain. I noticed what I first thought was a silver balloon, about the size of a quarter of my thumbnail at arms length, bobbing and spinning sort of, just hovering. As I was watching it began to descend, wavering like a leaf, coming down back and forth very slowly. It was at this point that I thought that it was behaving strangely, so I watched closer. It abruptly stopped and hovered for a bit longer. Then it jumped toward me (determined by it growing larger in my field of view to maybe half to two thirds my thumbnail), jumped straight up at high speed, and then abruptly crossed from the left to the right of my horizon in a large arc, diminishing in size as it moved until it disappeared from a point into nothingness (which I take to mean it moved farther away from me as it crossed the sky). This happened *very* fast - a second or two, no more. What struck me about the last abrupt movement is that it didn't appear to accelerate at all. Since I must assume it behaved under the laws of physics, this means the acceleration was so fast and at such a high G-force, that it happened outside the limitations of my awareness - which would certainly have crushed any occupants inside.
Since I have only one pair of eyes, and the object was far enough away to be focused at infinity, there's no way to determine distance or size. I have NO FUCKING IDEA what I saw. No one else saw it and I have no way to "prove" that what I saw is anything but a mirage or some other visual illusion and/or artifact of the eye. Like all eye witness accounts (whether in court or in circumstances such as these) lack of corroboration should equal disbelief on the reader's part. I would only request that those who reply to this at least assume I am telling the truth about the events I witnessed, even if you believe that what I saw is some sort of visual illusion or misinterpretation of the events.
All I will say is that I believe I witnessed a physical object move in ways I've never seen anything else move, prosaic aircraft or not. I did not see any occupants inside the object, nor was I "abducted" or any of that shit. This statement does NOT mean I believe aliens are buzzing our skies. But it has decidedly shaken what was once my opinion that UFO's aren't even worth discussion time, never mind scientific analysis. I'm quite bothered by what I saw, and more to the point I'm bothered by the instant assumption that those who see these kinds of things are a kook for simply having viewed and publicly stated their accounts. Which is why I'm reluctant to post this. I bet I'm not alone. But WTF, this is just/. And honestly, I think there would be value in trained University scientists conducting a new investigation into this phenomena, preferably privately funded. I have no idea what this is about, but now I think something worthy of investigation is going on.
Turns out I despise my cable company too!:) AT&T Broadband (now Comcast) has been nothing but a pain in the ass to deal with. Not only did their CR sales staff blatantly lie through their teeth about HDTV availability through digital cable by claiming that HBO, Showtime, and the major networks had no HDTV service (I get it over the air, bitch. And Both Dish and DirecTV sell HBO and Showtime HD right now!). And when I caught her on it she simply repeated the same line as if reading from a talking points memo instead of responding to my question. To add insult to injurty, they're upping the cable rates way above inflation. Fuck that. I recently installed DirecTV, have ordered Earthlink DSL with a static IP, and will cancel my cable subscription as soon as DSL is installed. I can't tell you what a relief it was to see Linux listed as an accepted OS on Earthlink's ordering page. God forbid I might want to run something other than Windows on my computer. I've had it with cable, they're not getting my money any more.
--Maynard
Copyright originally limited duplication rights
on
Copyright and Copy Rights
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's also important to point out that unlike all other property rights, copyright originally only limited duplication rights for professional publishers. The general public was exempted as long as they didn't mass produce copies of the copyrighted work for payment. So, an individual could hand copy a book as often as he/she wanted, but a publisher could not set up a printing press to mass duplicate and sell the work without permission from the copyright holder. This is an important distiction and is the basis for todays "fair use" provisions in copyright law. --M
"I don't know if they [Bush Administration] are Christians or not but they sure as heck are NOT conservatives Pretty far to the left as far as I'm concerned."
If Bush is pretty far to the left, just what constitutes the right?!?!?! And for historical perspective, can you reference how the terms "left" and "right" became part of our popular policital vernacular? I'll give a hint: It happened about the time of the founding of the United States; they may be a formal ally, but we treat them like the enemy; also, they make damn good pastry, wine, and cheese. --M
They block IP protocols 51 and 52: no more IPSEC for you! Which will most assuradly fuck up IPV6 roll out as IPSEC V4 is a testing protocol intended for widespread use in IPV6. This (along with multiple key exchange protocols) is why transport IPSEC hasn't become ubiquitous like it ought to have. If we (the inet community) had just focused on IPSEC instead of SSL, SSH, Kerberized Telnet, etc, we would have one point to point over the wire encryption standard for all TCP/UDP communication. Telnet, ftp, finger, gopher, web, you name it would be encrypted by default whenever key exchange could take place. Instead we have a mess of encryption standards and ISPs who block the very protocol intended to secure general net communication. Not that money and profits might fuck up the net at the protocol level, right? That would never happen! *cough!* --M
It doesn't matter who's in office, both parties are corrupt to the core. And this coming from a cityslicker liberal who gladly supported Clinton in '92 only to give up on him by '96. When was the last time we had a president who wasn't a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? --M
I won't buy major label crap, but I do love noise. Rapoon, Nurse With Wound, Tackhead, Controlled Bleeding.... RIAA would never have the balls to release shit like that. And that's the problem, there's a small amount of interest in a large number of fringe musical styles. The RIAA would like to see this disappear and only produce a few styles of music to cater to mass appeal, while also stiffling distribution channels for the fringe artists. And why is this? Because it's the fringe artists who create the next popular musical forms. And they can't control that. So, the solution? Monopolize the distribution channel and buy politicians so any other distribution becomes illegal.
Fuck the RIAA. I won't buy their music. I buy CD's from bands at concerts and across the net. I also legally download directly from the bands who allow it. I won't break the law, and I will get the weird music I like. Ugh, it's so fucked up. --M
There are a thousand people more deserving to proclaim they "took the initiative in creating the Internet". Sure Al may take credit in helping to promote it, but his statement was way too broad and arrogant.
Those "thousand people" weren't in congress promoting and voting on NSF funding for the net, now were they? While a congressman in the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1984, and while in the Senate from 1984 to 1992, he was one of the principal NSF fundraisers for the APRANET project. It's the truth, as much as some folks would like to overlook that fact. Oftentimes he was among the only members of congress who saw the potential of the net once computing became ubiquitous. Again, I point readers (and you) to what Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say on the matter. Al Gore has this to say on the subject as well. He plainly makes clear that he never involved himself in deep technical and engineering aspects of the ARPANET project.
Folks may not like the facts of his involvement, especially considering how contentious this issue has been after the factual misrepresentations by operatives from the Republican party and the press during the 2000 election. However, facts are facts and those misrepresentations and lies don't take away the real good that Gore did in promoting the 'net during almost fifteen years in congress, often in tough financial times. According to Kahn and Cerf, Gore actually was instrumental in providing the necessary funding to keep development alive from the late seventies on through to the early nineties, after which it took off on it's own.
Again, I repeat that I am not a fan of Gore, didn't vote for him in 2000, and would not vote for him if given the chance in 2004. That doesn't make the slander that he misrepresented his involvement in funding the development of the net any less worthy of refutation.
Cheers, --Maynard
Bush campaign dirty tricks: Gore told the truth.
on
The Politics of Technology
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here's a nice summary of the "Gore invented the Internet" bullshit. Note that Gore claimed to have been directly involved in providing NSF funding for ARPANET. This, in fact, he did. More importantly, he NEVER claimed to have invented the technology and engineering behind the Internet. Here's what Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say on the matter. Note that they ARE principal engineers of the original ARPANET. Essentially, they back up Gore and his involvement in providing the necessary funds to keep the ARPANET, and then the Internet alive during tough financial and budgetary times.
You are repeating a political dirty trick the Republican's used to discredit Gore during the 2000 election. That it was completely false and a total misrepresentation of Gore's words and intent didn't matter to Bush and his campaign staff. That people still repeat the slander as though it was God's truth shows how effective negative advertising and media manipulation really is. I note finally that I dod NOT vote for Gore, and was never a Gore supporter. And I won't vote for him in 2004. But that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable to let this untruthful meme perpetuate without refutation.
What normally happens when an email addressed to a bogus account attempts delivery? Traditionally, the mail is bounced back to sender with a "Message undeliverable, User Unknown". Try a vrfy: bogus-username@FQDN at sendmail sometime. Well, at least with older sendmail versions. OK, so these days to deal with spammers and crackers vrfy is disabled normally, and often times sendmail is configured to accept all inbound mail and forward that which is undeliverable to root. But it used to be common that any mail addressed to a bogus username would be bounced to sender and left undelivered.
My point? Once her account was disabled it the mail daemon should have stopped accepting inbound mail for her account. This could have been done by any number of means, from changing the username, removing the account, to setting up a special alias for disabled accounts. As a former 'NIX administrator for a small ISP I can tell you that is exactly what we did. And in all other organizations for which I've worked we did similar things, usually amounting to disabling and bouncing. I'm not suggesting that the ISP should be responsible for forwarding to a new active email address.
IMO: The ISP, and all ISPs who follow this standard, should be held liable for interfering with reasonable communication, particularly if it's business communication with the potential for financial damages. While the ISP had no responsibility for forwarding the mail to another active account, they certainly should not have accepted inbound mail for a canceled account. This is akin to a landlord(*) keeping postal mail for a previous tenant, and if opened would constitute mail fraud and invasion of privacy (a felony). The only legal recourse is to send the mail back "Return to Sender" and let the post office sort the mess out. Which is exactly how most people expect email to work.
Cheers, --Maynard
(*) As a current landlord I'm well aware of these things.
I keep getting my Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Sealab 2021, and Harvey Birdman -- Attorney at Law, I'll accept that they wiped out the anime. I never watched that stuff anyway. JMO. As someone who actually remembers Sealab 2020, I just can't get over what they've done to that old show. Heh. Cool that they purchased Futurama. Maybe that show will actually get a consistent timeslot now?!?!?
Obviously it depends on if K-Mart management had agreed in writing with a Microsoft sales representative to a specific license which explicitly removed the right of transfer for a reduced price. This is possible, in which case they should, under normal circumstances, have the right to license their copyrighted work with this restriction. However, if the set of licenses are OEM and bundled with each individual machine (the hardware as a product purchased from a vendor) on purchase, and further they were purchased without a clear and written contract signed by both consenting parties, then I think MS doesn't have a leg to stand on. Finally, I think it's very fishy that a convicted monopolist is invoking restraint-of-trade clauses in their shrink-wrap and bundled licensing deals as an impediment toward transferring a software asset legally purchased. Any contract lacking reciprocity or a misrepresentation of terms is null and void even if signed by both parties.
All this said without a law degree or any experience practicing law. Correction(s) by real lawyers encouraged.
Its nice to have a BSA audit, and take them out back, open up a big cardboard box, and show them the boxes[...]
It's nice to get fucked up the ass by some private organization, acting as though it has the authority to execute a search warrant without probable cause, in order to determine if you have "boxes" (and licenses) to all your copies of Microsoft software? That's your idea of fun? When the BSA knocks on my office door, demanding their audit, I'll slam the door in their face. And when they buy a search warrant from some pliant judge, I'll gladly show them Linux installed on hundreds of desktops and servers. Seriously.
Frankly, given the management hassle involved with MS licensing, never mind the potential risks even if you're legit, you'd have to be an idiot to deploy Windows en masse given Microsoft's current licensing crackdown. I know many organizations who are ripping their MS server infrastructure out in preparation for a potential migration to desktop Linux should the situation get worse. MS is walking on thin ice here. JMO!
That Clinton lying about a sexual liaison with a consenting adult while under oath before a judge in a deposition, not Congress as I recall, somehow justifies Noelle Bush walking away from serious drug charges due to her family connections and money? You mean, if a Democrat did it then the Republican's ought to as well? Are you really saying that? --M
No, she wasn't just snorting coke. In fact, she was caught hiding a rock of crack cocaine, by staff at a drug treatment center, at which she was a patient. For this she received a ten day jail sentence. It should be noted that the evidence of her possessing crack was thrown out of court on a technicality, on the presumption that staff members of a medical treatment center should not be compelled to testify given confidentiality rules. However, some staff members had already publicly admitted finding the crack to journalists, so the facts had already become public knowledge.
Given that Ms. Bush has a long history of drug abuse, it's astonishing that the matter wasn't pursued further. Except for her family connections. Further proof that if you're rich or powerful criminal law simply doesn't apply.
--M
Why is it that low budget indy fliks regularly turn a small -- but very real -- profit, while these huge mega-smash, cross licensed, and wholly over-marketed pieces of crap seem to lose money every time? Clearly, the problem is with these indy fliks, their low budgets, and the bad example they set for film makers hollywood-wide.
Seems to me the studios need to hire real management, pay them much more against shareholder wishes, and get one of those trendy insider-connected CFOs to start a few hundred shill corporations offshore to move the profit around faster than light -- thus creating money where none existed! This ties in: space travel fliks, current financial trends, and a completely new business model together! And hey, just look at where Enron is today! Mr. Vallenti, do you see your calling?!?! --M
Are you saying that you disagree with the basic premise that most of the dead OSes are basically server OSes? Or that most workstation OSes that attained reasonable market success are still being supported or re-implemented?
Neither. I originally pointed out a variety of OS environments which have died throughout the years to refute the claims of the top level post in this thread. The list I posted is a small subset of the entire history. Your argument that I listed only server OSs is incorrect simply because I listed one OS which by definition could never have been a server. Then I pointed to a graphical desktop OS that was intended as an early desktop which is now completely dead, to nail the point in further. Finally, I now point out that since I only listed a small subset of the total I bet one could easily find further examples beyond BeOS of completely dead desktop operating systems. Hmmm: CP/M, NEWDOS/80, OS9, TOS, CP/M (oh, so many more)... just off the top of my head.
As an aside, I note that many of the other OSs I listed were not "server" systems in the modern sense of the word because they were traditionally installed as multiuser minis or mainframes with a number of serial terminals hung off them. This was long before networking became common. But I would agree the distinction is blurred. Another point I would make is that many of these environments didn't really share the philosophical development background of 'NIX, so the APIs and system environments were totally different. For example, a port from HP MVS to HP-UX could be a significant task given the large differences between the two platforms. Though we appear to largely agree on this.
I seem to remember RT-11 as a single user platform... can't really call it a desktop box since even the lowest end PDP-11/03 fit in a half-hight 36u rack, but dishwasher box might be an apt description... (and shall I bring up Xerox Altos as yet further evidence that your position is unsubstantiated by the facts?) --M
First of all, I'm not in the naysayers camp about OpenBeOS. If developers want to rewrite BeOS to scratch their own personal itch, far be it from me to tell others how to spend their personal time. However, OpenBeOS is not ready now. Yet for a vendor targeting a vertical market there are so many other available platforms to choose from now, that waiting (or even developing) for OpenBeOS simply doesn't make sense. These guys are in business to make money, not to scratch a personal development itch. If that's the market I wanted to target I would likely choose either Windows or Linux, depending on how I wanted to price my product, and how I wanted to arrange support. I might even go QT and target both platforms. The last thing I would do is hope and pray for OpenBeOS to come along and save my day when the market was there for the plucking and alternatives to OpenBeOS readily available. Just my.02...
REally, OSes never die, they are essentially immortal, becuase once you find someone who really likes it, they will go to any length to keep the dream alive. Any length.
So where is RT-11? RSX? Venix? PRIMEOS? CYBER NOS/VE? HP MVS? Lots of operating environments have come and gone... the only systems which remain for the long haul are those with source availability and a developer base able to support the source. This doesn't have to be open source, there are commercial groups who perform this service for a range of defunct products. In fact, many large vertical applications are sold stipulating source availability in the event of vendor bankruptcy. Those systems often stay alive far longer than the vendor ever intended. A good example would be PDP-11s still out in the field controlling tools used in sheet metal factories. It's a dying breed, but they're still out there -- and they're only dying because LSI-11 cards on the used market are getting hard to find.
So, on the one hand -- yeah, if the source and tools exist, and if there's enough of a userbase to profit by providing that support, an old application and/or operating environment can survive long after the original vendor bites the dust. But this is a small minority of all the systems that have lived. So you shouldn't expect something like BeOS to last much longer given lack of source and the small business community which invested in the environment. Hell, how long will it be before VMS joins the crowd of relics I listed previously?
Your point about vertical applications is valid, though I given that BeOS is a commodity no different than WinXP, MacOS X, Linux, or any other operating system a vendor targeting vertical markets like you list would provide their customers with a better solution by choosing widely deployed platforms. I honestly think they would be doing a disservice to their customers to recommend BeOS given that it lacks any kind of corporate or large community developer base, never mind original source.
Slashdot Mirror
... My type of story is worthless to any investigation. In fact, all first hand accounts are worthless. Interesting results from any new scientific research will be found from satellite surveilance photos, weather balloons, radar, and other such objective instruments. The past fifty years of conducting interviews and then processing these with stats have been a complete waste of time. --M
... *sigh* Since I've admitted this on /. and around the net before, I might as well make a fool of myself and admit it again. In September of 1994 I saw a silver disc shaped object in broad daylight perform outrageous maneuvers. Yes, I was completely sober. No, they weren't lights in the sky. No, it wasn't a balloon, helicopter, or airplane at an odd viewing angle.
/. And honestly, I think there would be value in trained University scientists conducting a new investigation into this phenomena, preferably privately funded. I have no idea what this is about, but now I think something worthy of investigation is going on.
What I saw:
At the time I had just moved to Cincinnati and was driving back from a flea market with two other friends. We had just stopped at a gas station to fill up the van in which we were driving. The driver (a female) stepped inside to pay the bill while my other friend went inside to take a leak. I stepped outside and walked away from the van (and gas pumps) to smoke a butt.
Looking past the road was a large grass covered crest which dropped down and then much farther back came up into a tree covered hill/mountain. I noticed what I first thought was a silver balloon, about the size of a quarter of my thumbnail at arms length, bobbing and spinning sort of, just hovering. As I was watching it began to descend, wavering like a leaf, coming down back and forth very slowly. It was at this point that I thought that it was behaving strangely, so I watched closer. It abruptly stopped and hovered for a bit longer. Then it jumped toward me (determined by it growing larger in my field of view to maybe half to two thirds my thumbnail), jumped straight up at high speed, and then abruptly crossed from the left to the right of my horizon in a large arc, diminishing in size as it moved until it disappeared from a point into nothingness (which I take to mean it moved farther away from me as it crossed the sky). This happened *very* fast - a second or two, no more. What struck me about the last abrupt movement is that it didn't appear to accelerate at all. Since I must assume it behaved under the laws of physics, this means the acceleration was so fast and at such a high G-force, that it happened outside the limitations of my awareness - which would certainly have crushed any occupants inside.
Since I have only one pair of eyes, and the object was far enough away to be focused at infinity, there's no way to determine distance or size. I have NO FUCKING IDEA what I saw. No one else saw it and I have no way to "prove" that what I saw is anything but a mirage or some other visual illusion and/or artifact of the eye. Like all eye witness accounts (whether in court or in circumstances such as these) lack of corroboration should equal disbelief on the reader's part. I would only request that those who reply to this at least assume I am telling the truth about the events I witnessed, even if you believe that what I saw is some sort of visual illusion or misinterpretation of the events.
All I will say is that I believe I witnessed a physical object move in ways I've never seen anything else move, prosaic aircraft or not. I did not see any occupants inside the object, nor was I "abducted" or any of that shit. This statement does NOT mean I believe aliens are buzzing our skies. But it has decidedly shaken what was once my opinion that UFO's aren't even worth discussion time, never mind scientific analysis. I'm quite bothered by what I saw, and more to the point I'm bothered by the instant assumption that those who see these kinds of things are a kook for simply having viewed and publicly stated their accounts. Which is why I'm reluctant to post this. I bet I'm not alone. But WTF, this is just
JMO,
--Maynard
Turns out I despise my cable company too! :) AT&T Broadband (now Comcast) has been nothing but a pain in the ass to deal with. Not only did their CR sales staff blatantly lie through their teeth about HDTV availability through digital cable by claiming that HBO, Showtime, and the major networks had no HDTV service (I get it over the air, bitch. And Both Dish and DirecTV sell HBO and Showtime HD right now!). And when I caught her on it she simply repeated the same line as if reading from a talking points memo instead of responding to my question. To add insult to injurty, they're upping the cable rates way above inflation. Fuck that. I recently installed DirecTV, have ordered Earthlink DSL with a static IP, and will cancel my cable subscription as soon as DSL is installed. I can't tell you what a relief it was to see Linux listed as an accepted OS on Earthlink's ordering page. God forbid I might want to run something other than Windows on my computer. I've had it with cable, they're not getting my money any more.
--Maynard
It's also important to point out that unlike all other property rights, copyright originally only limited duplication rights for professional publishers. The general public was exempted as long as they didn't mass produce copies of the copyrighted work for payment. So, an individual could hand copy a book as often as he/she wanted, but a publisher could not set up a printing press to mass duplicate and sell the work without permission from the copyright holder. This is an important distiction and is the basis for todays "fair use" provisions in copyright law. --M
They block IP protocols 51 and 52: no more IPSEC for you! Which will most assuradly fuck up IPV6 roll out as IPSEC V4 is a testing protocol intended for widespread use in IPV6. This (along with multiple key exchange protocols) is why transport IPSEC hasn't become ubiquitous like it ought to have. If we (the inet community) had just focused on IPSEC instead of SSL, SSH, Kerberized Telnet, etc, we would have one point to point over the wire encryption standard for all TCP/UDP communication. Telnet, ftp, finger, gopher, web, you name it would be encrypted by default whenever key exchange could take place. Instead we have a mess of encryption standards and ISPs who block the very protocol intended to secure general net communication. Not that money and profits might fuck up the net at the protocol level, right? That would never happen! *cough!* --M
It doesn't matter who's in office, both parties are corrupt to the core. And this coming from a cityslicker liberal who gladly supported Clinton in '92 only to give up on him by '96. When was the last time we had a president who wasn't a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? --M
I won't buy major label crap, but I do love noise. Rapoon, Nurse With Wound, Tackhead, Controlled Bleeding.... RIAA would never have the balls to release shit like that. And that's the problem, there's a small amount of interest in a large number of fringe musical styles. The RIAA would like to see this disappear and only produce a few styles of music to cater to mass appeal, while also stiffling distribution channels for the fringe artists. And why is this? Because it's the fringe artists who create the next popular musical forms. And they can't control that. So, the solution? Monopolize the distribution channel and buy politicians so any other distribution becomes illegal.
Fuck the RIAA. I won't buy their music. I buy CD's from bands at concerts and across the net. I also legally download directly from the bands who allow it. I won't break the law, and I will get the weird music I like. Ugh, it's so fucked up. --M
Folks may not like the facts of his involvement, especially considering how contentious this issue has been after the factual misrepresentations by operatives from the Republican party and the press during the 2000 election. However, facts are facts and those misrepresentations and lies don't take away the real good that Gore did in promoting the 'net during almost fifteen years in congress, often in tough financial times. According to Kahn and Cerf, Gore actually was instrumental in providing the necessary funding to keep development alive from the late seventies on through to the early nineties, after which it took off on it's own.
Again, I repeat that I am not a fan of Gore, didn't vote for him in 2000, and would not vote for him if given the chance in 2004. That doesn't make the slander that he misrepresented his involvement in funding the development of the net any less worthy of refutation.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Here's a nice summary of the "Gore invented the Internet" bullshit. Note that Gore claimed to have been directly involved in providing NSF funding for ARPANET. This, in fact, he did. More importantly, he NEVER claimed to have invented the technology and engineering behind the Internet. Here's what Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say on the matter. Note that they ARE principal engineers of the original ARPANET. Essentially, they back up Gore and his involvement in providing the necessary funds to keep the ARPANET, and then the Internet alive during tough financial and budgetary times.
You are repeating a political dirty trick the Republican's used to discredit Gore during the 2000 election. That it was completely false and a total misrepresentation of Gore's words and intent didn't matter to Bush and his campaign staff. That people still repeat the slander as though it was God's truth shows how effective negative advertising and media manipulation really is. I note finally that I dod NOT vote for Gore, and was never a Gore supporter. And I won't vote for him in 2004. But that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable to let this untruthful meme perpetuate without refutation.
Cheers,
--Maynard
What normally happens when an email addressed to a bogus account attempts delivery? Traditionally, the mail is bounced back to sender with a "Message undeliverable, User Unknown". Try a vrfy: bogus-username@FQDN at sendmail sometime. Well, at least with older sendmail versions. OK, so these days to deal with spammers and crackers vrfy is disabled normally, and often times sendmail is configured to accept all inbound mail and forward that which is undeliverable to root. But it used to be common that any mail addressed to a bogus username would be bounced to sender and left undelivered.
My point? Once her account was disabled it the mail daemon should have stopped accepting inbound mail for her account. This could have been done by any number of means, from changing the username, removing the account, to setting up a special alias for disabled accounts. As a former 'NIX administrator for a small ISP I can tell you that is exactly what we did. And in all other organizations for which I've worked we did similar things, usually amounting to disabling and bouncing. I'm not suggesting that the ISP should be responsible for forwarding to a new active email address.
IMO: The ISP, and all ISPs who follow this standard, should be held liable for interfering with reasonable communication, particularly if it's business communication with the potential for financial damages. While the ISP had no responsibility for forwarding the mail to another active account, they certainly should not have accepted inbound mail for a canceled account. This is akin to a landlord(*) keeping postal mail for a previous tenant, and if opened would constitute mail fraud and invasion of privacy (a felony). The only legal recourse is to send the mail back "Return to Sender" and let the post office sort the mess out. Which is exactly how most people expect email to work.
Cheers,
--Maynard
(*) As a current landlord I'm well aware of these things.
I keep getting my Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Sealab 2021, and Harvey Birdman -- Attorney at Law, I'll accept that they wiped out the anime. I never watched that stuff anyway. JMO. As someone who actually remembers Sealab 2020, I just can't get over what they've done to that old show. Heh. Cool that they purchased Futurama. Maybe that show will actually get a consistent timeslot now?!?!?
Obviously it depends on if K-Mart management had agreed in writing with a Microsoft sales representative to a specific license which explicitly removed the right of transfer for a reduced price. This is possible, in which case they should, under normal circumstances, have the right to license their copyrighted work with this restriction. However, if the set of licenses are OEM and bundled with each individual machine (the hardware as a product purchased from a vendor) on purchase, and further they were purchased without a clear and written contract signed by both consenting parties, then I think MS doesn't have a leg to stand on. Finally, I think it's very fishy that a convicted monopolist is invoking restraint-of-trade clauses in their shrink-wrap and bundled licensing deals as an impediment toward transferring a software asset legally purchased. Any contract lacking reciprocity or a misrepresentation of terms is null and void even if signed by both parties.
All this said without a law degree or any experience practicing law. Correction(s) by real lawyers encouraged.
--Maynard
Its nice to have a BSA audit, and take them out back, open up a big cardboard box, and show them the boxes[...]
It's nice to get fucked up the ass by some private organization, acting as though it has the authority to execute a search warrant without probable cause, in order to determine if you have "boxes" (and licenses) to all your copies of Microsoft software? That's your idea of fun? When the BSA knocks on my office door, demanding their audit, I'll slam the door in their face. And when they buy a search warrant from some pliant judge, I'll gladly show them Linux installed on hundreds of desktops and servers. Seriously.
Frankly, given the management hassle involved with MS licensing, never mind the potential risks even if you're legit, you'd have to be an idiot to deploy Windows en masse given Microsoft's current licensing crackdown. I know many organizations who are ripping their MS server infrastructure out in preparation for a potential migration to desktop Linux should the situation get worse. MS is walking on thin ice here. JMO!
--Maynard
Ya know... the submit and preview buttons are reversed between K5 and /., so now I accidentally hit submit without properly previewing. Whoops.
The link is supposed to go to the Brak Show.
Oh well!
Is this a reference to ?!?!?!?!
:)
Heh. Adult Swim. Next time are you going to name the server "Master Shake"?!?!?!?!
That Clinton lying about a sexual liaison with a consenting adult while under oath before a judge in a deposition, not Congress as I recall, somehow justifies Noelle Bush walking away from serious drug charges due to her family connections and money? You mean, if a Democrat did it then the Republican's ought to as well? Are you really saying that? --M
No, she wasn't just snorting coke. In fact, she was caught hiding a rock of crack cocaine, by staff at a drug treatment center, at which she was a patient. For this she received a ten day jail sentence. It should be noted that the evidence of her possessing crack was thrown out of court on a technicality, on the presumption that staff members of a medical treatment center should not be compelled to testify given confidentiality rules. However, some staff members had already publicly admitted finding the crack to journalists, so the facts had already become public knowledge.
Given that Ms. Bush has a long history of drug abuse, it's astonishing that the matter wasn't pursued further. Except for her family connections. Further proof that if you're rich or powerful criminal law simply doesn't apply.
--M
Why is it that low budget indy fliks regularly turn a small -- but very real -- profit, while these huge mega-smash, cross licensed, and wholly over-marketed pieces of crap seem to lose money every time? Clearly, the problem is with these indy fliks, their low budgets, and the bad example they set for film makers hollywood-wide.
Seems to me the studios need to hire real management, pay them much more against shareholder wishes, and get one of those trendy insider-connected CFOs to start a few hundred shill corporations offshore to move the profit around faster than light -- thus creating money where none existed! This ties in: space travel fliks, current financial trends, and a completely new business model together! And hey, just look at where Enron is today! Mr. Vallenti, do you see your calling?!?! --M
Are you saying that you disagree with the basic premise that most of the dead OSes are basically server OSes? Or that most workstation OSes that attained reasonable market success are still being supported or re-implemented?
Neither. I originally pointed out a variety of OS environments which have died throughout the years to refute the claims of the top level post in this thread. The list I posted is a small subset of the entire history. Your argument that I listed only server OSs is incorrect simply because I listed one OS which by definition could never have been a server. Then I pointed to a graphical desktop OS that was intended as an early desktop which is now completely dead, to nail the point in further. Finally, I now point out that since I only listed a small subset of the total I bet one could easily find further examples beyond BeOS of completely dead desktop operating systems. Hmmm: CP/M, NEWDOS/80, OS9, TOS, CP/M (oh, so many more)... just off the top of my head.
As an aside, I note that many of the other OSs I listed were not "server" systems in the modern sense of the word because they were traditionally installed as multiuser minis or mainframes with a number of serial terminals hung off them. This was long before networking became common. But I would agree the distinction is blurred. Another point I would make is that many of these environments didn't really share the philosophical development background of 'NIX, so the APIs and system environments were totally different. For example, a port from HP MVS to HP-UX could be a significant task given the large differences between the two platforms. Though we appear to largely agree on this.
Cheers,
--Maynard
I seem to remember RT-11 as a single user platform... can't really call it a desktop box since even the lowest end PDP-11/03 fit in a half-hight 36u rack, but dishwasher box might be an apt description... (and shall I bring up Xerox Altos as yet further evidence that your position is unsubstantiated by the facts?) --M
First of all, I'm not in the naysayers camp about OpenBeOS. If developers want to rewrite BeOS to scratch their own personal itch, far be it from me to tell others how to spend their personal time. However, OpenBeOS is not ready now. Yet for a vendor targeting a vertical market there are so many other available platforms to choose from now, that waiting (or even developing) for OpenBeOS simply doesn't make sense. These guys are in business to make money, not to scratch a personal development itch. If that's the market I wanted to target I would likely choose either Windows or Linux, depending on how I wanted to price my product, and how I wanted to arrange support. I might even go QT and target both platforms. The last thing I would do is hope and pray for OpenBeOS to come along and save my day when the market was there for the plucking and alternatives to OpenBeOS readily available. Just my .02...
Cheers,
--Maynard
So, on the one hand -- yeah, if the source and tools exist, and if there's enough of a userbase to profit by providing that support, an old application and/or operating environment can survive long after the original vendor bites the dust. But this is a small minority of all the systems that have lived. So you shouldn't expect something like BeOS to last much longer given lack of source and the small business community which invested in the environment. Hell, how long will it be before VMS joins the crowd of relics I listed previously?
Your point about vertical applications is valid, though I given that BeOS is a commodity no different than WinXP, MacOS X, Linux, or any other operating system a vendor targeting vertical markets like you list would provide their customers with a better solution by choosing widely deployed platforms. I honestly think they would be doing a disservice to their customers to recommend BeOS given that it lacks any kind of corporate or large community developer base, never mind original source.
Cheers,
--Maynard
NT4 never shipped with an IPSEC or PPTP stack. Thus, they are not obliged to support that which didn't ship with the product. --M
Well, there go my moderations. *poof!* Mozilla w/ autologin makes posting AC easy to screw up... Oh well! --M