Before we claim another atrocity forced upon the "little guy" let's take a look at the situation. Thawte is not the only provider of certificates out there. There are others and if individuals demand the ability to work with crypto (as they will) someone will provide the service.
Thawte is not Microsoft. They cannot strongarm other businesses, let alone individuals, into working just how they see fit. There's no chance for Thawte to rule the world.
So before everyone gets all up in arms realize that all you have to do to correct the situation is not use Thawte for anything until they reverse their stance or simply use another certificate provider. Write a nice email and let them know why you don't agree with them and move on. This isn't a crisis...
Does this remind anyone else of the end of Jurassic Park (the first movie) when the tyrannasaur and the raptors go at it? Neither of these groups are my favorite so let 'em duke it out!
I have developed in a SOE. It's not that bad provided you have a test lab. Besides, it's not good to test on your own PC anyway. The problem isn't the limitations on installing software but rather the bureaucratic ladder you have to climb to get approval for something new. For instance, getting a new compiler approved can be tough. If you can solve that problem with management it works out.
I'll actually endorse a SOE in some cases. It can be especially good if you have separate environments for developers but it is standard among them. It helps ensure compatibility.
The name FORTRAN scares me. FORmula TRANslator. Good god...that's the coder's equivalent to Beezlebub. Or was that COBOL? Oh well...back to attempting to fit my head into a goldfish bowl. Mars or bust!
Forget for a second that Microsoft products suck. It still makes no sense to have inoperable products. Microsoft continues to integrate MSN and Passport into everything they make which leaves all of the rest of us scratching our heads. I don't use a Passport or MSN nor will I. It's not that it is Microsoft, it's just not what I want. So I cannot use XP and all it's supposed advantages.
Seems to me that they don't recall the 80s and the disparate systems we all had. Tandy, Amiga, Apple, IBM...no one had the same damn thing. It was nearly impossible to work unless everyone was the same. What happened? Lots of companies went under that didn't become interoperable...
To be brief because I doubt anyone reads this as far down the conversation as I am, there are very few viewpoints that are not highly political regarding the open-source debate. I would strongly urge anyone investigating the pros and cons to avoid what Microsoft publishes and avoid what the open-source community (myself included) publish. To get right down to it, we're all pretty self-involved and we don't really offer an unbiased view.
Do yourself a favor and find the IT department at your local bank, hospital, school, or other business. Seek out meaningful local IT companies that are asked to solve this problem for their customers. Ask businesses of different sizes.
I hate to say this, but Slashdot is very political on this subject. I, like most Slashdotters, personally believe that open-source has so many benefits that there's little reason to think of alternatives. But for yourself, go somewhere else to find your answers.
Guess you could copy each packet and save it. A more effective method of doing any of this however is to find conversations worth listening to, getting a warrant, and then intercepting and recording them. I don't buy that inserting an entire system to duplicate each packet sent between sites is not going to slow the internet down. Why? Well we'd have to duplicate at least a fairly large portion of the infrastructure of the internet to facilitate the communication between such devices for it not to affect performance. Hey great, more cable. I doubt the government is going to do that.
There is virtually no way to get around this limitation. The fact is that this will slow down the internet and cost me precious beer money in the process.
It's pretty clear that everyone is going to scream about how horrible this is for privacy. Granted, it will be frightening in its approximation of of Orwell's Big Brother but don't overlook that this will slow internet traffic down considerably. Imagine peeking in on every packet sent! Further, to accomodate this I have a feeling the cost will be passed down to you and I--the taxpaying public. I see farms of servers collecting and storing data, offices filled with high-paid IT staff and IT forensic specialists. So, to recap: bad for privacy, slows down the net, and we'll pay for the privilege of being spied on. I'll have say this isn't in our best interest...
It seems as if Via recognizes they will most likely be sued and be forced to forfeit some of their earnings if they clone Intel products. In the face of this, they also seem to feel that they can benefit enough to offset the losses caused by a lawsuit.
A similar incident occurred with John Deere and Caterpillar about 5 years ago. Caterpillar had figured out that using a rubber-tracked farm tractor gives farmers better yields. John Deere literally stole the concept and accepted the lawsuit because what they learned was so valuable it was worth it!
The federal courts are equipped to handle cyber-terrorism or threats. In fact, they already handle a very similar thing: mail fraud. There are a million varieties of danger posed by use of networked systems. However, the basic premis of the federal courts having authority is that 1) it generally uses and affects entities in multiple states 2) it can pose a threat to national security. That being said, why do we need another court? It seems to me the old coots that wrote this thing called the Constitution already have this covered...
It seems Napster has figured out that when members of a market collude (act in concert) they are in fact an oligopoly. This in many cases is more powerful than a monopoly. The number of companies with the resources to promote and distribute music is very small. That means that by antitrust definitions they have the most influence over price as well as the ability to create unfair barriers to entering the market.
What this means is that someone finally has figured out that the way to fight the situation isn't to attack record companies for protecting their works but instead, attack their methods of controlling the market.
You and I can in turn support this effort by not buying music from those colluding in this market. Quit complaining about the record companies and the way they handle Napster and Morpheus--just quit buying their products. Buy independent label artists, listen to the radio, pick up an instrument and play it. Let the file trading companies fight the antitrust battle...
Imagine the size/number of boards that would be needed to get 80 GB of storage. It may be quicker but engineering something that is feasible would quickly drive the cost up so that it wouldn't be that cheap. Further, the cost to modify existing controller technology or making a RAM drive fit the current controllers available. Then there's all kinds of other technical issues like power.
And with the design and weight you'd also have a very uncomfortable and dangerous vehicle on the street. These things have no place on the street just as race cars have no place on the street. They are built for principle, to show what can be done so engineers may abstract from them. Hopefully some of the techniques can improve passenger vehicles but other than that I don't want to see them zipping down the highway!
I think we should go with the multiple-document interface. I know it's a pain, but be able to launch 4 or five sites within the same application window instead of launch entirely new browsers. Then within the application have a setting that limits the number of branched or spawned sites. That would make me happy and still allow me to use the javascript features.
The point is that there is nothing ILLEGAL about copy protection. Very few people seem to understand that current laws allow for companies and artists to protect their intellectual property. The record companies are doing nothing against the law. While I don't like that they're using new technology (and potentially bad technology) to protect their assets, it is their right to protection I will always support. It is a liberty that any property, whether it is my land or an artistic creation I own, shall be protected under law from theft.
While the methods of and in some ways the very subject of copy protection are very negative, the freedom to innovate in ways to protect one's assets should not be suppressed.
This guy has a job which is to provide a service to companies. Obviously there is a demand for this type of service. He didn't invent the demand, he merely responded. It sounds to me that he's just doing what economics demand--meet needs.
We rub our greedy little hands and scheme how we can get around this new tool when what we should be doing is pressuring record companies who are demanding this type of protection. We should be economically sanctioning the companies that participate in creating rules that shackle fair-use. Don't buy the Michael Jackson album that has the protection (as if we would)...
Indeed. They've got to play by the rules they create.
The point I was making is that there are viable ways to have streaming audio services. You have to license it properly and you have build a business model that supports it. It's not as if the law says there are absolutely no possibly ways to stream audio as had been insinuated.
The current rules are created by the music companies and follow copyright laws. They're doing nothing illegal. In fact, streaming audio can be achieved under the law as well. It's just a matter of finding a reasonable business proposition that can generate revenue under the law. Spinner, Launch, and some others are doing it.
The point that everyone is missing here is that the people that own the rights to the music are doing nothing illegal. There's no reason to change the laws! If anything record companies should be pressured to change their regulations of music. If someone could actually show them that there is a benefit to freely-available music they would do it. At this point all they can see is lost profits...
I can't find any information on whether there will be commercials. If they don't carry commercials I'm afraid it's a service destined to fail. Here's why: other broadcasting media have proven that consumers are not willing to pay for equipment, programming, and production. They will foot the bill for the equipment and sometimes the network for increased quality and selection (i.e. cable television). In every broadcasting case the market was subsidized by commercials so they could make it affordable. For example, even though we pay for our current TV sets, do you think you're measly $50 a month for cable pays every star, producer, set designer, camerman, and doughnut boy? I don't think so. Commercials = success. Commercial-free = failure.
Not only has this a result of negligence but also a result of false claims that their products are just as secure as Unix, just a robust as Unix, and just as fast as Unix. They've mislead consumers regarding by funding biased comparisons, flawed white papers, and paid-customer endorsements. I believe this is nothing short of fraud.
I don't believe this stuff will be stolen from PARC nor that other technologies were necessarily stolen. PARC has a history of developing huge numbers of innovations and selecting those that will actually support the strategic direction of Xerox for production. The rest are sort of gifts to the rest of us.
This technology however shows that Xerox continually innovates through PARC. The thoughts racing through my mind regarding the use for reconfigurable and self-repairing robots that can act in conjunction with others are astounding! Talk about adaptability....
If this OS is targeted for servers and embedded devices as the interview points out, I'd give it a go. There are tons of extras heaped on NT that I'd love to get dump. Perhaps it will take a page from the Mandrake install and allow us to install only the components we need through an EASY interface...
I think there's a real use for haptic devices in concert with VR. While entertainment is certainly one of those applications, training and simulation is probably more useful. In time, building a simulation of something complex will be part of the design process and in turn could be used in training. The cost to develop those models will decrease making this an effective alternative for hands-on experience.
I can see training medical personnel, engineers and mechanics, bomb-squads, etc. with this kind of technology.
I like the fact that he's attacking this as an operating system and not just "Unix with a GUI." While the market splinters for server operating systems we still face dominance at the desktop and that's just not good. There should be someone other than MS and Apple attempting to play in this arena so we can force innovation. I just hope it doesn't end up like BeOS...
Slashdot Mirror
Before we claim another atrocity forced upon the "little guy" let's take a look at the situation. Thawte is not the only provider of certificates out there. There are others and if individuals demand the ability to work with crypto (as they will) someone will provide the service.
Thawte is not Microsoft. They cannot strongarm other businesses, let alone individuals, into working just how they see fit. There's no chance for Thawte to rule the world.
So before everyone gets all up in arms realize that all you have to do to correct the situation is not use Thawte for anything until they reverse their stance or simply use another certificate provider. Write a nice email and let them know why you don't agree with them and move on. This isn't a crisis...
Does this remind anyone else of the end of Jurassic Park (the first movie) when the tyrannasaur and the raptors go at it? Neither of these groups are my favorite so let 'em duke it out!
I have developed in a SOE. It's not that bad provided you have a test lab. Besides, it's not good to test on your own PC anyway. The problem isn't the limitations on installing software but rather the bureaucratic ladder you have to climb to get approval for something new. For instance, getting a new compiler approved can be tough. If you can solve that problem with management it works out.
I'll actually endorse a SOE in some cases. It can be especially good if you have separate environments for developers but it is standard among them. It helps ensure compatibility.
The name FORTRAN scares me. FORmula TRANslator. Good god...that's the coder's equivalent to Beezlebub. Or was that COBOL? Oh well...back to attempting to fit my head into a goldfish bowl. Mars or bust!
Forget for a second that Microsoft products suck. It still makes no sense to have inoperable products. Microsoft continues to integrate MSN and Passport into everything they make which leaves all of the rest of us scratching our heads. I don't use a Passport or MSN nor will I. It's not that it is Microsoft, it's just not what I want. So I cannot use XP and all it's supposed advantages.
Seems to me that they don't recall the 80s and the disparate systems we all had. Tandy, Amiga, Apple, IBM...no one had the same damn thing. It was nearly impossible to work unless everyone was the same. What happened? Lots of companies went under that didn't become interoperable...
To be brief because I doubt anyone reads this as far down the conversation as I am, there are very few viewpoints that are not highly political regarding the open-source debate. I would strongly urge anyone investigating the pros and cons to avoid what Microsoft publishes and avoid what the open-source community (myself included) publish. To get right down to it, we're all pretty self-involved and we don't really offer an unbiased view.
Do yourself a favor and find the IT department at your local bank, hospital, school, or other business. Seek out meaningful local IT companies that are asked to solve this problem for their customers. Ask businesses of different sizes.
I hate to say this, but Slashdot is very political on this subject. I, like most Slashdotters, personally believe that open-source has so many benefits that there's little reason to think of alternatives. But for yourself, go somewhere else to find your answers.
Guess you could copy each packet and save it. A more effective method of doing any of this however is to find conversations worth listening to, getting a warrant, and then intercepting and recording them. I don't buy that inserting an entire system to duplicate each packet sent between sites is not going to slow the internet down. Why? Well we'd have to duplicate at least a fairly large portion of the infrastructure of the internet to facilitate the communication between such devices for it not to affect performance. Hey great, more cable. I doubt the government is going to do that.
There is virtually no way to get around this limitation. The fact is that this will slow down the internet and cost me precious beer money in the process.
It's pretty clear that everyone is going to scream about how horrible this is for privacy. Granted, it will be frightening in its approximation of of Orwell's Big Brother but don't overlook that this will slow internet traffic down considerably. Imagine peeking in on every packet sent! Further, to accomodate this I have a feeling the cost will be passed down to you and I--the taxpaying public. I see farms of servers collecting and storing data, offices filled with high-paid IT staff and IT forensic specialists. So, to recap: bad for privacy, slows down the net, and we'll pay for the privilege of being spied on. I'll have say this isn't in our best interest...
It seems as if Via recognizes they will most likely be sued and be forced to forfeit some of their earnings if they clone Intel products. In the face of this, they also seem to feel that they can benefit enough to offset the losses caused by a lawsuit.
A similar incident occurred with John Deere and Caterpillar about 5 years ago. Caterpillar had figured out that using a rubber-tracked farm tractor gives farmers better yields. John Deere literally stole the concept and accepted the lawsuit because what they learned was so valuable it was worth it!
The federal courts are equipped to handle cyber-terrorism or threats. In fact, they already handle a very similar thing: mail fraud. There are a million varieties of danger posed by use of networked systems. However, the basic premis of the federal courts having authority is that 1) it generally uses and affects entities in multiple states 2) it can pose a threat to national security. That being said, why do we need another court? It seems to me the old coots that wrote this thing called the Constitution already have this covered...
It seems Napster has figured out that when members of a market collude (act in concert) they are in fact an oligopoly. This in many cases is more powerful than a monopoly. The number of companies with the resources to promote and distribute music is very small. That means that by antitrust definitions they have the most influence over price as well as the ability to create unfair barriers to entering the market.
What this means is that someone finally has figured out that the way to fight the situation isn't to attack record companies for protecting their works but instead, attack their methods of controlling the market.
You and I can in turn support this effort by not buying music from those colluding in this market. Quit complaining about the record companies and the way they handle Napster and Morpheus--just quit buying their products. Buy independent label artists, listen to the radio, pick up an instrument and play it. Let the file trading companies fight the antitrust battle...
Imagine the size/number of boards that would be needed to get 80 GB of storage. It may be quicker but engineering something that is feasible would quickly drive the cost up so that it wouldn't be that cheap. Further, the cost to modify existing controller technology or making a RAM drive fit the current controllers available. Then there's all kinds of other technical issues like power.
And with the design and weight you'd also have a very uncomfortable and dangerous vehicle on the street. These things have no place on the street just as race cars have no place on the street. They are built for principle, to show what can be done so engineers may abstract from them. Hopefully some of the techniques can improve passenger vehicles but other than that I don't want to see them zipping down the highway!
Exactly, just as older verions of Mozilla and Mosaic did...
I think we should go with the multiple-document interface. I know it's a pain, but be able to launch 4 or five sites within the same application window instead of launch entirely new browsers. Then within the application have a setting that limits the number of branched or spawned sites. That would make me happy and still allow me to use the javascript features.
The point is that there is nothing ILLEGAL about copy protection. Very few people seem to understand that current laws allow for companies and artists to protect their intellectual property. The record companies are doing nothing against the law. While I don't like that they're using new technology (and potentially bad technology) to protect their assets, it is their right to protection I will always support. It is a liberty that any property, whether it is my land or an artistic creation I own, shall be protected under law from theft.
While the methods of and in some ways the very subject of copy protection are very negative, the freedom to innovate in ways to protect one's assets should not be suppressed.
This guy has a job which is to provide a service to companies. Obviously there is a demand for this type of service. He didn't invent the demand, he merely responded. It sounds to me that he's just doing what economics demand--meet needs.
We rub our greedy little hands and scheme how we can get around this new tool when what we should be doing is pressuring record companies who are demanding this type of protection. We should be economically sanctioning the companies that participate in creating rules that shackle fair-use. Don't buy the Michael Jackson album that has the protection (as if we would)...
Indeed. They've got to play by the rules they create.
The point I was making is that there are viable ways to have streaming audio services. You have to license it properly and you have build a business model that supports it. It's not as if the law says there are absolutely no possibly ways to stream audio as had been insinuated.
The current rules are created by the music companies and follow copyright laws. They're doing nothing illegal. In fact, streaming audio can be achieved under the law as well. It's just a matter of finding a reasonable business proposition that can generate revenue under the law. Spinner, Launch, and some others are doing it.
The point that everyone is missing here is that the people that own the rights to the music are doing nothing illegal. There's no reason to change the laws! If anything record companies should be pressured to change their regulations of music. If someone could actually show them that there is a benefit to freely-available music they would do it. At this point all they can see is lost profits...
I can't find any information on whether there will be commercials. If they don't carry commercials I'm afraid it's a service destined to fail. Here's why: other broadcasting media have proven that consumers are not willing to pay for equipment, programming, and production. They will foot the bill for the equipment and sometimes the network for increased quality and selection (i.e. cable television). In every broadcasting case the market was subsidized by commercials so they could make it affordable. For example, even though we pay for our current TV sets, do you think you're measly $50 a month for cable pays every star, producer, set designer, camerman, and doughnut boy? I don't think so. Commercials = success. Commercial-free = failure.
Not only has this a result of negligence but also a result of false claims that their products are just as secure as Unix, just a robust as Unix, and just as fast as Unix. They've mislead consumers regarding by funding biased comparisons, flawed white papers, and paid-customer endorsements. I believe this is nothing short of fraud.
I don't believe this stuff will be stolen from PARC nor that other technologies were necessarily stolen. PARC has a history of developing huge numbers of innovations and selecting those that will actually support the strategic direction of Xerox for production. The rest are sort of gifts to the rest of us.
This technology however shows that Xerox continually innovates through PARC. The thoughts racing through my mind regarding the use for reconfigurable and self-repairing robots that can act in conjunction with others are astounding! Talk about adaptability....
If this OS is targeted for servers and embedded devices as the interview points out, I'd give it a go. There are tons of extras heaped on NT that I'd love to get dump. Perhaps it will take a page from the Mandrake install and allow us to install only the components we need through an EASY interface...
I think there's a real use for haptic devices in concert with VR. While entertainment is certainly one of those applications, training and simulation is probably more useful. In time, building a simulation of something complex will be part of the design process and in turn could be used in training. The cost to develop those models will decrease making this an effective alternative for hands-on experience.
I can see training medical personnel, engineers and mechanics, bomb-squads, etc. with this kind of technology.
I like the fact that he's attacking this as an operating system and not just "Unix with a GUI." While the market splinters for server operating systems we still face dominance at the desktop and that's just not good. There should be someone other than MS and Apple attempting to play in this arena so we can force innovation. I just hope it doesn't end up like BeOS...